What really are human needs?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
What do you think human needs really are? I'm not just talking about physical survival, I was referring more to psychological well-being and happiness. In order to be happy, what is truly needed? Are certain things absolutely necessary? Or are they helpful, but happiness can be achieved without them? Or are there even any external necessities for happiness? Is the only thing that matters your mindset, the way you view your world, and your own mental condition controlled by yourself? And is there a difference between what we think we need (ie what society tells us we need) and what we really need?

There is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which starts with physical (food, thirst, sex), safety (ie feeling secure, knowing where next meal comes from), emotional (feeling a sense of love and belonging), esteem (position in society, career, feeling good about one's work), and then at the top there is self-actualization.

Esteem I don't think has to be important. Society tells us that we need to have a good job and be successful, and I think people in turn feel unfulfilled if they don't. But I don't see it as an intrinsic need with human nature to be happy. I think all that is necessary would be an acceptance to his or her place in society without having a problem with it. If the person is a janitor, he or she could feel fine about it if they learned to accept this position and be happy with it, and this comes from within, and isn't impossible.

As for the emotional part, society seems to tell us that in order to be happy, we need to have a family, have people close to us, feel loved, etc. But how much of this is true? Having close family and friends, logistically, is a detriment to happiness, especially family. A ridiculous amount of time and energy have to be spent on them, rather than achieving happiness for yourself. After all, if you spent more time on the latter than on others, you would be letting them down. And some of us might not be good with the family thing. So then, can one be very happy and not have a family? And how important is having a family? And why is this so? Is it just for the sense of love and belonging?

And the same would go for friends. Hell, is social contact even necessary? Being a hermit would be logistically easy. All your time could be devoted to self-improvement, etc. But if it is necessary, why?

Ideally, the perfect life would be experiencing the world, always finding new things to do, try, and enjoy, always meeting new people and ideas, and I think this is done best by travelling. The ideal life would be travelling around the world, seeing everything it has to offer, trying out new things, meeting new cultures and ideas and experiences, and making friends along the way. Couldn't this satisfy human needs? If not, what needs would need to be satisfied? One could argue that you couldn't get to know the friends along the way well enough to share anything deep and meaningful with them, but I think if in this type of life, I'd share deep, intimate things with them I would only share with close friends with these people. In fact sometimes it is easiest to open up to strangers. This life wouldn't necessarily have only the shallow material in its content. The only other argument you could make is that you wouldn't get to know the people well enough, but you could always spend enough time in each place to accomplish that, and, why is knowing people well necessary for happiness?

The family thing can be brought up again. One could argue that the only way to truly feel a sense of love and belonging is to have a family. Well first off, why can't this be achieved with friends? Amd second off, why is any of this necessary? Why does one need to feel loved and belonging? I think that people need love because of poor self-regard and a lack of mental and psychological healthiness/well being/spiritual well being/whatever you want to call it. Love seems to heal these wounds. However, if you felt great about yourself and were psychologically healthy, I don't see how you would need it. And if you do, why? I see well-being as something that comes from within, not from the outside. If you can accomplish this, you will find true happiness, and more importantly, you won't have to depend on others for it, which is bound to leave you not always feeling fulfilled and takes a drain on others.

And on top of that, I think spirituality plays a part in this too. Maybe a sense of spiritual well-being also eliminates the need for love.

Shouldn't we focus more on self-improvement and gaining our own psychological and spiritual well being than trying to gain happiness through other people (love) or external means? Ultimately, you can only fully and consistently depend on yourself. The outside world is uncontrollable and bound to fail you sometimes. But what you can control is yourself. So shouldn't happiness be found through this way? Maybe that is why so many people are unhappy, they try to gain happiness by doing well in a career (and they sometimes fail) or getting people to love them (who sometimes don't, and whose love people grow accustomed to and doesn't help them as much, and is not always consisten). When you set up an external condition for happiness, you are setting yourself up for unhappiness, because the external conditions won't always be perfect. Anyway, what if we all worked on ourselves and tried not to play the whole family/friends game too much?

And I forgot to mention, how do sex and romance play into happiness?

I don't know if I am making any sense here or if I am getting my point across. I don't even know what that point is, and on top of that it is 2:12 AM my time, so I don't even know if my mind is correctly functioning. Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts, please contribute.

Could you be any more ****ing verbose?

[Stuie]

Edit: nevermind.

[Spec]

What really are human needs?

1- Reproduction (p_ssy )
2- Food
3- Air
4- Acceptance

That's about it.


Spec.

[Japher]

^ in that order

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Flip McWho:
Isn't there something like three or four of them.

I think the first three are: hunger, thirst and procreation. With the fourth being the need to alter your consciousness, i.e take drugs and relax.

Though the fourth isn't that mainstream.

So if you don't raise kids, you can't be happy? And if you don't take drugs, you can't be happy either?

originally posted by Aivo½so:

Definitely, the entire goal of the advertising industry, for example, is to create needs where there previously were none and that in essence are false. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, I agree. And on top of that, society has a set of what it thinks people need to be happy, which gets projected onto the individuals, which in turn messes them up.

originally posted by Dis:
I really can't be as expansive as the OP. But I'd say social acceptance on some level is a very important emotional need.

But define social acceptance. Does that mean talking to people on a regular basis? Does that mean people liking you? Does it mean having friends? And on top of that, why is social acceptance a need? I think that social acceptance is something that society tells us we need, so when we don't get it, we are unhappy. But I don't think it is an intrinsic necessity for happiness. This is what I am getting at. All of these things such as love and social acceptance seem to be needs to us because society tells us so, but if we were to truly realize we didn't need them, we'd be great.

originally posted by Dis:
As for sex. Is it a need. I often wonder about this. I hope this isn't a threadjack. I've always been scared that if I didn't have sex I'd go insane or just get perverted like some catholic priest. Is there any evidence lack of sex is harmful to the human brain? Monks do it (or don't do it as the case may be), and they seem okay. Better than catholic priests anyways.

It is not a threadjack, I have had the same questions. As for catholic priests, that is a stereotype. The majority of them don't molest children, however, when some do, it gets publicized a lot. In fact, I don't think the rate of catholic priests molesting boys is any higher than the rate of normal men. But, couldn't you just jerk off and be okay? Is sex really a necessity to happiness? I don't see it as being so, because most people don't do it until teenage years or even later, does that mean they are unhappy until then? And whenever people are in a period where they aren't doing it (between relationships), does that mean they are automatically unhappy? And what about old people? I don't see it as a need (but if it is, tell me why), though I think some people feel it is because society tells them so. I don't see how a single pleasurable experience is necessary for happiness. And if it is, masturbation should fulfill that need, I think, making those types of relationships unnecessary.

originally posted by Proteus_MST:
Eating, Drinking, Breathing, a place where you can wash, **** and pee
and maybe some place to which you can retreat to be alone.

Anything else is a nice addon,
that might be good to have,
but isn´t really necessary

I think I agree, and if this is the case, what is the point of pursuing those other activities? That will shift the conditions of your happiness to external events/people/things that you can't control, and lead you to unhappiness.

originally posted by Ecthy:
Sleep, Food, Water, group contact (pack wise, not herd wise). Sex is on a higher level, you can survive and be productive without sex.

I was referring more to happiness, not survival and being productive. But why is group contact and sex necessary? And does masturbation fulfill that?

originally posted by Ecthy:
Also, normal human beings will die off without social contact. Egocentrist workaholics are an unnatural product.

I don't think because something is unnatural it is bad and a detriment to happiness. It is unnatural to live the way we do, in an agricultural, sedentary society, and it is unnatural to live with the wealth that we do, but we can still be happy.

originally posted by Spec:
1- Reproduction (p_ssy )
2- Food
3- Air
4- Acceptance

That's about it.

Again, does masturbation count, and why is reproduction necessary? It gives you short lived pleasure, but I don't see how it is a necessity for long term happiness, or has any affect on it for that matter.

And define acceptance, feeling comfortable about how other people view you? And isn't that an internal thing, isn't that more about how you think people view you than how they actually view you? I know a lot of people that are well loved but don't feel that way, and because society tells them that is necessary for happiness, they feel unhappy.

I think it is interesting that most people have said sex is necessary for human happiness, but every eastern philosopher would tell you it is a huge detriment to true happiness.

I hope I didn't kill this thread by having such a long original post.

[Spec]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


So if you don't raise kids, you can't be happy? And if you don't take drugs, you can't be happy either?

Kids yes, you can. Drugs, no, not a chance.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by johncmcleod

Again, does masturbation count, and why is reproduction necessary? It gives you short lived pleasure, but I don't see how it is a necessity for long term happiness, or has any affect on it for that matter.

Dude are you serious? There nothing like hard banging a chick while she's got her knees pinned down behind her head compared to boring ol'masterbation.

And define acceptance, feeling comfortable about how other people view you? And isn't that an internal thing, isn't that more about how you think people view you than how they actually view you? I know a lot of people that are well loved but don't feel that way, and because society tells them that is necessary for happiness, they feel unhappy.

Wrong. Acceptance as being part of something. Like being patriotic, like clans, or a wolf pack. Wolfs are stronger as a team, so are we. Physically and mentally. You cant deny that, unless your depressive like thorn.

I think it is interesting that most people have said sex is necessary for human happiness, but every eastern philosopher would tell you it is a huge detriment to true happiness.

Ugly people that dont get any will say that.
Everybody has its own ways of being happy, and getting laid does it for me. Suit yourself if you'd rather play Dungeons and dragons.

Also, for a serious response, have sex and being aroused by the opposite sex makes your brain secreat/piss/create a happy juice (which I dont know the name in english) that makes you fell happy and alive. Have sex on a regular basis and you'll find out. But you have to change partners often, otherwise f***ing the same girl over and over will not work anymore, she'll eventually get on your nerves and kill your joy. That's their agenda.

I hope I didn't kill this thread by having such a long original post.

Original, barely. Entertaining, sort of.

Spec.

[Dis]

Never banged a chick with her knees pinned behind her head. But it sounds fun. I so desperately want to have sex, but I can't.

I do think sex is an emotional need. But not as important as social acceptance. As you can survive and be productive without it. I am proof of this. Though you can survive and be productive without friends as well. Again, I am proof of this. But it's more difficult. You can't masturbate in lieu of a friend, like you can in lieu of sex. I suppose you could have an imaginary friend, but that hardly seems healthy.

Humans are a social mammal. Science has shown this. Some mammals (such as dogs, wolves) are just more sociable than others. Humans are in that group. Civilizations with no contact with each other have evolved social constructs independently of one another. It's safe to assume that society doesn't teach us to socialize. Society formed upon the human need to socialize.

And I do believe most hermits do go insane. Or they are crazy to some degree. When is the last time you met a well adjusted hermit or homeless man? Living alone will turn you into the unabomber.

[ajbera]

From Wikipedia, Maslow's hierarchy of needs (and then some):

Deficiency needs

The deficiency needs (also termed 'D-needs' by Maslow) are:

Physiological needs
The physiological needs of the organism, those enabling homeostasis, take first precedence. These consist mainly of:

the need to breathe
the need to regulate body temperature
the need for water
the need for sleep
the need to eat
the need to dispose of bodily wastes

When some of the needs are unmet, a human's physiological needs take the highest priority. As a result of the prepotency of physiological needs, an individual will deprioritize all other desires and capacities. Physiological needs can control thoughts and behaviors, and can cause people to feel sickness, pain, and discomfort.

Maslow also places sexual activity in this category, as well as bodily comfort, activity, exercise, et cetera.

Safety needs

When the physiological needs are met, the need for safety will emerge. Safety and security rank above all other desires. These include:

Security of employment
Security of revenues and resources
Physical security - safety from violence, delinquency, aggressions
Moral and physiological security
Familial security
Security of health

A properly-functioning society tends to provide a degree of security to its members. Sometimes the desire for safety outweighs the requirement to satisfy physiological needs completely.

Love/Belonging needs

After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs is social. This involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as:

friendship
sexual intimacy
having a family

Humans want to be accepted and to belong, whether it be to clubs, work groups, religious groups, family, gangs, etc. They need to feel loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others, and to be accepted by them. People also have a constant desire to feel needed. In the absence of these elements, people become increasingly susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety and depression.

Status (Esteem needs)

Humans have a need to be respected, to self-respect and to respect others. People need to engage themselves in order to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution and self-value, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem, inferiority complexes, an inflated sense of self-importance or snobbishness.

Being needs

Though the deficiency needs may be seen as "basic", and can be met and neutralized (i.e. they stop being motivators in one's life), self-actualization and transcendence are "being" or "growth needs" (also termed "B-needs"), i.e. they are enduring motivations or drivers of behaviour.

Self-actualization

Self-actualization (a term originated by Kurt Goldstein) is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their unique abilities and to strive to be the best they can be. Maslow describes self-actualization as follows:

Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is. (Psychological Review, 1949)
Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:

They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.

Self-transcendence

At the top of the triangle, self-transcendence is also sometimes referred to as spiritual needs.

Viktor Frankl expresses the relationship between self-actualization and self-transcendence in Man's Search for Meaning. He writes:

The true meaning of life is to be found in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system....Human experience is essentially self-transcendence rather than self-actualization. Self-actualization is not a possible aim at all, for the simple reason that the more a man would strive for it, the more he would miss it.... In other words, self-actualization cannot be attained if it is made an end in itself, but only as a side effect of self-transcendence. (p.175)

Maslow believes that we should study and cultivate peak experiences as a way of providing a route to achieve personal growth, integration, and fulfillment. Peak experiences are unifying, and ego-transcending, bringing a sense of purpose to the individual and a sense of integration. Individuals most likely to have peak experiences are self-actualized, mature, healthy, and self-fulfilled. All individuals are capable of peak experiences. Those who do not have them somehow depress or deny them.

Maslow originally found the occurrence of peak experiences in individuals who were self-actualized, but later found that peak experiences happened to non-actualizers as well but not as often. In his The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (New York, 1971) he writes:

I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds of self-actualizing people, those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experiencing was important and even central … It is unfortunate that I can no longer be theoretically neat at this level. I find not only self-actualizing persons who transcend, but also nonhealthy people, non-self-actualizers who have important transcendent experiences. It seems to me that I have found some degree of transcendence in many people other than self-actualizing ones as I have defined this term …

Ken Wilber, a theorist and integral psychologist who was highly influenced by Maslow, later clarified a peak experience as being a state that could occur at any stage of development and that "the way in which those states or realms are experienced and interpreted depends to some degree on the stage of development of the person having the peak experience." Wilber was in agreement with Maslow about the positive values of peak experiences saying, "In order for higher development to occur, those temporary states must become permanent traits." Wilber was, in his early career, a leader in Transpersonal psychology, a distinct school of psychology that is interested in studying human experiences which transcend the traditional boundaries of the ego.

In 1969, Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Grof and Anthony Sutich were the initiators behind the publication of the first issue of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology

Counterpositions

While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it has its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridwell (1976) found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.

The concept of self-actualization is considered vague and psychobabble by some behaviourist psychologists. The concept is based on an aristotelian notion of human nature that assumes we have an optimum role or purpose.[citation needed] Self actualization is a difficult construct for researchers to operationalize, and this in turn makes it difficult to test Maslow's theory. Even if self-actualization is a useful concept, there is no proof that every individual has this capacity or even the goal to achieve it.

Other counterpositions suggest that not everyone ultimately seeks the self-actualization that a strict (and possibly naive) reading of Maslow's hierarchy of needs appears to imply:

Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning describes his psychotherapeutic method (logotherapy) of finding purpose in life.
Albert Einstein was actually drawn toward the sense of mystery in life. See Abraham Pais' Subtle is the Lord.
Others seek to perform good works.
Others are drawn toward the dark side of the human condition.
One could counter this argument by citing these as examples of ways people self-actualize. Hence, the ambiguity of the term.

Transcendence has been discounted by secular psychologists because they feel it belongs to the domain of religious belief. But Maslow himself believed that science and religion were both too narrowly conceived, too dichotomized, and too separated from each other. Non-peakers, as he would call them, characteristically think in logical, rational terms and look down on extreme spirituality as "insanity" (p. 22) because it entails a loss of control and deviation from what is socially acceptable. They may even try to avoid such experiences because they are not materially productive—they "earn no money, bake no bread, and chop no wood" (p. 23). Other non-peakers have the problem of immaturity in spiritual matters, and hence tend to view holy rituals and events in their most crude, external form, not appreciating them for any underlying spiritual implications. Maslow despised such people because they form a sort of idolatry that hinders religions (p. 24). This creates a divide in every religion and social institution. (Maslow. "The 'Core-Religious' or 'Transcendent,' Experience.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs

[Flip McWho]

So if you don't raise kids, you can't be happy? And if you don't take drugs, you can't be happy either?

You're talking about needs. Not happiness.

Happiness is entirely subjective to whatever the individual person desires outta there life. That can be any number of things they are aware of and any number of things that they aren't aware of. Trying to define it down to a set list universalises something that isn't universal.

Also what constitutes as happiness is changing as the person grows older and becomes aware of more/different things.

Productive part of society without a society?

You can be a productive part of society without actively being involved in that society.

[Flip McWho]

Society formed upon the human need to socialize.

And I do believe most hermits do go insane. Or they are crazy to some degree. When is the last time you met a well adjusted hermit or homeless man? Living alone will turn you into the unabomber

The society formed is a construct of the members of that society.

Living alone just means you aren't in touch with social conventions thus making you seem weird to those in touch with the conventions. Though I agree that most hermits are probably crazy to some degree.

[johncmcleod]

Dude are you serious? There nothing like hard banging a chick while she's got her knees pinned down behind her head compared to boring ol'masterbation.

First off, that's incredibly shallow, and second off, as most people would agree, pleasurable experiences don't give you an overall feeling of happiness and contentment. The pursuit of pleasure is a shallow one that never leaves people truly satisfied in life.

Ugly people that dont get any will say that.
Everybody has its own ways of being happy, and getting laid does it for me. Suit yourself if you'd rather play Dungeons and dragons.

Actually, there are quite a few people who don't believe sex=happiness. And I don't play D+D, and I'm not that nerdy. But there isn't really anything I enjoy that much.

Also, for a serious response, have sex and being aroused by the opposite sex makes your brain secreat/piss/create a happy juice (which I dont know the name in english) that makes you fell happy and alive. Have sex on a regular basis and you'll find out. But you have to change partners often, otherwise f***ing the same girl over and over will not work anymore, she'll eventually get on your nerves and kill your joy. That's their agenda.

Again, very shallow, and guruanteed to get you short term pleasure, but definitely not long-term happiness. I hope this isn't your philosophy on life for the rest of it, because this is okay for a 20something male, but a 50 year saying this would be incredibly depressing.

I do think sex is an emotional need. But not as important as social acceptance. As you can survive and be productive without it. I am proof of this. Though you can survive and be productive without friends as well. Again, I am proof of this. But it's more difficult. You can't masturbate in lieu of a friend, like you can in lieu of sex. I suppose you could have an imaginary friend, but that hardly seems healthy.

Humans are a social mammal. Science has shown this. Some mammals (such as dogs, wolves) are just more sociable than others. Humans are in that group. Civilizations with no contact with each other have evolved social constructs independently of one another. It's safe to assume that society doesn't teach us to socialize. Society formed upon the human need to socialize.

And I do believe most hermits do go insane. Or they are crazy to some degree. When is the last time you met a well adjusted hermit or homeless man? Living alone will turn you into the unabomber.

I agree, I don't think sex is an emotional need either. As for conversing with people, I guess I'd agree. I'm not suggesting hermitage. However, that's pretty easy, especially while traveling. And as far as being part of a group and being accepted, you just have to find a group and join it. Not that hard.

You're talking about needs. Not happiness.

Happiness is entirely subjective to whatever the individual person desires outta there life. That can be any number of things they are aware of and any number of things that they aren't aware of. Trying to define it down to a set list universalises something that isn't universal.

Also what constitutes as happiness is changing as the person grows older and becomes aware of more/different things.

I am referring to needs for well-being/happiness. I don't think happiness is subjective as you think. Yes, different individuals may need to do different specific things, however, these different things are always the same on a higher level. And I don't think age has a lot to do with it either. I think at different ages people have different ideas of what makes them happy, affecting their happiness that way.

What I am trying to get at is that I believe society has imposed a need on me. Relatively recently, after being exposed to romantic thought from peers, I started feeling like I needed to have a really close relationship with a female. However, I don't think this is a true need. I did not undergo a change and then start feeling this way, it was after I started thinking about romantic ideals. I think the other reason for feeling such a need is a lack of self-regard. I think I want a female to boost my self-esteem. And if this is the case, the female is not what I need, better self-regard is what I need. Anyway, it pisses me off, because since I started feeling like I needed such a relationship, I started feeling worse because I didn't have it.

And I bet you if I am a 55 year old bachelor who has friends, people I can talk to about anything, and a sense of belonging (ie an organization), I wouldn't feel happy, because society would impose the belief on me that I need a family to be happy, and not having one would then make me unhappy. I don't want to feel bad for not having what society thinks I need.

This is what I mean by society imposing what it believes people need onto individuals. How can I prevent this from causing harm? If I am affected by society telling me I need something and sort of buy into it, how do I not get bothered by not having it? I may even know that what society tells me I need isn't necessary, but as long as I don't have it, I will feel worse. (note: maybe this is why materialism is a big problem)

Does anyone have any ideas?

And sorry this reply is so late, I've been away from the internet.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Actually, there are quite a few people who don't believe sex=happiness.

I'm sorry - but those people aren't having good sex. There is a level of intimacy in a relationship that can only be attained through intercourse, and that level of intimacy - that sharing of each other - creates a happiness that carries beyond the physical act.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
What I am trying to get at is that I believe society has imposed a need on me. Relatively recently, after being exposed to romantic thought from peers, I started feeling like I needed to have a really close relationship with a female. However, I don't think this is a true need. I did not undergo a change and then start feeling this way, it was after I started thinking about romantic ideals. I think the other reason for feeling such a need is a lack of self-regard. I think I want a female to boost my self-esteem. And if this is the case, the female is not what I need, better self-regard is what I need. Anyway, it pisses me off, because since I started feeling like I needed such a relationship, I started feeling worse because I didn't have it.

And I bet you if I am a 55 year old bachelor who has friends, people I can talk to about anything, and a sense of belonging (ie an organization), I wouldn't feel happy, because society would impose the belief on me that I need a family to be happy, and not having one would then make me unhappy. I don't want to feel bad for not having what society thinks I need.

This is what I mean by society imposing what it believes people need onto individuals.

Yup. To go more into the details, society not only creates "needs" among the people, modern society creates a slew of such "needs" which are often contradictory to each othr.
For example, people here might answer that happiness lies in sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, while others will tell you that nothing beats a long-lasting relationship with the eventual creation of a family. Some may tell you that religion is key to happiness, while others will tell you it's D&D

Actually, modern society gives much freedom to everyone into determining their aims in life, and what would lead to individual happiness. At the same time, there are plenty of messages (mixed messages at that) from the same society as to what one should strive for.

In order not to get influenced by these messages, one mostly needs a strong idea on what they want to do with their lives. Either by using a pre-existing set of values and objectives (like those provided by religion or tradition), or by developing one's own.

Otherwise, if one doesn't grant meaning to their lives, one will remain in the constant level of discontentment, because nobody can possibly satisfy all the "needs" promoted in our societies.

[Spiffor]

In my opinion, the key to happiness is to genuinely have self-esteem btw (not to be confused with being an arrogant ass, compensating for deep insecurities).

There are many ways to feel more confident with oneself. Examples are: Working (for the feeling of usefulness).
Competing (for the feeling of being better).
Loving (as you contribute to make your loved ones' life a great life).
Making art (as you can express yoour feelings)
Making science (as you contribute to manind's advancement)
Sports (as you make your body more healthy)
Etc.

These is an non-exhaustive list, and definitely no one should try to pursue all these. But these are ways of feeling happy with oneself, and thus to feel simply happy