Gross National Happiness #2

As mentioned before, whilst I agree that there's more to quality of life than total income, it would be absurd to measure Gross National Happiness and try to improve it.



I'm constantly amazed to hear people questioning material wealth, citing the true fact that while we've grown richer, we've not grown happier. So what? Increases in human life expectancy from 40 years to 80 years today weren't accompanied by an increase in happiness either. Does that mean we should go back to living 40 years only? Once again, what justification is there to try to change the status quo? And why would leading a less material life as humans have done in the past make us any happier?



As an aside, human happiness levels are invariant over time and circumstance; even the gravest of misfortunes tends to cause only a temporary decrease in happiness, after which the person returns to their baseline happiness rating (which has remained in the 7.2-7.3/10 range since people started measuring in the 19th century). Likewise for events such as winning the lotto. We didn't evolve to be happy, we evolved to survive, and in all likelihood, those who were always very happy wouldn't be very good at surviving, especially when the ones they're struggling against can be very determined buggers.

It seems to me that the average citizen could be poor and score a 7.3/10 on happiness, or be richer and score a 7.3/10 on happiness...it is up to us to decide whether the average person is wealthy and a 7.3/10 or poor and a 7.3/10.

****
Sigmund Freud said the Irish cannot be psychoanalysed, and clitoral orgasm was a sign of madness