5 ms·

Bhutan takes the next step in democratizing happiness

28 points by robg 17y ago

mattchew 17y ago
Unfortunately, I think Bhutan is in the vanguard here. We don't yet have a prime minister who gets to issue policy initiatives to increase Gross National Happiness. But you can certainly get a lot of approval publishing articles explaining why letting people do what they think will make them happy doesn't actually make them happy, and everyone would really be happier if someone important just made the best choice for them. Cass Sunstein is my favorite example of an intellectual who relentlessly argues that individual choice is bad. When I started typing this I had totally forgotten that he is now an official working for the Obama administration. Department of National Happiness, here we come.
- ippisl 17y ago
  Assuming a certain ideology(personal freedom) increases total societal happiness is just an assumption. if you don't measure it , you can't tell if it's helping or harming the happiness target. Bhutan at least tries to measure happiness when trying to improve it. And for example , in the Satisfaction with Life Index , Bhutan is in 8 place , u.s. is 23 place[1]. So Bhutan ain't doing so bad. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#ci...
  - orangecat 17y ago
    Yes, lots of fundamentalists are unhappy when others have the freedom to blaspheme their god or have sex in ways that they don't approve of. To them I say: tough.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    What's the net immigration flow between different pairs of countries on that list? Which of those countries have the most restrictions on (a) emigration or (b) immigration? After edit, from the article: "GNH rests on four pillars of value: environmental conservation; cultural preservation and promotion; sustainable and equitable development; and good governance, including the development of active and responsible citizenship." I find it very hard to disagree with "good governance" as a goal, being a descendant of Americans who lived at the time of the Declaration of Independence. But I wonder what "cultural preservation and promotion" might mean in relation to (1) techological innovation (surely a concern of the hackers here), (2) religious dissent (another value cherished by my American ancestors), and (3) foreign policy with neighboring countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan
  - mattchew 17y ago
    When Bhutan is measuring happiness, how do they know what they're measuring is really "happiness"? Why do they think their methods are optimal, or at better than some other method, or meaningful at all? Is it just an assumption?
    - ippisl 17y ago
      The measurement is based on the work of some academics. while academics certainly make mistakes , usually academic research and debate is one of the best ways we as a society have to learn about truths.
      - mattchew 17y ago
        Academic research can lead to learning truths, but I do not assume that everything that comes from academia is true, or even most of it. I think the modern world has an entirely unwarranted, and somewhat harmful, credulousness when it comes to claims of "studies show that . . .". But that is really beside my main point, which is: 1) To define "happiness" is a process relying on various assumptions. 2) Any attempt to measure that happiness involves further assumptions, in the approach that you use, and assuming the reliability of the results. 3) The idea whatever you're calling "happiness" is something that should be maximized or optimized is also an assumption. It doesn't matter if these assumptions are made by an academic or not. They're assumptions, not facts. They're worthy of challenge. I agree that my notion that individual choice is valuable is an assumption, and not everyone shares it. But you don't seem to see the assumptions inherent in the ideas of the happiness planners.
        ippisl 17y ago
        Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? don't you think that happiness/pleasure vs sadness/pain is the main motivating mechanism for human beings(at the biological level) , and that the big reason why individual choice ("freedom") is so important is exactly because lack of freedom caused lack of happiness, so people fought hard to change that? Here's an interesting TED lecture on how to decide moral questions using scientific tools: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... In short , the lecturer talks about that every value system , is basically a system of rules and guidelines and values , with the purpose of optimizing human well-being. and if we find scientific ways to measure human well being , we can give better , more accurate answers to moral questions. Choose our values better , etc...
- anamax 17y ago
  > Cass Sunstein is my favorite example of an intellectual who relentlessly argues that individual choice is bad. That's not quite right. Sunstein is in favor of choices that he likes. He argues that individual choices that he doesn't like are bad.
Goladus 17y ago
Gross national happiness is a great idea until prosperous people with guns and bombs decide they want something you have.
- gyardley 17y ago
  Gross national happiness is a great idea unless what makes you happy differs from what's in the metric and the policies designed to increase it.
  - jorgecastillo 17y ago
    We know that different stuff makes different people happy. But I am sure we can get some metric that represents most people and this can be used to measure the overall happiness. As long as we don't try to push the value system of most people to individuals that dissent I think we would be fine.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      We know that different stuff makes different people happy. Another HN participant recommended the book Stumbling on Happiness http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/ http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/ in a previous thread. I have just started reading the book, and I agree with reviewers that the author has a lot of research-based insight into what makes people happy.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > As long as we don't try to push the value system of most people to individuals that dissent I think we would be fine. You clearly don't have much experience with actual people. > But I am sure we can get some metric that represents most people and this can be used to measure the overall happiness. No need for that. Just measure each person's happiness, no matter how they define it, and sum that over all people. Yes, I am assuming that you can measure a person's happiness, but if you can't, how do you know what makes "most people" happy? Let me suggest that what's likely to happen is that some folks will define happiness as what they like and/or think that other people should like....
lionhearted 17y ago
I think this is a great idea and Gross National Happiness should immediately become a major part of the Democrat's platform in the USA. Of course, then the Republicans are likely to counter with Gross National Morality. Pretty soon, we can regulate and mandate Gross National Happiness, Gross National Morality, Gross National Love, Gross National Sharing, Gross National Caring, Gross National Thinking, Gross National Playing, Gross National Working, and we can mandate that people do what they can to improve those. We are entering into a brave new world, with prosperity for all! Democratize happiness! Democratize morality! Democratize work, and play, and love! Happiness, and love, and morality - democratized! How come no one has tried this previously? It's such an obviously good idea, I can't see where anything could possibly wrong with it... How could anyone not think that democratizing people's lives won't produce the best possible society?

28 points by robg 17y ago

Unfortunately, I think Bhutan is in the vanguard here. We don't yet have a prime minister who gets to issue policy initiatives to increase Gross National Happiness. But you can certainly get a lot of approval publishing articles explaining why letting people do what they think will make them happy doesn't actually make them happy, and everyone would really be happier if someone important just made the best choice for them. Cass Sunstein is my favorite example of an intellectual who relentlessly argues that individual choice is bad. When I started typing this I had totally forgotten that he is now an official working for the Obama administration. Department of National Happiness, here we come.

ippisl 17y ago
Assuming a certain ideology(personal freedom) increases total societal happiness is just an assumption. if you don't measure it , you can't tell if it's helping or harming the happiness target. Bhutan at least tries to measure happiness when trying to improve it. And for example , in the Satisfaction with Life Index , Bhutan is in 8 place , u.s. is 23 place[1]. So Bhutan ain't doing so bad. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#ci...
- orangecat 17y ago
  Yes, lots of fundamentalists are unhappy when others have the freedom to blaspheme their god or have sex in ways that they don't approve of. To them I say: tough.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  What's the net immigration flow between different pairs of countries on that list? Which of those countries have the most restrictions on (a) emigration or (b) immigration? After edit, from the article: "GNH rests on four pillars of value: environmental conservation; cultural preservation and promotion; sustainable and equitable development; and good governance, including the development of active and responsible citizenship." I find it very hard to disagree with "good governance" as a goal, being a descendant of Americans who lived at the time of the Declaration of Independence. But I wonder what "cultural preservation and promotion" might mean in relation to (1) techological innovation (surely a concern of the hackers here), (2) religious dissent (another value cherished by my American ancestors), and (3) foreign policy with neighboring countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan
- mattchew 17y ago
  When Bhutan is measuring happiness, how do they know what they're measuring is really "happiness"? Why do they think their methods are optimal, or at better than some other method, or meaningful at all? Is it just an assumption?
  - ippisl 17y ago
    The measurement is based on the work of some academics. while academics certainly make mistakes , usually academic research and debate is one of the best ways we as a society have to learn about truths.
    - mattchew 17y ago
      Academic research can lead to learning truths, but I do not assume that everything that comes from academia is true, or even most of it. I think the modern world has an entirely unwarranted, and somewhat harmful, credulousness when it comes to claims of "studies show that . . .". But that is really beside my main point, which is: 1) To define "happiness" is a process relying on various assumptions. 2) Any attempt to measure that happiness involves further assumptions, in the approach that you use, and assuming the reliability of the results. 3) The idea whatever you're calling "happiness" is something that should be maximized or optimized is also an assumption. It doesn't matter if these assumptions are made by an academic or not. They're assumptions, not facts. They're worthy of challenge. I agree that my notion that individual choice is valuable is an assumption, and not everyone shares it. But you don't seem to see the assumptions inherent in the ideas of the happiness planners.
      - ippisl 17y ago
        Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized? don't you think that happiness/pleasure vs sadness/pain is the main motivating mechanism for human beings(at the biological level) , and that the big reason why individual choice ("freedom") is so important is exactly because lack of freedom caused lack of happiness, so people fought hard to change that? Here's an interesting TED lecture on how to decide moral questions using scientific tools: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_... In short , the lecturer talks about that every value system , is basically a system of rules and guidelines and values , with the purpose of optimizing human well-being. and if we find scientific ways to measure human well being , we can give better , more accurate answers to moral questions. Choose our values better , etc...
anamax 17y ago
> Cass Sunstein is my favorite example of an intellectual who relentlessly argues that individual choice is bad. That's not quite right. Sunstein is in favor of choices that he likes. He argues that individual choices that he doesn't like are bad.

Goladus 17y ago

Gross national happiness is a great idea until prosperous people with guns and bombs decide they want something you have.

gyardley 17y ago
Gross national happiness is a great idea unless what makes you happy differs from what's in the metric and the policies designed to increase it.
- jorgecastillo 17y ago
  We know that different stuff makes different people happy. But I am sure we can get some metric that represents most people and this can be used to measure the overall happiness. As long as we don't try to push the value system of most people to individuals that dissent I think we would be fine.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    We know that different stuff makes different people happy. Another HN participant recommended the book Stumbling on Happiness http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/ http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/ in a previous thread. I have just started reading the book, and I agree with reviewers that the author has a lot of research-based insight into what makes people happy.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > As long as we don't try to push the value system of most people to individuals that dissent I think we would be fine. You clearly don't have much experience with actual people. > But I am sure we can get some metric that represents most people and this can be used to measure the overall happiness. No need for that. Just measure each person's happiness, no matter how they define it, and sum that over all people. Yes, I am assuming that you can measure a person's happiness, but if you can't, how do you know what makes "most people" happy? Let me suggest that what's likely to happen is that some folks will define happiness as what they like and/or think that other people should like....

lionhearted 17y ago

I think this is a great idea and Gross National Happiness should immediately become a major part of the Democrat's platform in the USA. Of course, then the Republicans are likely to counter with Gross National Morality. Pretty soon, we can regulate and mandate Gross National Happiness, Gross National Morality, Gross National Love, Gross National Sharing, Gross National Caring, Gross National Thinking, Gross National Playing, Gross National Working, and we can mandate that people do what they can to improve those. We are entering into a brave new world, with prosperity for all! Democratize happiness! Democratize morality! Democratize work, and play, and love! Happiness, and love, and morality - democratized! How come no one has tried this previously? It's such an obviously good idea, I can't see where anything could possibly wrong with it... How could anyone not think that democratizing people's lives won't produce the best possible society?