Following is a note from Phil Done, a reader and regular commentator at this blog:
"A recurrent theme on the blog in the great battles of good versus evil is that that free markets are wonderful efficient mechanisms and economic growth is a good thing. But is a big fat Gross National Product the meaning to life.
Does the GNP represent the environment, our heritage, our culture and our true happiness?
The New Economist reports:
"The hippies, the Greens, the road protesters, the downshifters, the slow-food movement - all are having their quiet revenge. Routinely derided, the ideas of these down-to-earth philosophers are being confirmed by new statistical work by psychologists and economists.
First, surveys show that the industrialised nations have not become happier over time. Random samples of UK citizens today report the same degree of psychological well-being and satisfaction with their lives as did their (poorer) parents and grandparents. In the US, happiness has fallen over time. White American females are markedly less happy than were their mothers.
Second, using more formal measures of mental health, rates of depression in countries such as the UK have increased. Third, measured levels of stress at work have gone up.
Fourth, suicide statistics paint a picture that is often consistent with such patterns. In the US, even though real income levels have risen sixfold, the per-capita suicide rate is the same as in the year 1900. In the UK, more encouragingly, the suicide rate has fallen in the last century, although among young men it is far greater than decades ago.
Fifth, global warming means that growth has long-term consequences few could have imagined in their undergraduate tutorials.
None of these points is immune from counter-argument. But most commentators who argue against such evidence appear to do so out of intellectual habit or an unshakeable faith in conventional thinking.
Some of the world's most innovative academics have come up with strong evidence about why growth does not work. One reason is that humans are creatures of comparison. Research last year showed that happiness levels depend inversely on the earnings levels of a person's neighbours. Prosperity next door makes you dissatisfied. It is relative income that matters: when everyone in a society gets wealthier, average well-being stays the same.
A further reason is habituation. Experiences wear off. ...Those who become disabled recover 80 per cent of their happiness by three years after an accident. Yet economics textbooks still ignore adaptation.
A final reason is that human beings are bad at forecasting what will make them happy. In laboratory settings, people systematically choose the wrong things for themselves."
Economic theory has a concept called utility. If I give you $1M you'll be really happy. $2M even happier. But as you go up with incremental millions your happiness does not keep increasing linearly. It tails off (except for Joe).
Most people of course don't get off the linear part of the curve -like me!
But it's more than that - our decisions need other values than economics built in.
Like http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=3257.
Led by its young king, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the kingdom of Bhutan is the only country in the world to measure its wellbeing by Gross National Happiness (GNH) instead of Gross National Product (GNP). This unorthodox approach is a serious attempt to question the values of unbridled economic progress, and foreground the importance of maintaining a balance between tradition and modernisation. Bhutan has followed a cautious path of development since the 1960s, with the intention of preserving its heritage and culture and protecting its environment.
GNH is an official policy of the kingdom, having been passed in parliament, and it is perhaps best illustrated by some examples from Bhutan which prove that happiness really does take precedence over economic prosperity there. The country limits the number of tourists that are able to visit it, because the Bhutanese had complained that the environment was being affected and sacred lands were being spoiled. The limiting was therefore aimed at increasing the 'happiness' of these people. Similarly, demonstrating that the concept of GNH is inextricably connected to accountability, anyone with a grievance can go to the king himself and get a hearing.
The policy of GNH, as well as focusing on cultural promotion and good governance, also aims to put an end to 'spiritual hunger'. Material and technological progress is not rejected or banned, but it must not be to the detriment of the value of human life, and humanity's soul. So the new policy has a spiritual aspect to it, as well as an eminently sensible accountability aspect. Mental and psychological wealth are genuine considerations in Bhutan. Happiness is more important than monetary wealth.
Should we in Australia replace the GNP with the GNH?
Or even better Ian Mott should enshrine the GNH as the prime statistic for the new happy state of Tropicana.
I reckon this blog being the innovative forum that it is (this obsequious grovelling should stop me getting deleted for a week) could lead a national revolution on use of the GNH. We could use it as a mediating concept in environmental disputes. No more taking greenies to court or chaining yourself in front of bulldozers - we would simply use a GHM (global happiness model) to optimise a mutually compatible and happy solution using multiple ensemble runs to explore the happiness chaos space under a variety of future happiness growth scenarios using a model of appropriate happiness sensitivity.
We would ask Ian Castles as the special envoy representing the stats office as a post-retirement fellow (having sorted out those SRES chappies and feeling very happy) to conduct a "basket of goods" type survey on happy indicators. You wouldn't ask the Land and Water Audit or the IPCC as happiness might be going up when they tell you it's going down?
Maybe happiness is affected urban heat islands? Would Warwick Hughes be happy with our happiness measurements? Would Louis insist there was an abiotic theory of happiness? Could Motty define happiness on the back of envelope. Would Ender insist on renewable happiness. And would Thinksy explore the inner semantic nature of happiness. Joe would be happy trading derivatives in higher happiness. If all else fails - Detribe could implant us with genetically engineered happiness.
And you would have to compensate for Rog being happy to be unhappy.
Be happy!"
--------------------------
Thanks Phil.
this bonus 😉
Davey thanks for that response. Don't worry about the flippant comments, they boosted the GNH and probably upped Phil's personal Gross Domestic Pleasure!
Interesting on Human Ecology: Edinburgh seems to be the active centre for such courses - I expect there are radically different approaches - their's is a deeper shade of green no doubt, with strong celtic roots. I doubt anyone here would disagree that we need more joined-up thinking and cross-skilling in our education. When my mind wanders I sometimes imagine compulsory national service of a new type where youths can choose from working on farms; land restoration; among extreme poverty (LDCs); waste management.
QoL/well-being is an issue I'll continue to observe. Activities are happening and we'll learn from them. eg the isle of Jersey - being a haven for $$, they had general concerns about the path their development and lifestyles were taking, hence started worked on a well-being indicator.
You really are a thinker, Thinksy. I agree with much of what you say, and you are right in saying that, despite the flippant comments (I may be guilty), this is an important matter. When animals are unhappy, they stop breeding - hence local extinction.
How can we progress the matter, and get it into the public and political arena? Is it really a matter of Human Ecology? Some years ago, I did a Master's degree in that at Brussels University. It was in the Faculty of Medicine, since its central emphasis was on human wellbeing, including hope and happiness. Do Australian Universities need to consider courses in Human Ecology, probably best run by humanities people with some historical depth? As far as I am aware, the only such course at present is run by the Forestry School at ANU. I am not sure of its historical and philosophical depth.
I seem to remember that H.G. Wells, long ago, suggested that the rulers would eventually be human ecologists - Plato's philosopher kings? The pity is, when we are all ever so wise, we might all die of boredom. Maybe we need Osama and George to shake things up a bit. Don't complex systems function best on the edge of chaos? Would the Feigenbaum number be a quantitative measure of social fitness? I am beginning to wander a bit ... we old chaps do that...
So while the Germans confuse socks-and-sandals with lust, and while Mr P. Done wants see us all in a tight bondage of regulations for his own compulsory Gross National Pleasure, and Mr Detribe has butterflies doing cartwheels in his belly while he tried to think clearly ;), other commenters are concerned that the govt shouldn't concern itself with the happiness of its public.
Although some comments above have been playful, and funny, we've haven't bitten into the meat of the issue. It's less about enforced happiness, more about enhancing our ability to create enabling conditions that permit people the optimal quality of life, maximum well-being.
The GDP measures both goods and bads. Early attempts at filtering out negative externalities (eg hosing bodies off roads) from GDP have concluded that (in the US? or UK or both? can't recall) while GDP has steadily grown since its inception, a balanced GDP measure of national well-being has either remained constant or slightly declined (failing memory again).
Happiness is a state at a point of time, dependent on many variables and their interactions in the circumstances leading up to that point in time. To experience more happiness then, you need to constantly recreate the conditions that produce that state. Other research has shown that individuals tend to maintain a relatively constant state of happiness or unhappiness, whatever their tendency, regardless of circumstances. And there are cultural tendencies. Hence the poms move to a wonderful country like Aust and keep on bloody wingeing. Hence an African lady I met in Europe said to me 'white people are always unhappy, worrying about money, stress etc but in Africa, even when we're dirt poor, we still laugh and have fun. You see them there, they're always laughing laughing laughing and making fun'. So happiness is a highly personal (and culturally relative) affair and probably more of a metaphorical label than a strictly derived application in GNH.
So some commenters are right to say that the govt can't create happiness for its people. But the govt can and does create enabling conditions for a satisfying or unsatisfying life. Taking a broader consideration of national well-being and quality of life, it falls firmly within the government's mandate. Consider tax laws, education, health system, working conditions. Do we want a society, for eg, with increased inequality, with more people entering a poverty trap? (Please don't imply that I'm suggesting a socialist model as I'm not - govt policies already influence these areas and will continue to do so - either increasing or decreasing inequality).
We shouldn't ignore GDP - it's a useful measure of what it measures. But we should bear in mind that it only measures what it measures. Let's not rely too heavily on GDP/GNP as an indication of progress.
I reckon we should consider a national measure of well-being / quality of life. These kind of factors are already considered anyway (eg measures of health, lifespan, education, income bands, discrimination etc) and already influence the public's vote, so it's really just a matter of devising and tracking a consistent, comprehensive measure. There is a lot of activity now going into developing such measures.
Alas My dear thinsksy, if wasn't a freudian slip, merely a finger slip leaving out the courteous dear. (And I do apologise for unintended pompous patronising words. I really should proof read before pushing the post button!).
BUt the site Butterflies and wheels is really interesting.I'm a great fan of Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, Martin Lewis, Dawkins, and Steven Pinker who all feature in the site. The debate between dawkins and others on sociobiology type topics is really illuminating because it provides muchto emulated in terms of clarity of thinking and a clash beteen differeent cultural worlds. The legal-logical sections of the site are great too, and it's not about primarily environmental arguments also - which makes a pleasant change from AGW duels to someone with strong interests in biology in all its guises.
It's not a new idea, good people - Aristotle called it eudaimonia. Thanks for the support on hope, Boxer. I hope you maintain your hope, and hang in there long enough to see CALM regain some integrity by actually managing land again, rather than dancing eco-ballet for the benefit of its political commissars. With your nom-de-plume I am sure you remember the scene the animals eventually saw through the kitchen window.
All this psych talk! detribe was it a freudian slip when you wrote "my Thinksy" above? I did read after all, on yr blog a while back, that you like me after all! ;D Looks like an interesting site, thanks for the link, I will read.
Re: the talk of happy castles in the sky, and Layard, George Monbiot wrote of his astonishment that this happiness business is being treated as news (or is it just more business?):
Beyond a certain degree of wealth – an average GDP of around $20,000 per head – “additional income is not associated with extra happiness”. Once a society’s basic needs and comforts have been met, there is no point in becoming richer.
I am astonished by the astonishment with which their findings have been received. Compare, for example, these two statements:
“So one secret of happiness is to ignore comparisons with people who are more successful than you are: always compare downwards, not upwards.” Richard Layard, 2005.
“It put me to reflecting, how little repining there would be among mankind, at any condition of life, if people would rather compare their condition with those that are worse, in order to be thankful, than be always comparing them with those which are better, to assist their murmurings and complainings.” Daniel Defoe, 1719.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/01/31/property-paranoia/
Yours,
Speaking of happiness, and after that last utterly classic post, one is reminded
that climate simulation modelling is like onanism - an essentially harmless and pleasurable activity for the idle-minded but should not be confused with the real thing.
The Germans think Happiness means Lust, and this blog provides depressing evidence (for us retired folk) that this is true.
Phil is happiest when he is boring it up Rog. The IPCC are forever running after hot models, and when they find them, inserting their whopping exaggerations. Even the gurus recommended on this red thread (if they are real and not just blue movie actors) are called Lord Layard and King Wangchuk.
Like all depressing things about life, this one has been known since time immemorial. The first dismal scientist, the author of Ecclesiastes, urged us to:
Remember thy Creator in the days of they youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say "I have no pleasure in them."
The real meaning of this passage becomes clear when one realises that "Creator" is a euphemism for "private parts." I have this from Bertrand Russell, who had it from a scholarly friend, and who himself wrote a book on The Quest for Happiness.
May the capable take note, before the evil days come