|
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
/ r! i1 P8 Z u7 V/ b: A7 t+ Q9 v% x
economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does
& \; Z7 N& B7 X) f) o+ ]- N2 h, `0 D; J
that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness?
$ t x* l! K# C, \; }1 ]& R9 @# l6 K3 J# g8 r& K4 ^7 v# m
) r) p" T/ ~, F" A* `! [Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the
% q- `' j) I: N; M4 d! f1 _
! j9 Y0 r4 x7 d% b& e) |! LUniversity of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant: $ h! f0 k0 B2 j! T9 ]
V- [# ^: F cThe Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes
9 V5 u* t- n+ Z' W+ O+ H' q9 v" Z6 x
that richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy
7 |2 }' C2 H$ f' U2 a( W% ^
2 v. K& H( L" h: Athan poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy : L- O( r& ^! B8 X
1 T3 o& {8 L, G2 J) a$ h, L0 y7 d) ?
have not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self- @2 Y+ s+ M& P7 ~ w
9 e0 R, h+ S- w0 |assessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in
: M) R# p8 q$ |7 H1 R9 A' x5 o) k3 }; }* k7 v* X, Z0 l3 u' g* F
average happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a
: C% P% b7 I% f& w
, }' R9 Z' l- O8 L, _period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin ; `* m: |9 L+ {4 H
9 h, R. I$ R. g u' _6 n& Kreports.
" ?. v* V: N" n* u
, V3 H; N% c4 F+ vThe explanation for this paradox may be that people become less
; M% c1 W9 T9 a0 r# G/ H) l- K, X8 `4 `7 I9 ?. |
satisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word:
+ Y+ V& P0 A" q+ X6 K# Q; I( T/ J; x- }" s1 E
"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this
7 s4 J; p/ e& `( e. N! `9 \9 c$ c" L2 q: G0 F8 J
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness & y4 P0 G) n& i
) [; s1 m; }4 u* k0 n: a
due to higher income."
$ k& T. c* y3 p# ?8 P5 y- ?9 e5 Z2 U) i/ J( X) @& B
Money can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if 4 z7 W, f* B5 T9 r# A7 U5 v
+ x, O, l% A3 {0 p" q. v0 G
one‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His
0 H9 H0 c3 h' |8 ^! G' r4 h- [+ G* V$ a3 y4 P
analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that 8 S& @# C$ s" D8 o1 V8 \ y
% m% h' r: r# T6 W, q" {; QAmericans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose
7 k/ p0 O* s: @( U( g& q0 V" h2 i, K: D! ^5 V
between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita _+ O9 o0 f b
! R% s' e9 E( c0 w3 Lincome. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we
& s2 M' M5 S7 ?
! [' }! _/ k& g0 ?. n2 a& g4 Mhave less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.
* f/ _1 N5 h/ x* f
# y4 ~( i5 h) k3 N: bEasterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s 5 \; L4 B+ G: @$ Y! N% h
3 E* H6 T2 V. ` R8 i$ M1 k"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.
' }& h0 E! k- P. ?- ]! R, ?' F$ E" o) W- A6 u1 @4 v
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied
- s. T# O" P! p( g; _8 B \5 z! j4 u
they seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s
2 g- ~0 l4 Y; Z2 u7 F8 i; k( ~7 Z1 y( r9 c, y1 w7 Z
evidence points to the persistence of materialism.
, A- r6 D4 k6 U4 F% n2 f- Z6 Y
2 c, h/ z3 ~, a( S1 g0 n/ _4 g1 J* g"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the
/ b Z! q4 u( Y' R$ ~0 R! N7 _7 h/ k* e
history of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the 0 N" M. o7 d' y4 E. w
. i& \% J2 o5 s; ?2 t
wealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of ; P/ k/ U! D2 b- D# O
8 }+ A' B8 B$ @0 l; n
material need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution 5 F# ]1 o9 a9 ]9 w5 l
; q8 ~( L( n* H0 I9 K1 N( c) H, @toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
5 u+ q. Y" D: K1 C* S) k+ D
; ]/ |6 Q1 ^1 oeconomic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead : b% a; h4 j! y, E1 }# a* C
: ^1 r( t; m1 S i B1 q# H6 V
the chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money
0 s( e8 r/ c7 c( ]4 Q: \ t! o% R' n5 C( W+ s
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain 1 Z% H% U) w. b" L ?
: J7 v M0 U. n3 W, G
"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being : j1 K6 g3 ]& u- Q
2 r$ r( o9 P4 [
deflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield
) l( \& S R0 C, F1 ?+ g& p
' o, q" T' e' @3 c! hessentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be * i( W( N! } `/ m2 b5 E8 j8 q
* V8 n6 S5 G0 xpleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a
c( O) s2 V, V; Q' `) B$ ]+ A8 a5 K8 N( k
more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in + U. s8 g3 |+ Q7 y5 Q+ P/ a" {
" m# `! w" Y4 Bwhich generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to % x3 ~' ^0 \9 N0 e+ _% s
0 l; _# d" P9 [7 v6 J3 t
20% more income to be perfectly happy.: I: x% R5 \0 C
- u" e2 f% [& ?( q# i [" e- f
Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for
6 h* f: Y" N, G8 U- z1 ^. N. t' @0 D. @: \- z
envy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking
3 | r4 F9 p9 e7 Z$ B7 ^
- P M0 o/ d& ]/ Y+ F+ qthat of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in ~2 q( T0 E( H
/ i+ q0 {% m d: ?
Easterlin‘s view.7 ^. k; @3 E5 F! j6 H
: c3 Z) b1 W* Q, {3 S7 |
"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is " W3 a" M3 t; S
8 S8 ?3 [- T/ o" y$ u
leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever " A1 v$ y. z$ X% v U& o3 B
: a% C/ P* ^' b2 T3 A; f8 Egrowing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in * v2 b0 b- }- F. |9 T; ]' Z: Q
0 i. P! N3 ?6 Q, uwhich cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve 1 E) ]* M0 Z/ W, |
! Y9 s! l: v5 i8 G' R+ y6 m1 tthe goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in 1 _: A' x7 D2 {! x) C4 H
% r" G( {& V' s4 f: j1 P( wscience and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity 3 B2 u) F- i; `* I" M
& h+ V( Z: S1 i) p& G+ M! A
of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last : p1 {7 r6 S0 {) c
, W1 ]% x" w- C O srespect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no
1 v' w" {' G( D2 C' |: h5 `3 M: z/ s* H1 u' g; V1 e
choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of - K- ]; P0 o2 N
6 Y4 ?0 O* Y# I0 B# c* L& Rhumanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material ; R& `& y! S- F4 G, T* Y
" m. c2 i8 @1 n# t: p( {wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|