Economists are an easy subject of ridicule since they base what they claim to be an objective science on the dubious notion that greater wealth = greater happiness. (They use the term utility and assume an irrevocable link between the two). Because of the influence that this profession carries with policy makers this leads us towards a position in which the over riding social goal is to increase material wealth. For decades environmentalists have criticised this as destroying the panet on which we depend for our livelihoods. It continues to be so - but now the most visible manifestations of it have been out-sourced to factories in countries like China and palm oil and soya plantations in SE Asia and South America.
Yet in recent years awareness has grown that it is not just the environment that our high earning, high spending, acquistive lifestyles are destroying but our own sense of self worth and happiness.
In the 1990s the King of Bhutan turned down an loan offer from the World Bank to build a mega - paper mill to turn the contry's ample forest reserves into pulp. Famously he said that gross national happiness is more important than gross national product. Since that time more and more people have been exploring this idea. Oliver James' book Affluenza is a wonderful example. In one poigant part of it he talks about how the current UK government actually went so far as to set up a Happiness Working Group, and how their ideas got rubbished by the Treasury's economists.
Now it seems that the issue is back on the policy agenda agaian, with the appointment of a Happiness Tsar . It will be interesting to see how far this initiative and debate runs. I suspect that some of James Oliver's more radical prescriptions for affluenza might not make it onto the debate. He shows there is a clear relations between national happiness and income inequalities and also to the degree to which people watch TV and are subject to direct and sublimal advertising. He recommends limiting exposure to advertising and to American programmes that inculcate material lifetsyles and reducing inqualities in incomes. Wonder how far that will get with this or any other part of the political establishment? Of course there are many aspect to happiness that can be developed at the individual level and giving people these tools (or inoculants) whether as preventive or curative measures is a good start. For me it raises the old and seemingly unresolvable (in any intellectual sense at least) about whether one should seek to change the world or oneself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
ha ha, for a moment there I was scratching my head as I wondered why JAMIE (pretentious twit) Oliver had penned a book on Affluenza since he has coinage flowing from every orifice....
anyway, my mistake. I am with you well nearly 100%, I mute the advertising whenever it is on the TV and the kids only watch DVDs so they don't see adverts....on the flip side I have a craving for luxury. Can anyone say they don't long for a luxury holiday with all the trimmings for example?....and that does guarantee a short fix of happiness. Long term happiness probably is not related to being rich though, you are right there.
For a moment there I kept wondering why JAMIE (pretentious git)Oliver had written a book on Affluenza when he has coinage leaking from every orifice...then I saw you meant James...my mistake!
I support your anti-Affluenza stance insofar as I don't watch commercials and live fairly frugally....on the flip side I would quite like to live a life of luxury and be, say, Mick Jagger and have my own island and yacht etc...although I wouldn't want to do all the touring etc.
Wow. It's probably Oliver James although you turn the names around in your post.
But wow again. Isn't a happiness tsar what I've been waiting for, and not only for Britain. Great initiatives and wonderful to find on a political agenda. Hurrah!
Anon- Thanks for pointing out that mistake and gald you were inspired by the story.
I made the same mistake when I first saw his name too.
I have often suffered from a bit off "jagger-envy" - ever since practising my hand-clapping lip-pouting version of Honky Tonk women in front of the bathroom mirror at a pre pubescent age. My parents used to turn the TV off when the Stones came on because they thought he so vile. Anybody who bought out that reaction in my parents went straight to the top wanna be list. Even today he manages to shock - most recent story is about his visit to a "night club" in Bucharest on last years tour when he couldn't decide which girl he liked the most - so took five home with him. If anybody embodies the Dorien Grey principle I guess it's him. Easy to be jealous about someone who has so much pussy throwing itself at him. No problems with money, global recognition. What more could a guy want? maybe he's just deeply insecure. What else could motivate a guy to cheat on Jerry Hall?
I read an excellent book once based on conversations with the Dalai Lama. The theory was espoused - and supported by quite convincing arguments - that Western society doesn't operate on the basis of looking for happiness but of running away from unhappiness which isn't quite the same thing.
Of course, up to a point money is worthwhile either way - Maslow's hierarchy of needs points to the idea that happiness is something of an irrelevance if more basic needs such as food and shelter aren't adequately met. Money helps with these.
Beyond that, perhaps the Dalai Lama and the King of Bhutan have a strong argument. Unfortunately, I can see neither our Government nor the Loyal Opposition converting en masse to Buddhism!
Post a Comment