The debate about what constitutes happiness has been going on for thousands of years. It is unlikely ever to end. Even if scientists come up with a pill which, taken daily like a vitamin tablet, imparts an all-encompassing feeling of permanent contentment, that will not end the questions. Can such artificially induced euphoria really be happiness? Is not the contrasting experience of misery essential to any true knowledge of happiness? Is not a sense of achievement one vital ingredient in feeling happy? And so eternally and philosophically on and on the questions will remain.
Measurement features prominently in the debate. How does one measure happiness? It is easy to measure money in the bank, material goods accumulated, successes gained, power exercised, fame achieved. Yet all these together and happiness may not result. But most men and women prefer to be able to count their blessings rather than enjoy a nebulous bliss. So money, worldly success, possessions, power and fame are what most of us would choose over any vague experience of happiness if both were on offer. Indeed, there is a good case for claiming that if mankind’s goal had not always and simply been to get money, success, possessions, power and fame our species would not have made it this far. Through the millennia, generation after generation, the drive to attain these goals, not the mushy desire to be happy, is what has taken mankind to the top of the tree of life. And yet, though we have made it far indeed, is it not strange that the questions involving a satisfaction we cannot measure never go away?
The debate has long left the realm of philosophy and entered the arenas of political discussion and public policy. In 2006, for instance, Professor Richard Layard at the London School of Economics argued that unhappiness was a more serious social problem in Britain than unemployment. He pointed out that more people were claiming incapacity benefits because of depression than were on the dole. But even if the jobless outnumber the joyless the point remains. A British Prime Minister, David Cameron, asked his Office of National Statistics to examine his country’s “general well-being” (GWB) and not only GDP.
Such thinking has its origin in the teachings of Jeremy Bentham (born in l748) who advocated that policy makers should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. It is again becoming fashionable. The small Himalayan country of Bhutan has gone as far as formally adopting the concept of gross national happiness over gross national product as the parameter of its development success.
Happiness also appears prominently in America’s founding documents. However, the Declaration of Independence is careful not to say that government should pursue the happiness of its citizens, only that it should secure their inalienable right to pursue it themselves.
But people are irrepressibly strange. Quite often people have the knowledge and even the self-awareness to choose happiness and yet they fail to do so. A study conducted by Cornell University asked hundreds of people to say whether they would rather earn $80,000 per annum and sleep 7.5 hours per night or earn $l40,000 per annum and sleep 6 hours per night. 70% chose earning less and sleeping more. Similarly, two thirds said they would be happier earning less and living closer to friends rather than earning more in a strange city. And 40% said they would be happier paying significantly more rent in order to enjoy a commute of ten minutes rather than one of 45 minutes.
So, one would say, money isn’t everything. But the same study shows that what people would actually choose is different to what they say would make them happier. 17% of those who said they would be happier sleeping longer and earning less also said they would still choose the higher pay. 26% of those preferring the shorter commute over lower rent would still take the cheaper home and 22% of those valuing friends over money would still move to where the money is. It is not now, but for thousands of years, that men have changed and changed their minds about what the good life is.
Given the complicated nature of the subject and the waywardness of human motivation, it is certain that in the next elections none of the parties will include in their manifestos any plans to increase the quota of happiness in Guyana. It is likely that all the parties will proclaim the usual litany of promises to improve sky-high the standard of living of all Guyanese. Whether at the end of the day Guyanese will be any happier is another matter altogether.
