|
|
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
3 U7 K3 C3 y, l: o
3 ?2 R0 y3 ? D# _economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does
: Q8 i5 e7 D6 b! j) I5 ]0 X* B) Z9 m2 F" S _
that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness?
; }" Y8 {+ M- U! [1 B# c3 Q& B( M9 ? t: S
6 Z7 ?0 Y' o8 j6 SNot necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the : N, e- o0 ^1 v
, X/ ~- M) O8 e5 P& D0 [1 j* o
University of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant:
3 D8 I6 j- ~: m+ z
- r; S: z( H# Y4 g" K+ GThe Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes 2 Z. K1 u* h' K
7 u; W; ~1 U9 l3 t1 Jthat richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy 7 ~' T% n* }' H! R! e
7 _9 ?7 R+ X# n+ y' @$ P9 cthan poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy 3 M6 F' }2 \ W; F, K
/ e1 ]2 ~) k0 _1 D% K% M c/ h
have not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self-
; q! U" U5 b8 t- z7 h, S# D: O* M% e2 D" g7 J4 _9 z2 p
assessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in 2 Q% {/ Q: }' K/ f
4 t$ D9 R- I; S; Z6 ^# waverage happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a
- D5 n# Q4 t8 v R7 q) n8 w& H n% T& N# @
period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin 3 b b2 |8 o" C3 v1 u
% N: U+ o6 A% G$ Z/ Y1 T
reports.
2 o* {8 y! z9 n/ [- h* K5 z, N
0 a! g) |+ l/ B8 k5 i- cThe explanation for this paradox may be that people become less 6 G& z$ I/ O0 M$ P2 v& Y
3 A9 ~) D( ^9 L; Vsatisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word:
9 q% q4 p' J1 F* M( C0 Q" G# M; ^& ^, a. ~
"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this
# J( q- k; A4 _4 x9 f
% s9 \, i2 [# R! Jincrease in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness
2 C8 `8 g! X+ P- d! k# r3 |6 W( O$ M* Y& C" z; s: r5 s
due to higher income."
% S- W: N- O2 A( l9 s8 p0 p1 x' V S! ?+ K+ l+ e3 e
Money can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if # b+ x/ a5 s" {, l( L2 e7 C
! p3 G' s9 T9 {. k3 r3 Jone‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His ! o$ Z7 n6 x+ D* F Q) k
0 N- ^) A( X2 |: ?analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that 4 [( [7 G4 M6 y# q& _& V" W9 J
1 C5 K- _1 H/ R' O9 p- sAmericans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose
4 K# R( L0 f; F; S% p- r4 I4 Z/ X4 W# j- m
between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita 9 C r- |2 C6 f3 N' Z
6 M& p; X8 `# c+ B' @' ^6 g) C0 E9 ]income. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we . C- D* C/ U$ Q' {3 }8 }* @
4 ]+ A7 |7 V! f! w) ~8 H. F- `' j
have less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.7 e4 d5 w; w( C8 t5 R5 k0 \# g0 f
6 b% t" V9 S/ o- D
Easterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s % i: U* a2 ^! P6 N3 I
B! D/ J' s! ?/ B' V
"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.
$ E4 c( V7 i5 r( \) O; [/ Z+ I g/ E3 A& F, S8 J; B3 a7 }
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied
$ R) P. B' t# e# H8 j p& r# ~2 r
2 j, T/ o$ f( O/ l+ C1 b1 rthey seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s
0 P: d5 W5 g( A0 T1 Z1 z
9 a, k0 d& P5 ^# y$ Y& Nevidence points to the persistence of materialism.' i; A- z3 [- y- \) m! ]5 x; L
$ ^" ^7 ^& Q: b$ L5 B
"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the
3 H$ j$ X* n/ X& i8 s% c. h- s/ ?% k4 f8 h5 _( ^
history of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the ) S* E5 H4 E' S+ |
, `8 Z+ X) ~; u h6 g5 xwealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of : u2 d# H( F" v( `& N! p
/ {: ]) h2 { w! s8 xmaterial need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution
; P* C3 m6 `+ x; T; M
5 v7 ~* F8 y6 S6 J0 W- [toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of # K* n: l; L, K9 j
/ F3 w h) Y) O
economic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead 0 w9 E* @" Q# \$ D( M7 Q
$ X6 O0 ?: ^% [; @; @+ dthe chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money 9 N& e X& e5 j ]
% U4 C" G: q1 N* F, |$ i4 s* @
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
5 i& m0 j+ [# i2 M& _9 p* Z
, O/ t# M4 R( j% c"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being ) o8 K% d* {* r- Y7 V
; W' a/ O, P( s; E
deflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield , p; s. w) p8 G9 G
- J* |( ~0 Q# M3 Jessentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be ( T" Q1 f2 s: D. n$ o$ {+ s
! L. L% I1 B: w: i# \pleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a
! A' m% j4 q8 s* k, |6 H4 n1 [+ ]* ^% N9 D( ^# {
more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in 8 k0 j* G7 z# e. y. ^& k
. ?$ E0 k; X- c7 T' ewhich generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to 6 F) Y' `& z- k6 V" |
( v5 ` Z) d0 Z20% more income to be perfectly happy.
* q6 E4 G0 W' L7 K" G6 b# x0 v8 r$ p f
Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for ) ]+ e3 _' Y5 E9 I. |) v; m L
: G; c/ X: X) o7 w! Xenvy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking + r. y# i( S& }! L4 i3 [
; |9 t# p4 j; T4 dthat of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in
3 h0 g/ a4 U2 ^5 s) q% H* M; K( T+ d, Q# D' W+ n- q
Easterlin‘s view.
6 Y1 ^" `) q, q% p0 o' {. h% }
"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is 6 l" o& |) i; ]6 U6 B
- i5 l o" z/ y) l6 B' j2 {) c) k$ R
leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever
$ Q. s& A5 N9 {4 F
. p* Z: i, _& u8 C/ q0 P% pgrowing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in ! y6 i. O% a1 O# G! Y/ A% e
. `3 Z7 A7 ?" I* uwhich cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve ( n- X- z; U' m7 r7 y& `
8 Z( v: S) v+ O' _ u6 Cthe goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in
; C! G" V" X+ P2 ~3 ^
1 h x8 x- ~% o, \; S! fscience and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity
( z4 c e& I( Q$ l# X% q; [2 i3 m8 o. \' b4 w5 S! Z
of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last 4 b# g! H5 A" m" [
2 S* Y, I- Z% [
respect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no - a) H$ W5 a+ B
. v5 f1 v6 J; S& R1 i) u
choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of 7 e5 F* r8 o" W$ t/ V# B* R
8 i I! d4 Q1 U8 R6 s7 } U" dhumanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material
3 J% z+ `' y2 A% O: f0 K% }& E: V2 x3 q( q
wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|