Home » Opinion » Book review
More stuff is not more happiness
By Ni Tao |
September 4, 2010, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
DESPITE the fact that many will have difficulty pinpointing its exact location, Bhutan has captured the imagination of many Western minds.
Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs wrote recently of his Bhutan sojourn, during which he had tried to sort out the puzzle of why an autarky like Bhutan, rural and impoverished, can accomplish the seemingly impossible task of instilling happiness in its citizens, many of whom still live in abject poverty according to the UN standard of "one dollar a day."
Ranked at the bottom of the world's 50 poorest countries and boasting little profitable industry other than tourism, Bhutan poses a perplexing paradox for the developed world's economic thinkers, especially when two decades of almost uninterrupted economic progress hasn't, as predicted by economic theories, resulted in a dramatic rise in people's general contentment in life.
It's interesting that Bhutan's own standard by which it measures growth -- gross national happiness -- indicates an abundance seldom associated with this landlocked country, where making provisions for the needy is still an everyday challenge.
This contrast leads us to "Progress Paradox" by Gregg Easterbrook.
The author argues succinctly that "having achieved general prosperity, we must awaken from the dream and realize that an overall condition of personal freedom and material prosperity does not make us any happier."
This argument has a lot to do with our changing perception of happiness over the past several centuries. The quest for happiness, which started as a longing for material satisfaction, inspired a serious academic enterprise.
The advent of utilitarianism in the 18th century laid the foundation for intangible happiness to become measurable. Jeremy Bentham, the founding father of this school of philosophy, argues that the right act or policy on increasing overall social welfare should cause "the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do," Bentham wrote in his magnum opus "The Principle of Morals and Legislation" (1780).
This means that the amount of gratification or frustration experienced in consuming certain products and services becomes the ultimate yardstick against which we measure their utility.
As the logic goes, a society's general happiness can be gauged through the sum of gratification (frustration is deducted from it). This notion, which had since gained currency, undergirded industrial revolutions that made goods available to more households.
Hence it's natural to arrive at the somewhat biased conclusion that accumulation of items translates into enhanced happiness. In a modern context, the tsunami of unbridled consumerism has swept across the world, with its "victims" happily carried away by overblown vanity.
But excessive goods flooding the market actually diminish the pleasure people enjoy in what they already have by boring them with unwanted supplies.
A graphic instance is that as toddlers, many of us tended to be especially fond of the few toys initially given to us, whereas the continuing generosity of our doting parents was less appreciated. The novelty factor may work for new toys, but in time it recedes, leaving them to sit idle.
This is what the economic "law" of diminishing marginal utility is essentially about: a product's utility declines as its consumption increases.
Easterbrook presses his case for sharing, instead of possession, as the key to happiness.
By "sharing" what Westerners see enough of at home, that is, a plethora of food, garments and appliances, with have-nots in the world, unhappy people can reclaim their lost happiness, the author observes.
But what does he exactly mean by "sharing"? For all I know, "sharing" doesn't come free. The unhappiness syndrome induced by over-development may spread like a contagion to underdeveloped areas once their economy begins to take off.
But Bhutan is progressing. And as this once-isolated country embarks on a modernization drive, we may soon hear stories about the fraying of its social fabric.
Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs wrote recently of his Bhutan sojourn, during which he had tried to sort out the puzzle of why an autarky like Bhutan, rural and impoverished, can accomplish the seemingly impossible task of instilling happiness in its citizens, many of whom still live in abject poverty according to the UN standard of "one dollar a day."
Ranked at the bottom of the world's 50 poorest countries and boasting little profitable industry other than tourism, Bhutan poses a perplexing paradox for the developed world's economic thinkers, especially when two decades of almost uninterrupted economic progress hasn't, as predicted by economic theories, resulted in a dramatic rise in people's general contentment in life.
It's interesting that Bhutan's own standard by which it measures growth -- gross national happiness -- indicates an abundance seldom associated with this landlocked country, where making provisions for the needy is still an everyday challenge.
This contrast leads us to "Progress Paradox" by Gregg Easterbrook.
The author argues succinctly that "having achieved general prosperity, we must awaken from the dream and realize that an overall condition of personal freedom and material prosperity does not make us any happier."
This argument has a lot to do with our changing perception of happiness over the past several centuries. The quest for happiness, which started as a longing for material satisfaction, inspired a serious academic enterprise.
The advent of utilitarianism in the 18th century laid the foundation for intangible happiness to become measurable. Jeremy Bentham, the founding father of this school of philosophy, argues that the right act or policy on increasing overall social welfare should cause "the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do," Bentham wrote in his magnum opus "The Principle of Morals and Legislation" (1780).
This means that the amount of gratification or frustration experienced in consuming certain products and services becomes the ultimate yardstick against which we measure their utility.
As the logic goes, a society's general happiness can be gauged through the sum of gratification (frustration is deducted from it). This notion, which had since gained currency, undergirded industrial revolutions that made goods available to more households.
Hence it's natural to arrive at the somewhat biased conclusion that accumulation of items translates into enhanced happiness. In a modern context, the tsunami of unbridled consumerism has swept across the world, with its "victims" happily carried away by overblown vanity.
But excessive goods flooding the market actually diminish the pleasure people enjoy in what they already have by boring them with unwanted supplies.
A graphic instance is that as toddlers, many of us tended to be especially fond of the few toys initially given to us, whereas the continuing generosity of our doting parents was less appreciated. The novelty factor may work for new toys, but in time it recedes, leaving them to sit idle.
This is what the economic "law" of diminishing marginal utility is essentially about: a product's utility declines as its consumption increases.
Easterbrook presses his case for sharing, instead of possession, as the key to happiness.
By "sharing" what Westerners see enough of at home, that is, a plethora of food, garments and appliances, with have-nots in the world, unhappy people can reclaim their lost happiness, the author observes.
But what does he exactly mean by "sharing"? For all I know, "sharing" doesn't come free. The unhappiness syndrome induced by over-development may spread like a contagion to underdeveloped areas once their economy begins to take off.
But Bhutan is progressing. And as this once-isolated country embarks on a modernization drive, we may soon hear stories about the fraying of its social fabric.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
