Argentina Ranks High in the Happy Planet Index!

Coco

Registered
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
99
Likes
10
Here's some good news for a change:

The New Economics Foundation has ranked Argentina 15th out of 143 nations in their latest Happy Planet Index. It's a wonderful alternative for evaluating the success and progress of a nation, and I recommend watching the lecture given at this year's TEDGlobal by one of their own, Nic Marks, founder of the Center for Well Being at NEF. You'll find the link below. Enjoy!

Nic Marks Lecture at TEDGlobal 2010
http://www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html

The Happy Planet Index
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/

Nic Marks Brief Description of the Happy Planet Index
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/learn/video.html

The New Economics Foundation
http://www.neweconomics.org/
 
Can it be true that in the " index (which) combines environmental impact with human well-being.." that Argentines who themselves love to complain proclaim themselves so happy in their well-being and are living so long ..and second thing hard to believe is that the Argentine ecological footptint could be anything so positive and infinitely more positive than Sweden or Finland...taking into accounts factors such as Co2 emissions, urbanization etc...I simply cannot believe these figures. I am delighted to see Argentina portrayed so positively but I simply cannot believe the data on which this is based is true...as much as I doubt the upcoming Indec census will reveal all either..
 
More good news.. Australia and NZ are the happiest people on earth..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11220564


I remember reading last year that the happiest people - content with their life, what they have, and want are the people of vanuatu - which to me they seemed very happy with their lot in life.

This HPI takes into account the countries ecological footprint, which doesnt mean the people are happy.
And if you have a look around arg, i would say pollution is pretty bad. Just take a look at the rivers in and around BSAS, or the smoking buses here in the capital.
And if argentines are so happy why are so many seeing shrinks.

Oh, and i just came from Disco, someone should tell them they are the happiest people on earth.. Or maybe they just all got out of bed on the wrong side today..
 
The Index doesn’t reveal the ‘happiest’ country in the world. It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that top the Index aren’t the happiest places in the world, but the nations that score well show that achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet’s resources is possible.

Plus worth bearing in mind its about argentina, not buenos aires.
 
jp said:
Plus worth bearing in mind its about argentina, not buenos aires.

Good point, i have meet alot of happy argentines outside BSAS..
 
Thanks for posting something so interesting and positive on this site!
 
Well, I suppose that not expending resources gained from environmental efficiencies on war is bound to make people happier. But unless we know what a country does with an efficiency it gains by having people buy, say, expensive energy-saving light bulbs, I don’t see any link between that ‘efficiency’ and its citizens’ happiness. In Canada, promoting such bulbs was followed this summer by 3 provinces increasing taxes on consumers’ electricity use from 5% to 13%. Neither the light bulbs nor the tax have increased happiness. Before this increased tax was introduced, the federal government justified it by saying the increase would go to exporters to increase their competitiveness. But now that the increase is in force, it’s not going to them or anything that makes people happy.

I listened to the video and was impressed. It made me happy! Then I took the "Happy Index Survey” which is really a test with questions whose answers are used to judge your own personal 'happiness' level by what you give to the planet. It’s at:

http://survey.happyplanetindex.org/index.php

Now I AM unhappy. This test’s results told me to reduce meat in my diet although I did the test twice, each time answering that I’m fully vegetarian (and have been since long before environmentalism taught that vegetarianism is a ‘sacrifice’ we ‘should’ make. I never regarded it that way.)

The test judged my level of eco-responsibility to a significant degree on whether I frequently spent money buying “energy-saving light bulbs and appliances” which lowers one’s ecological footprint. Or whether I spent money on what it manipulatively and disrespectfully calls “ ‘stuff’- such as electrical and electronic equipment, furniture, hardware, and jewelry but not clothes”. Thus, the purchases I made to restore and renovate what I already own (eg. a sewing machine to mend clothes and linens, boxes to store thread, a lamp to see what I’m fixing, a kitchen knife, oven mitts) plus a replacement towel rail and a $200. camera threw me into the second worst bracket as an abuser of world resources by having spent more than $800. on these items! Buying anything not hyped as ‘green’ raises your footprint! The results of my test told me to stop buying everything in sight and to make do with my old pans although my 15-year old ones which we maintain and look almost new are our only pans. Who do environmentalists think they’re kidding?

No credit was given for using public transport other than for getting to work; for not owning a car, for taking up just 53 sq. ft of living space my whole life, for not buying packaged and processed foods and ready-meals or for not buying appliances that most people consider necessary. Neither did cooking from scratch earn me ’green’ points. This highly politicized version of environmentalism is indistinguishable from good old consumerism. Doing what you can to hold onto what you have seems to have no place in this ‘ism’. I felt like I’m on another planet because real ‘environmental efficiences’ just don’t count. Happiness is still largely based on what one buys. All that’s been tweaked is the definition of which consumables bring status to…..environmentalists.

Clothing is specifically excluded from the survey probably because textiles are small fry compared to where the big money lies for enviro-consumables. Nowhere in the test are things needed for babies or children. So if you have a child for whom you need to buy a crib, you better not also need a new mattress yourself if you want to have a green-worthy eco-print on this test because both count as your own furniture purchases. I don’t see how killing your back and potentially going on disability due to that is going to protect future generations’ or anyone’s well-being or our natural resources.

The test said that my only flight per year, to Buenos Aires, had rocketed my carbon footprint by about 6 times (ie. just London to Athens one way once would have doubled it). It told me to stop using 'planes so often, to find alternative transport, lengthen my trips (what-beyond 5 weeks?) and to forego my indulgent and numerous week-end jaunts! No one's so stupid to misjudge the distance to BA that badly and so, clearly, the so-called 'environmental' objective here is to isolate we do-gooders and instructors of the world's poor on how to save the earth, from having physical contact with people whose societies already live far more moderately than we will ever implement. Remain isolated and we can continue believing that the West is best at leading the way.

I ended up with the footprint of a resident of Croatia which the test said was only just so-so okay. And not on account of my own efforts but merely by the happenstance of my living in North America! A true personal test would judge an individual's success on its own merits and not dole out a handicap excusing your society's notorious wastefulness.

Nothing in the test acknowledges or rewards the value of finding individual solutions that don't stick to what the environmental movement and its industries dictate. This discourages individual creativity by discounting it which worries me when it’s so needed to cope in a worldwide recession. Regarding ‘recycling’, the test asks only how often you recycle. It doesn't increase your green-score to do more than turn off the TV when you’re not watching it and put your empty cans in the right box. Develop a social plan that inspires cartoneros to design very modern jewelry from the tons of waste they collect and you’ll fare no better eco-wise on this survey.

The test is sneaky. It mingles the questions that have always been asked to predict one's longevity and assess one’s well-being with what clearly is a marketing tool for environmental industries. It is not a ‘happiness’ test at all. It’s merely collecting data on how people spend their money. I thought buying more was the problem that environmentalism purported to address in the first place!

After seeing how the test manipulates a stunningly narrow conformity, I looked again at the country-list. But this time I saw the countries named as mostly ones held back by the West, or exploited or ignored by it. I suppose it's hard to claim you’re the most planet-caring unless you can contrast yourself with the poor abroad and around you who unlike yourself can’t afford to buy solar panels or who have nowhere to mount them, and who can't afford to replace functioning fridges.

If Argentines are happy, it’s because they regard social connections as very important and are creatively free to develop methods of recycling where everyone can contribute, and where you don’t need to be wealthy or compete for a badge or carry a bag that blares how much you-especially love the planet.
 
Awesome post, Sockhopper! (Not only great analysis, but great writing as well!) Thanks!
 
I have to agree with sockhopper - this survey is a load of crap..

Ok, me, i personally get a good score (65.5 - average is 53.8).. I own sod all, basically what i can fit in my backpack. I live in a shittly little apartment (actually its 30sqm, but is ok for me), i eat lots of fruit and veges, and am not a big meat eater (grew up on a farm where every meal contained meat so am over it), and i dont buy much in the way of un-needed stuff. I have to use heating during winter and aircon during summer in BA. Recycling doesnt happen here, well except for cardboard i guess. I fly heaps every year.

My parents didnt past (i took the test pretending to be them). But they live in a 3 bedroom house, detached, on a 1/4 acre section. They grow most of their own veges/fruit, and what they dont often get free from family, neighbours or friends what they have excess of, all the meat they eat is free range, except the odd bit of chicken and pig. Their house is full of the energy saving bulbs, most of the power from their country comes from hydro or geothermal, they fly way less than me (6 hours a year - me 75 to 100), they recycle everything, there is days for plastics, cans, paper, glass etc for there rubbish collection, they dont have the electronics i do, or buy much new stuff every year. They dont have aircon, heating isnt much as their house is well insulated. And they are pretty much contented with there lifes.. I think !!!

So from this they would have a very small footprint compared to most people, but there big difference is they have a house and not an apartment.

What does body mass index have to do with happiness ? I know alot of fat people who are happy, and alot of skinny people who are not.

What does the age your grandparents reach have to do with happiness/global footprint ?

Take this survey with a very big pinch of salt.
 
davonz said:
I have to agree with sockhopper - this survey is a load of crap..

Ok, me, i personally get a good score (65.5 - average is 53.8).. I own sod all, basically what i can fit in my backpack. I live in a shittly little apartment (actually its 30sqm, but is ok for me), i eat lots of fruit and veges, and am not a big meat eater (grew up on a farm where every meal contained meat so am over it), and i dont buy much in the way of un-needed stuff. I have to use heating during winter and aircon during summer in BA. Recycling doesnt happen here, well except for cardboard i guess. I fly heaps every year.

My parents didnt past (i took the test pretending to be them). But they live in a 3 bedroom house, detached, on a 1/4 acre section. They grow most of their own veges/fruit, and what they dont often get free from family, neighbours or friends what they have excess of, all the meat they eat is free range, except the odd bit of chicken and pig. Their house is full of the energy saving bulbs, most of the power from their country comes from hydro or geothermal, they fly way less than me (6 hours a year - me 75 to 100), they recycle everything, there is days for plastics, cans, paper, glass etc for there rubbish collection, they dont have the electronics i do, or buy much new stuff every year. They dont have aircon, heating isnt much as their house is well insulated. And they are pretty much contented with there lifes.. I think !!!

So from this they would have a very small footprint compared to most people, but there big difference is they have a house and not an apartment.

What does body mass index have to do with happiness ? I know alot of fat people who are happy, and alot of skinny people who are not.

What does the age your grandparents reach have to do with happiness/global footprint ?

Take this survey with a very big pinch of salt.
This thing is HAPPY Horseshit. You have wade through so many stupid charts to find the bottomline and then there's no bottomline. But you can donate..................
 
Back
Top