|
|
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 4 S+ d, V6 u5 ?/ O6 t" p2 ]
% T- q9 r0 c4 h" n p: @economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does 2 U% b$ \7 \$ Y! ^, H! ~
. e) ?) y) {) N- o
that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness? , B" m& B8 @/ {: f
2 t5 J$ n- a1 i- T) L( l5 O L7 E g- D: N
Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the ' ] z2 Y+ ~' X; o
4 \ s" \5 | S+ X3 w
University of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant: ; I9 L& Y* I# a- X1 m
# R5 x+ d7 b4 r$ j
The Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes
' ]2 ]/ X; b- K$ s
% T2 G$ e2 T; tthat richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy
! B! z. v- D+ i% w7 i! O2 U
" z+ w! E Q2 _; D5 Z- P8 ~% P- Dthan poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy * a/ z/ @+ h2 B5 F* O% {
: O' q2 S* [& X* M: R1 X- B% Z2 Hhave not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self-# P' |' f% j# Q& a5 b
1 @, X) `5 q+ ^) |& tassessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in
+ G5 f/ d: e' d9 w# j
% V1 e4 [+ _/ n8 B baverage happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a ) j; V, l0 K1 F0 O7 g* Z6 |" E& A P
. R- n3 n2 y3 ^7 U& h& u. G
period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin
/ k( G/ S/ _! p: z7 z- j( t9 ^& C* X$ g* `2 n7 w
reports.
2 n* e- h+ P m5 j- h
7 Z& K% i! H; u- X4 p4 V$ \/ CThe explanation for this paradox may be that people become less
2 i: T- Y9 o* {+ g; q0 t: q0 S4 |6 }- R: i5 r9 g& H
satisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word:
$ r0 U, J0 U* J. }7 D
! ?' ~. Z' c/ r"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this U1 M' y8 F- c' e9 o' r
$ m' t2 }5 K, z6 j9 R0 L1 l
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness * Z' e' V/ e" |/ \# I& v
8 w7 `7 D% `9 e. `4 Adue to higher income."
) h- q' t# s3 j& {
: O8 O6 w7 O2 U1 ]: GMoney can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if
# V! G! i5 T+ z0 ^# K# B1 }+ |( I
one‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His
5 p3 K3 Q8 ~4 D7 \
' h. E; J0 `9 E, C1 ^analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that
* ^* C2 x, B! P b5 K( u b( o
. x3 P2 _% y" [! [8 B# OAmericans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose & E7 Y! z# {4 N. F/ y3 t# m
" e' e; j1 [" Q0 j& f
between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita
) w4 N$ r9 A$ b6 a) I9 ?6 y; e, t9 _) d
income. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we
Y' ^3 y( ^9 X8 R! Y5 X- K: u3 n1 g' g0 L; b/ M2 N
have less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.* {: i! S7 C0 M+ e+ w0 K+ K7 L
% k" b: n; F; V! p
Easterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s ! T% J# e* x) T. O e" o& J1 B
& |7 t3 l2 P H- g' a( S( `
"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.
6 }3 @+ G0 }; _+ j# R; n: ^5 l' u* Z$ d. L$ U& \
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied
- s& t! R" D5 `4 z' o" W4 K: K
; v: x9 {4 r2 T r7 v5 \they seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s
# I a/ J8 E* o+ A
4 P H; o- ~7 I" }) N% fevidence points to the persistence of materialism.
7 D F4 _4 w$ |# j, I
: D/ R# @% ]' D7 F3 ^"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the - p9 m( z; Q! c
4 H% \( J y; l. D8 W% whistory of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the
. k' r0 w$ }! `5 k
4 x6 ?8 D4 c( B- I4 ywealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of / k) C$ o' Z+ E0 e3 T& Z
' \4 x6 ^) W! Qmaterial need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution 8 v( E, i2 q: R: b% D, |
; T" ]& Q* {5 H' L& G
toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
6 p8 S9 D: N. E; `- a, R7 P
) x' m! V' n6 z- J9 J2 beconomic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead
" G) b: d$ g; b- z7 i
2 p! W% s5 d5 b: c1 T& J3 othe chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money
2 d( [3 I: s7 l3 Y3 M1 |
7 P5 v" J4 f4 R1 W7 v/ O8 _value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
; K: C- S9 J2 y' X9 f+ K5 t* o' R/ E2 U3 r0 w3 t9 W# _' x3 y
"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being
& C; O6 z' h$ `; s* z' u
M3 d* ?! q. H, j4 l# qdeflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield ; X3 w% x( t5 ]) I1 J
! D9 z( ]" @- `. q6 V+ l
essentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be & p8 ?- T2 N1 m! l1 Q/ v8 o
7 Q, G$ a: F. l" j* K- `pleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a
' a2 J- k) A7 K: m# [" Z" x) f$ x& j4 @4 V$ O
more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in
$ ?( x; I. {/ Y/ \( @/ [5 M4 g- [
- l' W0 p+ y" Y, a6 K4 nwhich generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to 8 Q2 P6 W/ g4 h. o. W
1 u7 |; `0 A9 _1 l" ]
20% more income to be perfectly happy.2 H. R! ?" ~6 c7 U9 N, e
6 ]: O4 w3 e/ o8 {9 c! n
Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for
: v! `% t1 Q$ X1 N0 I3 e" \0 y
( a5 v8 y# G5 |% [! menvy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking
0 c) I V2 k& }+ ]
: f- R& x9 e( @$ B8 Pthat of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in 0 ]; z1 t g& G, y( A
: T8 I; J: }# h% a. y
Easterlin‘s view.9 w% t9 ?& f* z( }/ m* e, Z
$ s4 c7 Y$ w4 T- l+ t"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is ' |& g+ W, G9 T2 j W# ~$ R; u
: n3 O" B) B& t4 A3 q+ J. s
leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever
( z! F1 ~! d/ N2 K% j1 Y) @
5 g4 z( h5 E/ i& @* q; |8 Hgrowing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in
~+ a8 i( s" j1 N" R" J! R; H& h! v7 W3 y1 Y
which cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve " m, z* c8 a8 k' T" h" ]
0 A5 b* ^/ r( X, K5 s2 a, b
the goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in & `# x( f* n* w
# U6 D# I' A( J3 }: Bscience and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity
% X3 i7 j* j; {- {& ^, z, U, S7 A0 y9 T
of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last . W3 x! j* P U: J! `9 x# _6 o
1 X) U* M6 N t# h1 J* o4 k
respect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no
8 I; C& T* ^' ], Q/ B
% H3 x# v. C' h1 y8 [) Z jchoice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of
% a0 I* S! J( f* N8 o0 s' ?- L5 B: o1 s( W5 x/ b
humanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material
/ ^( n. a3 ]; ~/ S* |! E- K) U
" L" K" n% l" B0 H) Pwants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|