Laying Blame: Population vs. Consumption

[GliderGuider]

41. The problem is, happiness does not correlate with technology

But climate change does.

Measuring happiness, and then getting the measures to apply both within and between nations, is a very tricky business. It's not as simple as "just ask people".

The fact that happiness and level of technology are not correlated is indicated in the table presented in the Wiki article on the Satisfaction With Life Index.

The top 20 include countries such as the Bahamas, Bhutan. Costa Rica and Malta - none of them known for being technological hotbeds.

The bottom 20 include Bulgaria, Russia, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, and Ukraine: all relatively advanced when it comes to technology.

As you yourself said in an earlier post, "Have you ever been to a poor country (I mean a really poor country, central-Africa poor)? I have, and purpose is everywhere. Happiness is as simple as holding a bowl of grain in your hand, or sharing that bowl." There's not much advanced technology in that picture.

As far as I can tell, what people need to be happy is straight-forward: enough food and shelter so as not to be hungry or cold; a degree of autonomy and opportunity for self-direction in life; family and community connections, social stability and a sense of safety. None of these are automatically conferred by technology. Material wealth, on the other hand, does not correlate well with happiness. And material wealth is the primary product of technological progress.

Technological progress and the accumulation of material wealth (tangible assets) does require CO2 emissions. Given the current mix of energy sources (87% fossil fuel), the lack of any global motivation to change that situation, and the exigencies of the Maximum Power Principle when applied to national societies, this situation is unlikely to change in the near or mid term.

One last point is that energy efficiency is unlikely to reduce our global emissions of CO2, as argued by Dr. Tim Garrett in this interview: (and no, he doesn't mention Jevons even once ) Instead he argues just the oopposite: that improving our energy efficiency ovber the years and decades is what got us to this point...

I guess my takeaway is that people will always manage to find some modicum of happiness in even the most dire circumstances. And the species will continue to be "successful" (in biological terms, anyway) even in the most dire circumstances. I find that comforting, because all the indicators point to dire circumstances coming soon to a neighbourhood near us.