Is More Better?
Posted by Stuart Staniford on March 6, 2006 - 12:56am
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: happiness, peak oil, 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 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?
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).
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.
You need a certain amount of energy to rise above subsistence, but then most energy consumption is a function of convenience (trading energy for time/less effort), living situation (choice of dwelling), diet (heavy on meat or not) and primary transportation mode (car vs. walk/bike/mass transit) or as you say "lifestyle".
A study was done in the recent past that analyzed wars, many of them civil wars, and the conclusion was of about 40 odd conflicts, only two (one was involving modern day Serbia as I recall) involved nations where the per capita income was over $3500. So if you give a person/family a "stake" - a chance or a position, well, you do the math.
In my local County Supervisor race, I was doing some research and one local political point (remember, all politics is local) was that if there was a conflict between party affiliation and a person being a homeowner, the homeowner part of a person usually won out over party affiliation.
The Last Sasquatch should also note that culture is a big factor too. I suspect Thai's are generally more happy than say, Ukrainians, though the latter have a higher income. Some of that is culture or national identity and some of it is not having to live where there is a lot of snow.
Such was noted in the book 'hackers' by steven levy. If you gave the people who were causing trouble on your computer system a job in the computer center, for most, the behavior stops.
In the US of A, the myth is 'anyone' can be president. There are a bunch of maxiums about hards work getting one ahead et la.
The reality is - the welfare system places many people in a stakeholder position. For cheaper than placing them into the prison system. When the effects of peak oil hit and the welfare system as it exists it trashed, I have little faith in the finding of another 'stakeholder' idea in America.
but I'll at least mention that there's a lot more we can do with Inglehart's post-materialism (do a google search on inglehart postmaterialism energy, and you'll get the gist on the sociopolitical ramificiations and theoretical assumptions of Inglehart's work, which is some of the best in comparative political science over the years...of course, that means that means that many have ripped it apart, but it's better to be talked about than not as an academic...&laugh&)
Second, I think this also relates to something we discussed here way back in the beginning about Putnam's social capital argument (link here). The decline of social capital in America is one of the endogenous effects going on in this relationship, and something to be considered when talking about social connectedness and happiness.
Finally, a methods question: How does one operationalize happiness? &chuckle& (I ask that semi-rhetorically, as there's a few problems with the WVS self-assessment question in my opinion...and those measurement and conceptual problems tie into Putnam's argument (as well as Huckfeldt and Sprague, as well as others) as well as a few other sociological and political science theoretical perspectives I'll not bore you with.)
http://www.theoildrum.com/classic/2005/06/peak-oil-and-americas-declining-social.html
http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/inglehart.pdf
As a buddhist, I know that happiness is not related to the material world except that you are hungry, tired, or in pain, and even that can be overcome (the additional psychological pain we inflict on ourselves on top of actual real world input).
What he skirts here is stated right up front with the simple statement "Our genetically embedded drive for `more' coupled with an expanding world population of 6.5 billion suggests a finite limit for growth will eventually be reached, if it hasn't been already." The problem is a matter of population, the drive for more, and other biological imperatives. We hit the carrying capacity some time ago, probably at one billion people, and no amount of wishful thinking can undo that. The sad truth is the human population must be reduced either by social engineering or it will happen in much crueler fashion through war, disease, and famine. The happiness quotient will probably be of little interest to those who are merely trying to survive with few survival skills. They may actually be happy in the moment, but the chances for physical pain and for death will clearly be increased come peak oil.
I am a firm believer in the idea of living in the moment and not letting the monkey brain make a bad situation fantastically worse, but we must acknowledge that we need to decrease our footprint, and we must start now.
I haven't missed the kids a bit; instead I work with the Partners program and help tutor kids (and they all know about peak oil!}
A big topic in the 1970s was "appropriate technology." Build passive solar homes. Pump water with solar or wind. Recycle clothings and tools. Ride a motorbike instead of driving a 4WD SUV to the coffee shop ...
In a way, we've lost our connection and love for simplicity and thrift.
I agree that we need to reduce population, and agree that this will not be easy at all. There are some "rational" or at least "rationalistic" approaches to this which on the face of it sound better than the apocalyptic approach of letting resource depletion, war, disease, and so forth reduce population.
While we work toward population control I want to emphasize the importance of nurturing the next generation. Paradoxical at best?
Yes, I saw that too. A friend commented on Africans feeling optimistic was due to there is no way ahead but up. Economically, most of the 3rd world is moving up, even if in small and halting steps.
Don in Colorado is obviously, like me, a throwback to the 60's and 70's. You still remember the Charlton Heston movie Soylent Green? I made the decision to have just one kid back than, and it worked out well.
The old novel ECOTOPIA advocated a population for California of 1 million and that sure makes sense today. But social engineering, and that is what you are advocating, has to be done in the context of the Constitution. Unfortunately you can not get to far out in front of the mass of humanity, or you will be simply a footnote for some future historian. You can be very correct in what you advocate, but you have to persuade people first, and remember we are arguing against Rush Limbaugh.
I have a brother visiting from Humboldt County who says they're implementing Ecotopia even as we speak. Something to do with certain buds and a whole new economy ...
Wouldn't only a million people in California be wonderful?
Besides, the horizontal axis should be median income - we don't weight happiness answers with persons income.
From the experience of the former Socialist countries we can conclude that we will not be happier after the Peak Oil induced recession.
And every marketing expert will tell you that people don't always behave like they say. Perfectly happy people will still try to get more income, even if it seems that they cannot be more happy.
For example, who was interviewed in nigeria and how? Were people who have been displaced by the oil and gas industry in the Niger Delta interviewed? Were top officials in the corrupt government or industry interviewed?
For country after country what seems to matter is the particulars of individual life stories and situations within the context of that county's larger economic story. Add to this the possibility that other "larger" narratives -- religion, faith in progress, hope for some specific reward or betterment -- can make a difference in one's happiness.
I agree that wealth does not make one happy! I agree that we need to explore the topic like this.
What are the premises we bring to the discussion, and are we aware of them? How do our premises affect our conclusions?
I suspect perceptions of happiness have much to do with self-comparisons versus a recent baseline- how ones life is versus how it was a few years ago - so perhaps the 2005-6 wave will show that former Russian countries are happier, since they had their energy drop off long ago, and have now equilibriated to it.
I also note a few interesting relationships like Ireland > UK > Germany, and the whole thing makes me think it would be very interesting to look at the relationship of happiness to growth rate (in either GDP/capita or energy/capita). Given that humans have a strong tendency to get used to conditions as they are, changes in level could be more important to happiness than the actual level.
Good point. There was a recent study done that found the wealthier you are, the less happy are. (Assuming basic needs are met.) The reason, the researchers claimed, was that the more you have, the less there is that can make you happy. For example, I would be ecstatic if I won $50,000 in the lottery. Bill Gates would barely notice.
OTOH, they've also found that in the long term, we all have a "happiness setpoint" we tend to return to. They studied people who had something wonderful happen to them, and people who had suffered something terrible. For example, people who won the lottery, and people who got permanently paralyzed in an accident. Good luck did make people happy for awhile, and bad luck made them depressed, but after about three years, they were back to normal. The naturally happy were happy, the naturally crabby were not.
Eventually Ill get to it
You sound like my 86 year-old-grandmother - and that is just about what she said when I asked, "and you guys still were happy and had normal lives even under THOSE conditions ???"
Our recent past was not that different from what we all could be living in the near future. Pockets of poverty (2nd-3rd world conditions?) will likely expand around the world and pockets of wealth will contract (first world). The LOCAL Picture as Kunstler talks about is the most important to the individual. But Most local pictures will likely get worse over time... especially in the Cities. Look at the displacement of those masses like from N.O in slow motion - into the smaller towns... refugees you know or don't know (who look different? sound, smell, feell...???)
[
The Cause
of displacement varies but the Q for REFUGEES - Do they pass the "look, sound, smell..." test? Or Birth-rights... "How long have YOU been a resident mr. Unfamiliar and stinking of the city?]..."They didn't know where to put us, because we have no rural home," one woman explains." ....who had one or both parents born ...reclassified as aliens... "Some people were not even aware they were classified as aliens," one human rights activist says. The loss of citizenship has made the future still less certain for those who have lost their homes, particularly the younger generation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4177222.stm
It think this kind of analysis misses a major point - Social Equity.
Although US consumes more energy per capita, Social Equity is not has good there as in Northern Europe, hence the higher satisfaction there. For instance life expectancy is much higher in Northern Europe than in the US, because there exists a universal medical care system.
That first graph should be pondered with some Social Equity indicator. I don't exactly how.
Still that 'boomerang' might appear, probably not so marked. But, is a Satisfaction rate linear by any means?
I don't recall the source, but I saw a credible poll that asked Canadians whether they preferred their safety net systems (health-care, retirement, etc) over the United States' system. Somewhere near 95% said they preferred Canadian systems. Then, people in the United States were asked to guess whether Canadians preferred their (Canadian) safety net or the United States' system. A thin majority of Americans thought that most Canadians would prefer a US-style system.
In other words, Americans have a misconception that Canadians are unhappy with their system. I would be willing to bet that most of us believe America to be the happiest country in the world.
My other source was outdated, look at it in The World Fact Book.
Some countries ahead the US : Bosnia, Jordan, Aruba, Martinique.
The Tyranny of Choice
It really seemed counterintuitive at first. How could people who have more choice be less happy? But that is what Schwartz found. Not just for people choosing mutual funds or flavors of jam, but for people choosing spouses or jobs.
Beautiful people who could have their pick of mates end up less happy in their marriages than average people. The average people know they did the best they could, and are content. The beautiful people are always wondering if they could have picked someone better. The straight A student who had his pick of jobs is less happy at work than the C student who is grateful just to have a job.
This probably goes a long way toward explaining why Nigerians are the happiest people on earth.
I think an alternative explanation of what makes someone a "satisficer" (as opposed to a "maximizer") is that, having been through some rough times, you're happy with what you have.
If I wake up with a headache on Tuesday, I don't need a lot more than "no headache" to make me happy on Wednesday.
Nonetheless, I think the choice angle is an important one, and this is the kind of self-awareness that improves happiness (without necessarily, a new car purchase).
1) In the sense of relative fitness, we cannot help but compare ourselves to our peers using what society deems as the 'standard' (currently => material wealth, historically =>seashells, wives, whale bone,etc - future =>best tomatoes, smallest energy footprint, etc). Its the Napolean complex on a societal level. One short on height, short on money, short on other things, etc feels the need to compensate...One current way to compensate is through ostentatious consumption
2)Our own happiness vs a baseline is not linear but geometric. I know as a money manager, the utility (happiness?) a client received by making 20% was far outweighed by the negative utility of subsequently losing 15%, even though they were ahead of where they originally started.
There is some research to suggest that each of us is genetically predisposed towards a certain level of general happiness, and lifes ups and downs create the range around the central value. For example, say on a scale of 1-100 that my baseline happiness is 60 and then I win the lottery, I might then be superhappy for a while (say 80), but then gradually would adjust my expectations (and complications) to eventually fall back to around 60. On the other side, if I experienced some debilitating illness, my happiness quotient might plunge to 40, but after I came to terms with it, the rest of my lifes pursuits would equilibriate and Id gradually get back to 60.
A bag of rice to a starving Ethiopian might generate the same 'feel good' brain chemicals as a $500,000 bonus for a wall st trader. Its all based on our expectations, and our recent life history.
I agree that is a tendency, but I think I made a conscious decision to get off the treadmill. I mean, knowing what a hedonic treadmill is, we can decide to what degree we want to be on it.
BTW, I suspect that there is a natural age related cycle to status-gambits in consumption. I think it's more natural in your 20's and 30's to see how far you can push ...
Something that was recently on the news: gorgeous blond movie star Meg Ryan complained to Oprah Winfrey about how awful it was to be famous. Oprah replied that she never felt that way. She said she was born a colored girl in Mississippi, and it's made her very grateful for everything she has, including fame.
I wonder how much of unhappiness is due to unrealistic expectations. They've found that American girls start suffering a sharp loss of self-esteem around when they hit puberty - when they start comparing themselves to the glamorous, airbrushed models and actresses they see in the media. The exception is minority girls. They do not suffer a drop in self-esteem, perhaps because they've known all along that they could not meet society's standard of beauty.
Kind of makes me wonder if parents are doing their kids a favor when they tell them they can be anything they want to be. I have one friend who's been so depressed for years she's been unable to work. She's got a PhD in one of the hard sciences from Harvard, and a husband and family who are completely devoted to her, but she can't even get out of bed many mornings. From what she says, part of the problem is her parents treated her like a princess (still do), and she can't deal with not being treated that way in the real world.
Realistically, we can't all be millionaires, or super-models, or pilots. Statistically the numbers just don't add up! Of course all societies have created myths. Mythology serves many purposes in culture. The danger comes I think when we actually begin to "believe" that our mythology really "exists" in the real world.
The Greeks for example had an elaborate system of mythology, which they had a complicated relationship to. At the same time they developed "science" and mathematics and geometry, a very "concrete" ways of looking at the world of the real.
It might be some interest to Americans of a certain persusion to learn that "creationism" and scepticism in relation to "Darwinsim" has apparently spread to England. Recently some newspapers have been writing about students who are believers in "intelligent design". Apparently there are a growing number of medical students who are fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, who are questioning Darwin on purely religious grounds, not scientific. I remember reading one article where a teacher in a London school was amazed to find out that three quarters of her class in bilogy rejected Darwin in favour of the Bible!
This is pretty startling. Unfortunatley it also seems to support my feeling that we're moving back towards "magic" to explain the world.
And Thomas Friedman is right about it being a significant change that Chinese and Indians find more mobility at home than they used to. He may be hit and miss, but he hit that one before the mainstream noticed.
(I do not know if this is the worldwide influence of Disney movies ;-)