| Editors in charge: |
 |
Anne Katharine Dahl, NTNU |
 |
Anne Kathrine Slungård, SINTEF |
| Editor SINTEF: |
 |
Åse Dragland, SINTEF |
| Editors
NTNU: |
 |
Nina E. Tveter |
 |
Jan Erik Kaarø |
|
A
dollar a week
 |
Emil Røyrvik (31)
qualified as a social anthropologist at NTNU and is now a researcher
at SINTEF Industrial Management where he works with learning, knowledge
and culture in the working life.
Foto: Roar Øhlander |
They have given us nerves, anxiety, paranoia, psychosis,
depression, phobia and various derangements. The list of miseries is long,
from birth trauma via bed-wetting and many mid-life crises to potency
problems and Alzheimer’s disease. Finally, psychologists have come
up with findings on something nice – happiness.
*
With names like Ed Eiener, David Myers, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Norbert
Schwartz, Daniel Kahneman and naturally David Lykken (whose surname means
happiness in Norwegian), the psychology of the last decade shows sensational
results for the reasons for human happiness. There is a surprisingly high
level of agreement for the following conclusions:
- Almost everyone (around 90 percent) is surprisingly happy nearly
all the time and all consider themselves happier than everyone else.
- Totally decisive events one would have thought would influence happiness,
like winning the lottery or losing your partner, only have a short-term
effect, like six months to one year.
- Every person remains in or around their stable level of happiness,
a level that is mainly the result of genes and which is extremely resistant
to influence.
- Common factors like gender, age, nationality, income, place of residence
and level of education have very little connection with happiness. However,
people in developing countries suffering from starvation, sickness and
suppression are less happy. A minimum calorie intake and physical security
rapidly increase the level up to the stable level of happiness, while
further increases in prosperity do not lead to increases in happiness
*
Great that things are good, you are thinking, but so what? This provides
us with the best ammunition to “slaughter” some of the things
that we consider to be most sacred. If it were common knowledge that material
abundance has absolutely no effect on how we experience happiness, we
would suddenly be free of advertising, the identity industry, branding,
all sorts of sales people and sales strategies. When will we hear the
last word from the consumer culture?
The permeating dogma about economic growth can also take two or three
hard knocks. If growth does not have any effect on people’s experience
of living a good life, why do we bend over backwards for this growth dictatorship?
And even though harping on about the results from the psychologists can
be dangerous for your health if technological advances and political reforms
don’t make us happier, there should still be room for some change.
*
It is, therefore, also a factor that abundance is played up. When we have
received the basic necessities of life, like food, clean water and physical
safety, the other things don’t play a part in our experience of
happiness. Therefore, to maximise the total amount of happiness on earth,
the best we can do, according to Danish popular scientific author Tor
Nørretranders, is for every one of us who belongs to the wealthy
billion on earth to give one dollar a week to the billion who are starving.
*
An annual figure of $US 50 million is sufficient to end starvation in
the world. I have followed Nørretranders’ example and paid
the “annual global tax” to www.netaid.org to achieve an end
to starvation. In this way, we will get a happy world in addition, without
reducing anything. If that does not work, we should bite the dust.
|
|