3 ms·

The only country that focuses on GNH is Bhutan. The same country which exiled an entire ethnicity constituting 20% of its population in the 1990s. [1] UN happin

The only country that focuses on GNH is Bhutan. The same country which exiled an entire ethnicity constituting 20% of its population in the 1990s. [1] UN happiness report ranks Bhutan at 97th, Finland being first and the US at 17.[2] Bhutan’s GNH campaign is a clever marketing strategy by an autocratic government to boost its tourism revenue (main source of income), cover up its frequent human right violations, and abject poverty of the common people all at the same time. Romanticising Bhutan is a new form of orientialism. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutanese_refugees 2. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-benevolence-and-trust-during-covid-19-and-beyond/#ranking-of-happiness-2019-2021 https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-benevolence-...

voisin 4y ago
I didn’t realize only Bhutan had this metric. I was referring to Scandinavian countries which seem to be the context I’ve heard it in, but must be mistaken. In any event, I envy the concept and wish more countries adopted it.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  You might have a very skewed view of those countries. Things happen there too, you just don't hear about it. Policies proposals that would draw bipartisan condemnation in the US and be unanimously rejected across the aisle might not even get any meaningful opposition in the "happy nordics". Here's a very troubling example that is happening right now: Denmark is currently deporting back to syria all of its syrian refugees. They revoked their residency almost overnight and declared that Syria is now safe even if the Civil war is far from over. Considering that the groups that those refugees originally escaped from are still in power (whether it's Assad or the islamists), it basically means certain death for a lot of them (even those lucky enough to avoid reprisals will probably end up forcibly conscripted). They also argue that Damascus is completely safe for refugees who specifically escaped the syrian government security services (gestapo lite)... because that same government is now fully in control and has pacified the entire region. >In 2019, the Danish prime minister declared that Denmark wanted ‘zero asylum seekers’. That was a really strong signal* >That's really good news," Mr Tesfaye said in February. "Corona, of course, plays a role, but I think first and foremost, it's because of our strict foreign policy. Many of those who come here do not need protection at all." >The government has set a target of zero, arguing that the money saved can go towards welfare[0] The most troubling part is that all of this is happening under a "moderate" left wing government with pretty wide support and little to no actual backlash. So yeah, I'd be hesitant to use nordic countries as a model for everything. It's a lot of tradeoffs and the welfare state can be sweet for some, but I know that personally as a muslim I'd much rather live elsewhere
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > You might have a very skewed view of those countries. Things happen there too, you just don't hear about it. Policies proposals that would draw bipartisan condemnation in the US and be unanimously rejected across the aisle might not even get any meaningful opposition in the "happy nordics". This is silly. The US didn't take remotely close to the same amount of refugees per capita in the first place. They just let them die at the border instead. > all of its syrian refugees. I'm glad you brought up this topic, but saying "all" is quite an exaggeration, although that doesn't make it any less horrible.

voisin 4y ago

I didn’t realize only Bhutan had this metric. I was referring to Scandinavian countries which seem to be the context I’ve heard it in, but must be mistaken. In any event, I envy the concept and wish more countries adopted it.

mardifoufs 4y ago
You might have a very skewed view of those countries. Things happen there too, you just don't hear about it. Policies proposals that would draw bipartisan condemnation in the US and be unanimously rejected across the aisle might not even get any meaningful opposition in the "happy nordics". Here's a very troubling example that is happening right now: Denmark is currently deporting back to syria all of its syrian refugees. They revoked their residency almost overnight and declared that Syria is now safe even if the Civil war is far from over. Considering that the groups that those refugees originally escaped from are still in power (whether it's Assad or the islamists), it basically means certain death for a lot of them (even those lucky enough to avoid reprisals will probably end up forcibly conscripted). They also argue that Damascus is completely safe for refugees who specifically escaped the syrian government security services (gestapo lite)... because that same government is now fully in control and has pacified the entire region. >In 2019, the Danish prime minister declared that Denmark wanted ‘zero asylum seekers’. That was a really strong signal* >That's really good news," Mr Tesfaye said in February. "Corona, of course, plays a role, but I think first and foremost, it's because of our strict foreign policy. Many of those who come here do not need protection at all." >The government has set a target of zero, arguing that the money saved can go towards welfare[0] The most troubling part is that all of this is happening under a "moderate" left wing government with pretty wide support and little to no actual backlash. So yeah, I'd be hesitant to use nordic countries as a model for everything. It's a lot of tradeoffs and the welfare state can be sweet for some, but I know that personally as a muslim I'd much rather live elsewhere
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > You might have a very skewed view of those countries. Things happen there too, you just don't hear about it. Policies proposals that would draw bipartisan condemnation in the US and be unanimously rejected across the aisle might not even get any meaningful opposition in the "happy nordics". This is silly. The US didn't take remotely close to the same amount of refugees per capita in the first place. They just let them die at the border instead. > all of its syrian refugees. I'm glad you brought up this topic, but saying "all" is quite an exaggeration, although that doesn't make it any less horrible.