
Bhutan takes the next step in democratizing happiness - robg
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2010.04-field-note-hedonic-indicators/
======
lionhearted
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?

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

~~~
gyardley
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
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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....

------
mattchew
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
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#ci...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#cite_note-4)

~~~
mattchew
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
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
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
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_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

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...

~~~
mattchew
> Regarding 3: don't you think happiness should be optimized?

If happiness is defined as the feeling one gets from winning a bingo game or
watching a hilarious comedian, then nope, I sure don't.

If happiness is defined as behaving in the way that causes the largest
possible number to appear in the final cell of the National Happiness
Spreadsheet of the Ministry of Happiness, then no, I don't care about that
either.

If happiness is defined as the vague and general satisfaction of human wants--
the economist's "utility"--then yes, or at least much closer to yes. But this
definition is too vague to lead to any widely shared ideas on how to measure
it or pursue it. It does suggest to me that the measuring and optimizing needs
to be done by the person experiencing the wants and the satisfying. But I
already know not everyone agrees with this. :)

 __*

I watched the Harris lecture. A few thoughts:

He really didn't make his claim that science answers moral questions. If we
_assume_ the moral premise that humans should not suffer, then some other
things logically follow, and perhaps science will later tell us some useful
conclusions there that we don't know now. I agree that there is enough hard-
wired similarity in human nature that some premises like "people should not
suffer" can be widely accepted and used as a starting point. Nevertheless,
widely shared assumptions is not the same thing as science having "proved"
those assumptions.

I don't think we have a lot of problem even today with the widely shared
assumptions. It's the ones that aren't shared that lead to the conflict. My
feeling is Harris wants to be the guy that gets to tell everyone else what
science has told us about morality, and then also get to declare the argument
over because it isn't his opinion, instead it is "science".

It is manipulative, and dishonest, to claim that science will be able to
answer moral questions objectively, and then proceed to "prove" this by using
examples of behavior that you know in advance your audience will find
offensive and outraging. Any preacher or imam can "prove" the will of God
using similar tactics.

He hints that brain state will eventually provide the new knowledge that we
need to answer questions of right and wrong. If I could, I would suggest that
he reread Brave New World. There was very little suffering or unhappiness in
that world--but I, and I think most people, wouldn't want to live there.

