6 ms·
Happiness, health and stability are not core objectives of our society. The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spend
by rndmize 14y ago
Happiness, health and stability are not core objectives of our society. The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success.
I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures.
- jakerocheleau 14y agostrangely refreshing to read this on HN
- Glayden 14y agoI think we would do better to follow Bhutan's lead and start using some metrics along the lines of Gross National Happiness in our analysis of how our country (and world) is doing. Ultimately metrics like GDP are only meaningful to our interests to the extent that they indicate the quality of life and sustainability of improved quality of life for people. We lose sight of where the real underlying value lies far too often.
- jhuni 14y agoOne feature of such a better society is that it should be classless. As long as there is there are segments of society whose happiness, health, and stability are dependent upon the whims of the ruling class rather then in their own hands then these problems will persist.
- ruswick 14y agoPeople don't want a classless society because it removes the ability to attain the one thing that all people want: distinguishment. People usually want money not for its utility, but as an arbitrary measure of merit and a way to distinguish oneself. This is why the American Dream is so pervasive: the concept of economic mobility appeals to people. If anything, we've seen a regression from equality and an exacerbation of class segregation throughout the century. People (at least in this country) don't want to be happy and healthy. They want to be richer than everyone else because that is what success is.
- tossacct 14y agoI think that you are right that there are some people that will not become happier or more healthy if they got more money. More money does mean "distinguishment" to them. I think we could describe American upper and middle class people in this way. The vast majority of the people in America and the rest of the world are not upper or middle class. They want both "distinguishment" AND health, because both could improve. Look at health problems and obesity and the poverty line and education rates. Look at what happens to the birth rate when you introduce economic stability and health care access that can more or less guarantee the survival of your children.
- sp4rki 14y agoI agree completely. Sadly this is an extension of the democratic capitalist way of life. Once upon a time a group of people we're lead by the strongest, the most intelligent, and the most experienced. It was natural selection at it's finest. Now the concept of power is based on money, distinguishment, and popularity, and not on strength, smarts, and age.
- pjzedalis 14y agoWe are making progress. It used to be your class was determined by how much money your great great great grandfather had. Now it's determined by how much you have. Soon it will be determined by how much we think you will have based on your profession ("oohh a doctor"), health ("oohh she's skinny and eats right), habits (non-smokers). Eventually that bubble will pop or cancers/diabetes and other ridiculous ravagers of our species will be eliminated. Class has a real shot of being eliminated then.
- seanlinehan 14y agoThis is the dream, at least.
- socialist_coder 14y agoHow do you think we, as individuals who wish to change this, can do it?
- jacques_chester 14y agoEmergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. GDP is a derived statistic. > I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures. And your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck. Real hard.
- nhaehnle 14y agoAnd your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck. Real hard. Don't think in terms of The Alternative System, just think in terms of the small things that can make life better. Things like reduced working hours to have more time for family, or better economic freedoms for everyone. Those things do not represent a change in The System. In particular, they are perfectly compatible with allowing private initiative in the market. In fact, they enhance private initiative overall, in areas outside of the market (having more time outside of work can translate to becoming engaged in local community organizations, to give just one example).
- pjzedalis 14y agoIf enough people say they are done with 40+ hour work weeks and only will do 35 companies will adapt. So far there has not been enough people willing to do so.
- jayferd 14y agoI'm done with it, and all my current and future employers know it. But I'm in a pretty privileged position to be able to meet my needs working part-time.
- bksenior 14y agoIts actually quite simple. We need a massive dose of social proofing amongst those that have already attained the peak of accomplishment as seen in the current system to change their behavior. We are no different now than when we were 6 watching our parents. You emulate those you think live right, and the people that live right in the eyes of those under the spell of the implications of the article look to fame, money and power. If those that wied those act a certain way, those new ways become the pinnacle. This solution is the only non forceful way.
- atsaloli 14y agoWitness Bhutan's Gross National Happiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
- swah 14y agoTrue, but that can only work if it happens naturally. If you force me to be happy, I will be very sad.
- andy_boot 14y agoI always used to believe happiness was the most important thing for a society. Then I read Brave new world. Happiness taken to extremes. Now I'm not so sure.
- karinqe 14y agoI recommend reading about the Fun Theory: http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/ > Fun Theory is the field of knowledge that deals in questions such as "How much fun is there in the universe?", "Will we ever run out of fun?", "Are we having fun yet?" and "Could we be having more fun?"
- precisioncoder 14y agoI find that we combine too many things into our word happiness. We combine joy, pleasure, satisfaction, excitement, comfort, etc etc. Happiness to me often loses meaning since the happiness that I strive for, satisfaction at building things is completely different than that of others. Brave new world is very much a happiness of instant gratification as well as contentment in your place in society. I would say that happiness of this sort is very unhealthy for a society that has advancement as one of it's goals.
- davidw 14y agoYou know what, though? Roughly, people are happier in countries where they are wealthy enough to buy things they want. A lot of "alternative" measuring sticks are far more susceptible to political fiddling, or are meaningless. That doesn't make GDP the be-all and end-all of measuring how a country is doing, but it's not as bad as all that, either.
- moconnor 14y agoWealth correlates with a lot of things, such as health and buying power. It's too large a stretch to say being able to buy things increases happiness. Perhaps just being wealthy enough to have good healthcare does it. Could be many things.
- Ntrails 14y agoWealth and good healthcare are not always correlated.