Why Having More No Longer Makes Us Happy (AlterNet)

[marmar]

Why Having More No Longer Makes Us Happy

By Bill McKibben, Mother Jones. Posted March 22, 2007.



The formula of human well-being used to be simple: Make money, get happy. So why is the old axiom suddenly turning on us?

This article is an excerpt from Bill McKibben's new book, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. It first appeared in Mother Jones.

For most of human history, the two birds More and Better roosted on the same branch. You could toss one stone and hope to hit them both. That's why the centuries since Adam Smith launched modern economics with his book The Wealth of Nations have been so single-mindedly devoted to the dogged pursuit of maximum economic production.

Smith's core ideas -- that individuals pursuing their own interests in a market society end up making each other richer; and that increasing efficiency, usually by increasing scale, is the key to increasing wealth --have indisputably worked. They've produced more More than he could ever have imagined. They've built the unprecedented prosperity and ease that distinguish the lives of most of the people reading these words. It is no wonder and no accident that Smith's ideas still dominate our politics, our outlook, even our personalities.

But the distinguishing feature of our moment is this: Better has flown a few trees over to make her nest. And that changes everything. Now, with the stone of your life or your society gripped in your hand, you have to choose. It's More or Better.

Which means, according to new research emerging from many quarters, that our continued devotion to growth above all is, on balance, making our lives worse, both collectively and individually. Growth no longer makes most people wealthier, but instead generates inequality and insecurity. Growth is bumping up against physical limits so profound -- like climate change and peak oil -- that trying to keep expanding the economy may be not just impossible but also dangerous. And perhaps most surprisingly, growth no longer makes us happier. Given our current dogma, that's as bizarre an idea as proposing that gravity pushes apples skyward. But then, even Newtonian physics eventually shifted to acknowledge Einstein's more complicated universe. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/49593/

[Rydz777]

1. Home truths

Thanks for the post - a lot of home truths in this article. We are fast approaching our limits in so many areas, and the thought that the whole world (including China and India) can wallow in the kind of consumerism that we have promoted and enshrined as "the American dream" is absurd on the face.

[Javaman]

When had having more made people happy to begin with?

Maybe I'm missing something.

:shrug:

[Javaman]

2. When had having more made people happy to begin with?

Maybe I'm missing something.

:shrug:

[Gregorian]

3. Me ignored We.

But there is an inescapable truth that we are here together.

I'm very happy to see this article. It's like there are people beginning to discuss how I've privately felt for many years.

I'd love to have the ability to write my observations. They're simple. But they are not profound. They basically boil down to those two trees. But there is another way to look at those trees. Not just from the obtaining of things. But from the manufacturing perspective. One tree wants, and another tree produces those wants. An example is the person who wants a new house. And quite literally, the trees to make the wood come from another neighborhood. I just left my home because of that. And I see as clearly as day that this all boils down to education combined with responsibility. In the most basic sense. We've become detached. Noam Chomsky discusses this. But we must know or die. Time is almost out.

[Lasher]

4. Economic growth allows the population explosion and environmental destruction.

By the late great Steve Kangas:

Many people believe that economic growth is healthy. Indeed, high growth would solve many problems, like poverty, the trade deficit, the debt, etc. But it is impossible for economic growth to continue in a world of limited resources. The population explosion -- which has been created by improved science and productive technology -- is already running into declining resources in grain, seafood, meat, and fresh water. The result will be mass starvation and pitched competition for survival. The alternative is a sustained economy, which holds both the population and production levels constant.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-growth.htm

[starroute]

5. Non-zero-sum games

Leave happiness out of the equation. Money never did buy happiness, and the argument that it ever could is pretty much a paper tiger. But there is such a thing as achieving a higher quality of life, and that matters a lot.

The real secret is doing more with less. That's what Adam Smith's ideas ultimately boil down to. By using resources more efficiently, it becomes possible for everybody to live a little better and have increased opportunities open to them -- and without putting any additional strain on the planet.

The problem is that those ideas have been abused. Big corporations and megastores aren't necessarily more efficient -- they just have more power to screw over their employees and suppliers. Supposed productivity gains that come from making people work longer hours for the same pay aren't the same as enabling them to accomplish more with the same amount of time and effort.

Real efficiency comes through non-zero-sum games. Doing more with less, figuring out how to avoid waste, and making the same action do double-duty. It can be as simple as having fewer twists and turns in the layout of your pipes so the pump doesn't has to expend as much energy to move fluids through them.

I'll agree with the author that spending more doesn't make people happier. But getting more generally does -- and getting more while paying less is particularly satisfying.

I say this as someone who lived through the small-is-beautiful years of the 60's and 70's, and saw all that eventually rejected in favor of a return to bigger-is-better. Once the initial novelty wears off, simply asking people to give things up with no particular reward doesn't work. But offering them more for less just might.