The Happy Planet Index

Source: The Happy Planet Index

By Abdallah, Saamah et. al. of the New Economics Foundation, 2009

Synopsis: The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an attempt to measure our well-being in terms of long, happy and meaningful lives relative to our rate of resource consumption.

Reflection:

What a noble thought. In fact, the thought that we can measure our well-being in terms of happy life years (life satisfaction x life expectancy) relative to resource consumption was so noble as to be laughable. The authors even used one of my hated terms, “good.” At least, that was my first impression.

The reality is, this document is more social science than it is Kumbaya-around-the-campfire, and at its heart is representative of what I view as the greatest change in mindset necessary for sustainable development (at least here in the developed world): debunking the myth that life satisfaction is dependent on material wealth.

And…that’s where I hit some kind of conceptual wall. I feel like I get that, although I’m haunted by the knowledge that my way of life is probably not sustainable either, meaning that, even if everybody on earth consumed exactly as much as I do, we would still exceed the carrying capacity of the planet, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves. The social science.

The NEF actually based this paper on sound research, based on survey data taken from 143 countries representing 99% of the world’s population (I know, which 1% got left out?). The question is simple: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” Despite its simplicity, it has been shown to be both valid and reliable and has been correlated to other measures. Life expectancy was taken from the Human Development Index report, which contains data from 2005. The resource consumption variable was taken from the WWF’s Living Planet Report from 2008. Potential PhD thesis: tear this entire equation apart. For the sake of this blog, we’re going to accept their findings as accurate.

I left this document with two enduring understandings. One, non-material aspirations and social relations are at the heart of sustainable living, and two, I’m not convinced that any solutions which rely on altruism are feasible.

I’ll start with the former, and it’s very, very simple. Our culture of consumption is not sustainable. What’s underneath that culture is not so simple (which is just fine with somebody in possession of such a deep understanding of socioanthropology). Considering this just left me with Big Questions. How and why did our culture of consumption arise? What does it indicate about our culture? How do we adequately deal with that issue, i.e. how do we change people?

No matter the answers to these questions, this is another resource citing a lack of correlation between material wealth and life satisfaction. Note: life satisfaction is correlated to material wealth below a certain point. That point is far lower than Americans would be comfortable acknowledging. I don’t doubt most Americans would sacrifice some material wealth in exchange for greater life satisfaction, but how much? Would we go without our TVs? Cars? Our 8,000 square foot homes? This source makes reference to our educational system as an avenue of change. Fat chance. Our educators have no hope of leading their students to lead more sustainable lives when all of our students’ idols are, literally, the poster-children for excessive lifestyles. I cite the HBO series Entourage. What we really need is a celebrity who vaunts his/her sustainable lifestyle. How about a multi-millionaire who lives in a small but comfortable home with, dare I say it, only one automobile? Wow. That came out a little snarkier than intended, but I won’t retract it.

Regarding my latter understanding about solutions based on altruism. Allow me to explain. This resource states, “This [decoupling of development from environmental impact and well-being] requires technical solutions, but also requires tough leadership from government and a fundamental shift in the aspirations of normal people.” Of these statements, the latter is more important, but governments cannot mandate this. From The Story of B, by the every-quotable Daniel Quinn, “If the world is saved, it will not be by old minds with new programs but by new minds with no programs at all.” Governments CANNOT mandate this, and if we sit around waiting for these changes via government programs, we do so at our own peril. Maybe this is the Ayn Rand influence at work, or maybe it’s the aforementioned conceptual wall, being raised in this culture of consumption, but I do not see those with the financial wealth necessary to take care of the sick and starving doing so because they recognize it as the right thing to do. How many millionaires, most of whom worked hard for their money, would sacrifice enough of that to take care of the needy?

It is this train of thinking that has lead me into a kind of dark place. I don’t believe in the power of mandates to bring us to sustainability. I can’t conceive of a way to change enough minds to bring us to sustainability. Oh, we’ll get it, eventually, but with what quality of life will we be left?