←back to thread

Bhutan, after prioritizing happiness, now faces an existential crisis

(www.cbsnews.com)
271 points nradov | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 13:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
jaysonelliot ◴[18 Nov 24 14:52 UTC] 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 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:15 UTC] 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 #
1. brailsafe ◴[18 Nov 24 22:16 UTC] No.42177713[source]▶
Well, it's a more complex economic thing from what I'm learning. It's a systems issue rather than a discrete resource/physical capital/human capital thing, ultimately it comes down to incentives. If you have an extremely educated workforce but broadly no incentive to invest in the future, no way to capitalize on those hypothetical investments through access to market, for whichever reasons, then trying to tweak one variable like education will just overflow your shallow tub and the water will spill into countries that do have incentives and where the feedback loop works.

If that system breaks down, even for developing countries, it's worrying. For example Canada has a highly educated workforce with mobility, and has hamstrung itself by disincentivising productive investments, instead overvaluing real estate to the point where people entering the workforce now might not see a path to owning even a small condo by their 40s, unless you have a particularly rare and valuable skill, luck, or money from parents, which isn't a high prospect for the circulation of financial prosperity.

So we're just subsidizing U.S growth at this point, and so are many other countries, even though we and many immigrants would (often but not always) rather live here, either because this is where our lives are or this is where the vibes are, which is tough to reconcile if there's next to no economic opportunity inside the country.

This happens on a micro level as well, my home city's highest prospect is basically moving to a different city; people can be highly educated there, but unless you're going back into the academic system and your highest goal is basically getting a mcmansion (but probably not an actual mansion) you're gunna have to go elsewhere. Electricians probably do just fine though, nothing against that, but it's not really a force for innovation.