Most active commenters
  • FredPret(3)

←back to thread

271 points nradov | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.633s | source | bottom
Show context
jaysonelliot ◴[] No.42172799[source]
Despite the headline CBS gave the article, it seems the problem is not with happiness, but with the seductive appeal of materialism and the effects of exposing one culture to another.

Social comparison theory is the idea that our satisfaction with what we have isn't an objective measure, but is actually based on what we see other people have. Young people generally seem to have an innate desire to leave their hometowns and seek out what else might be waiting out there for them. When you add in globalization and media influence exposing them to what looks like a "better" life with more things, it's not surprising that they've seen ~9% of young people leave Bhutan.

The other question is, what will happen if Bhutan does increase their financial wealth as well as their happiness? Will they then see a net influx of people through immigration, looking for the lifestyle Bhutan promises? And will those new people be able to maintain the culture Bhutan has cultivated?

It sounds like the concept of Gross National Happiness is a successful one, on its own, but it brings new challenges that couldn't have been forseen originally. That doesn't mean they can't solve them without giving up their core values.

replies(7): >>42172887 #>>42173063 #>>42173254 #>>42173619 #>>42173660 #>>42173728 #>>42179386 #
cardanome ◴[] No.42173063[source]
Nah, the issue is the one that many developing countries suffer from: brain drain.

The best people leave the country because the can earn orders of magnitude more money in the developed world. This is why countries like the US keep being so successful while developing countries stay poor.

It is just the rational best decision for a young people to try their luck abroad and earn more money that they could ever dream of in their home country. Why shouldn't they? Idealism? There is nothing wrong with striving for a better life, it is what moves humanity forward.

Offering great and free education will always backfire for developing nations.

The solution is to either keep the population ignorant, hamstringing their education so they are less useful abroad and implementing a strict censorship regime so they don't get "corrupted" by the West or well force them to stay.

We saw that all play out in the Soviet Block. There is a good reason there was a wall.

I think the fairest solution is to NOT make education free but instant offer a deal of having to stay in the country and work for X-years in the profession one has been trained in by the state. Once they get older and settle down they are less likely to leave anyway.

Being a developing country just sucks. There is a reason most never break the cycle of poverty.

replies(22): >>42173148 #>>42173163 #>>42173280 #>>42173286 #>>42173298 #>>42173323 #>>42173483 #>>42173712 #>>42174306 #>>42175177 #>>42175245 #>>42175256 #>>42175422 #>>42175581 #>>42176184 #>>42176296 #>>42176930 #>>42177713 #>>42177808 #>>42177921 #>>42178010 #>>42181454 #
FredPret ◴[] No.42173280[source]
I'm part of the brain drain from my developing country-of-birth.

It's more than just money. To me, the money is a symptom of the real issue.

The real issue for me was the culture that exists in my birthplace. It just isn't welcoming to nerds or rich people. It doesn't lend itself to ever becoming developed.

When I compare and contrast to the New World: I find a much more welcoming culture that encourages personal progress. And not only are nerds welcome, but all sorts of productive folk. It's absolutely no surprise to me that the US is outperforming the rest of the world economically to a comical degree.

replies(7): >>42173586 #>>42173695 #>>42173745 #>>42173842 #>>42175404 #>>42175551 #>>42176878 #
1. dayvid ◴[] No.42175551[source]
Yes, I've traveled to a good amount of countries and the overwhelming corruption or culture which doesn't support fair enterprise is soul crushing. You can say America has it to some extent, but in a lot of places you really don't have a chance at all unless you're born into the right family.
replies(1): >>42175637 #
2. FredPret ◴[] No.42175637[source]
Travel is such an important part of a well-rounded education because it forces things into perspective. I’m glad it’s becoming cheaper. I dream of the day all kids can do it.
replies(1): >>42177431 #
3. ronjakoi ◴[] No.42177431[source]
Cheap travel is a horrible thing for the world. Mass tourism has destroyed a lot.
replies(3): >>42177842 #>>42177853 #>>42183141 #
4. Wolfenstein98k ◴[] No.42177842{3}[source]
Another, less pleasant way to say this:

You don't want everyone to travel - many people don't have a sense of respect and "light foot" that it takes to travel to foreign places without degrading or damaging them.

replies(1): >>42179057 #
5. FredPret ◴[] No.42177853{3}[source]
This amounts to “only rich people should be able to travel”
replies(1): >>42177996 #
6. criddell ◴[] No.42177996{4}[source]
Probably only rich people can afford to travel in a sustainable way. I’m thinking specifically if the carbon costs are priced into airfare (for example), flying may be out of reach for many of us.
replies(1): >>42194602 #
7. nradov ◴[] No.42179057{4}[source]
I want everyone to travel. It might take a while, but travel is one of the most effective ways to teach people how to have respect for others and behave better. How else will they ever learn?

Tourists might be annoying but scolds, killjoys, and condescending elitists are far worse.

8. xenospn ◴[] No.42183141{3}[source]
Wait until you hear what the Soviet Union did to its own lands without any tourists whatsoever.
replies(1): >>42188316 #
9. david-gpu ◴[] No.42188316{4}[source]
>> [Them] "A causes B"

> [You] "But C also causes B!"

Whataboutism.

10. rangestransform ◴[] No.42194602{5}[source]
This is why there is a global pushback against “climate elitist” policies like carbon tax and congestion pricing

I, for one, will never vote for making my flights more expensive

replies(1): >>42196806 #
11. criddell ◴[] No.42196806{6}[source]
There are ways to do it where you can get broad buy-in.

For example, say you added a $X / mile flight tax that collected $50 billion dollars in a year. You then take that money and divide it up evenly among all tax payers. Around 200 million people file taxes each year, so that would be a $250 refund to each filer. For people who never fly, that's free money. For people who fly infrequently, they probably break even. People who fly all the time pay a lot more. You reward non-flyers and penalize frequent flyers.

But you're right. We're all selfish. I want you would stop flying because it's bad for the climate but I'm not going to stop because my personal utility from flying is very high.

replies(1): >>42204544 #
12. rangestransform ◴[] No.42204544{7}[source]
Rationally yes, but it’s the same deal with the carbon tax where people smell elitism and start seeing red. At least the Canadian version paid out a dividend, and we all know what’s going to happen to that one come next election.