MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     
Nic Marks: The Happy Planet Index
Nic Marks 談快樂星球指數
 
講者:Nic Marks
2010年7月演講,2010年8月在TEDGlobal2010上線
 
翻譯:                劉契良
編輯:                洪曉慧
簡繁轉換:            陳盈
後制:                劉契良
字幕影片後制:        謝旻均
 
 
 
 
關於這場演講
 
統計學家 Nic Marks 提問,為何我們以一個國家的生產力來衡量其成功與否,而非人民的快樂與身心健康?他因此推出了「快樂星球指數」(HPI),用以追蹤一國安康與資源利用之間的關係,因為快樂人生不需要賠上地球,那些國家的 HPI 最高呢?各位可能會嚇一跳。
 
關於 Nic Marks
 
Nic Marks 收集讓我們感到快樂的證據,用以提倡將人民身心健康與地球擺在優先順位,他是英國智庫新經濟基金會(NEF)身心健康中心的創辦人。
 
為何要聽他演講:
 
Nic Marks 認為生活品質是可測量的,真正的快樂並非來自物質財富的累積,而是來自與他人的聯繫、與世界接軌及自主權。這並不只是一位身心健康領域研究先鋒的理論,Marks 創造出統計的方法來衡量快樂、分析並解釋所收集的證據,進而援用於教育、永續發展、保健及經濟等政策領域。
 
英國倫敦獨立智庫新經濟基金會(NEF)身心健康中心的創辨人,Marks 特別熱衷於提倡永續發展與生活品質間的平衡,為了加以研究,他設計了「快樂星球指數」,一項人類身心健康與對環境影響的全球指數,研究結果衝上頭條:住在世界上最富有國家的人民消費最多地球資源,但卻非身心最健康的人。這激發了一個問題:解套的經濟成長又有何意義?
 
若要衝量(或許改善)你自己的 HPI,造訪兩個有用的 NEF 網址:「5 種達致身心健康的方法」及「工作場所的身心健康」。
 
「Marks 呼籲政治家多關心人生滿足感,而非 GDP,他說:『﹝HPI﹞排名的最大用意是,我們必需要創造一個系統,可以讓人民更快樂,但不需要賠上地球』」。
Louise Gray,《每日電訊報》
 
Nic Marks 的英語網上資料
 
首頁:nicmarks.org
Twitter:@nefwellbeing
 
 
[TED科技娛樂設計]
已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 「翻譯編輯:myoops.org」 

馬丁·路德·金恩未說:「我有一個惡夢」,當他啟發民權運動時,他說:「我有一個夢想」,我也有一個夢想,我的夢想是我們可以停止想像未來將會是惡夢一場,而這將是一個挑戰,因為,端看近期每一部主要的熱門電影,其人類文明願景幾乎全部都像聖經《啟示錄》所載,我認為《末路浩劫》這部電影是現代最難看懂的電影之一,電影製作很美,但觸目皆淒涼,放眼人煙慘絕,只有父子兩人試圖生存地沿著馬路前進,至於環境運動,我身為其中一員,與產生這種未來願景串成一氣,長久以來,我們都在散播惡夢似的願景,針對將發生的未來,我們假想了最壞打算的情景,重心放在問題上,但卻沒有相對地考量解決方案,我們總是使用恐懼來抓住人們的注意力,任何心理學家都會說,這種生物恐懼和逃離機制心理有關,那是攻擊或逃離反應機制的一部份,當動物受到驚嚇,想像一隻鹿受到驚嚇,牠會先嚇到僵直,準備要逃離,而那也是我們的反應,當我們邀集別人加入環境惡化與氣候變化的議程,人們會嚇住並逃離,因為我們使用恐懼的手法,我認為環境運動必需成長,並開始思考相關進步,改善人類命運的前景為何?我們面臨的其中一個問題是,唯一有市場的說法,以進步來說,是金融定義下的進步,經濟定義下的進步,那多少,如果我們有驚人的數字,就比較容易吸引到聽眾,無論是股市、GDP或是經濟成長數據,因為那顯示生活會更好,這招對人類的貪婪很有效,但非恐懼,數字愈驚人愈好,拜托,西方世界已飽足了,也許世界有些地方尚在努力,但我們已飽足,而我們長久以來也自知,這並非衡量國家福祉的好方法。
 
 
事實上,我們的全國會計系統架構,Simon Kuznets 於 1930 年代說到:「一個國家的福祉根本不能藉由其國民所得來推定」,但我們創造了一套全國會計系統,其根據穩當地來自生產和生產工具,的確,這可能是歷史演變所無法避免,第二次世界大戰時,我們必需要生產很多東西,而我們也的確很成功地生產了很多玩意兒,前去摧毀歐洲,之後再加以重建,所以我們的全國會計系統停留在我們能生產的東西,但早在 1968 年,這位前瞻偉人,Robert Kennedy,在其不幸總統競選宣傳的前期,即給了最有說服力的演講,關於支解國民生產總值的迷思,史無前例的精彩,他以這一句話作為演講的總結,「國民生產總值能衡量所有的事,除了能讓人生有真實價值的事」,這話有多狂呢?我們衡量進步,我們衡量社會進步的主要工具是能衡量所有事,但卻無法測出生活的真實價值?我相信,如果 Kennedy 今天仍活著,他會要統計師,像我這樣的人,去找出什麼能讓生活有真實價值,他會要我們重新設計我們的全國會計系統,根據一些重要的事,諸如:社會正義、永續和人民福祉,事實上,社會科學家早已站出來,向全世界提問這些問題。
 
 
這是份全球問卷,提問人們想要的世界為何?毫無驚奇地,全球人們都說他們想要的是快樂,不只他們自身,還包含家人與小孩及社群,Okay,他們也認為錢有些重要,如表所示,但那比不上快樂的重要性,更比不上愛,生活中,我們都需要愛與被愛,錢也比不上健康的重要性,我們想要享受健康的好生活,這些都看似人類自然的渴望,但為何統計師不衡量這些?為何我們不以這些標準來衡量國家的進步與否?反倒是在計算我們擁有的俗物,而這正是我長大以後一直在做的事,想著我們如何衡量快樂,我們如何衡量福祉,我們如何在環境許可範圍內獲得快樂?於是我們創立我現時服務的組織「新經濟基金會」(NEF)及「快樂星球指數」(HPI),因為我們認為人們應該要快樂,星球也應該要快樂,所以,我們為何不能創造一套以快樂衡量進步的標準?所以基金會所做的便是,我們提議一個國家最終界定為成功的標準,端看它為其人民創造多少快樂與康健人生,這應成為地球上每個國家努力的目標,但我們要記得放入多少基本資源,我們使用了多少地球的資源,我們只有一顆地球,我們都共享著,這些終極的珍貴資源,我們共享的一顆星球,經濟對珍貴資源很感興趣,當它擁有珍貴資源,便想要將其轉化為一個合意的結果,其思考邏輯是效率,我們可以從中獲得多少經濟效益,而這便是我們衡量福祉的方法,當我們取用地球資源時,一種效率測量法,可能最容易讓各位明瞭的作法是顯示這張圖表,圖表水平軸代表「生態足跡」,意即我們使用的資源量及我們加諸於地球的壓力,數字愈高愈糟;縱向衡量的是「快樂歲月」,代表國家的福祉,有點像是經快樂調整過的壽命,更像是國家中生活的質量,表中的黃點是全球平均,多數的國家圍繞著這個全球平均點,表的右上角是福祉還算不錯的國家,但那也表示使用了很多的地球資源,這些國家是美國與其他的西歐諸國,以三角點表示,其中還包含了一些波斯灣國家;相對地,表中的左下角是沒啥福祉可言的國家,基本上,全位於南撒哈拉非洲,套用賀伯斯的語氣,那裡的生活短暫且殘酷,那裡大部份國家的平均壽命僅 40 年,瘧疾、HIV / 愛滋病摧毀了很多生命,全聚在這個地方。
 
 
但好消息還是有的!表上以黃色三角點代表的那些國家,位於全球平均之上,聚集在表中左上角,這是張眾人夢寐以求的圖表,我們都想移到左上角,因為那意指好生活不以犧牲地球為代價,這些點代表拉丁美洲,那個獨自位處高點的國家是我尚未到訪過的地方,也許在座有人去過,哥斯大黎加,哥斯大黎加的平均壽命是 78 歲半,比美國長壽,根據最新蓋洛普世界投票結果,他們是地球上最快樂的國家,比瑞士和丹麥國民更快樂,其國民住在最快樂的地方,而這麼快樂只用了四分之一的資源,對比於傳統西方世界的用量,四分之一的資源,他們是怎麼辦到的?哥斯大黎加有何秘訣?讓我們來參考一些數據資料,99% 的用電來自可更新能源,其政府是最早承諾在 2021 年達到碳平衡的國家之一,他們早己解除軍備,早在 1949 年,1949 年!將預算挪到社會計畫上,諸如健康與教育,他們的識字率在拉美和全世界都是名列前茅,當然,他們還有拉美的熱情,他們的社交聯繫很強(笑聲)。
 
 
我們必需要思量的可能挑戰是,未來可能不在北美,也不是西歐,但可能是拉美,而真正的挑戰是將全球平均拉高到這裡,那是我們的努力目標,但如果我們真的要那麼做,則必需要將墊底的國家及位於表中右側的國家全拉到左上方來,那麼我們就能創造出一顆快樂星球,那是一種分析模式,另一種方式是從時代趨勢的角度來看,我們沒有全球所有國家的歷史數據,但 OECD 富國集團資料是有的,而這是那段時間的福祉趨勢僅微幅上升,而這卻是生態足跡的趨勢,所以,從嚴格,快樂星球方法論的角度來看,我們變得較無效率,就將我們終極珍貴資源轉化為我們想要結果這事來說,而重點真的是,不只我認為,可能在座各位也都希望 2050 年的社會不會像世界末日那樣的情節,時間過得很快,那是人類一半壽命的時間罷了,今天,假設有一位小童開始上學,2050 年就會長到我這個年紀,那並非很遙遠的未來,虛線是英國政府減少碳與溫室效應排放的目標,我將此呈現給各位,因為過往的解決方法已不合時宜,這些都在改變我們的做法,那在改變我們建立組織的方式,我們制定政府政策及我們生活的方式,重點是,我們必需要持續提高福祉,沒有人會投票贊成讓生活品質下降,我想,沒人會想要看到人類進步停滯,我們想要看到進步延續,我們都想要人類文明的命運繼續進步,而這是懷疑與否認環境變化者的發言點,這是他們願見的情景,他們想要生活品質繼續提升,他們想要緊握所擁有的一切,如要邀集這些人加入,而我認為,我們必需要邀集這些人加入,意即,我們必需真正地大幅提升效率,描畫圖表的工作不難,但重點是我們需要扭轉這些曲線,而在此,我認為我們可以借用一些系統理論及系統工程師,請他們創造回饋迴圈,在合適的時間提供適當的資訊。
 
 
「現時」對人類這種動物很有鼓勵作用,假設在家中裝個智慧型碼表,能清楚地看到現時所使用的電量及所產生的費用,你的小孩會以極速跑去將電燈切掉,那套用到社會後的光景又如何?為何電台每晚,當我收聽 FTSE 100 時,總是道瓊及美金兌英鎊的新聞,我根本不曉得美金兌英鎊升跌的好壞為何,但我卻被強迫收聽,為何他們不報昨天英國用了多少能源,或美國用了多少能源?我們有達到年度三個百分點的目標嗎?就減碳政策而言,那才是創造共同目標的作法,透過媒體放送,讓大眾開始思考,我們需要正面的回饋迴圈來提升福祉,在政府層級,可以建立全國福祉帳戶,在商業層級,可以照顧公司員工的福祉,眾所皆知,這些都與創意有關,與創新有關,我們將需要很多的創新來處理環境的議題,在個人的層級,我們也需要這些推動力,我們也許不需數據,但確實需要提醒,在英國,人們有很強的公衛意識,每天必需要吃五種蔬果,還有適當的運動,這項我一直做不好,這些和快樂有何關連?人們每天應做哪五件事,才能較快樂?幾年前,我們接了一個科學部的案子,一個大案,名為「遠見專案」,很多人,包含很多專家,每個細節都有證據基礎,成果豐碩,其中有一個項目是,「哪五項正面的活動能讓你改善生活福祉」?而這些活動的重點是,不一定是,但可說是快樂的秘密,而這些也是我認為快樂會顯現的活動。
 
 
第一項是「連結」,即各位的社交關係,這是你生活中最重要的基石,你有將時間投資在所愛的人身上嗎?在能力範圍內,外加精力,持續連結;第二項是活動身體,這是脫離壞心情的最快解藥,走出戶外,無論是散步,或是打開收音機跟著跳舞,保持活動是保持好心情的良方;第三項是留心周遭,你是否對世界發生的事,季節的變化及身旁的人們都細心留意?是否有留意到隱現和可能即將發生的事?根據很多的注意力,認知行為療法證據,這點對我們的福祉影響深遠;第四項是持續學習,其中「持續」很重要,一生都要持續學習,持續學習和保持好奇的老年人,其健康狀況比那些封閉學習的人好很多,但那不一定要是正規的學習,因為學習並非只植根於知識,更多是保持好奇,學習做一道新菜色、學習一項小時候渴望把玩的樂器,持續學習;最後一項是最反經濟的活動,給予,大方、利他和憐憫全都連結到我們腦中的獎勵機制,我們在給予時感覺很棒,各位可以做個實驗,你同樣在早上給兩群人一百美元,告訴其中一群人把錢花在自己身上,另一群人要花在他人身上,傍晚時,測量他們的快樂程度,那支將錢花在他人身上的小隊會感到較快樂,對比於將錢花在自己身上的小隊,這五項活動,我們印在這些明信片上,我認為並不需用太多的地球資源,且不含任何碳原料,也不需透過物質來感到滿足,所以我認為快樂不需以犧牲地球為代價是可行的。
 
 
馬丁·路德·金恩遇刺前夕給了一場十分感人的演講,他說:「我明白前方有諸多挑戰,也有諸多問題,但我不怕,我不管問題多難,我已到過峰頂,見過應許之地」,他是一位牧師,但我相信環境運動,事實上,商業團體、政府都應朝峰頂邁進,才能登高望遠,也應看見應許之地,應許之地,應心懷願景,針對創造一個我們都想要世界,我們還必需要建立一個「大轉折」才能達陣,必須用美好的事物來為這個大轉折鋪路,人類渴望快樂,用前提五項活動來鋪路,我們必需設立新指標,將人們聚集在一起,指引他們,透過像「快樂星球指數」這樣的指標,之後,我相信,我們都能創造出我們渴望生存的世界,當中快樂不需以犧牲地球為代價,感謝聆聽(掌聲)。
 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk

Statistician Nic Marks asks why we measure a nation's success by its productivity -- instead of by the happiness and well-being of its people. He introduces the Happy Planet Index, which tracks national well-being against resource use (because a happy life doesn't have to cost the earth). Which countries rank highest in the HPI? You might be surprised.

About Nic Marks

Nic Marks gathers evidence about what makes us happy, and uses it to promote policy that puts the well-being of people and the planet first. He's the founder of the Centre for Well-Being at… Full bio and more links

Transcript

Martin Luther King did not say, "I have a nightmare," when he inspired the civil rights movements. He said, "I have a dream." And I have a dream. I have a dream that we can stop thinking that the future will be a nightmare, and this is going to be a challenge, because, if you think of every major blockbusting film of recent times, nearly all of its visions for humanity are apocalyptic. I think this film is one of the hardest watches of modern times, "The Road." It's a beautiful piece of filmmaking, but everything is desolate, everything is dead. And just a father and son trying to survive, walking along the road. And I think the environmental movement of which I am a part of has been complicit in creating this vision of the future.

For too long, we have peddled a nightmarish vision of what's going to happen. We have focused on the worst-case scenario. We have focused on the problems. And we have not thought enough about the solutions. We've used fear, if you like, to grab people's attention. And any psychologist will tell you that fear in the organism is linked to flight mechanism. It's part of the fight and flight mechanism, that when an animal is frightened -- think of a deer. A deer freezes very, very still, poised to run away. And I think that's what we're doing when we're asking people to engage with our agenda around environmental degradation and climate change. People are freezing and running away because we're using fear. And I think the environmental movement has to grow up and start to think about what progress is.

What would it be like to be improving the human lot? And one of the problems that we face, I think, is that the only people that have cornered the market in terms of progress is a financial definition of what progress is, an economic definition of what progress is -- that somehow, if we get the right numbers to go up, we're going to be better off, whether that's on the stock market, whether that's with GDP and economic growth, that somehow life is going to get better. This is somehow appealing to human greed instead of fear -- that more is better. Come on. In the Western world, we have enough. Maybe some parts of the world don't, but we have enough. And we've know for a long time that this is not a good measure of the welfare of nations. In fact, the architect of our national accounting system, Simon Kuznets, in the 1930s, said that, "A nation's welfare can scarcely be inferred from their national income." But we've created a national accounting system which is firmly based on production and producing stuff. And indeed, this is probably historical, and it had its time. In the second World War, we needed to produce a lot of stuff. And indeed, we were so successful at producing certain types of stuff that we destroyed a lot of Europe, and we had to rebuild it afterwards. And so our national accounting system became fixated on what we can produce.

But as early as 1968, this visionary man, Robert Kennedy, at the start of his ill-fated presidential campaign, gave the most eloquent deconstruction of gross national product that ever has been. And he finished his talk with the phrase, that, "The gross national product measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile." How crazy is that? That our measure of progress, our dominant measure of progress in society, is measuring everything except that which makes life worthwhile? I believe, if Kennedy was alive today, he would be asking statisticians such as myself to go out and find out what makes life worthwhile. He'd be asking us to redesign our national accounting system to be based upon such important things as social justice, sustainability and people's well-being.

And actually, social scientists have already gone out and asked these questions around the world. This is from a global survey. It's asking people, what do they want. And unsurprisingly, people all around the world say that what they want is happiness, for themselves, for their families, their children, their communities. Okay, they think money is slightly important. It's there, but it's not nearly as important as happiness, and it's not nearly as important as love. We all need to love and be loved in life. It's not nearly as important as health. We want to be healthy and live a full life. These seem to be natural human aspirations. Why are statisticians not measuring these? Why are we not thinking of the progress of nations in these terms, instead of just how much stuff we have? And really, this is what I've done with my adult life -- is think about how do we measure happiness, how do we measure well-being, how can we do that within environmental limits.

And we created, at the organization that I work for, the New Economics Foundation, something we call the Happy Planet Index, because we think people should be happy and the planet should be happy. Why don't we create a measure of progress that shows that? And what we do, is we say that the ultimate outcome of a nation is how successful is it at creating happy and healthy lives for its citizens. That should be the goal of every nation on the planet. But we have to remember that there's a fundamental input to that, and that is how many of the planet's resources we use. We all have one planet. We all have to share it. It is the ultimate scarce resource, the one planet that we share. And economics is very interested in scarcity. When it has a scarce resource that it wants to turn into a desirable outcome, it thinks in terms of efficiency. It thinks in terms of how much bang do we get for our buck. And this is a measure of how much well-being we get for our planetary resource use. It is an efficiency measure. And probably the easiest way to show you that, is to show you this graph.

Running horizontally along the graph, is "ecological footprint," which is a measure of how much resources we use and how much pressure we put on the planet. More is bad. Running vertically upwards, is a measure called "happy life years." It's about the well-being of nations. It's like a happiness adjusted life-expectancy. It's like quality and quantity of life in nations. And the yellow dot there you see, is the global average. Now, there's a huge array of nations around that global average. To the top right of the graph, are countries which are doing reasonably well and producing well-being, but they're using a lot of planet to get there. They are the U.S.A., other Western countries going across in those triangles and a few Gulf states in there actually. Conversely, at the bottom left of the graph, are countries that are not producing much well-being -- typically, sub-Saharan Africa. In Hobbesian terms, life is short and brutish there. The average life expectancy in many of these countries is only 40 years. Malaria, HIV/AIDS are killing a lot of people in these regions of the world.

But now for the good news! There are some countries up there, yellow triangles, that are doing better than global average, that are heading up towards the top left of the graph. This is an aspirational graph. We want to be top left, where good lives don't cost the earth. They're Latin American. The country on its own up at the top is a place I haven't been to. Maybe some of you have. Costa Rica. Costa Rica -- average life expectancy is 78-and-a-half years. That is longer than in the USA. They are, according to the latest Gallup world poll, the happiest nation on the planet -- than anybody; more than Switzerland and Denmark. They are the happiest place. They are doing that on a quarter of the resources that are used typically in [the] Western world -- a quarter of the resources.

What's going on there? What's happening in Costa Rica? We can look at some of the data. 99 percent of their electricity comes from renewable resources. Their government is one of the first to commit to be carbon neutral by 2021. They abolished the army in 1949 -- 1949. And they invested in social programs -- health and education. They have one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America and in the world. And they have that Latin vibe, don't they. They have the social connectedness. (Laughter) The challenge is, that possibly -- and the thing we might have to think about -- is that the future might not be North American, might not be Western European. It might be Latin American. And the challenge, really, is to pull the global average up here. That's what we need to do. And if we're going to do that, we need to pull countries from the bottom, and we need to pull countries from the right of the graph. And then we're starting to create a happy planet. That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is looking at time trends. We don't have good data going back for every country in the world, but for some of the richest countries, the OECD group, we do. And this is the trend in well-being over that time, a small increase, but this is the trend in ecological footprint. And so in strict happy-planet methodology, we've become less efficient at turning our ultimate scarce resource into the outcome we want to. And the point really is, is that I think, probably everybody in this room would like society to get to 2050 without an apocalyptic something happening. It's actually not very long away. It's half a human lifetime away. A child entering school today will be my age in 2050. This is not the very distant future. This is what the U.K. government target on carbon and greenhouse emissions looks like. And I put it to you, that is not business as usual. That is changing our business. That is changing the way we create our organizations, we do our government policy and we live our lives. And the point is, we need to carry on increasing well-being. No one can go to the polls and say that quality of life is going to reduce. None of us, I think, want human progress to stop. I think we want it to carry on. I think we want the lot of humanity to keep on increasing. And I think this is where climate change skeptics and deniers come in. I think this is what they want. They want quality of life to keep increasing. They want to hold on to what they've got. And if we're going to engage them, I think that's what we've got to do. And that means we have to really increase efficiency even more.

Now that's all very easy to draw graphs and things like that, but the point is we need to turn those curves. And this is where I think we can take a leaf out of systems theory, systems engineers, where they create feedback loops, put the right information at the right point of time. Human beings are very motivated by the "now." You put a smart meter in your home, and you see how much electricity you're using right now, how much it's costing you, your kids go around and turn the lights off pretty quickly. What would that look like for society? Why is it, on the radio news every evening, I hear the FTSE 100, the Dow Jones, the dollar pound ratio -- I don't even know which way the dollar pound ratio should go to be good news. And why do I hear that? Why don't I hear how much energy Britain used yesterday, or American used yesterday? Did we meet our three percent annual target on reducing carbon emissions? That's how you create a collective goal. You put it out there into the media and start thinking about it. And we need positive feedback loops for increasing well-being At a government level, they might create national accounts of well-being. At a business level, you might look at the well-being of your employees, which we know is really linked to creativity, which is linked to innovation, and we're going to need a lot of innovation to deal with those environmental issues. At a personal level, we need these nudges too. Maybe we don't quite need the data, but we need reminders. In the U.K., we have a strong public health message on five fruit and vegetables a day and how much exercise we should do -- never my best thing. What are these for happiness? What are the five things that you should do every day to be happier?

We did a project for the Government Office of Science a couple of years ago, a big program called the Foresight program -- lots and lots of people -- involved lots of experts -- everything evidence based -- a huge tome. But a piece of work we did was on: what five positive actions can you do to improve well-being in your life? And the point of these is they are, not quite, the secrets of happiness, but they are things that I think happiness will flow out the side from.

And the first of these is to connect, is that your social relationships are the most important cornerstones of your life. Do you invest the time with your loved ones that you could do, and energy? Keep building them. The second one is be active. The fastest way out of a bad mood: step outside, go for a walk, turn the radio on and dance. Being active is great for our positive mood. The third one is take notice. How aware are you of things going on around the world, the seasons changing, people around you? Do you notice what's bubbling up for you and trying to emerge? Based on a lot of evidence for mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, [very] strong for our well being. The fourth is keep learning and keep is important -- learning throughout the whole life course. Older people who keep learning and are curious, they have much better health outcomes than those who start to close down. But it doesn't have to be formal learning; it's not knowledge based. It's more curiosity. It can be learning to cook a new dish, picking up an instrument you forgot as a child. Keep learning. And the final one is that most anti-economic of activities, but give. Our generosity, our altruism, our compassion, are all hardwired to the reward mechanism in our brain. We feel good if we give. You can do an experiment where you give two groups of people a hundred dollars in the morning. You tell one of them to spend it on themselves and one on other people. You measure their happiness at the end of the day, those that have gone and spent on other people are much happier that those that spent it on themselves.

And these five ways, which we put onto these handy postcards, I would say, don't have to cost the earth. They don't have any carbon content. They don't need a lot of material goods to be satisfied. And so I think it's really quite feasible that happiness does not cost the earth. Now, Martin Luther King, on the eve of his death, gave an incredible speech. He said, "I know there are challenges ahead, there may be trouble ahead, but I fear no one. I don't care. I have been to the mountain top, and I have seen the Promised Land." Now, he was a preacher, but I believe the environmental movement and, in fact, the business community, government, needs to go to the top of the mountain top, and it needs to look out, and it needs to see the Promised Land, or the land of promise, and it needs to have a vision of a world that we all want. And not only that, we need to create a Great Transition to get there, and we need to pave that great transition with good things.

Human beings want to be happy. Pave them with the five ways. And we need to have signposts gathering people together and pointing them -- something like the Happy Planet Index. And then I believe that we can all create a world we all want, where happiness does not cost the earth.

(Applause)
 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入9 + 1 =

標籤

現有標籤:1 17 http://some-inexistent-website.acu/some_inexistent_file_with_long_name?.jpg 1some_inexistent_file_with_long_name.jpg http://testasp.vulnweb.com/t/fit.txt http://testasp.vulnweb.com/t/xss.html?%00.jpg http://testasp.vulnweb.com/t/fit.txt?.jpg testasp.vulnweb.com tags.php tags.php tags.php/. http://hitdtw7mrb18s.bxss.me/ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ;print(md5(acunetix_wvs_security_test)); ";print(md5(acunetix_wvs_security_test));$a=" ${@print(md5(acunetix_wvs_security_test))} /www.vulnweb.com
目前身分:
目前您尚未登入
帳號:
密碼:
加入開放式課程會員

FB粉絲團
開放式課程

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: