I hate to see people condemned by their environment to a life of famine, poverty, disease and death. I believe that the best way to change this in the long run is not through charity, but through the creation of systems that tend to reduce those effects.
I have heard, and would tend to agree that the best global predictor of health is a first-world economy, by leaps and bounds. And yet through the structure of our aid programs we propogate the poverty we claim to be working to eliminate.
A question was posed, after a fashion, based on the concept that pooer, even destitue groups of people seem happier than we in the great ol' US seem to be. That even seems to make sense. My first response would have been "you mean, those who live past the age of five seem generally happier" but that would have been both harsh and a distraction from the matter at hand. But, also true.
Happiness is a funny thing. Economists labor under the idea that more stuff makes people happier - allocating goods and services in a way that maximises individual "utility" is what economics is founded on. But it is an important principle that utility is not comparable between people. You can't simply sum up a population's utilities, because there isn't an accurate measure of such things. This is how having more things in the US may not make us happier than people in poor nations: we have lots of stuff, but that simply forms the background of our lives - and additional happiness-inducing things sufffer from diminishing marginal returns.
Expectations are crucial - the same event, with different expectations, produces all sorts of different emotional responses. At a wedding, the bride and groom and those who expect much happiness for the two of them rejoice. A man going through a bitter divorce may feel pity for the expected misery these two are headed for; I am sad because I am reminded of something I desire but don't expect for myself. Joy, pity, sorrow. One event. Is any of these feelings inaccurate?
For people in Kenya, poverty, disease and death are likely expectations for many people. Those things that are not poverty, disease and death are therefore welcome events, and all the better because of the gulf between those expectations and reality. For Americans, health, wealth and success are the expectations, and those things which fall short of those expectations are all the worse by comparison. And so a can of cold soda for a Kenyan may be an unbelievable joy while it is something the American consumes without thinking.
Should we, therefore, decide that in order to make people happy we will impoverish the world? Throw ourselves in front of the bullet of wealth? Is it better that a healthy child is an expectation, or that a healthy child seems to be a miracle, it is so rare an event?
In the best of both worlds, we receive the former (many healthy births, and other good things) without ceasing to be grateful for them. It is with this attitude that I would love to see the world changed: abundance with gratitude, not to the benevolent US or Gates Foundation, but to the giver of all good gifts.
2 comments:
To put the opening idea in the mouth of a most credible source, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Luke 6. I wonder somewhat more specifically: should I impoverish myself?
I guess for policy issues I lean toward Solomonic wisdom, that of moderation: do not make me rich that I might curse You; do not make me poor that I might steal.
I think such a policy would be best for nation-states as well. Moderate wealth; basic Maslow's Pyramid type needs met.
Question: despite the role of expectations in understanding circumstances, isn't there some base-line that most people are most likely to be happy at, say 'fed, clothed, and sheltered,' with expectation such condition will persist.
Poverty is a funny thing. According to Jose's favorite, the Global Rich List, a person making the Federal minimum wage and working 20 hours per week is in the top 14.31% of the wealthy people in the world. Are they rich?
It'd be hard to say that at an arbitrary percentile, one is poor or rich, and I think that using Solomonic wisdom as stated is good for personal goals - contentment with what one has, provision for basic needs.
It is desireable from an economic standpoint to have equal trading partners - impoverishing another country is bad, because then they cannot buy our products. Should the US give up what it has until it comes down to the level of an African nation, or should it try to pull other nations up to its level?
I agree that basic needs must be met, but "basic" comes to mean different things, depending on expectations (see debate concerning Wal Mart and health benefits - now seen as an obligation by an employer, not a bonus or additional form of compensation).
Is there a baseline where people will be happy? I don't think so. I think satisfaction with what you have is a choice. A difficult choice, requiring effort and dedication, but it is how a priest who takes the Vow of Poverty can be happier than a professional athlete who always wants more.
Post a Comment