Lets employ some Socratic questioning to the term "benefits". It's fair to say that a "benefit" is something that would improve our well being. What is "well being"? I think it is safe to say "Happiness" is an indication of "Well Being"; we are happier if we have enough money to put food on the table than going hungry, we are happier if we are healthy as compared to being sick in bed.
So what is "Happiness"? Happiness has long defied a definition because it is never straight forward. Many of us think that money can buy happiness and just look at how much more miserable we are now. Most nations are earning much more now compared to twenty years ago, every indication from surveys however point that we are no happier, some even indicate we're more miserable.
It is difficult to measure happiness of a nation. Gross National Happiness (GNH) is one subjective method that the King of Bhutan came up with to measure the success of a nation. The cynical would probably think that the King is simply moving the goal post because he knows Bhutan can not possibly compete with many developed nations on GDP. That maybe true but the King has been true to his words and has developed Bhutan according to the GNH philosophy. Bhutan has always ranked highly on Happiness Indexes conducted by institutes like Leicester University and the Gallup World Poll just to name a few. These Happiness Indexes along with GNH is a combination of indices that reflects well being, economics and health.
Recent research as part of the Gallup World Poll have gone even further and measured Happiness only in emotional terms. After all, Happiness is a state of mind and can not be directly measured using wealth or any other physical measure. Subjects are surveyed using their emotional response and self reports on matters like work, income and relationships.
The Maasai people well known for drinking cattle blood are a tribal people in Africa. They lack many material comforts that industrial societies have but are found to be just as happy as individuals in many developed nations. Researchers think this is because they focus on what they have rather than what they lack. Also, they have a lot of self respect and possess the skills to flourish in their environment. However, the Maasai do rate their material resources poorly suggesting money can buy at least some kind of happiness.
Research has also shown that living standards predicted overall life assessment better than day to day emotions. That is to say luxury goods can make you feel more satisfied with life but does not make it more enjoyable. On the other extreme, South Koreans rate material wealth higher than the Americans and Japanese, they too have the highest suicide rate in the industrialised world.
Another example showing that wealth doesn't bring happiness are the Danes. Although the U.S. is economically richer than Denmark, the Danes are psychologically better off. The difference is said to lie in a person's ability to trust other people's good intentions, a so called 'Social Capital'. The Danes expressed faith in their Government and business sector and expected a lost wallet to be returned. The Americans however, viewed both as corrupt and doubted a stranger would ever return a lost wallet.
A high opinion and contentment with homeland is another source of happiness. Researchers found that national satisfaction can influence life satisfaction especially in poorer countries. This is also reflected by the statistical fact that incumbent governments have a higher chance of getting back in power if the country has recently won a world sporting event. It is often said that the Rugby World Cup win means that the incumbent government of New Zealand is guaranteed to get back in power.
So before you cast your votes this election, think about the overall well being of yourself and the nation. Think about social capital, your relationships, the respect for yourself and from others, your health, national pride. These things matter too, not just a few more dollars in your pocket.
No comments:
Post a Comment