|
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
5 t. ?. w& M) j7 p5 m8 J/ o( [. f& N. A
economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does & l; B, b- b' Q* \
) @% `" a- Y2 ?& `that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness? {7 q$ [; l1 Q8 \( X9 d4 f
2 g' k2 ]6 A5 W) i
0 c2 q6 \6 o% V0 j" |) x, i
Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the 7 G. m. q F: B; z2 p5 S% b6 h
- n' O8 E* m' d; R2 | ^University of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant:
' \% [4 `! m" D& F9 }3 c" K* m: E5 b. o- N( K' E3 E
The Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes
& ^1 Q2 p) T7 \& {
2 ]$ j& F: A* {9 Gthat richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy / m/ a# h4 v' ? s
^0 @' b2 g1 othan poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy / M+ G) J: }# A
: U5 Y7 ^, _9 t4 P! a v
have not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self- n7 Q/ k4 }$ y- b# e% z5 [
+ i" L. e$ s! t6 J" Jassessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in ( ~7 g" `5 N- n. J9 E3 F3 }
; r B1 ?3 n3 T4 Y! o' o( I7 ~; Iaverage happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a
& M) B9 W, l: [8 E( f! U" p
" C% I0 b7 @; T! d* xperiod in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin
5 V( ?: n2 M% Q4 V; A% o% j( _! q
reports.
! ~2 j, \% \$ h) w
1 o, U0 V! J* m1 k9 PThe explanation for this paradox may be that people become less 2 L5 [, L* a& C9 X# w/ G# o' l
. r4 u+ x+ q4 l* z% a! Ysatisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word: ( J2 `6 A6 {3 H. H; w
$ {( X. K& O8 T. p
"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this
" y$ B' i8 S1 R/ X. j! ]2 k1 u
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness
8 R7 G' C) @% }; e
% Q- D$ H0 S& }due to higher income."
# d7 R$ i+ p$ i8 x
4 ]- K) a! Y6 t* a+ w# M7 q4 KMoney can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if
2 _4 s$ n1 \# c7 K9 j+ c, ]; O" Q$ ?4 q
one‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His
) m& ?# i8 d4 a
0 Y! {& y6 k4 A! X8 sanalysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that
# C9 I9 m+ b/ }/ W
6 y: b) h( u/ W9 f# kAmericans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose
. \: R6 F; \/ C; `8 n0 x% s# T- s" R: k' ~" y2 w+ N
between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita 9 s9 j- V% f, k, l% g- Z; n
% h( r O4 B: G r$ [' |income. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we 1 Q% \0 h+ W! ?
0 k: n8 e1 J0 @' O1 }: Y
have less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.
7 d* M- n+ |* P" S- }, Y. w+ k9 z
* G: ]; {0 B: Y5 x! EEasterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s
3 p$ m, A e* ]/ v( Y( a4 b Y' U' p% G2 n( h
"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation. 4 k3 r# `2 d1 c( O
7 n- Q) J2 H! @' O# MMaslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied 9 e" Y) t+ r, M! r; K
, a! i' `/ d* |! H
they seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s 5 \ M. M v/ ?8 R( m: a6 |
5 K( ?: n, e5 e
evidence points to the persistence of materialism.
" b q) p0 n1 _. C6 [! z
$ l, C9 s# \* ^# c& f1 v3 `"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the # k9 ]# k9 s6 w% t/ `
$ }- ~- E' c' d/ A! ^history of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the 5 r! c/ e0 ~$ G4 F$ W- O" E/ g( Y7 l
9 p% s/ s# v! f! ywealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of
: m/ A5 T: B# d4 \1 X" v, w+ {; Z9 m
material need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution
& \2 x7 r- @: G+ U+ }$ t8 y3 ]. z( P D( J; W* d5 v
toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
! A# _& t# k' W9 I& e- j; Q; M( E1 C( e8 E5 U. y$ b; x m: E
economic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead 9 C8 r9 |$ |! h4 F9 L5 `
6 U4 f- \- P, J5 j9 U) l8 E- S
the chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money ' c# ~/ w6 W+ p G+ C4 D
/ O1 \* i4 c& W& }
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
7 L' v5 [" W$ y, x% q$ @1 b2 A' \$ t$ T! U7 U: g+ a
"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being 5 S6 C% Q5 o* }* q$ K
& O; I$ Q) k) N" Sdeflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield ) i7 C9 [4 {5 E8 r
6 ~. m4 ^$ \/ _. O
essentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be
2 f; J0 x' o2 |5 J. | V
/ J7 Q( { M7 i& P$ R7 |! b! x* Cpleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a ; l+ I; r% T5 }, t' y, q
( { Y1 U1 P% ]more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in
) v8 d' i, L: C7 n- r- \" Q; A- c+ g$ w- @9 a
which generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to ( G( y* O& O( H* ]: i9 f
8 S6 ?8 U0 Q1 a20% more income to be perfectly happy.
1 m) O' c' u* O% ^$ A2 I; i4 c# N8 X- z" e( A
Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for " g$ s# k+ f v( T
* i4 H3 I$ B: _ d# B4 G* q$ Lenvy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking
3 q/ J6 O1 z+ c l8 |7 H9 Y: u1 e2 R) `, E, f* A3 A
that of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in
% c6 |; \" c; R& E; T, b& b/ `+ Q$ ]
* e+ m( E g$ Y1 j8 P8 |+ DEasterlin‘s view.
: u- g, U- ]5 o! f, ~/ w4 C4 C/ z& Y; r5 l# C) j7 W
"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is $ K" X) j" Y; V+ q
/ w0 W% Z* {8 |7 ]; {
leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever
8 H5 Q6 g! `( V; r8 a; ]+ a z9 c; z1 | l3 p
growing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in , S* E9 N7 [! u0 h
7 H1 u3 ~" @) T- Rwhich cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve . N7 q- m8 a5 y- I
7 Z& x @) h& t/ L( W' Ithe goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in
+ k1 A+ T! B3 ^8 b+ \, N
$ R) s$ ^& v6 \- F9 |1 {9 c) {science and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity
+ A3 e6 o, L- }: L: u! A! p! S
2 t9 P* C. W; @! T K3 sof humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last
+ q2 Z- [1 L" E1 T0 P
) J- d5 L3 z" z% H: z# g5 ^4 brespect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no
1 ?1 m/ g8 ?4 v! [( b6 j
+ ^2 A; }4 b- j3 Pchoice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of ! R+ v9 n5 P# a4 N& x: i- C
; z9 v+ X+ K1 b0 bhumanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material
8 o0 K# S$ q( o9 W% ?# d& D9 A, s/ _3 d& h& I% j1 [( h5 F
wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|