←back to thread

271 points nradov | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.652s | source
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 #
1. Tabular-Iceberg ◴[] No.42177921[source]
Could it be argued that we in the west have some degree of moral responsibility to prevent brain drain from developing countries?

I don’t see the point of giving out tons of foreign aid when we’re just going to pull the rug out from underneath of them anyway.

replies(1): >>42177968 #
2. vivekd ◴[] No.42177968[source]
I mean it's not like developing countries are doing much to steward their best and brightest. Counties with brain drains also have serious issues with nepotism and cronyism limiting the ability of talent to rise up.

My parents are from Sri Lanka the former leaders family filled up the cabinet and ministry positions. They put forward wonderful plans like banning fertilizer imports. I think we need to accept that they're their own worst enemy here

replies(1): >>42182853 #
3. Tabular-Iceberg ◴[] No.42182853[source]
That must be what foreign aid is for. They can’t steward their own resources, and they don’t like it when we go there in person and do it for them, so we have to give them a portion of our own.

But then we hoover up all the people who could conceivably do the stewardship, perpetuating the cycle.