13 ms·

Despite the headline CBS gave the article, it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing

Despite the headline CBS gave the article, it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing one culture to another. Social comparison theory is the idea that our satisfaction with what we have isn't an objective measure, but is actually based on what we see other people have. Young people generally seem to have an innate desire to leave their hometowns and seek out what else might be waiting out there for them. When you add in globalization and media influence exposing them to what looks like a "better" life with more things, it's not surprising that they've seen ~9% of young people leave Bhutan. The other question is, what will happen if Bhutan does increase their financial wealth as well as their happiness? Will they then see a net influx of people through immigration, looking for the lifestyle Bhutan promises? And will those new people be able to maintain the culture Bhutan has cultivated? It sounds like the concept of Gross National Happiness is a successful one, on its own, but it brings new challenges that couldn't have been forseen originally. That doesn't mean they can't solve them without giving up their core values.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cardanome 2y ago
Nah, the issue is the one that many developing countries suffer from: brain drain. The best people leave the country because the can earn orders of magnitude more money in the developed world. This is why countries like the US keep being so successful while developing countries stay poor. It is just the rational best decision for a young people to try their luck abroad and earn more money that they could ever dream of in their home country. Why shouldn't they? Idealism? There is nothing wrong with striving for a better life, it is what moves humanity forward. Offering great and free education will always backfire for developing nations. The solution is to either keep the population ignorant, hamstringing their education so they are less useful abroad and implementing a strict censorship regime so they don't get "corrupted" by the West or well force them to stay. We saw that all play out in the Soviet Block. There is a good reason there was a wall. I think the fairest solution is to NOT make education free but instant offer a deal of having to stay in the country and work for X-years in the profession one has been trained in by the state. Once they get older and settle down they are less likely to leave anyway. Being a developing country just sucks. There is a reason most never break the cycle of poverty.
- ta988 2y ago
  Brain drain is not just about money. it is also simply about beeing able to get a life doing what we like with people alike and know how to do while beeing recognized doing it. I left my country for this exact reason, there was a culture of doing the minimum and making sure others can't organize to do great things. And trying to go back you get a lot of opposition, bureaucratic, social (jealousy and resentment is more than palpable in interviews), cultural... It is more like a one-way brain valve.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > striving for a better life the problem here is that you're directly equating earning more money with a "better life" once you have enough to have your needs met, then earning multiples times that doesn't make your life better; at that point, "better life" is much more impacted by other factors than money
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The marginal utility of an extra dollar goes down as you get more of them, but it never reaches zero, especially if you have big dreams. Just look at Musk and his startups - I bet he's very glad to have that 200 billionth dollar, because now he can have the space program he always wanted. This wouldn't have been possible in the third-world country where he grew up.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      First, HN consistently misuses the term "third world". In 2024, this term is now very out of date to describe developing economies (and below). Also, the original meaning was not at all what most people think -- it was about Soviet vs US alignment. And, no, South Africa was definitely middle income when he grew up there -- and it still is (sadly). For a long time (maybe still true?), the GDP per capita in SA nearly the highest amoung all African countries. (I think Seychelles is the richest African country now.)
      - 2y ago
gsuuon 2y ago
> ~9% of young people leave Bhutan It's worse than that: > 9% of the country's population, most of them young people Young people want adventure, but all their homeland is offering is contentment. They need to account for the desire for opportunity in their GNH metric.
- konschubert 2y ago
  Re-branding poverty as "contentment" may whoo some westerners, but probably not the people living off substinence farming.
  - rob74 2y ago
    Well, I'm pretty sure the people living off subsistence farming in Europe during the Middle Ages were mostly content with their lives too (at least during peacetime), despite much worse education and health care than the modern Bhutanese are getting. The difference is that this was simply their way of life and they didn't have any alternatives. "Contentment" means being content with what you have - no matter if it's because you consciously decide that it's enough for you or because you simply don't know any better.
    - konschubert 2y ago
      We probably don’t disagree, but just to state the obvious: Being content with suffering through ignorance is still suffering. Medieval subsistence farmers had to bury half of their children before the age of 5.
  - abdullahkhalids 2y ago
    Depends entirely on the outlook of the person. I have met poor farmers in Pakistan who emphatically told me that my big city life was filled with work and devoid of meaning, while their slow village life was worth living. The sons had studied in the big city, had access to good employment opportunities, but told me they were desperately trying to get back to the village. It did seem that with access to technology, these farmers were working less per day than city workers. These exist at the same time as other farming families who were trying to escape to the big city or other countries in search of employment and better life. The latter category is larger than the former, but still it all depends on outlook.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I find it weird that this article didn’t mention China’s aggressive invasions of Bhutan and settlement tactics violating their sovereignty. The fear of China’s CCP government stealing from Bhutan or taking over Bhutan is a big reason for people to want to leave and seek refuge and stability elsewhere. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/asia/china-bhutan-border-dst-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/asia/china-bhutan-border-dst-...
cen4 2y ago
There are lots of young people who are not ambitious. And as soon as you say that, there is a reactionary group that will come running to say well the problem is with teachers not being inspiring, curriculum being poor, society not creating the right environment etc etc. But these kids are never the issue. They are quite satisfied and accepting with whatever the universe throws in their lap. The real issue is Ambitious kids. Not the ones who have enough looks, contacts, knowledge, skill, intelligence, creativity and imagination to meet their goals but the ones who don't. Materialism exploits such people more than anyone else. It tells them Donald if you are not admired, respected, loved just work hard, don't stop, keep grinding, keep hustling, accumulate material wealth, accumulate status, accumulate luxury goods and you will get the affection, respect, admiration and love you crave. Its pure bullshit. This is the stuff that has to stop. We have to take care of these people better and channel their infinite energies into things beyond consumption and materialism. Its the hardest thing to do cause they are an extremely annoying group to deal with constantly craving attention, praise, sympathy and love. But thats the only path to a better, healthier and sustainable society. No Free Lunch.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  huh? do you remember what type of organization owns the site you are on right now? it specifically caters toward ambitious people who want to create things and provide services that nobody does as well in the status quo. if societies historically cut down those who wanted change and put their energy into finding better ways to do things, we would still be hunting and gathering. i don't want to share a world with people who believe the ambitious, creative, and industrious should be cut down from their full potential.
  - mantas 2y ago
    You're missing the part about abuse of wannabe-ambitious. Vast majority of YC crowd is ambitious people who do have the means. Today's world is happy to sell shovels to wanna-be gold diggers ain't truly ambitious, creative nor industrious. But first educational system and propaganda industry makes it look like this must be the goal. Then the modern economy runs them into the ground. Whose who're truly ambitious/creative/industrious/etc will go for it no matter what society tells them. Even in the darkest ages of soviet union those people found ways to live up to their ambitions. But those who ain't may find ways-of-life which suits them better.
misja111 2y ago
> it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing one culture to another. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but what struck me is that your comment would fit seamlessly into a text from the DDR regime, when it was still alive. (You know, the former communist republic of East Germany, which needed a wall to keep its citizens within the socialist paradise) I'm not saying that this makes your comment wrong, I'm just wondering what this means with regard to former communism.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  I mean it would also fit seamlessly into an Islamist lecture from Sayyid Qutb, or a primitivist rant from Ted Kaczynski, and so on. Anyone ideologically opposed to the Western "capitalism plus liberal democracy" combo pretty much has to form their opposition on anti-materialist and/or anti-integration grounds, because those are the only ones where it isn't an overwhelming, crushing victory over every alternative.
0x1ceb00da 2y ago
> Will they then see a net influx of people through immigration Bhutan has very strict immigration laws. You basically need to be employed in a government scheme or make a huge investment in the local economy to immigrate.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cardanome 2y ago

Nah, the issue is the one that many developing countries suffer from: brain drain. The best people leave the country because the can earn orders of magnitude more money in the developed world. This is why countries like the US keep being so successful while developing countries stay poor. It is just the rational best decision for a young people to try their luck abroad and earn more money that they could ever dream of in their home country. Why shouldn't they? Idealism? There is nothing wrong with striving for a better life, it is what moves humanity forward. Offering great and free education will always backfire for developing nations. The solution is to either keep the population ignorant, hamstringing their education so they are less useful abroad and implementing a strict censorship regime so they don't get "corrupted" by the West or well force them to stay. We saw that all play out in the Soviet Block. There is a good reason there was a wall. I think the fairest solution is to NOT make education free but instant offer a deal of having to stay in the country and work for X-years in the profession one has been trained in by the state. Once they get older and settle down they are less likely to leave anyway. Being a developing country just sucks. There is a reason most never break the cycle of poverty.

ta988 2y ago
Brain drain is not just about money. it is also simply about beeing able to get a life doing what we like with people alike and know how to do while beeing recognized doing it. I left my country for this exact reason, there was a culture of doing the minimum and making sure others can't organize to do great things. And trying to go back you get a lot of opposition, bureaucratic, social (jealousy and resentment is more than palpable in interviews), cultural... It is more like a one-way brain valve.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> striving for a better life the problem here is that you're directly equating earning more money with a "better life" once you have enough to have your needs met, then earning multiples times that doesn't make your life better; at that point, "better life" is much more impacted by other factors than money
- FredPret 2y ago
  The marginal utility of an extra dollar goes down as you get more of them, but it never reaches zero, especially if you have big dreams. Just look at Musk and his startups - I bet he's very glad to have that 200 billionth dollar, because now he can have the space program he always wanted. This wouldn't have been possible in the third-world country where he grew up.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    First, HN consistently misuses the term "third world". In 2024, this term is now very out of date to describe developing economies (and below). Also, the original meaning was not at all what most people think -- it was about Soviet vs US alignment. And, no, South Africa was definitely middle income when he grew up there -- and it still is (sadly). For a long time (maybe still true?), the GDP per capita in SA nearly the highest amoung all African countries. (I think Seychelles is the richest African country now.)
    - 2y ago

gsuuon 2y ago

> ~9% of young people leave Bhutan It's worse than that: > 9% of the country's population, most of them young people Young people want adventure, but all their homeland is offering is contentment. They need to account for the desire for opportunity in their GNH metric.

konschubert 2y ago
Re-branding poverty as "contentment" may whoo some westerners, but probably not the people living off substinence farming.
- rob74 2y ago
  Well, I'm pretty sure the people living off subsistence farming in Europe during the Middle Ages were mostly content with their lives too (at least during peacetime), despite much worse education and health care than the modern Bhutanese are getting. The difference is that this was simply their way of life and they didn't have any alternatives. "Contentment" means being content with what you have - no matter if it's because you consciously decide that it's enough for you or because you simply don't know any better.
  - konschubert 2y ago
    We probably don’t disagree, but just to state the obvious: Being content with suffering through ignorance is still suffering. Medieval subsistence farmers had to bury half of their children before the age of 5.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Depends entirely on the outlook of the person. I have met poor farmers in Pakistan who emphatically told me that my big city life was filled with work and devoid of meaning, while their slow village life was worth living. The sons had studied in the big city, had access to good employment opportunities, but told me they were desperately trying to get back to the village. It did seem that with access to technology, these farmers were working less per day than city workers. These exist at the same time as other farming families who were trying to escape to the big city or other countries in search of employment and better life. The latter category is larger than the former, but still it all depends on outlook.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I find it weird that this article didn’t mention China’s aggressive invasions of Bhutan and settlement tactics violating their sovereignty. The fear of China’s CCP government stealing from Bhutan or taking over Bhutan is a big reason for people to want to leave and seek refuge and stability elsewhere. See https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/asia/china-bhutan-border-dst-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/05/asia/china-bhutan-border-dst-...

cen4 2y ago

There are lots of young people who are not ambitious. And as soon as you say that, there is a reactionary group that will come running to say well the problem is with teachers not being inspiring, curriculum being poor, society not creating the right environment etc etc. But these kids are never the issue. They are quite satisfied and accepting with whatever the universe throws in their lap. The real issue is Ambitious kids. Not the ones who have enough looks, contacts, knowledge, skill, intelligence, creativity and imagination to meet their goals but the ones who don't. Materialism exploits such people more than anyone else. It tells them Donald if you are not admired, respected, loved just work hard, don't stop, keep grinding, keep hustling, accumulate material wealth, accumulate status, accumulate luxury goods and you will get the affection, respect, admiration and love you crave. Its pure bullshit. This is the stuff that has to stop. We have to take care of these people better and channel their infinite energies into things beyond consumption and materialism. Its the hardest thing to do cause they are an extremely annoying group to deal with constantly craving attention, praise, sympathy and love. But thats the only path to a better, healthier and sustainable society. No Free Lunch.

rangestransform 2y ago
huh? do you remember what type of organization owns the site you are on right now? it specifically caters toward ambitious people who want to create things and provide services that nobody does as well in the status quo. if societies historically cut down those who wanted change and put their energy into finding better ways to do things, we would still be hunting and gathering. i don't want to share a world with people who believe the ambitious, creative, and industrious should be cut down from their full potential.
- mantas 2y ago
  You're missing the part about abuse of wannabe-ambitious. Vast majority of YC crowd is ambitious people who do have the means. Today's world is happy to sell shovels to wanna-be gold diggers ain't truly ambitious, creative nor industrious. But first educational system and propaganda industry makes it look like this must be the goal. Then the modern economy runs them into the ground. Whose who're truly ambitious/creative/industrious/etc will go for it no matter what society tells them. Even in the darkest ages of soviet union those people found ways to live up to their ambitions. But those who ain't may find ways-of-life which suits them better.

misja111 2y ago

> it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing one culture to another. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but what struck me is that your comment would fit seamlessly into a text from the DDR regime, when it was still alive. (You know, the former communist republic of East Germany, which needed a wall to keep its citizens within the socialist paradise) I'm not saying that this makes your comment wrong, I'm just wondering what this means with regard to former communism.

Analemma_ 2y ago
I mean it would also fit seamlessly into an Islamist lecture from Sayyid Qutb, or a primitivist rant from Ted Kaczynski, and so on. Anyone ideologically opposed to the Western "capitalism plus liberal democracy" combo pretty much has to form their opposition on anti-materialist and/or anti-integration grounds, because those are the only ones where it isn't an overwhelming, crushing victory over every alternative.

0x1ceb00da 2y ago

> Will they then see a net influx of people through immigration Bhutan has very strict immigration laws. You basically need to be employed in a government scheme or make a huge investment in the local economy to immigrate.