What makes for happiness? The New Economic Foundation says it isn't economic growth. "Once our basic material needs are met, more consumption tends to make little difference in our well-being." The downside of growth is that more consumption is hard on the planet.
That, of course, can be turned into graphical and map terms. On one side is a combination of life expectancy and life satisfaction. On the other is the ecological footprint, a measure of resources needed to support a lifestyle. Maps in this posting show these two separate values in addition to the combination. If I interpret the color key correctly, if the whole world consumed like we do it would take more than 4 earths to provide enough resources. For the consumption rate of most countries it would take 2-3 earths.
That results in countries, mostly in Africa, with low scores in both life expectancy/satisfaction and in ecological footprint. They're not happy because of their need. Most of the Western countries have high scores in both categories. We're spending a great deal of the world's resources in pursuit of happiness and looking in the wrong places.
And then there are many countries, most in Latin America, in which they manage to have a high life expectancy/satisfaction and a low ecological footprint. They've found the balance (though still using more than 1 planetfull of resources).
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment