Bhutan, after prioritizing happiness, now faces an existential crisis

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.

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.

> striving for a better life

the problem here is that you're directly equating earning more money with a "better life"

once you have enough to have your needs met, then earning multiples times that doesn't make your life better; at that point, "better life" is much more impacted by other factors than money

The marginal utility of an extra dollar goes down as you get more of them, but it never reaches zero, especially if you have big dreams.

Just look at Musk and his startups - I bet he's very glad to have that 200 billionth dollar, because now he can have the space program he always wanted. This wouldn't have been possible in the third-world country where he grew up.

First, HN consistently misuses the term "third world". In 2024, this term is now very out of date to describe developing economies (and below). Also, the original meaning was not at all what most people think -- it was about Soviet vs US alignment. And, no, South Africa was definitely middle income when he grew up there -- and it still is (sadly). For a long time (maybe still true?), the GDP per capita in SA nearly the highest amoung all African countries. (I think Seychelles is the richest African country now.)

"Third world" was a geopolitical term but now it's economic and cultural.

I assure you South Africa is third world by any measure. The GDP of SA (a large country with tons of resources and a population of 60m) is roughly on par with that of the Toronto metro area (population 7m) or the Phoenix metro (population 5m). It's middle income... and it probably will ~always be.

None of this really matters though - what Musk has done in the US (like it - or him - or not) was only possible in the US.

GDP is a kind of screwed up measure because the buying power of the dollar in the US is so much worse than most other countries. Case in point you can find a little san jose neighborhood where the gdp is an order of magnitude higher than a little mexico city neighborhood with more or less the exact same sorts of homes on the same sort of street. Now you might argue the sj homes are that much more valuable because of what they offer beyond the home via location proximity to opportunities, but its not like everyone benefits from such things or even that these opportunities are equally available to everyone. Yet everyone shoulders the costs of others success and position.