« Would you do interracial? | Main | Wisdom from Kobe Bryant »
May 7, 2006
Happiness
It isn't new that people have been trying to measure happiness, or that governments could be measured, at least partly, on how happy they make its citizens (which is not something that I agree with any more than the government validating my relationship). It is interesting to see some of the notable, albeit vague, things that they have observed. (Here's how I stack up against the major checklist.)
In one study, the life span of people identified as happy is nine years longer than depressed people. That's 50% more of a difference than that between non-smokers and heavy smokers. Question: What if smoking makes you happy? Actually, does happiness get measured in terms of lasting effects, or transient ones? For example, if smoking makes me happy, then could that be a point in my favour if I were a long-term smoker?
They say that marriage is a huge factor as well. Firstly, define marriage. Does that mean making and keeping a long-term commitment to one person, or could it include other arrangements such as polyamourous lifestyles (which I think is already starting to make a mainstream push, and no, I'm not into it) Do they only study people that have been married by some governmental or legally-recognized religious authority? And wouldn't the loss of a spouse counteract the effect of the added happiness and therefore lifespan? I think that this has been fairly well-documented.
Similarly, I need their definition of friendship. In this age, it's relatively common for people to find deep friendships or more with people they have never met. I have a good friend in Toronto who I have met exactly twice in nine years. Does this count? Do drinking buddies count? Acquaintances through work or sports?
What's intriguing is that I could ditch all my friends for £50,000 and be just as happy. I admit, £50,000 is a lot of money, but I couldn't live with myself if I got rid of my friends for money. I know that's not what they said, but it does beg the scenario. It's a neat exercise to count up your friends and then figure that they are worth $X each.
They seem to stress that happiness is what counts, but there's so many kinds of happiness from so many sources. If collective happiness is the sum total of individual happinesses (so not a word) then doesn't this further stress the happiness of the individual as paramount? Doesn't the world need less of that? The idea would become, "As long as I am happy, that's all that matters. I'm doing my part." Hopefully we would realize that making other people happy will ultimately make society, and therefore yourself happy. That's how it should work. Not getting happy by making others unhappy. And that ideally would mean people living on the other side of the planet. But that's another post.
Posted by JonasParker at May 7, 2006 12:36 AM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)