216
L. Carlsen
The original HPI rank for the two countries are clearly having 3 positive
contributions, i.e., LEX, EWB and PPP, respectively, and one significant negative
contribution, i.e., the EFP. Assuming the latter for Luxembourg to be changed by
10 gha/capita the country changes its average HPI ranking from 73 (Table 6) to 24
again supporting the assumption the EFP is the main controlling factor.
4 Conclusions and Outlook
It has been revealed that the most important sub-indicator for our happiness as
expressed by the analysis of the World Happiness Index appears to be the ‘Dystopia’
indicator, which is a rather subjective measurement that fits quite nicely with the
Lyubomirsky definition of happiness (Lyubomirsky 2008) as “the experience of
joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is
good, meaningful, and worthwhile” as well the Dostoevsky quote:” The greatest
happiness is to know the source of unhappiness “(Brainyquote 2001). On the other
hand it was found that the gross domestic product per capita in terms of purchasing
power parity plays only an inferior role. This latter finding is found again looking at
the Happy Planet index. Hence, introducing the GDP expressed as the Purchasing
Power Parities (PPP) again discloses the minor role of financial wealth as a factor
for sustainability in terms of happiness.
It has been demonstrated that the original ranking based on HPI is significantly
different from that based on HI and a posetic based data analysis of the HPI dataset
leaves no doubt that the culprit in this respect unequivocally is the ecological
footprint, which point directly to the Sustainability Development Goal No. 12, i.e.,
Responsible consumption and production (SDG 2018). Of less importance for the
average HPI ranking is inequality adjusted life expectancy and wellbeing that both
increase the HPI. Here reference to Sustainability Development Goal No. 3, i.e.,
Good health and well-being and No. 10, i.e., Reduced inequalities, appears (SDG
2018) appropriate.
One serious question apparently remains: Who is paying for our happiness? The
answer appears rather simple as it point to us. Hence, apparently through our (nonsustainable) exploitation of nature we let our planet pay for our happiness! This
answer unequivocally leads to a further question: Are we ready for a change? The
more optimistic answer is a maybe, as there might still be time. Let the words by
Frederika Stahl (2015) from ‘The world to come’ close this:
I breathe you in
Soon you’ll be gone
Look at the mess you’re in
See what we’ve done
L. Carlsen
The original HPI rank for the two countries are clearly having 3 positive
contributions, i.e., LEX, EWB and PPP, respectively, and one significant negative
contribution, i.e., the EFP. Assuming the latter for Luxembourg to be changed by
10 gha/capita the country changes its average HPI ranking from 73 (Table 6) to 24
again supporting the assumption the EFP is the main controlling factor.
4 Conclusions and Outlook
It has been revealed that the most important sub-indicator for our happiness as
expressed by the analysis of the World Happiness Index appears to be the ‘Dystopia’
indicator, which is a rather subjective measurement that fits quite nicely with the
Lyubomirsky definition of happiness (Lyubomirsky 2008) as “the experience of
joy, contentment, or positive well-being, combined with a sense that one’s life is
good, meaningful, and worthwhile” as well the Dostoevsky quote:” The greatest
happiness is to know the source of unhappiness “(Brainyquote 2001). On the other
hand it was found that the gross domestic product per capita in terms of purchasing
power parity plays only an inferior role. This latter finding is found again looking at
the Happy Planet index. Hence, introducing the GDP expressed as the Purchasing
Power Parities (PPP) again discloses the minor role of financial wealth as a factor
for sustainability in terms of happiness.
It has been demonstrated that the original ranking based on HPI is significantly
different from that based on HI and a posetic based data analysis of the HPI dataset
leaves no doubt that the culprit in this respect unequivocally is the ecological
footprint, which point directly to the Sustainability Development Goal No. 12, i.e.,
Responsible consumption and production (SDG 2018). Of less importance for the
average HPI ranking is inequality adjusted life expectancy and wellbeing that both
increase the HPI. Here reference to Sustainability Development Goal No. 3, i.e.,
Good health and well-being and No. 10, i.e., Reduced inequalities, appears (SDG
2018) appropriate.
One serious question apparently remains: Who is paying for our happiness? The
answer appears rather simple as it point to us. Hence, apparently through our (nonsustainable) exploitation of nature we let our planet pay for our happiness! This
answer unequivocally leads to a further question: Are we ready for a change? The
more optimistic answer is a maybe, as there might still be time. Let the words by
Frederika Stahl (2015) from ‘The world to come’ close this:
I breathe you in
Soon you’ll be gone
Look at the mess you’re in
See what we’ve done