This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should Governments start to measure what really matters to people - their happiness? Or should they stay out of such a private matter?
David Cameron, UK prime minister, has recently announced that the UK will create a new indicator of National Well-being. He said as much in his TED talk last year and now he is walking his TED talk! This is something we have argued for at new economics foundation for some time - and I also lay out my thoughts in my recent TED book - The Happiness Manifesto. But are we right? Is this a valid aim of government? Or should government just simply stay out of such a private realm? Indeed can government stay out of this realm? Fo example unemployment makes people unhappy but does inflation? Should a government therefore concentrate more on security of jobs than controlling the money supply? What about education - should kids be educated to fulfil labour market requirements or to lead fulfilling lives? So many areas that Governments touch our lives - the economy, the financial markets, health services, schools, local engagement and the built environment. How could they be different - nay better?
DISCUSS ... I would love to know TEDsters views!
Greg Stevenson
Simona Stoicescu
Of course I can find my happiness no matter what the external conditions are, but if there is something to be done to have a clean environment, a fair treatment, rights respected, value for my person, the govern has one of the biggest powers. And the compass and only goal for a govern IS to assure the HAPPINESS OF THE PEOPLE, because this is the essence of all laws, regulations, etc... It is not about anything else, all is about people, if they are happy or not. So simple. And each party proposes a way or an other to make us happy, nothing else, in the essence. So, why not have the happiness measured?
Eric Lawton
There was an accompanying advertisement with a picture of a battlefield with one soldier applying a white patch and the slogan "Stop severe bleeding fast - saves lives" (sorry, I'm not going to give them another ad).
Gross Domestic Product would be improved by the gun sale, the ammo, and the anti-coagulant. Even "better" would be if the anti-coagulant didn't work and a funeral was necessary. Surely we can devise a measure which better reflects how well a nation is doing than the GDP. And as others have pointed out in this thread, the U.S. constitution guarantees "pursuit of happiness" so how do we know how well they are doing in enabling this if there is no measure of success? I know it was pointed out that it is only the right to engage in the pursuit, not the achievement, but we can leave it to the citizen to do the pursuing and take the average achievement as being a proxy measure for the success of enabling of the pursuit which is the government's constitutionally required job. It would certainly be a better measure than GDP.
Fernando Esquivel
I would like to say in first place that I am nothing more than a mere ninth grade student, but that still I have very strong beliefs.
Now in second place I'm going to say that yes a goverment should worry about its country's well being, because well how can they expect to rule over a country that isnt happy not only with them but also with an between themselves. So yes they shoul worry and take part in this matter.
Now also I'm going to give my point of view in schools teaching about how to fulfill filling lives. Yes indeed they should for f not how can we know wether something is good or bad or can we expect to be happy if no one is showing us how to and the role we have nowadays is the one of hapiness equals money, but no it does not. I believe it would please you to know, Mr. Nic that I am from Costa Rica, and that after having watched your ted talk about the happy planet index I felt very curious about wether or not we really are a happy place, and what I found out is that as a matter of fact we are most if not all of the people around me are happy despite of their age or despite the fact that some of them have many problems, and I believe that this is because we are taught well at least most of us that we must apreciate what we have and that we must shar and be polite and kind to each other, but things are changing and even me a mere boy of 14 years of age can tell. I will dare to say that this is because people no longer care a out respect to our elders, and important things like morale are being lost at schools and religion as well. I was taught that God is hapiness that he is love and most pure expression of good and that because of this we should aspire to him. But then the teachings of my religion are the same things that Socrates said two thousand years ago which I assume you all know so if you do not want to believe in my religion at least believe in philosophy and its virtues.
Mr. Nic I would like to know what you think about what I said. :)
Benita Parker
Nic Marks 100+
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/measuring-our-progress
There is also the OECD wikiprogress site:
http://www.wikiprogress.org/index.php/Main_Page
(this has masses of leads to follow up!)
Nic
Benita Parker
Kind Regards,
Benita
Liz McLellan 100+
E G 10+
Liz McLellan 100+
E G 10+
Ashley Vanbrabant
To be more effective governments should survey how fullfilled poeple's lives are. fullfillment is much deeper than happiness, and fullfilled people just tend to be a bit more happy. :)
Sara Mayhew 100+
Ben Jarvis 50+
Axel Saffran 200+
I agree that physical comfort is probably highly overrated, to say the least, as a factor contributing to well-being. From what I have observed, it's the other way around: the less pampered people's lives are in the physical sense (while having their basic needs met) the less burdened they are, and thus better off.
@Ben Explicitly going after it may indeed lead to hedonism and false choices, whereas a life devoted to something outide of you, brings you happiness as a side effect.
Chip Conley mentioned in his talk that the Bhutanese Prime Minister said that their goal was also not to generate happiness, but to "create the conditions for happiness to occur".
This seems like the right approach on a macro-scale, and I assume that likewise, individuals create these conditions by focussing their energies outside themselves with good intention.
Aimee Christensen 100+
Axel Saffran 200+
When viewing a country as an entity, not only does it make perfect sense to devise measuring tools and metrics to scientifically assess what is needed to increase well-being, it seems unwise not to.
Raheel Lakhani
Leland "Lee" Larson 200+
And, it does remind me of Buddha's reflection that "the root of all suffering, is that of comparison." Meaning to me," are you happy?" being the wrong question. It requires me to compare, pick the numero uno "happy meal" of my life or however recent time period ... and now sort of measure any new event on this fictional scale.
When I do that, I find myself boxed and judged by me, ultimately paying the price of straight-jacketing my consciousness, suffering the fool in me. Got it all figured so on with the show....
Sarah Skeem
If a government were to decide to measure the true well-being of its citizens then one would need to ask the following questions: What is the driving force behind the measurement? For what purpose? Is it being measured with sincerity? What is the practical application of the information? What are the benefits of measuring happiness? If it’s purely political motivation as a talking point, well then, it’s worthless and could potentially be harmful. But if the information were gathered to ensure the conditions for the pursuit of happiness were possible then I’m in support…send me the questionnaire (just don’t ask me where I like to be tickled).
Sarah Skeem
Ask yourself, would you prefer to live in a country that promotes peace and personal happiness (a happiness many of us have forgotten to recognize) or one that promotes political power and accumulation of resources?
Bhutan seems to accomplish the task of measuring happiness quite successfully, but many westernized countries have very different cultural values. Those values are shaped by the society we are raised in. Bhutan’s goal is to pursue the simplicity of being “good human beings”. Their most important goal IS the happiness of the people, which is based on deeply spiritual motivations. The US culture, my culture, was founded on certain principles (freedom, equality and pursuit of happiness) that have morphed under motivations of personal gain and the pressure to be “The World’s Policeman”, “The World’s Banker”, “A Super-Power” and a nation of self-made multimillionaires living the “American Dream”. I think the real question to ask is “have countries adopted false ideas of happiness that ARE being measured, but prevent nations from fostering true well-being for its citizenry?” (side note…I LOVE my country warts and all).
Sarah Skeem
I read through the thread of answers and I’m surprised many did not answer it directly. I read a lot of cynicism and negativity toward government and anything pertaining to government. I read numerous comments posing the question of whether happiness can be defined, or is it even an end goal. I read questions asking how measurement is possible. Very few people however answered the question directly or even questioned the validity of the question.
When asked “should governments start to measure what really matters to people-their happiness” I’d answer that one could argue they already do. I will use the United States as my example. The US Government measures GDP which sums up the standard of living of its citizens. Wages, profits, economic growth, employment, corporate profitability, number of new business start-ups, graduate and post graduate degrees and national test scores are all measured by the government and since US citizens (I am stereotyping here, but reasonably so) seem to value money, success, power and prestige one could argue these things are their version of happiness and they are already being measured. If this were the case, then the answer to the second question is that the citizens don’t view the matter private and in fact are even happier when their success and “happiness” is broadcast to the world.
One could also read the first question and ask is happiness (as the author of the question is intending it) what really matters to citizens? Perhaps. Many peoples’ lives are lived miserably as a result of their own actions which never seem to change…so are they even interested in happiness?
Charlie Kimball
"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness." (my emphasis added to pursuit)
From the Declaration of Independence, you have the right to pursue your happiness, that doesn't mean you are going to get it. So the US government should only be doing enough so that her citizens can safely pursue what makes them happy without infringing on someone else's rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Steven Postle
I think trying to keep everyone happy is a battle no-one should start. Perhaps governments should be creating a society that enables people to be flexible with their lives in a way that doesn't leave employers in shit and our economy screaming. Most people stay in crappy situations because it's just easier. Figure that one out and I think governments will be one step closer. I know a lot of people that go through cycles; They're not happy with their situation, so they change it and slowly bring themselves out of a hole. Only to find something else wrong with their new situation and do it all over again. Can we change something that may actaully be built into us as humans?
liam o'dugan
Liz McLellan 100+
Christophe Cop 500+
I would vote for all proposals that would go in this direction.
A government that knows the psychology of men, has a higher probability of making decisions that are apt.
Broader:
Why is there a government?
Given your answer to this, we could argue whether it is sufficiently useful for that government to obtain such data.
If you assume a government must stick to providing minimal services, it would be a useless thing for them to do
If you assume a more powerful government that must include a focus on the augmentation of the general well-being of it's citizens, It would be almost unthinkable that they would not try to obtain such data.
My personal opinion:
* in an open government model, they should focus on measuring as much as possible.
(I see a government as a brain of a nation, but I'm not going to elaborate on that metaphor now)
Carol Wellington
Nic Marks 100+
Bart Vickers
I would look to our governments to create an environment in which we can pursue our individual experiences of happiness and contentedness (without hurting others), but nothing more beyond that.
Nic Marks 100+
Bart Vickers
I suppose that at the crux of this is the big question of "how?" From a historical perspective here in the States, our government has mucked things up with astonishing reliability when trying to help things along. And if one is to agree with Cato's (the institute, not the philosopher) assessment of happiness data, freer (less government regulation) economies tend to correlate with higher happiness. Could Cameron use this proposed new metric as an argument for more conservative economic policy?
Another question (and this gets quite heady) is this: is happiness the state of being that one should strive for? I often wrestle with that question myself. While I enjoy happiness, I find myself at my most productive when driven by a profound sense of incompleteness. Not inadequacy, but of potential unfulfilled. While not "happy" at those times, I'm certainly my most creative, engaged, and motivated.
Good topic!
Liz McLellan 100+
(As for personal happiness I share your take which sounds like the book Flow written by a nice Czech man whose name I am not going to attempt to spell right now)
Tim Colgan 50+
As long as our goal remains on maximizing GDP we're going to destroy the planet, remain in endless wars fighting over dwindling resources and work ourselves to death. Humans are capable of more.
So yes, I think there is a need to focus on citizen well-being. And although it will be flawed (and in need of constant refinement) a way to measure it would be useful.
Sandeep Gautam
1) is happiness the ultimate personal/collective objective (my answer is yes)
2) Should governments intervene to ensure that the ultimate collective/personal objective (be it money or happiness) is maximized- if not directly aim for making people wealthy/happy, to at least ensure the conditions for economic stability/ flourishing; emotional stability/ flourishing. ?
Again my answer is yes, government are there to govern the relationship between individuals/ collectives ; by narrowly focusing on 'ensure that contracts are enforced' we are falling in the domain of reciprocity when talking about human relationships- a market focussed viewpoint that is based on personal self -interest and reciprocity , ensuring that contracts are honored will lead to good outcomes. However Steven pinker has been pointing out that human relationships fall at least in 3 domains - dominance, mutuality/ friendship and reciprocity. While money , centered around reciprocal relationships , is suited for 'market taking care of itself' mentality; what works in one domain dos not necessarily work in other domain. If we aim for maximizing happiness, we move into domains of mutuality/friendships where contacts between people are shown to have larger effect on happiness than contracts and we need new ways of thinking about Governments role- ensure that relationships are healthy/ intimate?
And what role government plays and what decision it makes will vitally depend on whether happiness is end goal or economic prosperity. Suppose many call centers are being set in India and are leading to economic prosperity, but at the same time due to night shift work/ some other reason are putting people at much stress and unhappiness perhaps leading to fragmentations of relationships as measured by increasing divorce rates etc in that population - in that case govt incentives to that industry maybe inline with economic imperative but not happiness goal.
Brent Thurston-Rogers
How to operate a widely-connected system of governing? Simple really. Everyone expresses their answer to a posed question. Exactly. I hear you all yelling “referenda”. It’s the connecting that might be difficult. I hereby claim as my intellectual property www.referenda. When 60 million Brits are signed up, David C. can pose his first question.
Mine would be “Should we ban exporting weapons?”
Straight to the point yet impossible to ask in any chamber of government. Why? Because, and herein lies the problem with the whole “happiness” nonsense, no one in government speaks on behalf of the nation, each and every one is beholden to someone exerting influence, even if, on the lowest level, it is his or her spouse. Realistically, it is on a level of lobbying, money and blackmail. The UK is the world’s 2nd largest exporter of weapons. How in the world can that be in the interests of the British people. It is not, thus proving that our interests do not count. The “Are you happy?” campaign is a smoke screen.
Cameron, if you want to connect, ask us what we want or better yet, what we don’t want, tabulate the responses and make it happen. Then most of us will be happier and we can move on to the next problem irking us. See how it works, David? Think of it as “Why are you miserable?” campaign.
brent
Axel Saffran 200+
Money politics, however, is something that can only gradually wane, not something that can be changed overnight. The other end of the spectrum would be "happiness politics". (which you seem to view rather cynically)
There is no 1 solution for making the shift toward more happiness-oriented politics, not even embracing referenda as primary guidance tool in decision making. Referenda are of limited use, because hardly anybody is informed enough on most subjects to help guide collective policy. Having specialized representatives doing that for you is a good idea.
The corruption corporate lobbying introduces in terms of politicians representing "the people", is something that will diminish as constituencies get organized in their own lobby groups on subjects that matter to them.
In this respect the internet is a blessing. People are making themselves heard like never before. (Avaaz, Amnesty, var. petitions)
A good example is the grassroots resistance against factory farming in the Netherlands at the moment. Animal rights organizations, backed by scientists, use their funds to INFORM THE LARGER PUBLIC, including those who presently still care most about cheap meat, about what factory farming actually entails these days.
Right now, Dutch parlement has established a moratorium on newly built CAFO's until the impacts on human health, animal welfare, the environment have been properly assessed.
People have to be properly informed first. Only then is it possible to politically leverage the expertise and drive that is present in specialized NGO's. These groups need large numbers of people backing them to be effective players.
This is only going to get better, since it is so much easier to connect to people.
And: this is also is changing the way corporations operate. They are more and more inclined to use NGO-knowledge in their decision-making.
Information is the key. Once informed, focus momentum through NGO's to influence policy.
Liz McLellan 100+
*I kid
Liz McLellan 100+
Happiness is a mood that comes and goes depending on what one is doing. It's not possible to lock it in. It is a by product of an activity which you are deeply engaged it.
Contentment may not be such a good thing...where else does the impulse to improve the world come form but discontent.
Well-being however allows one to engage productively in the world....and states have an interest in developing the wide basis for well being for the populace.
Randy Robida
Liz McLellan 100+
-infant mortality
-number of men over 80 without dimentia
-number of volunteer projects
-number of people who play music as a hobby (whatever...)
( I am sleepy and admittedly this is a list of the top of my head)
The only role for the state here is transparently measuring success and failure year after year on metrics that citizens AGREE on...
Many nations are moving in this direction as a matter of transparency not as a matter of determining choices for citizens but as a representation of the veracity of their policy and ideological claims. That I can't imagine any rational person objecting to...
Robert Schueler
Randy Robida
Nic Marks 100+
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/measuring-our-progress
Later today I was in a meeting in the UK Houses of Parliment - an all party committee on measuring well-being. A prominent member of the UK government talked very openly about how politics all over the world had become very dry and was afraid of people's emotional lives. He was almost lamenting about how nearly all of us read novels, are moved by aesthetics and have strong emotional relationships - but somehow this is not valid for politics. Why? How have we let the political realm become so seperate from people's actual lived experience?
Adam Burk 500+