The politics of happiness
I mentioned the other day research by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks into the causes of happiness among Americans. In his new book Gross National Happiness (Basic), he shows that self-ratings of happiness are statistically reliable, and then writes about “three basic things that make people happy: meaning in their lives, control over their environment, and success in creating value in the world. And the way people get these things is not with money, or power, or fame—it is with their values. People who are serious about healthy values in their lives, families, and communities are much happier than others.”
WOW: You examine “the politics of happiness” and come to some conclusions about liberals and conservatives that would surprise our academic colleagues who stereotype conservatives as emotionally rigid, insecure, and angry…
ACB: I look at strange data results all day, but the evidence on liberals and conservatives surprised even me. People who say they are conservative or very conservative are nearly twice as likely to say they are “very happy,” than are people who called themselves liberal or very liberal. Conservatives are much less likely to say they are dissatisfied with themselves, that they are inclined to feel like a failure, or to be pessimistic about their futures. A 2007 survey even found that 58 percent of Republicans rated their mental health as “excellent,” versus just 38 percent of Democrats.
WOW: What is the relationship between economic inequality and unhappiness?
ACB: We hear from a lot of politicians these days that income inequality makes us unhappy. This is not correct. What makes people unhappy is the belief that they do not have opportunities to get ahead in life. What they often complain about, however, is income inequality. Studies show that when people feel economically mobile, they actually like income inequality even if they have less than others because it shows them what they can achieve. The irony is that when politicians fight income inequality they often lower economic mobility by wrecking the rewards to hard work. And this makes the real problem worse, not better.
WOW: The mantra of this year’s election campaign so far is “change,” with partisans evidently feeling a spurt of joy every time a candidate mentions the word. Why does that word have that effect?
ACB: This is due to what psychologists call the “Principle of Adaptation.” We get used to life’s status quo very quickly, and crave improvement as a source of happiness. This is why we get the most pleasure from a pay raise not when it shows up in our paychecks, but rather when we find out we’re going to get it. Lots of people forget that we are the most prosperous, free nation in the world. Americans are accustomed to feeling safe in their homes, being able to express their political opinions without being arrested, and finding food in the supermarket. Some politicians can and do degrade the importance of these things and convince us that we are unhappy—and only significant change will make things right.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “The politics of happiness”
self-ratings of happiness are statistically reliable,
What does this mean? That they are truly as happy as they rate themselves (how would that be determined) or that they consistently rate themselves as happy (whether they are or not)?
Report comment to moderator
I read it to mean that when YOU (as opposed to someone else) rate your own level of happiness, your evaluation is reliable.
Report comment to moderator
Happiness – being an internal state of mind only minimally related to objective outside circumstances – can only be self rated.
Report comment to moderator
Liberals DESERVE to be unhappy, because they mess up the world for the rest of us sane people.
Report comment to moderator
We hear from a lot of politicians these days that income inequality makes us unhappy. This is not correct. What makes people unhappy is the belief that they do not have opportunities to get ahead in life. What they often complain about, however, is income inequality. Studies show that when people feel economically mobile, they actually like income inequality even if they have less than others because it shows them what they can achieve. The irony is that when politicians fight income inequality they often lower economic mobility by wrecking the rewards to hard work. And this makes the real problem worse, not better.
A political agenda seems apparent here.In the past, I’ve mentioned the Satisfaction with Life index which is based on the Happy Planet survey. Many of the top ten countries have programmes expressly constructed to reduce income inequality. Yet the people are happy. America ranks 21 whereas the social democracies of north west Europe dominated the top ten.
Lots of people forget that we are the most prosperous, free nation in the world.
Hyperbole that the author might wish to research since the US is ranked 11th in per capita income. Again the social democracies of northern europe are ranked higher than the US.The UN Human Development Index ranks the US at 12th with many western social democracies ahead of them.
As for freedom the Worldwide Press Freedom Index ranked the US as satisfactory unlike the rest of the western nations which were ranked good. The conservative Heritage Foundation ranks the US as 5th after Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and Ireland. According to the conservative Fraser Institutes’s Economic Freedom index America is again 5th tied with the UK and Canada and behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland and New Zealand. And according to the Economist America’s democracy is rated 17th again behind most of western Europe.
There’s a vast amount of opposing research to suggest Brooks’s data was very selective in order to back up a preconceived opinion.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, aren’t you glad you don’t live in the nasty ol’ USA?
I’m glad too.
Report comment to moderator
The most significant factor in happiness is not economics or money, but the motto we read on our money–”In God We Trust!” Happiness rises out of that primary vertical relationship, which in turn blesses our horizoatl relationships. .
Report comment to moderator
I think it spek well of the US that many of its harshest critics live here, and don’t want to leave.
Report comment to moderator
Last year, I read a good book by Gregg Easterbrook titled, “The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse.”
He explained how life has long been getting better for humanity but many of us won’t see it. Consider our progress:
Food. We have an abundance of food at our disposal. In today’s America, overindulgence is actually a problem for many whom we categorize as “poor.”
Housing. Personal ownership of huge heated (or cooled) plush homes is now commonplace. The average square footage of American homes has doubled in one generation.
Travel. Personal mobility is at it’s highest point ever. Americans took 612 million plane trips in 2002–that after 9/11. One can visit Australia, overnight.
Safety. Road travel is getting safer. 52.627 Americans died in auto accidents in 1970, compared to 42,850 in 2002 when far more cars were on the roads.
Communication. It’s global and instantaneous. We have unprecedented access to information, art, literature and people.
Peace. Four times as many people died globally in 2000 of car accidents than in any form of combat. Since then, we’ve seen a war on jihadist terrorism, but casualties are nowhere near what they were during previous wars.
Leisure. The work-week has gone from 66 hours in 1850 to about 42 today. Vacations were rare for your great grandfather. Paid vacations were unheard of. And spending 29 hours a week watching other people pretend to live (TV) would be even harder for your grand-dad to fathom.
Education. Global adult literacy went from 47% in 1970 to 73% in 2003. The college completion rates of black Americans exceed the comparable figures for whites in most of Western Europe.
Poverty. The “poor” of the past would envy the “poor” of today.
Environment. Air and water pollution are much improved over the past.
Political freedom. Our victory in the Cold War was a profound good for the world. There are despotic hot spots, but democracy keeps creeping forward.
The economy. Inflation-adjusted per-capita incomes are rising (especially among African-Americans), purchasing power is up, unemployment remained below 5% for years, and the standard of living keeps rising.
Minorities. Formal discrimination against minorities has seriously diminished. Women have far greater rights than before (in the West at least).
Health. Smallpox, polio, measles, rickets, lockjaw, yellow fever, typhoid, TB and more have been either defeated or greatly reduced. People recover faster today from less-invasive surgeries. Young people who used to see doctors for life-threatening ailments, today might see them for cosmetic treatments.
Longevity. Perhaps the greatest achievement of all is that the average American’s lifespan, which in 1900 was 41 (some studies claim, 47), today is 78 (66 for the world). Also, the health and lifespan gaps between the rich and poor has almost completely closed.
All things considered, do you feel grateful or cynical about our times and your life in today‘s world?
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately, too many of us are programmed by the media, educators and (often) each other for pessimism. our incapcisty for gratitude leaves us mired in anger. Victimhood has become a sort of status. Greg Easterbrook (in the book I referenced above) wrote, “Western culture encourages men and women to nurse grievances.”
We would rather be outraged than grateful.
A flaw in Easterbrook’s book is that he looks to structural reform for hope rather than to any underlying moral or spiritual recovery. In this context, he even took some cheap shots toward “American Christians.” I think structural reform is rootless without moral reform.
It sounds like the book that triggered this thread looks more to “values” than to “structural reform” as the key and I would agree.
But we have to ignore an ocean of evidence to remain ungrateful in today’s world.
Report comment to moderator
“We would rather be outraged than grateful.”
Joel Mark – I’ve seen this in action, & it is heartbreaking. As I said on the other thread from this article, it is a choice to be grateful.
Being grateful is like a double blessing. Our sense of gratitude makes us appreciate things all the more.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that people’s self-identification as “conservatives” or “liberals” means all that much.
I would refer to myself as a conservative, although few of the WorldMag crowd would refer to me in that way. On the other hand, the WorldMag crowd would refer to many people as liberals who would never use the term to refer to themselves.
Most of my co-workers at a large law firm would refer to themselves as “conservatives,” yet probably no more than about 30% are reliable GOP voters. By “conservative,” they simply mean that they favor limited government, personal responsibility, and a general condition of social order. But these folks largely take no sides in the “culture war” that defines what evangelicals mean by “conservative.”
Maybe they should ask, “Do you consider yourself to be part of the religious right?” I’d be interested in how many answering “yes” to that question would be happy.
Based on what I see on this blog and in the public pronouncements of leaders of the religious right (e.g., James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc.), I can’t see that too many of y’all are happy.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Joel — the statistics don’t support you. America the most religious western country is not the happiest western country. The happiest countries generally hail from the apathic agnostics of western Europe.
#8 KRM — Immigration to Canada by Americans has almost doubled since Bush was elected
http://tinyurl.com/6qs49f
Now I would agree the vast majority stay in America committed to change but many including people I work with are happy to have left and are contributing members of the community.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
Food: The problem is not quantity but quality. Obesity is a problem due to the large amounts of cheap processed foods and gov’t subsidized corn based sugars.
Housing: Agreed but America’s personal debt is also larger. And the percentage of personal income dedicated to housing costs is larger from about 25 to 33 in the last 25 years. Also, the affordability of this housing is possible only through the influx of millions of middle class women into the workforce.
Travel and Communication: It is faster, safer and more effecient but the speed has left people exhausted from the constant travel and time shift.
Peace: War has been outsourced and done by proxy for the last 50 years. The present war on terror and the continued war of drugs are not wars — you can’t declare war on a strategy and a commodity — you can win when the enemy isn’t able to concede. Thus, the constant yet distant war of an Orwellian nightmare is a reality.
Leisure: Leisure time has actually declined since the 1950s with many Americans failing to take their entire vacation time for fear they will lose their job. If you want to make a case for increased leisure you are on the wrong side of the ocean.
Education: You are comparing apples to oranges — the European college/university system is not the same and their universities generally have higher admission standards and their colleges don’t grant degrees. Europeans tend to reserve degrees for humanities only. The American system of state university and liberal arts colleges are not the same.
Poverty — poverty has been outsourced.Previously self sufficient economies have been forced into the global economy allowing the poor of the west to rise in income.
Economy — you are an optimistic; housing foreclosures, declining wages, rising unemployment, outsourcing etc.
Political Freedom: rising authoritarianism in the soviet successor states, Gitmo, Patriot Act, military tribunals, ghost prisons, increase in domestic surveillance in the west, the use of fear to accept limits,
Minorities: Illegal immigrants and gays are the new black.
Health: rise in costs, decline in insurance, antibiotic resistant superbugs and TB, the continued HIV/AIDS epidemic, increased globalization has created quick global epidemics,
Longevity — its not length but the quality
Optimism is for the weak.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I have to take issue with a lot of your list–but “gays are the new black” is just indecipherable–do you mean as the new untouchable minority? If so, then yes, you’re right. If you mean they have less favor, like blacks used to, then you simply haven’t been noticing what’s happening, at last in the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
I find some of the comments amusing, as we live within miles of many of the best Universities in California. UCLA, Stanford, USC, UCSD, USD, Berkley, UCSF, UC Davis, Cal Tech, –
Those who come from other parts of the world, be it Asaia, or Europe do all they can to enroll in our schools. They long for engineering degrees, medicine is top priority (if they can get it) along with many other specialites. They come here from every country because we have the best schools — just ask them -
Our standards in many areas are higher. Those who come here from other countries have a difficult time passing the required tests. For this reason they may have to take many subjects they thought they had already covered OVER AGAIN, this is especially true in medicine.
Report comment to moderator
#5. No political agenda from HRW sources;
From Wikipedia about the Happy Planet Index.
“Much criticism of the index has been due to commentators falsely understanding it to be a measure of happiness, when it is in fact a measure of the ecological efficiency of supporting well-being (see, for example, the following blogs in Heavy Lifting[6] and Spiked[7]).
Aside from that, criticism has focussed on the following:
• That the World Values Survey covers only a minority of the world’s nations and is only done every five years. As a result, much of the data for the index must come from other sources, or is estimated using regressions.
• General suspicion of subjective measures of well-being.[8]
• That the Ecological Footprint is a controversial concept with many criticisms.[9]
“Reporters Without Borders publishes the first worldwide press freedom index (October 2002) “The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.”
It seems the United States believes that Journalist should be subject the same laws as everyone else. Shamefull.
Report comment to moderator
13. HRW, That is still not quite 11,000 people, compared to over 700,000 going the other way.
Report comment to moderator
kbells — I agree with the criticism of the Happy Planet Index but the Satisfaction with Life Index uses a different criteria and has different results.
The Happy Planet Index reduces the Satisfaction score on the basis of ecological footprint. One might call it happiness pro rated on the basis of consumption. The aim is to achieve the most efficient production of happiness. However, that is a political critique whereas satisfaction index measures happiness without the ecological adjustment.
kbells — the number 11,000 refers to the number who immigranted from the US to Canada that year (2006) whereas your figure of 700,000 refers to the total number of Canadians who reside in the US . In fact, only 24,000 Canadians emigrated to the US in 2000. Given the much larger economy in the US, this is not surprising. In 2000 a large number of people migrated to the US Southwest and have since that time migrated back. This is difficult to track but the oil boom in northern Alberta and renewed health care spending in Ontario have both encourage Canadians to return. In fact 2005 marked the first year in over a decade where more medical professionals went north rather than south.
Report comment to moderator
gays are the new blacks is a reference to the Repubican use of increased gay rights as a threat to the mainstream. Its a repeat of Nixon’s southern strategy which used working class white discontent with black civil rights to win over the US south to the republican side. Now gays are used as a means to keeping the social conservatives (the same working class whites) on the Republican side. Its scapegoat politics 101
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I cited the book. Those statistics are documented therein. You can take them or leave them. Me, I always advise caustion with regard to statistics. But Easterbrook’s book makes many good points with them. Juge for yourselves.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Optimism is for the weak.”
Human beings run the gamit between weak and strong. A more informed optimism is fitting for us all.
It often takes great courage and tenacity to bring intelligent optimism into your life and relationships. Too many pessimists simply get that way by watching lots of TV. That’s weak.
What HRW may not know is that Gregg Easterbrook was really rather liberal. But I enjoyed his book and his well-founded optimism nonetheless.
The world has been largely getting better, stronger, healthier, safer, less oppressive, more free, and easier to get around for a long time now. If you don’t think so, open up a good history book. None of this means ignoring the flaws and pitfalls. But we have become just too good at ignoring the progress.
“Be joyful in hope.” Paul (Romans 12:12).
Report comment to moderator
#21 Joel I was referring to your comment in #7. My statistics your comment claiming its a trust in God which determines happiness — the stats point out that richer nations are happier and nations with greater individual financial security (social democratic welfare states) are happier than those in a “free market” economy.
#22 — whether a writer is liberal or conservative matters not to the validity of his conclusion. In order to be optimism one must ignore certain trends in favor of others. Its a matter of preference, I prefer the glass half empty.
The idea of progress is a classical liberal idea where the past is viewed as a progression of steps taken to reach the ideal we have today and we must continue to plot the path for even greater success. After the 20th century, the idea of progress is all but dead except for the occasional deluded neo-con. Yes, we have marvelous machines which make our lives and work easier — hence we’ve become very adept at wiping out entire nations without even straining a finger. The use of financial markets to invest and spur new growth creates a boom and bust economy that regularly wipes out people’s life savings. For all the progress you can cite, I can cite the obvious. We have mechanized warfare, electrified and virtualized gambling/stock market, reduced politics to branding and advertising, changed citizens into consumers, made consumption en end unto itself, freedom has become media driven conformity.
I have studied history where war was a “sport” played by the ruling classes and didn’t involve the people, disease was localized, the medieval peasant although tied to the land and its lord had more holidays than the modern US factory worker.
I believe Paul was referring to the afterlife where alienated souls of this planet can finally achieve the happiness denied to them here. Classic displacement.
Report comment to moderator
HRW. “the number 11,000 refers to the number who immigranted from the US to Canada that year (2006) whereas your figure of 700,000 refers to the total number of Canadians who reside in the US .
You’re right. I realized my mistake too late to change it before I had to get to church. Still 11,000 people out of nearly 300,000,000. It’s not exactly like they are pouring over the border like Mexicans.
Report comment to moderator
I think we both agree that the US is not Mexico and even I would prefer the former over the latter. But I would prefer Canada, Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand before I make a permanent move across the bridge. So the US is #12 in my books — not bad considering the competition.
Report comment to moderator
Okay that’s a bit harsh — there’s parts of the US I would have no problem relocating to; the NorthWest, Minnesota/Wisconsin, New York, New England…
Report comment to moderator
And I can’t think of one place in the whole world that I would leave the Southeast Untied States for. I guess it depends on what you value.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Statistics schmatistics. Your objection is irrelevant to my point. Statistics had nothing to do with my point at #7 either way.
Statisitcs can be schmoosed all over the carpet, HRW. But common rational sense (which is usually the same as my opinion–smile), testify to the significance of values and trust in human happiness.
Report comment to moderator
But if statistics and social science impress you, HRW, then this book under review apparently contradicts your point of view, which you are free to hold anyhow.
Report comment to moderator
It is incorrect, HRW, to say that optimism requires that one must ignore certain trends…”
One simply meeds to open one’s eyes to all the factors and see a big picture that evidences progress, healthy hope and merits gratitude.
Informed optimism and gratidue go hand in hand and both are huge ingredients in happiness.
HRW said, we’ve become very adept at wiping out entire nations without even straining a finger.”
Really? Who, besides Saddam or Iran or the terrorists, have even tried to “wipe out” an entire nation? The USA has acted to save Kuwait and to prevent the destruction of Iraq by Al Qaeda and other terrorists. We are rebuilders there, helpig to restore a nation.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “I have studied history where war was a ’sport’ played by the ruling classes and didn’t involve the people, disease was localized, the medieval peasant although tied to the land and its lord had more holidays than the modern US factory worker.”
HRW, I think you need a better history education. When you consider the kind of suffering we’ve seen in history with the Great Depression, the holocaust, huge epidemics (with little medicine), Great plagues, Stalin’s stematic liquidations, Mao’s murders, etc, one has to be thankful for the greater accountability and security in today’s world wherin the USA has been the only major superpower.
HRW, “We have mechanized warfare.”
So? Notice that casualties are far less today in modern wars than in history since we can better target our attacks on the bad guys.
Why is it so important to you to contort reality to assure pessimism?
Report comment to moderator
kbells — not enough snow, not enough hockey, and not cold enough … not too mention a fascination with cars going around in circles — that alone disqualifies the south before i even start with social, economic and political rationales.
Report comment to moderator
Joel sometimes reality presents some cold hard truths which we like to ignore. Wealth does in most cases lead to greater happiness — international comparisons make this point. Religious values promote happiness in the case of the marginalized and the severely poor as religion gives them hope and alienates their misery. In the successful middle class, religion neither adds nor subtracts to their happiness. What really matters is financial and material security. In reference to the book and author, the built in bias is apparent — he based his conclusion on his own surveys yet ignores the more common indexes.
Report comment to moderator
Joel I refer to the 20th century as the recent past hence the Great Depression, the holocaust … Stalin’s stematic liquidations, Mao’s murders, etc, are for me not history but the modern results of history.
Remember the concept of progress is a 17th-18th C idea which believed change from the past would lead better and better changes. The best example is the Whig view of history which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment. Its teleological in its presentation which is probably why similar views of historical progression appeal to Christians.
The 20th C demonstrated the fallacy of this approach and teleological ideas in general as progress seemed to have increasing side effects and blow back.
Report comment to moderator
Who, besides Saddam or Iran or the terrorists, have even tried to “wipe out” an entire nation?
America with the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima wiped out two cities.
America, Britain, and Canada bombed Germany into oblivion.
Germany raped and pillage into the USSR and scorched the earth on the way out.
Syria, Egypt, etc on Israel.
America dropped more bombs on Vietnam than on Germany.
Serbia attempted to wipe out the Bosnian Muslims and the Kosovar Albanian Muslims
Russia is still trying to wipe out Chechnya
20th Century modern progress in mechanization, science, and transportation has given human the ability to destroy vast numbers of humans solely on the basis of difference. An ability humans have used to slaughter their fellow man in numbers unheard of prior to the 20thC. In all cases cited you should note that war has changed from a military fight to total war where civilians are considered collateral damage.
Civilian casualties have increased rather than decreased. In a two week period in 2003, Iraq hospitals reported almost 2000 deaths.
On March 22, 2003;
57-100 by US missile strikes in Khormal
50-77 by US bombardment in Basra.
I choose 2003 because it was what the right calls the war as opposed to the current police action.
http://tinyurl.com/5×2sba
A conservative estimate of the boy count is 90,000 from 2003 to the present.
Report comment to moderator
As I mentioned before we have outsourced war, disease and poverty outside of the western world. We may be living better than our ancestors but only at the cost of other nations. Africans are not living better than their ancestors. 2 million people died in Africa from AIDS in 2005 alone. Life expectancy has gone done, entire villages have emptied, children are raising themselves. Medieval Europe has been exported to Africa.
Finally, why do I spend so much time on this? As a fellow history student once stated, historians can’t help but be pessimists and cynics. Nothing annoys historians today than a representation of Whiggish historiography. “The End of History” is a recent manifestation of this fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
HRW said, we’ve become very adept at wiping out entire nations without even straining a finger.”
Nagasaki and Hiroshima do not answer this qestion. You said entire nations, HRW. Those bombs are what finally put an end to the most horrific war in human hisotry. Japan nay not have stopped had we not showed that to them. That’s a sad reality, but still a reality. So, the context complicates it, and they still do not answer my question.
And the bombing that we did in WW2 was not to “wipe out” ANY nation but to defend the world against Hitler and fascism. Context, context, context.
Of course, the aim to wipe out other nations exists. Amidinijah of Iran has declared that he wants to do this with Israel. I just wanted to know who you meant by “we.”
But We (the USA) stopped Saddam from wiping out Kuwait, we stopped Serbia from wiping out the Kosovar Muslims. We are stopping Al Qaeda and the terrorists from their goals.
I could agree with HRW that optimism could be tough these days were it not for the USA in the world.
The ability humans have used to slaughter is higher but the RESULTS are lower in modern times. There are now more restraints than ever in play, than in previous generatios.
Civilian casualties have NOT increased in more recent wars. They were much higher in previous world wars–in the millions, not thousands. Today, the civilian casualties we do see are flatly laid at the feet of the terrorists who hide behind women and children on purpose. And the USA is taking more military casualties due to our efforts to minimize civilian casualties as much as human ly possible and still take out the cowardly terrorist scum.
Report comment to moderator
It is false to say that “we have outsourced war, disease and poverty outside of the western world.”
These problems have ALWAYS existed out there and not because we “outsourced” them. In fact, the USA and other Western nations have made huge sacrifices to try to help aliviate these problems. There have been some sources of exploitation and they usually come from within those cultures rather than from outside. And such sources are as old as dirt, and used to be a lot worse since they could operate in the dark. Global communication tends to act as a restraint in more cases today–though not enough.
Optimism is still in order for tough-minded, well-informed and caring people.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “We may be living better than our ancestors but only at the cost of other nations.”
False. The poor of past generations would greatly envy who we call the poor today. This is not to gloss over today’s problems but to realize that the extent of poverty in the past was profoundly worse, but for smaller populations perhaps simply because of population growth in recent times. So statistics must be adjusted to population growth, which itself has been a recent sign of the progress of which I speak.
The world is more prosperous than ever and this risig tide has lifted most of the the boats. But there will always be poverty and suffering in this world to various extents.
Most Africans are better off than their ancestors who were more apt to sell each other into slavery. The AIDS epidemic represents a new development but it does not change the overall picture. Other epidemics have been just as devastating in the past and with less medical intervention of any kind.
Life expectancy rates in general have risen around the world in recent times (thus the steady population growth). Isolated exeptions do not alter that fact overall.
Report comment to moderator
Those bombs are what finally put an end to the most horrific war in human hisotry. Japan nay not have stopped had we not showed that to them. That’s a sad reality, but still a reality.
Thats been debated by historians for the last 50 years and the consensus that has emerged is Japan was only a few weeks from defeat. The Japanese had sent out peace offers but were rejected by the US.
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm
wikipedia has a good pro-con article
http://tinyurl.com/5v7j2x
The bomb was dropped as a test case, an example to the Soviets and to save US military lives. Hence Japanese civilians died instead of soldiers.
By 1942, the Allies had more or less given up on strategic bombing of Germany. Realizing that most bombs missed their targets, they instead rationalized the enormous expense as depopulating the cities and forced worker “holidays”. They sought to exhaust the working class by continuous deprivation so they wouldn’t work hard.
The “We” which stopped Serbia and Iraq 1990 were NATO and the UN respectively.
There are now more restraints than ever in play, than in previous generatios.
Until the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and mass media, the mechanization of warfare continued unabated. Yet a certain amount of xenophobia has allowed Vietnamese and Iraqi civilians to be discounted despite the presence of the news crew.
Restraints which have traditional been in place such as the Geneva Convention have been removed by the present Bush adminstration which aslo seen fit to overlook the basis of freedom in the English speaking world, habeaus corpus.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, we (the USA) were the main driving force that stopped Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars (alliances notwithstanding). That said, it may not have been a wise war. Those we helped were really no better than those we opposed.
Report comment to moderator
In order to increase the material wealth of the western working class, we have relied on child labour, sweatshop labour, and industrial scences worse than 19thC england but not where we can see it. Out of sight and out of mind in the third world. Poverty has been outsources.
Proxy wars was a constant feature of the Cold War landscape. Angola and the Congo are two prominent examples of the two sides using proxies to fight for minerals and oil they wanted. Hence, war cause by our and the Soviet demand for resource resulting in a continuous conflict which still manages to kill hundreds of thousands on a yearly basis. Its too easy and simplistic to dismiss by stating there has always been war there. Perhaps but in this case the west bears some responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Most Africans are better off than their ancestors who were more apt to sell each other into slavery.
And who provided the demand for these goods.
AIDS epidemic represents a new development but it does not change the overall picture.
Yes it has. Its reduced to the life expectancy rates to resemble those of the 19th C
Life expectancy rates in general have risen around the world in recent times (thus the steady population growth). Isolated exeptions do not alter that fact overall.
sub-Saharan Africa is not an isolated example
Report comment to moderator
The Kosovar campaign was fought to save face. Milosovic had defied NATO for so long that it was proving embarassing and other nations may have doubted NATO’s resolve.
The KLA was heavily influence by Albanian mafia types but the political leadership was more pacifist and western in orientation.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!