Measuring happiness, promoting sustainability
Apparently happiness can be measured. I think this is neat, quantitative measurements for anything makes me happy by satisfying the scientist in me. The fact that we can measure happiness in the way economists can measure poverty and growth has some interesting implications.
I’ve always been curious as to what’s more important, money or happiness. Actually the studies have an answer to this question as well, with more money not generally equaling more happiness. Apparently happiness tops out in the $20,000 level after we can meet our basic needs (I’m assuming this includes saving for the future, kids college funds, etc).
On a personal level I know that money is not the key to happiness, at least not on its own. At my last job I made a fair amount of money and had minimal overheads, which equaled out to a lot of disposable income. Was I happy? Well the short answer was no. The weird thing is, I had fun with the disposable cash but the fun was very short lived, i.e. weekends spent partying. Once the weekend was over I was deeply miserable, because I had to deal with the daily grind of doing a job I simply did not enjoy. Mostly that’s why I’m willing to take jobs now that only pay half what I was making before but could be infinitely more fulfilling.
What is really interesting about the BBC report is that now governments can be judged by how happy they make their constituents. Bhutan measures GNH, “gross national happiness” in addition to the more traditional measure of development, GDP and imposes measures to increase GNH like banning advertising to hold back consumption.
To me GDP has always been a deeply flawed measure of progress; it does not capture social or environmental costs at all. To quote Redefining Progress, “GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure and natural habitat; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as economic gain.”
Also if we simply measure by production, where does it all end? Current world economies seem to be geared to the assumption that they can expand and we can produce and consume to infinity. Of course this is false and indeed we seem to have already hit the ceiling in terms of truly sustainable growth. Again according to RP, the world’s population hit an unsustainable level of an Ecological Footprint in the 1970’s!
So where does happiness fit into this you may ask? Well if increased consumption doesn’t make us happy and isn’t good for the environment it cannot be a viable measure of progress. Yet the problem is that everywhere we look, we are encouraged to consume more, buy this, finance that. This climate is unlikely to change either, simply because governments are geared towards growing their economies and hence promoting consumption. Now that happiness can be measured however it is possible governments can instead gear policy towards increasing happiness. Along with this would come better societies and greater environmental protection.
What this boils down to is that globally we need a new measure of development, one that incorporates many factors of which monetary exchange is only a small fraction. The other factors would be environmental sustainability, social equity and of course happiness. Redefining Progress has already formulated what it calls a Genuine Progress Indicator but it is yet to achieve much widespread use.
It is inevitable that the Third World will develop, but if we aspire to develop to the ideals of developed nations like the US, it would be disastrous. Personally I think it would be a shame to see Sri Lanka become like the US, this country doesn’t generally strike me as being a happy one. We have an opportunity to develop Sri Lanka into a new breed of First World country, one that is built on a bedrock of sustainability, equity and spiritual well being.
Of course the haters are going to say Sri Lanka has no chance of becoming this, but then those people probably have never experienced happiness in their lives and also probably don’t know the meaning of hope. I believe it is an achievable goal; we just have a long way to go. What we need is an all-inclusive road map for the next 20 years, with quantitative goals set within the greater picture. One for example would be increasing income levels to $20,000 per annum (I’m just going off the BBC figure, this would possibly be different if the figure is country specific), another would be ensuring in 10 years at least 20% of our energy needs come from renewables, etc, etc.
This would of course require not only leadership with great vision and determination but also a certain sense of self-sacrifice. The timeframe for this plan would be much longer than an average political party’s staying power. It would probably also require the immigration of the highly skilled professionals who have moved out of the country for greener pastures to provide the intellectual capacity to build the country. Oh yeah, and there is that ‘small’ matter of the ethnic conflict that has to be wrapped up as well!
Note: A lot of this post is pretty idealistic and Utopian, especially considering the current situation in Sri Lanka, but I guess I still have hope that there is light at the end of this long, dark tunnel.
trouble with this kind of analysis is that ppl assume what others want. a big mistake.
can you or any one say everyone wants happiness ? some may want quite the opposite, and who are we to judge?
and what kind of happiness? self fulfillment ? pleasures of the senses? peace of mind? etc. or a combination ? if a combination in what proportions?nobody can say.
best a government can do is let everyone do as they please, as long as they don’t interfere with others right to do the same.
btw
Again according to RP, the world’s population hit an unsustainable level of an Ecological Footprint in the 1970’s!
such predictions go back to malthus at least. but so far all have been wrong.
Comment by sittingnut — May 2, 2006 @ 1:23 am
Actually I don’t think there is any assumption made; people have the choice in the study to state they are unhappy. And I am assuming if the happiness indicator is used to judge the success of a government if the unhappy people are in the majority a government that makes people unhappy will be voted in.
Also you are mixing up cause and effect, “self fulfilment? pleasures of the senses” are all things that can potentially make one happy or unhappy.
Another point is why have government if they are not going to do anything what is the point of having one. I for one don’t believe in Libertarianism (if that’s how you say it), markets are too flawed; social costs aren’t included nor are environmental costs. In a perfect world with unlimited resources maybe it might work. The Earth has limited resources and if we continue to use up the resource capital that we have life will come to a crashing halt.
Imagine you have a company, start of with a finite amount of capital would you let your employees do whatever they want or would you manage them to build more equity in your company and ensure you didn’t go bankrupt? I know the analogy is far from perfect but at the end of the day we do have a responsibility towards future generations and the Earth’s resources need careful management to ensure future sustainability. Governments have a vital role to play in formulating policy to ensure sustainability.
About Malthus, he had a point, what he lacked was a timeline. Try growing a colony of bacteria in a test tube, the population will expand at a geometric rate, level off when it reaches carrying capacity and then eventually crash. The RP source I stated was just one of many, and it has a scientific basis. I’m a firm believer in the validity of science and the necessity of it to drive policy. Just look at the current situation with global warming, the science has pointed to it for decades, but there is a possibility global warming has reached a ‘tipping point,’ and a feedback cycle could bring about its effects much sooner than anyone thought. That the physical evidence is only manifesting itself now doesn’t mean that the earlier trends and evidence were false.
Comment by childof25 — May 2, 2006 @ 2:29 am
I like your ideas in this post. Do keep dreaming of Utopia, there is always room for more idealists.
Having said that, I do think Sri Lanka is capable of becoming a part of a new breed of first world countries, ones not immersed in consumerism. We have the resources and the intelligence although it will require a reverse brain drain to take place first. More importantly, it’s going to need real leadership, which has not been present in our country for the last century and doesn’t seem to be a prospect of the immediate future.
Comment by Venus — May 2, 2006 @ 9:56 pm