Well-being, hard choices and deep change
"Contentment." Image by kahala.
Guest post by John Stutz of the Great Transition Initiative.
There are many ways to approach and conceptualize well–being. It is useful to identify three rather different notions of well–being: economic, physical, and psychological.
Economic well–being is what we have in mind when we describe individuals, groups, or nations as “rich” or “poor.” The general presumption is that the “rich” enjoy greater well–being than the “poor.” Accordingly, economic growth–a higher income for the individual or group, and greater Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita for nations–is pursued as a strategy to enhance well–being.
Physical and psychological well–being focus on more fundamental concerns: do we enjoy long, healthy lives and are we content with the lives we live?
One obvious question is whether, as an individual group or a nation moves from “poor” to “rich,” their physical and psychological well–being improve as well.
The short answer is “yes.” However, the improvement is not uniform. If one begins with the poorest, there is initial rapid increase in physical and psychological well–being. Buy, once even modest levels of economic well–being are reached, progress slows dramatically. Between the “moderately well off” and the “rich,” progress is minimal.
Hard Truths
Today individual action and public policy concerning climate change are shaped and constrained by our unremitting pursuit of economic growth. The U.S. has rejected compliance with the Kyoto agreement because of a concern that it will reduce economic growth. Elsewhere efforts to address climate concerns are careful not to do so at the expense of economic growth. The recent Stern Report to the British Government notes that stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations is “consistent with continued growth.” The cost of failing to stabilize, it is argued, will be far greater than the cost of action. Thus, remarkably, the desire to maximize economic growth over the next 50 years becomes, in the Stern Report, a reason to address climate change.
Why is economic growth so important? In our consumer society, well–being is largely synonymous with economic well–being. Individuals, businesses, and governments find themselves on a “treadmill,” with continued growth in income, profit and GDP required simply to maintain well–being. One hard truth is that policy–makers as different as George Bush and Nicholas Stern recognize the importance of combining economic growth to our collective sense of well–being, shaping and presenting their policies accordingly.
The Stern Report sets the cost of action at 1 percent of GDP by 2050, an amount described as “significant but manageable.” Historically, GDP has grown at well over 1 percent per year.
Even at 1 percent, GDP would be over 50 percent higher in 2050 than in 2006. At 2 percent per year–the growth suggested by experience over the last 50 years as well as current long–term forecasts by bodies such as the World Bank–GDP would be 140 percent higher.
Why, when anticipated gains are 50 to 140 percent, is the loss of 1 percent “significant”? Kahneman’s Nobel Prize–winning work on behavioral economics provides part of the answer. His prospect theory indicates that individuals are much more sensitive to loss than to gain. One percent of GDP in 2050 is a very large number. The authors of the Stern Report know that their critics will point this out and, indeed, play on it. A second hard truth is that, given basic human psychology, what are objectively small losses can matter a great deal.
A third hard truth emerges when one looks to see how acceptance of continuing economic growth affects the strategy for dealing with climate change put forward in the Stern Report. As one might expect, the report stresses changes in technology and efficiency. Unfortunately, both experience and analysis show that the effects of increasing affluence can offset the gains they can produce. In Denmark, differences in residential electricity consumption are due primarily to the number of appliances owned and their patterns of use, not appliance efficiency. In the U.S., larger sizes, extra features, and multiple unit ownership has substantially offset dramatic gains in refrigerator efficiency. Acceptance of continuing economic growth makes efforts, such as the action on climate change proposed in the Stern Report, a steep uphill battle.
Deep Change
The point of the preceding discussion is not to criticize the Stern Report–one of the most serious and thoughtful discussions of action on climate change to appear in a long while. Rather, it is to highlight the acceptance of continuing economic growth on which the report, and most other “mainstream” discussion of environmental concerns rests.
One can then ask whether acceptance of economic growth is appropriate given what we know about well–being. The results discussed at the end of the first section show that for individuals, groups, and nations that are at least moderately well off, the answer is “no.” Building on this insight one can broaden and reshape the discussion, to focus on the identification and promotion of options which yield greater physical and psychological well–being and at the same time address climate change.
To see how this could occur, it is useful to begin with a simple example.
Consider the choice many of us have to walk all or part of the way to work. One could promote such walking as part of an effort to increase well–being. One could also campaign for the widespread creation of car–free areas, in urban centers, suburban office parks, and other locales similar to those found on many college campuses. Government could be asked to create a system of grants for signage and education, designed to foster “taking the stairs.” Finally, throw in a media effort, to link such individual choices and policy actions to climate change, providing those who choose to walk, and to support car–free areas and stair grants, the gratification that can come from knowing that they are addressing climate change. Of course, this is only one admittedly simple and limited example. However, taken together, this and many other similar efforts may have a chance of producing a major change in social values and dominant culture.
Like the authors of the Stern Report, I believe that progress in addressing climate change likely requires harmonization with the pursuit of well–being.
As the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman has pointed out, except extreme crises such as The Great Depression, socially progressive actions such as addressing climate change have generally occurred during periods of increasing well–being.
However, I believe that the relevant notion of well–being is shifting. Progress in our understanding of well–being can help us capitalize on this shift. How much we can make of this opportunity is, at the moment, an open question.
John Stutz is a Vice President and founder of Tellus Institute where he has worked on energy and environmental issues for the past 30 years. As Director of the Human Well–Being Program, his research currently centers on human well–being, particularly as it relates to values, affluence, and the environment. Stutz holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Princeton University.
Dear John Stutz,
Perhaps you could help deepening our understanding by responding to a couple of questions.
1) Could you make a distinction between sustainable economic development and economic growth?
2) Given the scale and rate of global economic growth now, are there not foreseeable limits to economic growth that will inevitably be imposed by the physical limitations of a relatively small, finite world the size of Earth?
Thanks,
Steve
I don’t think there’s any more surprising topic in science today – to me – than the subject of well-being. I just didn’t expect, in my lifetime, to hear scholars and scientists talking about this subject. This is a very pleasant surprise!
A recent example in my own life: riding the bus. I’ve been a bus rider since the start of this year. Riding the bus also means more walking. And, perhaps best of all, it means more “downtime.”
I’m struck, as I walk or wait, by the streams of cars moving past me on the street and by the faces of the people in the cars. They tend to be frowning … many look grim … their windows are up … they don’t look like they’re having as much fun as I am, relaxing and waiting for my bus.
I don’t want to say too much about bus-riding because I know I’m fortunate to live near a convenient bus line, and to be in a time of my life when my children are grown. It would be much harder to ride the bus with small children in tow, although I see people doing it.
But I do want to say that I welcome this discussion of what well-being really means.
And I wonder what other people think about well-being in their own lives. What do you think? Clearly, as John says, there would be progress in one’s sense of well-being after moving from “poor” to “moderately well off.” But once a person’s basic needs are met – housing, food, health care, etc. – do we need increasing wealth to have happiness?
What is it about the U.S. economy that makes it think it needs to continue to increase? I am not an economist and may not understand the theroies of increasing our GNP. But why not call it what it is: Greed. I have lived outside the U.S. and other cultures just do not have the mind set that more is better, bigger is better. They shake their heads at what we project as our culture through our media. They seem to have a good sense of well being.
To give me a better sense of well being, I have stopped driving on the highways where I moved slowly staring at a bumper from point A to point B. Now I drive (the same distance) through neighborhoods and countryside where I see nature. This small change keeps me linked to nature which then reverberates to other areas of my life. I watch the sky, families walking, deer grazing and feel connected if only in a little way.
I also see the McMansions going up in neighborhoods and do not understand how someone could possibly use that much space for one family. Or the hugh SUV’s that look as though they could mow me down at any moment and use natural resources as a throw away item. What are they thinking? Certainly not about anyone but themselves.
So, I think while I drive this new path of ways that I may make a small difference. Should I replace my backyard with a garden? Should I try placing gutters all around my house and trap the water in a cistern to use? These ideas are part of “normal” life in a lot of countries around the world. Why not here? Why don’t we have building codes that require a water capturing system on all new construction?
Our well being seems to depend on some distorted ideas that is the detriment to the rest of the peoples of the world. How can we use the excuse of economic growth for not signing the Kyoto agreement? How can the U.S. citizens start to rethink what well being means when our government bases well being on greed?
Dear Gretchie,
As I learned in childhood, there will come a time when you have to pay the piper. Nevertehless, the masters of the universe in my not-so-generation have determined that we are NOT going to be the ones who pay any price at all for our behavior. We are going to keep on doing just as we are doing now. We are not willing to change our behavior. One of our most powerful leaders has already proclaimed that we will all be dead soon and, therefore, will not have to pay the piper. That is the ruse we are playing on our children and coming generations. THEY will pay the piper for us. My generation is not concerned about this state of affairs because we have skillfully sold everyone else on the specious idea that we have no control over our actions, therefore, no responsibility for our behaviors.
Of course, you are correct when you say we are not thinking about anyone but ourselves, our indulgences, our 10,000 square foot houses, our cars, boats and planes, our colossal fortunes.
We are the masters of the universe and we like things the way they are, thank you. Our way of life is a way of life we promise to all people. IT is not negotiable.
That a planet the size of Earth cannot sustain 6 billion people behaving in the irresponsible ways we do is not something we want to talk about.
Sincerely,
Steve
Our society tends to emphasize the quantifiable and to devalue “soft” things like the joy of participating in community projects — those don’t count because they can’t be counted and added into a simple metric, like GDP. So, reconceptualizing our notion of well-being away from a narrow emphasis on financial “success” toward a more ample awareness of our physical (health) and psychological (spiritual and mental) well-being is critical.
When changing our lifestyles there is the challenge of peer approval and social status. I don’t own a car and I commute to work by subway. Most of my peers feel that owning a car is a sign of “success.”
I pay more attention to the relationships in my life that support me in my choices. But, not all of us have this luxury. And I don’t relish being outside the mainstream — it costs me in terms of status.
So, what does it take to be on the leading edge of this transformation in lifestyles away from unhealthy patterns toward actual improved well-being?
I’d argue it is more than an individual’s efforts. Alone it is hard to make the necessary changes and stick with it. We all need support, not just from friends, but from society as a whole. The subway in Boston is deteriorating due to lack of funding. Meanwhile, highway expansion gets billions of dollars in the form of the Big Dig and other mega projects.
I believe some of us alive today – maybe not me, but maybe my children – will live to see a time when the cultural mores in this country shift. Now, as Gretchie said, signs of excess (she called it “greed”) are all around us. And as Orion said there’s “status” involved with things like owning a car.
But the scientific reality is that humans are tied to the Earth. We’re part of the Earth. And, although they seem timid about saying it very loudly yet, the scientists are beginning to tell us that we can’t maintain the current American level of consumption indefinitely.
So if we are tied to the Earth, and if this level of consumption can’t be maintained, then it’s suicide to advocate maintaining it. We are, above all, a species that’s geared to survival. And in my heart I believe that – just as people want big cars now as status symbols, for example – there will come a time when people want small fuel-efficient cars, or a bus or subway pass, as status symbols. I believe that will happen! Things will shift. They just haven’t shifted yet.
Deborah
I totally disagree with John Stutz. First, One must have pure morals and beliefs. Then the rest will come naturally. The truth will set you free…
Hi Sunshine. Why do you feel that John is advocating something other than pure morals and beliefs?
Deborah
Dear John Stutz, Gretchie, Orion, Sunshine and Deborah,
Thanks for your comments.
Perhaps what follows will be helpful in separating “pure” morals and beliefs, often referred to as the sacred (worthy of reverence), from what is widely regarded as the profane (contempt for the sacred).
It seems on the one hand we have before us the sacred work of God: the world we inhabit with its ecosphere, the Earth and the Universe beyond and, on the other hand, we have a currently profane construction of humankind: economic globalization.
At least one question to raise about these circumstances, I suppose, is this: Can a finite planetary home the size of Earth perpetually sustain the current scale and anticipated growth rate of an artificially designed, manmade, pyramidal construction called the global economy, even to the middle of Century XXI, let alone beyond that point in time?
{Please note that according to Robert J. Samuelson, the world economy has grown by approximately 20% in the brief period of time since 2001}.
It also appears as if God’s work will continue regardless of what human beings now choose to do in space-time; however, Man’s 21st century economic globalization project (the “build-out” of the Earth) is simply going to become unsustainable without the functioning ecosystem services and adequate resources of the world provided to humankind for its benefit by God.
It would be nothing more than a fool’s errand to run the risk of inadvertently ruining God’s work (desecrating biodiversity, the environment and the integrity of Earth) by maximally extending a patently unsustainable program of seemingly endless economic growth in our small planetary home. would it not?
Sincerely,
Steve
To Sunshine, with thanks,
Lest we forget. When we were children, before we gained the “status” and the ‘success’ associated with colossal personal fortunes and the excessive power that accompanies great wealth and while we could still hear that which is somehow true and speak it, too, we were taught a simple lesson regarding human wellbeing, a lession that children seem capable of understanding.
—————————————————————————————————
Matthew 6:24 >>> “No one can serve two masters. He will hate the first master and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and despise the second. You cannot serve God and wealth. (GOD’S WORD TRANSLATION)
I think what John is saying in this post is exactly what you’re saying, Steve, and what you’re also saying, Sunshine … that there’s more to life than making money.
The subject of “well-being” is only now beginning to be discussed in science. That’s a very heartening fact to me. I know that people dislike relying on “experts” nowadays (for example, in the discussions of global warming now raging on this website and others). But I can’t help but feel that some good scientific studies on what happiness really is will eventually help open people’s eyes to the old saying that “money can’t buy happiness.”
I don’t know what things were like before the 1950s. I was born in 1951. But I know that for my entire life there’s been this strange equation of money = happiness.
And we all know, in our hearts, that’s just not true.
Deborah
Dear Deborah,
We hear every day that money equals happiness, as you put it, and that “money, money, money, money makes the world ‘round.” Money can be found at the very epicenter of the predominant human culture. There are moments when I wonder if anything else really matters to the masters of the universe other than their seemingly insatiable desire for an endless concentration of wealth, for excessive power derived from it, and for any and every material possession.
Always,
Steve
It does seem that way. But there are more of us ordinary people than those “masters” you speak of … and I think most ordinary people are good …
Happy Easter to you and your family Steve!
The same to all reading this who might be celebrating Easter!
And to all who aren’t … kindest greetings!
Deborah
Dear Deborah,
Happy holy days to you and all.
One the one hand we have humanity, democracy and science.
On the other hand, we have the masters of the universe, unbridled capitalism and a “political economy ideology” that all support the operation of a patently unsustainable pyramidal economy.
Speaking for myself in the firmest and clearest possible terms, I am going take the risk of choosing to place the future of my children and their children in the hands of those who take the side of humankind, democratic priniciples and practices, and good science.
Always,
Steve