Why did our ancestors feel satisfied with small villages? Did they do the right thing? Will it be wise today to follow our ancestors in the connection? Give your own view.
Answers
Answer:
We are far more powerful than our ancestors, but are we much happier? Historians seldom stop to ponder this question, yet ultimately, isn't it what history is all about? Our understanding and our judgment of, say, the worldwide spread of monotheistic religion surely depends on whether we conclude that it raised or lowered global happiness levels. And if the spread of monotheism had no noticeable impact on global happiness, what difference did it make?
With the rise of individualism and the decline of collectivist ideologies, happiness is arguably becoming our supreme value. With the stupendous growth in human production, happiness is also acquiring unprecedented economic importance. Consumerist economies are increasingly geared to supply happiness rather than subsistence or even affluence, and a chorus of voices is now calling for a replacement of GDP measurements with happiness statistics as the basic economic yardstick. Politics seems to be following suit. The traditional right to "the pursuit of happiness" is imperceptibly morphing into a right to happiness, which means that it is becoming the duty of government to ensure the happiness of its citizens. In 2007 the European commission launched "Beyond GDP" to consider the feasibility of using a wellbeing index to replace or complement GDP. Similar initiatives have recently been developed in numerous other countries – from Thailand to Canada, from Israel to Brazil.
Most governments still focus on achieving economic growth, but when asked what is so good about growth, even diehard capitalists almost invariably turn to happiness. Suppose we caught David Cameron in a corner, and demanded to know why he cared so much about economic growth. "Well," he might answer, "growth is essential to provide people with higher standards of living, better medical care, bigger houses, faster cars, tastier ice-cream." And, we could press further, what is so good about higher standards of living? "Isn't it obvious?" Cameron might reply, "It makes people happier."
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we could somehow scientifically prove that higher standards of living did not translate into greater happiness. "But David," we could say, "look at these historical, psychological and biological studies. They prove beyond any reasonable doubt that having bigger houses, tastier ice-cream and even better medicines does not increase human happiness." "Really?" he would gasp, "Why did nobody tell me! Well, if that's the case, forget about my plans to boost economic growth. I am leaving everything and joining a hippie commune."
This is a highly unlikely scenario, and not only because so far we have almost no scientific studies of the long-term history of happiness. Scholars have researched the history of just about everything – politics, economics, diseases, sexuality, food – yet they have seldom asked how they all influence human happiness. Over the last decade, I have been writing a history of humankind, tracking down the transformation of our species from an insignificant African ape into the master of the planet. It was not easy to understand what turned Homo sapiens into an ecological serial killer; why men dominated women in most human societies; or why capitalism became the most successful religion ever. It wasn't easy to address such questions because scholars have offered so many different and conflicting answers. In contrast, when it came to assessing the bottom line – whether thousands of years of inventions and discoveries have made us happier – it was surprising to realise that scholars have neglected even to ask the question. This is the largest lacuna in our understanding of history.
Explanation:
Answer:
Why did our ancestors feel satisfied with small villages? Did they do the right thing? Will it be wise today to follow our ancestors in this connection? Give your own view.