The upshot is that, while poor nations seem to breed unhappiness, very rich nations don't necessarily breed happiness.
There is, on the one hand, a clear connection between a nations per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and the average happiness of its citizens. But the strength of that connection—in most studies, at least—comes almost entirely from nations in the bottom three fourths of the income scale. Once your nation attains a fairly comfortable standard of living, more income brings little, if any, additional happiness. In the United States between 1975 and 1995, real per capita GDP grew by 43 percent, but the average happiness of Americans didn't budge.
so it seems like countries reach a plateau of happiness; once you earn that minimal amount (in 2000, around $10,000) you quit getting happier. so just because a country is getting richer doesn't mean it's getting happier.
Nations with high levels of trust tend to be happier, and Scandinavians, according to surveys, are inordinately trusting.
do you trust people more or less on the internet?
developing nations with the most open economies—the nations most thoroughly plugged into the global market system—grow the fastest.
third world countries who are willing to open up their markets--and, thus, cultures--are the fastest growing. so as really poor countries become more globalized, they become happier--to a certain extent (that $10,000 point).
Tracking nations with the most open, most globalized economies over the last several decades, they found that, as national income grew, the fraction of the economic pie going to the bottom fifth of the income scale didnt shrink. The rising tide indeed seemed to lift all boats.
globalization (in the economic sense) affects EVERYONE, not just the big execs. everyone gets happier.
Yet, in terms of psychological payoff—in terms of actual happiness—the benefits of globalization would seem to go overwhelmingly to the world's lower classes, to nations with a per capita annual income under $10,000. Only at that level of national income does money reliably bring happiness.
we already talked about this.
To the extent that this is true—that our happiness comes from comparing our station in life with that of other people—then within a society, one person's gain is another person's loss.
obviously, the amount of money you have in itself does not make you happier. if it did, it would be easy to predict happiness just based on a person's wage. we determine how happy we are by comparing ourselves with others. when i earn an extra dollar an hour, i'm happier because i'm earning more compared to my neighbor. however, when i look around in my new group of "peers," i see that i still earn less than some others, so i'm back at square one happiness.
because a poor nations growing GDP does bring markedly more happiness, the game among citizens is not entirely zero-sum. As people struggle to raise their standard of living, they are attaining things—decent nutrition, healthcare—that raise their happiness level without reducing anyone else's.
this is ONLY in poor countries. when the citizens in a poor country globalize, they see the western standard of living. because they compare to that and want to be like that (it is, after all, "better"), they work toward better healthcare and more democracy. this isn't bad for anyone, though.
Cultural lag happens when material culture changes so fast that immaterial culture (government, social norms, moral strictures) falls dangerously behind.
alright, i can't think hard enough for this one right now
Strong and intimate social bonds are deeply conducive to happiness.
real people make us happiest, not those characters on our favorite sitcom. talking in a chat room is nice, but won't make us ecstatic.
today's developing nations are facing this adjustment in fast forward: Some are starting out more agrarian than the United States was in the late 19th century and are being asked to move not just into the industrial age, but into the electronic age—an age that even "modern" nations are struggling to cope with.
poor nations struggle to adjust from agrarian to modern, which is a very expensive transition. i can't think right now.
People who watch lots of TV, by the way, are unusually unhappy, though that could be because unhappiness leads people to watch TV.
go figure.
One reason is that cybercafes were not part of the environment in which Homo sapiens evolved. We most naturally get social gratification from face-to-face contact, not from sentences on a computer screen.
what i said earlier.
As more and more powerful means of communication become cheaper and cheaper, groups of people with common interests will find it easier and easier to organize.
yay for dolphin wallpaper haters united!
teenagers who were especially concerned with the welfare of others were especially happy. Apparently, giving things to people can be a non-zero-sum game.
so giving things to people makes us happier. huh.
To the extent that happiness depends on how your social station compares with that of your neighbors, the happiness of poor nations might suffer. Upon seeing rich nations up close and personal, people in the developing world could start using them as a reference point and then feel deflated by the comparison.
(Michael Hagerty--"world envy" as people travel more and borders disappear) this is what prof kim said! anyway, when you see american television, you see a rich nation "up close and personal"...a nation like, say, nigeria will be like "oh, man, i want that!" and will get really sad that they don't have it. again, the comparison thing.
transnational class consciousness could begin to deter war among nations.
world peace, bitches.
whoa, that's a lot of quotes.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire