|
马上注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册
×
Living standards have soared during the twentieth century, and " ~# F+ y( V9 S O2 m
' e3 U6 `$ R# M& ^( S8 ?+ W3 j( xeconomists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does \; I5 y; ~9 j6 A
2 T# T6 C* h0 }; [that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness?
& Z- |% S7 K2 X4 T) f7 B& ? I- `6 n1 E/ C+ k3 t( ~3 C/ K3 m
( v" J2 k$ P8 f" d
Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the * }$ U3 L3 O9 z
; [- C3 _9 X% o( l) p% mUniversity of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant:
# N: {# Z6 J9 `$ n( n
1 z, \, A' V( ]; l2 g# ^The Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes ( \% M: r- G$ ~; C. G
2 W; t5 o! M' X# q7 }8 ythat richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy
; o- M' [9 s# V) c& `8 A: o u, b
. r# q6 h' a3 Fthan poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy
: M6 W; t8 h6 p. V+ I4 I- c m% @- v9 {
have not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self-
/ _ X: x; \4 k4 ~. N/ z7 ]6 p* }6 X( I+ Z( n ~! h
assessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in
2 y2 s& z! x+ B8 i8 u( j7 a5 g3 Y
, b& r3 [ \- Laverage happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a 3 h5 p/ e0 U, y$ w
+ z! c( _% `4 G$ m5 \- l" D
period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin " A. f5 R7 U |- M
0 `6 E3 v! ~1 F4 I9 p- K6 Greports.
3 R- }9 t, } ]1 S- T6 e1 a: b3 Q. m# E: ~* k) p
The explanation for this paradox may be that people become less
/ H& v" x6 Z8 H7 G; u$ u+ M. U: F) }( h. S
satisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word: - `7 v, }+ |0 ^
X+ ?( O) m& b- n"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this
" u8 O. T- _+ ^1 _( h5 C& B) B5 A: e$ ^$ x
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness
5 D# A- y! K$ S" q6 l. d8 n* ~( _! s; N$ N3 A7 @( `
due to higher income." 3 n E: J' i( r6 `% ]# p% _4 }: |
1 V* l6 p! J" E/ O# qMoney can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if
X( t% H! p* A q5 X) v9 i* a7 K2 v
one‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His $ q4 B. ~1 M6 P. n9 H+ D
|+ N/ H6 _ c' x, Vanalysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that
5 B3 e( m" E# G; L7 F) |+ H2 w; A3 H7 j2 ^& @
Americans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose
! b- @9 [1 @8 u! v3 S$ H k
% V2 \9 L, {1 L" ^3 b$ {; v4 ~; f _between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita 6 t5 W4 g: Q" \" ?6 v" m5 W
, o0 x- `( i1 [( s) eincome. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we
+ Q) K7 e f3 h" }8 O9 v! k. k4 I8 i/ _! f; ^& @
have less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.
2 Y1 d7 ^5 f$ Z5 v4 ~* Y( k5 r+ n, y" Q1 g' z# g
Easterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s 9 }5 t; ]' i# i/ _( l7 j+ o
5 q7 Z3 @1 l' |( q9 e' V* k"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.
' S6 g8 M, Q8 i5 |& B7 n, g9 g& D! k* q- u
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied 7 Q7 H% E( z& I6 h7 J
8 G) E m* U& t9 H& h
they seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s : X# W4 I; N! K7 C
- o9 G2 W3 G; x2 D3 T% Z
evidence points to the persistence of materialism.
( c7 B6 i) ?, f# R. ]6 \' H k6 X/ h D
"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the 8 y* a3 q- @2 ]7 v3 C2 X
6 F( w. q: f9 t' Ohistory of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the
8 P7 D2 j) C6 y9 ?: \
2 Y( }4 q* t5 H0 Q4 c3 awealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of
- y- M! | s8 |/ z/ h
+ a( Z" {, e" u5 c8 U% Pmaterial need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution
4 b7 C9 m0 l8 d' Q9 Y
4 m% l( Z# m: ~* V1 k) q* ptoward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
' M. r2 R6 P- Z$ E7 X: {/ x
' o5 q3 B S) Z1 _. u8 O, h% keconomic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead ; f: x5 ^' n/ v1 Y( _7 x
G5 T/ a. u9 l% `. x; n/ ^& R
the chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money + t. [& U9 N, m; f' E/ `
# v! j' d! f) @/ d
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
! j9 V C2 `" b4 P8 y% c
5 |: u3 n: S7 ]" `' B"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being b( F. w. N e# e; u
% U% G \( D2 I# e# {' o9 j" z6 Fdeflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield
; \ e$ w1 G6 X% M. U4 `# H$ l
" `# P) \; e( r$ ~" pessentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be
; H* Q h5 R3 l1 U- @2 N- E" N, A* U6 F+ f. d
pleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a 2 ]: h( U- o3 b* n$ y" x
! N$ V2 M0 f7 j+ L) [! w
more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in H! F- x: P& F
( a) I ?! t7 y1 @which generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to * u* g3 Y$ F2 s* Y8 o
# j1 U. ~ y6 M" d2 |7 K
20% more income to be perfectly happy.
4 V! I! p! L: S: C' z( @2 @2 S" [5 |/ U
Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for 1 L, J0 P7 W$ ^; W
) K* V+ c* O+ y; G* l3 J. ^envy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking ! _$ |8 `9 f7 y
8 ], S6 s1 b* Q$ H3 F0 `$ P) B
that of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in
/ @: t) A7 U' I# M5 \* o% `3 T4 Q7 D/ u" B# s1 Z. R& `2 T- C
Easterlin‘s view.
7 @5 E. [; u) j* z3 a. Z" v6 }" A; s5 n
"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is
! T- j4 {% [) K7 z$ [9 Q+ _5 p1 a$ }; k3 [6 [& x8 F! G5 ?; s( a
leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever
+ E6 I6 v8 y" C; f8 b. U# R
# F4 Q# ?7 o0 igrowing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in " L# ~5 ~8 b' p+ B
, |0 s/ P7 D2 ^; zwhich cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve ' k. ^; E) U: f9 z5 o5 Q S, O4 ~
) y& V1 g9 {5 Z2 J* f2 o9 Q8 E3 Pthe goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in
; w1 z; Q/ G' O% V7 V4 G/ n+ a: G R9 b! A- u
science and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity % U+ h5 _/ t* E) i3 f
2 b U4 W6 `% K; V
of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last
8 a0 O3 m! X( x* [$ ]& P$ @9 B- r. q' G1 [$ j+ B
respect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no / [7 {' u; g, }, A
7 g" [4 a$ g! v, y# q6 w: t8 @choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of
: r R7 a% N* t/ c
* q3 i6 S, z. z: ]humanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material
/ K6 ]5 h3 M. g- h: W8 J8 @) d% x+ X' a. W7 p' s& n |$ B
wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|