 | Science and Technology Energy and Environment Subcommittee Action Today | The Oil Drum | Nigeria: A Closer Look at "Above Ground Factors" |  |
Can We Be Happy Using Less Energy? Uhhh.... YES!
Posted by Nate Hagens on June 21, 2007 - 6:10pm
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: happiness index, world values survey [list all tags]
Peak Oil is one of many symptoms of an ecologically full planet. Our genetically embedded drive for `more' coupled with an expanding world population of 6.5 billion mathematically suggests a finite limit for growth will eventually be reached, if it hasn't been already.
In discussions about the impacts of Peak Oil, it is sometimes implicitly assumed that we NEED to replace the energy lost from the coming liquid fuels decline with other energy sources in order to maintain our way of life and our happiness. Indeed, it seems that much of the current effort is focused on comparing/discovering the best energy alternatives with respect to EROI, environmental impact and scalability/timing. In addition, demand experts also look at efficiency, carpooling, 4 day workweek, living locally type solutions, etc. In this post, I look at Peak Oil from a broader context: the necessity and purpose of continued increases in demand for energy. What is it all for, if not to make us happy?
Ansel Adams photo "Richard Kobayahsi - Farmer and Cabbages"
Below is one of their better known graphs showing the relationship between GNP per capita and % of population in each country that is `satisfied' or `happy' with their lives.
It can be seen, that at low levels of GNP, happiness is lacking, but once a certain level of GNP is reached, incremental income per capita adds very little to subjective well being.
Ronald Inglehart of World Values Survey verbalized the above graph by stating that after meeting basic needs, lifestyle choices make up the majority of the difference in the GNP spectrum, and lower energy lifestyles do just about as well as high energy lifestyles (indeed, there are at least 10 countries on that graph that score higher on life satisfaction than the USA, and they each produce less GNP).
In reading on this site, and in observations of life, it seems the concept in the above graph of diminishing returns once a set minimum has been reached, is ubiquitous in our culture. When you buy your 5th car, does that make you anything close to as happy than when you bought your first? (does it really make you happy at all, or is it like opening the fridge at midnight?). Is the 10 million dollar in the bank 10 times better than the first? Do we buy the 50th pair of shoes because we need them, or we need the feeling we get from buying them?
Since GNP and energy use are correlated, I was curious what the link would be between happiness and per capita energy use. Using the `very happy' percentage from the 1999/2000 wave of international tests from World Values Survey, I compared them to all countries that www.bp.com had primary energy data for (primary energy is a broader measure than just oil) and then divided by 2000 population census. The results are in this graph:
As can be seen, there is little correlation at all between subjective well being and energy use. (The actual r2 is 14%). Of note is the United States uses 39 times the primary energy as the Phillipines yet the percentage of the population that is `very happy' is about equal. While there is a low r2, this does not mean there is not a relationship. The graph shows that all high energy users are happy. But it also shows you don't need high energy to be happy. It could therefore be read as saying that the high users are wasting considerable amounts of energy - ie not needed to be happy.
Vaclav Smil, in his book "Energy at the Crossroads" did similar work on objective measures of wellbeing vs energy consumption. A pattern similar to the above `boomerang' curve is found on comparisons of female longevity, sufficient nutritional food, educational opportunities, freedom etc. The shape is also the same, but inverted, for infant mortality. In general, Smil concludes that a reasonable level of well being on objective measures is achievable between 50 and 70 GJ/per capita, with marginal increases up to 100 GJ per capita. As a comparison, North America is currently at 340 GJ per capita. Again, the large excess consumption is not improving objective wellness.
As evolved animals at the top of the food chain, humans have become adept at acquiring resources, including energy. At some point though, "more energy" apparently does not make us "more happy". Anecdotally, as a former stockbroker, I witnessed first hand that clients worth hundreds of millions were no happier than the entry level clerks, even though being fabulously wealthy represented the `carrot' that people strived for. Similarly, in travels abroad to Ecuador, Zambia, Thailand, etc, I consistently noticed extremely happy people with very low energy usages.
Everyone has wants and needs. The wants can never really be satisfied, irrespective of energy use (look at Donald Trump or Tom Cruise). The needs are what are most important. This is an encouraging point to be aware of in the years leading up to and following Peak Oil. More is not necessarily better. Less is not necessarily worse. Perhaps, through education, marketing and living by example, society can slowly modify the definition of the `carrot', to one requiring less energy but providing equal or greater happiness.
In Part II I will look at: how subjective "subjective well being" is, how our happiness is based on meeting/acquiring certain neurotransmitter cocktails that met with evolutionary success, how happiness itself is probably a combination of contentment+novelty and the large energy consumption is on the novelty side of the equation.
In closing, a Thought Experiment:
Think of or write down the 10 things in life that you most enjoy or like to do. Then, imagine you could only choose 3 from that list. What type of things would those be? Compare the wide boundary energy/ecological expenditures of your favorite 3 versus the other 7. More or less?
Note: This is an update on the first post I wrote for theoildrum, archived here. I'll soon be building on these concepts with a Part II.
Your distinction between wants and needs is an essential one. My paternal grandfather earned one dollar per twelve hour day digging ditches in Chicago--and he raised eleven children. They were reasonably happy on a low income. My maternal grandparents failed in rural North Dakota; they did not have enough to eat and had to put their children out as servants to others, just so the kids could eat. They were most emphatically unhappy.
We need relatively little to be happy--enough simple food, good water, warm clothing, shelter from the elements, medicines, education. The stoics claimed that happiness could only be found by reducing wants to genuine needs. Aristotle and Mortimer Adler had variations on this theme, which come down to the idea that we should want exactly what is good for us--and no more than that.
And yet, that doesn't explain why the majority of the planet wants to live the 'American Dream', or bring the AD to them in their home country. Its an interesting sociological conundrum. On the one hand, people are happy with meeting their most basic hierarchy of needs, and on the other, the pursuit of happiness seems to involve the accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
The most interesting thing to me is that, from a purely social stand point, the population as a whole, given a long enough time period, SHOULD migrate towards activities and a lifestyle that not only makes them the happiest, but requires the least amount of materials to get that point.
So the question is, whats driving the western world towards a material lifestyle? Perhaps we really are all being brainwashed in a consumer oriented fashion :P
Evolutionary fitness is a pretty tired horse beat six ways from Sunday around here (and mostly, I think, in the wrong ways), but perhaps being happy has relatively little to do with fitness compared to the accumulation of stuff?
I think the 'American Dream' is a bit of a moving target.
Sometimes, I think the appeal has been that 'They love us for our Freedoms'.. or at least those that we, until recently, did what we could to exemplify.. and these are or can be pretty signifigant. A stable democracy, civil rights, free speech, religion and an open press.. a 'melting pot', creating a land of immigrants from across the globe, people valued by hard work and who would then have the chance to have a life, get ahead, maybe get rich.. etc. We all know the drill. But those things, mythic as they might be, are not really the same as the 'Three-car Garage and a 35" flatscreen in every room' American Dream that has crusted over the 'Big Cake' picture of a land of plenty. The 'Streets paved with Gold' image can have as much to do with a person's dream for a Homey, multicultural 'Shangri-La' as with the Horatio Alger fantasy.
I don't deny that the Marketing and Manipulation of the Innocent, Apple Pie America has been overwhelming, and has worked as a fine protective veneer over industrialism's far-less-than-perfect complexion.. but I would also still have to buy into the premise that our Constitution did more than a little to rebreak the table which was littered with traditional Monarchies and Feudal states that couldn't quite break the inertia to revolutionize their governments until someone started the balls (or Heads) rolling, so to speak.
That people want this current American Dream of suburban bliss and prosperity probably has as much to do with A) Television/Hollywood's successful makeover of what Suburban 'bliss' really is.. ('More Human than Human' Tyrell-Blade Runner) and B) European/Protestant culture's insistence on presenting everything as 'Fine and Nice', because we have been conditioned to 'Put on a happy face', and let that be our Reality, regardless of the facts on the ground. How could that not be addictively appealing, if it could just be sold convincingly?
Sincerity. Once you can fake that, you're golden.
Problem + Product = Happy
Obey your Thirst
Bob Fiske
The American dream is a pyramid scheme.
They pretty much finished feeding on the rest of the world. They have begun feeding on our own working class. What will happen here when they begin feeding on each other?
I think the 'American Dream' is a bit of a moving target.
No doubt, as we became richer in a material sense. Still, there are at least two aspects of "the Dream" that have been fairly constant over the last 100 years, even as the details have changed: personal transportation and greater living space. The first provides the freedom to travel where and when you want to, rather than being subject to schedules set by others, and the second is enough space so that you don't have to listen to the screaming brat in the family "next door". TTBOMK, every developing economy, as it becomes richer, immediately begins spending money on personal transportation and larger living spaces. As one example, consider China's real estate boom and staggering forecasts for automobile sales.
To the extent that they are required to give those things up, the American public as a whole will feel that their standard of living is declining. The interesting question -- at least as far as I'm concerned -- is whether all or part of the US can maintain these "critical" aspects of their standard of living in the future. I suspect that, for example, the strip along the east side of the Rockies can manage. There are plenty of local energy resources, adequate water (with a bit better planning than now done), reasonable food production capacity. I hold out much less hope for the BoWash corridor, regardless of the higher density of its metro areas. There are not sufficient local resources to support the 70M or so people living there.
Yet people want to live in the cities, where there is much less space.
Living rurally is cheap and easy in Norway, since it's a stated political goal to have rural settlements (in contrast to Sweden, where large rural areas are downright abandoned). When I was a student, I actually had enough money to buy an old house rather than renting an apartement. I own quite a bit of acreage, actually! If I'd went a little further out, I could have had a farm, no trouble.
In Oslo, I would have needed more than twice the amount of money to buy even the tiniest room, even if it hadn't been painted since 1940. Yet more people live there.
Space and mobility matter, but they're not the whole picture by far. I think that opportunity is what people crave most of all once their basic needs for sustenance and companionship are met. They may be happy in the Phillipines (my impression is that they are very good at the companionship bit), but they are moving out by the millions. When I've had the occasion to talk to filipinos about it, they say the same: they miss their families and communities, but they saw no future there for them, nor for their families unless they could support them from abroad. Especially those with little education are deeply pessimistic about the lives in store for them if they stay.
Isn't that a sad commentary on how we increasingly view life? "Opportunity", I presume, refers to the ability to earn more and consume more. On the Philippines there may be little opportunity in those terms but is that the only way we now measure happiness?
And yet, that doesn't explain why the majority of the planet wants to live the 'American Dream
Sorry PartyGuy,but I find that a really dismal thought, as bad as living the Canadian dream whatever that is. I want to live the French Artist's dream of the turn of the 20th Century, (no Fox). Those guys rarely ate high on the Yankee style hog but there was a vitality about the arts that more than made up for it. Oops just got called to supper which I guess is everyone's dream, if not overfed already.
reasons are simple:
1 - People outside the US really don't know much about what is the "american dream", except that they see foreign americans with lots of power and money, gadgets and "freedom", who wouldn't want that? Except that people don't really think much about what they would have to trade off to get that;
2 - People outside the US really don't care much about the "american dream". Believe me, I see more americans talking about it than anyone around me. It's called in-the-house hype. You really think you're the "thing", but outside, few really care. National media hyping the american ego for just internal satisfaction;
3 - "American Dream" jealousy was used throughout the american media to support the reasons why terrorists wanted to attack USA and americans, ignoring the fact that the most arrogantly agressive and outright illegal invading country... is the USA itself. Hatred is confused by americans as if people were jealous of their "american dream". Not true at all.
What is true is that the "american dream" is no longer a colorful tag that the world still "admires". We see America morefor what the movies tells us what it is: a brutal violent country, full of ambitious greed men in a flawed system where money not people is all that matters, with a youth childlike corrupted to drugs. Hollywood may have destroyed more the "american dream" legacy throughout the world than anyone else has had.
But americans still don't realise this. They still think they're the men!
Nate: IMHO, there are male/female differences in regards to psychological fulfillment/contentment resulting from consumption or purchase of advertised products. A consumption based society is to a certain extent a "female" society (this was the point of the film FIGHT CLUB, with the main character obsessing about his Ikea furniture set in the opening scenes). Another example is the huge "mail order bride" business, which rests upon the desire of attractive young Eastern European, Russian, Asian and South American women to get to the consumption capital of the universe and spend, spend, spend (even if they have to hook up with an unattractive older American).
I always get my behavioural research material from Hollywood.
I get mine from Van Nuys.
Chimp---
That is really scary!
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme, and it is just a matter of time----
The sooner the better, if you ask me.
Well, the consumption culture does seem linked to the liberation of women from the home. Is, "shop 'til you drop" a phrase associated with men?
Maybe not 'associated' as such, but it well should be..
Sorry, This whole line of logic is convenient sexism. Men do plenty of shopping, and are marketed to for an incredible range of unnecessary products, from Movies and Videogames, to Pornography, Oversized Trucks, Cheap Tools, Sporting 'Accessories', Alcohol (this is where much of the 'Dropping' comes in, whether its dropping off the barstool or just dropping much of your paycheck too many Fridays.).. no small amount of vanity products, etc..
We're all consumers to some degree, but I'd wager that women having access to more discretionary cashflow has done more to benefit children, household and nutrition than when they had to get the money from Dad.. but by a similar token, now that it takes at least two incomes even to barely get by for so many people, the resulting detriment to child welfare likely far outstrips the benefits of the Mothering instinct.
I don't buy the 'Men raised by women' premise in Fight Club.. the logic escapes me.. If anything, it's that most of us have been raised by TV.. which is to say Cereal Commercials, while both parents were working, grandparents might be in another state, etc etc.. The particulars run the gamut, of course.. but I'd say we were suckled by Ma Bell and General Mills.
Obey your Thirst.
Bob
Jokuhl: Whenever anyone points out obvious differences between men and women (in general) a label of sexism will result. I realize that what I am going to say is a generalization, but here goes: I have met a great many men who could be quite happy and fulfilled living in a basement apartment providing they had access to all the attractive women they desired. I have yet to meet a single female who would call living in a dump while having access to attractive poor males a dream existence. Yes, there are American men who love to shop, buy moisterizer and shoes, and there might be some American women who would love the existence I outlined above, but IN GENERAL there are major differences between the sexes in happiness/fulfillment derived from shopping/consumption.
Moisturizer and Shoes? Did you think I was talking about boutique shoppers? Frankly, my own examples replaced sexism with classism, but just to make the point that 'shopping' doesn't mean carrying cute little bags around the Galleria. The comment that consumerism was a result of womens' lib just seemed hilariously blinded to the great marketing targets that are out there.. so since this is a fairly male site, albeit a reasonably intelligent one, that perspective looked a lot like a bit of sloppy police work.
I do notice a lot of things I think are actual distinctions between men and women.. and there are certainly women who like to go shopping, but I don't really see that cliche' as a useful broad brush (no pun) to paint with.
Bob
A basement apartement, attractive women AND a whole load of hi-tech gadgetry, at the very least. I tried "Magic: The Gathering" when I was young, and let me tell you, men are very much susceptible to the shopping urge.
I just don't agree. Anecdotal evidence alert: I have never known a man to go shopping for leisure, as a form of recreation. I have hardly known a woman who does not do it (any women who hang out on TOD are probably the exception). I know there's a book out there about the first London shopping district and how women were instrumental to its success because they were taught to see shopping as a sign of independence and modernization...Also I would say that the vanity products are indulged in primarily by men who more or less are becoming women. There is nothing wrong with being clean, but there is everything wrong with being Patrick Bateman.
Men becoming Women?
Well, there's a market there, too. In fact, Gay men have, as a demographic anyway, a great amount of purchasing power, though I don't see them as 'becoming Women'. They're just gay men.
When I mentioned vanity products, I was thinking about Viagra, Bald-spot Spraypaints, Big Trucks. Soap I see as an essential, not a frill. And to keep with my 'Just plain guys' Demographic, then shopping for Leisure could be either the Sports Authority Jersey Aisle or the Hooters LapDanceteria. Mine, true to the spirit of the site is SuperbrightLEDs~dot~com or the Altenergy Store.. maybe Amazon for the odd DVD.
Good luck with the range of women in your world. It's reminding me of Westchester county. Yeeach!
Bob
When I said shopping for leisure or recreation, what I meant was viewing the store and the browsing thereof as a source of enjoyment, not the products themselves. How many guys do you know will go out on an all day shopping trip? I know none. What I mean is that men want something, they go to the store, they get it. Women go to the store to see if something will catch their eye. They view the act of shopping itself as recreation, where a man does not, in my experience.
Ok, those are your impressions of how the scenes play out and by whom..
I'm trying to get at;
How much is getting spent,
Whether the purchases are useful or not,
Did the consumption make some happier, or did it just make their 'consuming addiction' happier?
Men do their leisure shopping at Home Depot :-).
To continue in the sexist thread, isn't it basically 99% guys on this site? Only Leanan and Gail come to mind from the fairer sex. That would imply a difference between the sexes, in general, in how much amusement or intellectual satisfaction
one would gain from such a website.
There are a lot more of us women here than you realize.
And as for shopping: of course women shop more! Who does the overwhelming majority of family grocery shopping, kids clothes shopping, purchasing birthday/wedding/ect. gifts for friends and family. Yes, some women think shopping is fun, but most of what they buy is at least somewhat useful. Guys buy big expensive things that often are purely entertainment (boats, jetskis, freakin' World of Warcraft junk).
You don't even want to speculate on what I think of that comment...
Most women don't have time to hang out here, between work and family responsibilities. Younger men are helping more with household chores/child rearing, but the bulk is still done by women on top of work.
Few have jobs that allow for internet surfing (think nurses & teachers can surf at work?)
Thanks, CSS;
To fill in that picture, I've got a 4 yr old hanging off me, waiting to be put to bed as I type, while my wife is across the street at a Womens' Summer Solstice party.. but without question, she is the shopper, the planner, the nutritionist, the clothier. I'm no slouch, but dang, she puts me to shame!
She's no Mall-princess, though. Busts her butt doing what's necessary, and a big part of that is shopping.
Did I mention, though.. I'm no slouch.. really.
Ok, Lorelei, I'm coming. Bedtime!
Bob
Ok, we are not talking about buying the necessary items for the house--which, in my experience, is not shopped for or maintained "overwhelmingly" by women anymore--but purchasing things like clothes and cosmetics. Granted, I live in Chicago, but even in the small town I grew up in the girls liked to shop.
I don't buy the somewhat useful argument...at all. A pair of shoes is useful. Your thirteenth pair of shoes--all of which hurt your feet--is not. Your $900 handbag? Yeah, not useful. Also, remember, we are talking about the culture of shopping. Buying a jetski is not the same--in this context--as going to Neiman Marcus every couple of weeks. The jetski purchase happens once. There is no end to the shoe pile. By the way, a significant fraction (as in over a quarter) of World of Warcraft players are female.
Also, I would like to reiterate that any women who regularly frequent TOD almost certainly do not fit this profile, but in my experience nearly all women these days do.
Arthur Robey
Warning!! Tedious hot button topic. Around and around we go.
I have reached the conclusion that men and women should avoid each other except while breeding.
Strict Apartheit. Seperate religions. Seperate surnames. Seperate homes. Seperate bank accounts.
I for one, can smuggly report that I do not burden any female.
Women also gain hapiness from giving...
A study just published in Science (Neural Responses to Taxation and Voluntary Giving Reveal Motives for Charitable Donations) used MRI technology to observe the brain activity of 19 women who were given $100 each. They could chose whether to give away money or keep it for themselves. The study found that reward-related areas of the brain lit up when giving to charity, similar to the satisfaction after having eaten a nice meal.
Oh, don't be snarky - The message of Fight Club, about "a generation of men raised by women," is valid. And there's no denying the pronounced gender difference in consumption patterns within the American model, though that difference may not appear in other cultures.
I'm not being snarky. Human behaviour research is a deep and murky field. Tossing off references to "Fight Club" (a great movie) as some sort of substitute for the generally intelligent material we find of this site is pretty lame. (IMHO)
Now, I'm busy, I have to go make a nice doomer retreat to attract hotties to my side when TEOTWAWKI. I don't disagree with Chimpy, I disagree with "Because it was in Fight Club it must be right"
Larry: I mentioned FIGHT CLUB as an example, but the screenwriter didn't invent the feminization of the American male (Madison Avenue did that).
By "Feminization" you would mean the desire to by things simply to have them? The so called nesting instinct? Sure, I believe that.
I object to you labeling it as "Feminization". Just because some hollywood writer did that doesn't mean he knows the 1st thing about anthropology.
Here is some food for thought.... common believe held is that women choose a man who will support and protect them. Chimpy's common mantra of "More Energy == More Fitness == More chance to score some poontang". Yet Diamond has stats in 3rd Chimpanzee that shows that something like 25% of all babies out there are being raised by a man that thinks they are his but are not. Why would women cheat to such a high degree? Obviously they picked the man they thought would be best to raise their children why didn't they mate with that one?
One theory holds that women are sexually attracted at a basic pheremonal level to men that will produce babies with strong immune systems. (There was a study linking which man women thought smelled 'sexy' and immune system response... I just forget where you can dig it up) So the forebrain of said woman might be picking a man based on social fitness but her hindbrain (or gonads even) is picking a man based on immune systems genetics. Classic cognotive dissonance and a reason to cheat on ones socially recognized mate and have a kid belonging to another male. I can get behind a theory like this as smell is the only sense that goes straight to the brain without preprocessing... smell is powerful on a subconscious level.
Or it could all be hooey and we have no idea why we act the way we do.
But I'm sure as heck not going to make claims on human behaviour based on the rant of a fictional lunatic suffering from multiple personality disorder.... especially not from the sociopathic personality.
Larry,
Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club author) isn't a Hollywood writer, but a contemporary satirist. I don't like his style, but he does hit the target quite well.
On raising others' children: My understanding from "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, was that you can pare the arguments on why women do this, or why men haven't got foolproof tools for detecting it, to the fact that a set of genes that has a section of the genetic code for sometimes cheating on your partner has a better chance of being passed on than one that is always faithful.
I have a book called 'The Philosopher at the End of the Universe' that expounds on philosophy as shown in science fiction movies. Not a great book, but interesting.
Here's a blog post that approaches the same question using a slightly different metric: Energy Use vs. Living Standards. Instead of reported happiness and satisfaction, the metric is the more technocratic (and objective) Human Development Index, which is a combination of life expectancy, literacy, education, and GDP-based standards of living.
Leanan pointed out that tropical nations will use less energy for heating than cold weather nations. Also, she observed that offshoring a nation's industrial base will reduce its apparent energy use, even as its citizens are responsible for increased energy use elsewhere.
My reply was this: