|
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
: x) T( V+ z/ t: M6 z" x. ], t# [
economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does
# k2 R- @3 H9 D& K- u K; o8 `0 h
that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness? 0 ?+ ?- p* R" l5 w! [
2 J4 O- L* w* a& [/ @! Q$ w2 B) q0 H9 v& ]. c/ T+ U, a& x' e5 Q
Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the ' \& a4 z( R: _; q5 w8 w
2 F, m/ l! F4 U1 @, n+ n
University of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant:
0 Z* ?: Y. \% ~, q+ _; Q2 |" D
% G' i0 b* Q9 C( _2 E9 T7 LThe Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes
" [2 X7 l. q0 G) \% t# O$ s4 b8 I* D8 M p) w& \
that richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy
& ~: f( t5 V i4 U! _3 U4 ~( G1 ~- O9 u% z
than poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy
' V+ ?0 A/ f' O9 _
" @/ x# G0 F2 o s3 c! Ahave not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self-
# W3 P2 D5 N4 o( ]! z& K, H+ J& l6 w; m1 d2 g) L
assessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in , j2 V: E3 @7 y3 I0 E/ s
) C; `9 E! ?, z5 O" |average happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a & }: h8 ^& h8 p
$ c5 o% k9 ]4 Pperiod in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin
: M8 M. o" J! P. h. K
' M) j9 l9 W2 v" a$ Ureports.
6 R! [* ^. r: a6 A( }
# F$ u8 B! ]: T$ E3 F* IThe explanation for this paradox may be that people become less % e: W% m: ^( T+ w) _. \
. N9 r# m4 i4 l t$ k; w
satisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word:
. f3 B$ C$ d9 A" ]" L0 m( p2 Q, V- i
"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this & `* ^: a* }3 c7 q( m M
a4 p5 E+ S7 n( L
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness : T0 k- T, T: X& ]* a, w; ?- R, t
4 v2 Y$ X* C* [* s
due to higher income."
) f( l# \. V& m+ u7 g$ P
, C1 A% @3 C* f( G$ a e& ]4 D0 VMoney can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if * h5 c [- t0 ?6 ~( ~
( `% l5 d5 h, i1 pone‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His 6 d5 U7 i+ @4 N
7 z- v, g b, b, a- q
analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that
$ o4 J3 e; L# ?) D1 p+ D; c' d1 W+ F) w5 Z4 q$ ^' v( L# p
Americans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose
# H3 B) i# X; S( W2 o
$ Q- W# H8 x* i! T3 Z" o- ~7 K1 \5 Nbetween 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita ' P: G$ x- b2 s, M- p
6 \9 y3 z& o4 v. U6 D8 d/ Iincome. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we ' d# r q, n% j
+ Y" M! _. ^' G) ]6 T Mhave less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.! t, \ c5 J1 L) K# K% _
4 E/ _5 S. e$ _2 T+ N/ z, h
Easterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s 8 y6 D* K/ l) `( b
0 d, ^) n/ ^0 Q0 |"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation. " L( S" D; ^4 C1 L
' D& |# t/ y' C
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied
2 H6 B5 ]& Y2 s* \, t$ K& G- ~8 o
- ^7 l i* E, g U4 i2 |6 F1 dthey seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s ! n' ?1 Y; f. |1 P
: r6 v, |, e9 }) X& l7 A9 Pevidence points to the persistence of materialism.9 K! `/ X. C0 N
4 {8 P7 f/ R/ K: u$ N" u"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the ( M5 ?. f) |8 @8 ~) ]" T5 h1 r2 h5 C
# B4 Q8 M* l. x/ \) r
history of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the
; d' B2 l6 T5 v; `6 `/ m* a+ k
+ y m/ h! Z2 ~wealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of
' i5 U4 E: }* c) P# E1 e/ v0 `
, T) X* c1 d+ mmaterial need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution
) v* b3 ]2 J0 `( Q$ u4 [, t* n0 _% k5 J8 x; Y2 s. I
toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
& m. [/ }+ Z4 v5 j. X2 u
: }$ W2 i3 w- b* seconomic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead
8 W; z5 a8 z9 [6 d: c+ ^6 N+ ^7 S' l* ]) V) U
the chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money 6 e2 d- Q' F0 p* e+ ?. j/ n0 c
% n. n" r5 g& f ?
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
. D8 s1 z- j8 _* I
6 P$ I8 e/ k" v+ _# w. C& M"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being
9 d6 q/ }$ S4 `2 k9 v: {5 i$ ]1 P+ ^; j9 J" d! ^
deflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield
6 u; s1 F4 T& M' A! A% k& J# m
essentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be / v* f9 |/ g2 y( d9 R: ?
! P# v# _& m s4 R; c" S0 Fpleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a
8 V" f6 I0 [/ W/ ?; \- l& ~( M$ b& B! L( j8 S9 V1 y
more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in
+ }( i, M+ c; v" Q! r1 a4 l5 a2 K( u, s
which generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to 2 Q% B" W, k. j" h; X' o9 Y' |
9 n- m# h9 n$ ]* U+ U
20% more income to be perfectly happy.! C+ Y4 q% Q" r; }, ?, ]* a
2 I/ N$ o) _# G( ?5 A$ XNeeds are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for
9 _- p. L# o4 J4 {" @% S5 X* X! N( I6 Q) u. [; f( |
envy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking 7 B m: P7 J3 G( o, y
& Z) q! U1 W) i1 n1 s3 [. a8 Gthat of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in 8 O* l) q8 I; Q0 W
`- Z8 r, a3 {, f0 |; G, SEasterlin‘s view.
. u0 B" T: E2 L; }2 p4 H e% R
% K- ?* h5 ]5 j2 m7 W"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is 2 p9 M3 H7 s3 C) C. Z
0 q& m* p: {* `6 m4 H! ~, Cleading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever + X% \6 D7 ^7 }( l
' b8 ^! y/ z) J4 \6 a8 Agrowing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in 3 e: j' V6 n2 ~5 i2 i, j
5 U' P; ^! k2 H/ J
which cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve
" e- |5 @# V, u
) {+ g5 v8 g1 y$ l7 hthe goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in * \7 V# z' d! r( h( ~
! c( o6 G$ z) n
science and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity * p- O# c4 q# F d, Q) f+ P2 t# M9 t: P
" U- T- M2 O" {- V6 E7 j' p& P
of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last 3 x) V, L/ r9 v1 h+ ~: P
2 [0 l L7 u% Y5 q& |8 p# X3 N
respect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no ~1 \* Z/ e6 }$ I% ]4 P- i
, G( z6 [# O) y2 n% D$ I
choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of
4 G7 S0 w7 B2 J8 T0 D: h
9 ^3 R7 z* i" i6 N' v4 yhumanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material + d+ v: D; ]) J% Y' [/ S
! K4 c# E7 e" J& h* T
wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|