Nowadays technology changes the way people interact with each other. In what type does it affect people? Is it positive or negative?
50 things that are being killed by the internet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6133903/50-things-that-are-being-killed-by-the-internet.html
The internet has wrought huge changes on our lives – both positive and negative – in the fifteen years since its use became widespread.
By Matthew Moore
Published: 7:00AM BST 04 Sep 2009
Comments 224 | Comment on this article
The web is changing the way we work, play and think Photo: REUTTERS
Tasks that once took days can be completed in seconds, while traditions and skills that emerged over centuries have been made all but redundant.
20 most bizarre Craigslist adverts of all time
From The Beatles to the apocalypse, 10 things to look out for on 09/09/09
The internet is no respecter of reputations: innocent people have seen their lives ruined by viral clips distributed on the same World Wide Web used by activists to highlight injustices and bring down oppressive regimes
Related Articles
Mystery of Google's UFO logo Below we have compiled - in no particular order - 50 things that are in the process of being killed off by the web, from products and business models to life experiences and habits. We've also thrown in a few things that have suffered the hands of other modern networking gadgets, specifically mobile phones and GPS systems.
Do you agree with our selections? What other examples can you think of? Please post your comments on the bottom of the story – we hope include the best suggestions in a fuller list.
1) The art of polite disagreement
While the inane spats of YouTube commencers may not be representative, the internet has certainly sharpened the tone of debate. The most raucous sections of the blogworld seem incapable of accepting sincerely held differences of opinion; all opponents must have "agendas".
2) Fear that you are the only person unmoved by a celebrity's death
Twitter has become a clearing-house for jokes about dead famous people. Tasteless, but an antidote to the "fans in mourning" mawkishness that otherwise predominates.
3) Listening to an album all the way through
The single is one of the unlikely beneficiaries of the internet – a development which can be looked at in two ways. There's no longer any need to endure eight tracks of filler for a couple of decent tunes, but will "album albums" like Radiohead's Amnesiac get the widespread hearing they deserve?
4) Sarah Palin
Her train wreck interviews with NBC's Katie Couric were watched and re-watched millions of times on the internet, cementing the Republican vice-presidential candidate's reputation as a politician out of her depth. Palin's uncomfortable relationship with the web continues; she has threatened to sue bloggers who republish rumours about the state of her marriage.
5) Punctuality
Before mobile phones, people actually had to keep their appointments and turn up to the pub on time. Texting friends to warn them of your tardiness five minutes before you are due to meet has become one of throwaway rudenesses of the connected age.
6) Ceefax/Teletext
All sports fans of a certain age can tell you their favourite Ceefax pages (p341 for Test match scores, p312 for football transfer gossip), but the service's clunking graphics and four-paragraph articles have dated badly. ITV announced earlier this year that it was planning to pull Teletext, its version.
7) Adolescent nerves at first porn purchase
The ubiquity of free, hard-core pornography on the web has put an end to one of the most dreaded rights rites of passage for teenage boys – buying dirty magazines. Why tremble in the WHSmiths queue when you can download mountains of filth for free in your bedroom? The trend also threatens the future of "porn in the woods" – the grotty pages of Razzle and Penthouse that scatter the fringes of provincial towns and villages.
8) Telephone directories
You can find Fly Fishing by J R Hartley on Amazon.
9) The myth of cat intelligence
The proudest household pets are now the illiterate butts of caption-based jokes. Icanhasreputashunback?
10) Watches
Scrabbling around in your pocket to dig out a phone may not be as elegant as glancing at a watch, but it saves splashing out on two gadgets.
11) Music stores
In a world where people don't want to pay anything for music, charging them £16.99 for 12 songs in a flimsy plastic case is no business model.
12) Letter writing/pen pals
Email is quicker, cheaper and more convenient; receiving a handwritten letter from a friend has become a rare, even nostalgic, pleasure. As a result, formal valedictions like "Yours faithfully" are being replaced by "Best" and "Thanks".
13) Memory
When almost any fact, no matter how obscure, can be dug up within seconds through Google and Wikipedia, there is less value attached to the "mere" storage and retrieval of knowledge. What becomes important is how you use it – the internet age rewards creativity.
14) Dead time
When was the last time you spent an hour mulling the world out a window, or rereading a favourite book? The internet's draw on our attention is relentless and increasingly difficult to resist.
15) Photo albums and slide shows
Facebook, Flickr and printing sites like Snapfish are how we share our photos. Earlier this year Kodak announced that it was discontinuing its Kodachrome slide film because of lack of demand.
16) Hoaxes and conspiracy theories
The internet is often dismissed as awash with cranks, but it has proved far more potent at debunking conspiracy theories than perpetuating them. The excellent Snopes.com continues to deliver the final, sober, word on urban legends.
17) Watching television together
On-demand television, from the iPlayer in Britain to Hulu in the US, allows relatives and colleagues to watch the same programmes at different times, undermining what had been one of the medium's most attractive cultural appeals – the shared experience. Appointment-to-view television, if it exists at all, seems confined to sport and live reality shows.
18) Authoritative reference works
We still crave reliable information, but generally aren't willing to pay for it.
19) The Innovations catalogue
Preposterous as its household gadgets may have been, the Innovations catalogue was always a diverting read. The magazine ceased printing in 2003, and its web presence is depressingly bland.
20) Order forms in the back pages of books
Amazon's "Customers who bought this item also bought..." service seems the closest web equivalent.
21) Delayed knowledge of sporting results
When was the last time you bought a newspaper to find out who won the match, rather than for comment and analysis? There's no need to fall silent for James Alexander Gordon on the way home from the game when everyone in the car has an iPhone.
22) Enforceable copyright
The record companies, film studios and news agencies are fighting back, but can the floodgates ever be closed?
23) Reading telegrams at weddings
Quoting from a wad of email printouts doesn't have the same magic.
24) Dogging
Websites may have helped spread the word about dogging, but the internet offers a myriad of more convenient ways to organise no-strings sex with strangers. None of these involve spending the evening in lay-by near Aylesbury.
25) Aren't they dead? Aren't they gay?
Wikipedia allows us to confirm or disprove almost any celebrity rumour instantly. Only at festivals with no Wi-Fi signals can the gullible be tricked into believing that David Hasselhoff has passed away.
26) Holiday news ignorance
Glancing at the front pages after landing back at Heathrow used to be a thrilling experience – had anyone died? Was the government still standing? Now it takes a stern soul to resist the temptation to check the headlines at least once while you're away.
27) Knowing telephone numbers off by heart
After typing the digits into your contacts book, you need never look at them again.
28) Respect for doctors and other professionals
The proliferation of health websites has undermined the status of GPs, whose diagnoses are now challenged by patients armed with printouts.
29) The mystery of foreign languages
Sites like Babelfish offer instant, good-enough translations of dozens of languages – but kill their beauty and rhythm.
30) Geographical knowledge
With GPS systems spreading from cars to smartphones, knowing the way from A to B is a less prized skill. Just ask the London taxi drivers who spent years learning The Knowledge but are now undercut by minicabs.
31) Privacy
We may attack governments for the spread of surveillance culture, but users of social media websites make more information about themselves available than Big Brother could ever hoped to obtain by covert means.
32) Chuck Norris's reputation
The absurdly heroic boasts on Chuck Norris Facts may be affectionate, but will anyone take him seriously again?
33) Pencil cricket
An old-fashioned schoolboy diversion swept away by the Stick Cricket behemoth
34) Mainstream media
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Rocky Mountain News in the US have already folded, and the UK's Observer may follow. Free news and the migration of advertising to the web threaten the basic business models of almost all media organisations.
35) Concentration
What with tabbing between Gmail, Twitter, Facebook and Google News, it's a wonder anyone gets their work done. A disturbing trend captured by the wonderful XKCD webcomic.
36) Mr Alifi's dignity
Twenty years ago, if you were a Sudanese man who was forced to marry a goat after having sex with it, you'd take solace that news of your shame would be unlikely to spread beyond the neighbouring villages. Unfortunately for Mr Alifi, his indiscretion came in the digital age – and became one of the first viral news stories.
37) Personal reinvention
How can you forge a new identity at university when your Facebook is plastered with photos of the "old" you?
38) Viktor Yanukovych
The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was organised by a cabal of students and young activists who exploited the power of the web to mobilise resistance against the old regime, and sweep Viktor Yushchenko to power.
39) The insurance ring-round
Their adverts may grate, but insurance comparison websites have killed one of the most tedious annual chores
40) Undiscovered artists
Posting paintings to deviantART and Flickr – or poems to writebuzz – could not be easier. So now the garret-dwellers have no excuses.
41) The usefulness of reference pages at the front of diaries
If anyone still digs out their diaries to check what time zone Lisbon is in, or how many litres there are to a gallon, we don't know them.
42) The nervous thrill of the reunion
You've spent the past five years tracking their weight-gain on Facebook, so meeting up with your first love doesn't pack the emotional punch it once did.
43) Solitaire
The original computer timewaster has been superseded by the more alluring temptations of the web. Ditto Minesweeper.
44) Trust in Nigerian businessmen and princes
Some gift horses should have their mouths very closely inspected.
45) Prostitute calling cards/ kerb crawling
Sex can be marketed more cheaply, safely and efficiently on the web than the street corner.
46) Staggered product/film releases
Companies are becoming increasingly draconian in their anti-piracy measure, but are finally beginning to appreciate that forcing British consumers to wait six months to hand over their money is not a smart business plan.
47) Footnotes
Made superfluous by the link, although Wikipedia is fighting a brave rearguard action.
48) Grand National trips to the bookmaker
Having a little flutter is much more fun when you don't have to wade though a shop of drunks and ne'er-do-wells
49) Fanzines
Blogs and fansites offer greater freedom and community interaction than paper fanzines, and can be read by many more people.
50) Your lunchbreak
Did you leave your desk today? Or snaffle a sandwich while sending a few personal emails and checking the price of a week in Istanbul?
17 thói quen đang bị 'xóa sổ' trong thời đại số
http://vnexpress.net/GL/Vi-tinh/2009/09/3BA133AA/
Ảnh: TopNews.
Internet, điện thoại di động.. đã thay đổi thế giới theo hướng tích cực dù vẫn còn mặt hạn chế như biến cuộc sống của nhiều người thành địa ngục vì những hình ảnh bị phát tán trên mạng.
Báo Telegraph (Anh) đã liệt kê 50 điều đang bị công nghệ kết nối "giết chết", trong đó có nhiều thứ gần gũi với Việt Nam như:
1. Bày tỏ sự không đồng tình một cách nhã nhặn: Thường ai "dũng cảm" hoặc quá nóng giận mới to tiếng, làm ầm ĩ nơi công cộng, còn trên diễn đàn online, cả người điềm tĩnh nhất cũng có thể tuôn ra những lời khó nghe với người/ý kiến mà họ ghét.
2. Thưởng thức trọn vẹn một album: Người ta chỉ chọn và nghe những file nhạc mà họ thích nhất.
3. Đúng giờ: Chỉ cần gọi điện, bạn có thể biết người kia đang đi tới đâu, hoặc báo cho họ biết bạn có thể đến muộn.
4. Sự rụt rè khi lần đầu mua ấn phẩm "dành cho người lớn": Nội dung khiêu dâm lan tràn trên Internet khiến những chàng thanh niên mới lớn không cần hoặc không còn bối rối khi lần đầu ra cửa hàng mua các tờ báo "mát mẻ".
5. Đồng hồ đeo tay: Trừ khi chiếc đồng hồ đó thể hiện sự lịch lãm, sang trọng hay có ý nghĩa nhất định, nếu chỉ để xem giờ, người ta sẽ ngó vào điện thoại, laptop...
6. Thư tay: E-mail nhanh, rẻ, tiện lợi và dễ biên tập hơn với người dùng Internet.
7. Không cần nhớ nhiều: Số điện thoại mới được lưu vào danh bạ, ngày tháng các sự kiện lịch sử đã có Google và Wikipedia trợ giúp, một số học giả cho rằng trẻ em không cần học thuộc lòng nữa.
8. Thời gian chết: Bạn có còn dành hẳn 1-2 giờ ngồi lỳ bên cửa sổ ngắm trời mây? Có lẽ chỉ khi kết nối Internet bị ngắt, điện thoại hết pin mà không tìm thấy sạc còn TV đang hỏng.
10. Xem TV cùng nhau: Qua rồi những buổi tối sau giờ cơm, cả nhà quây quần trước màn hình vô tuyến xem thời sự, phim, văn nghệ... bởi mỗi phòng đã có một TV riêng, hoặc các thành viên còn bận vào mạng, nhắn tin với bạn bè...
11. Kết quả trận đấu muộn: Vài năm trước, nếu nhiều trận đấu bóng diễn ra cùng giờ, khán giả xem truyền hình chỉ biết ngay kết quả một trận, còn lịch chiếu những trận khác sẽ bị lùi lại. Ngày nay, tỷ số được cập nhật từng phút trên nhiều website và qua tin nhắn điện thoại.
11. "Mù" thông tin khi đi nghỉ: Bây giờ, ở đâu người ta cũng có thể biết được tình hình của bạn bè, người thân nhờ điện thoại, chat, mạng xã hội...
12. Thần tượng: Học trò từng coi giáo viên là "kho tri thức sống", bác sĩ là nguồn tham khảo tin cậy về sức khỏe..., nhưng hiện nay, có những người đi khám bệnh về vẫn lên Google để tra xem loại thuốc bác sĩ kê đơn có thực sự an toàn không.
13. Sự bí hiểm của ngoại ngữ: Các công cụ dịch thuật trực tuyến giúp họ hiểu gần hết mọi từ vựng.
14. Tính riêng tư: Thông tin người dùng đăng rải rác trên mạng, chẳng hạn những status, ảnh... ngẫu nhiên trên Facebook tưởng vô hại khi đặt riêng lẻ nhưng lại giúp người khác hiểu rất rõ về họ nếu biết cách kết nối và tổng hợp lại.
15. Sự tập trung: Ai có thể chuyên tâm vào công việc khi mà cứ 3-5 phút lại xuất hiện một thông báo nho nhỏ ở góc màn hình về một e-mail mới trong Gmail, bình luận mới ở Facebook hay một bản tin tại Google News?
16. Niềm vui sướng "vỡ òa" khi gặp nhau: Hội ngộ sau bao ngày xa cách luôn đem lại sự hân hoan. Nhưng mức độ sẽ hoàn toàn khác giữa việc hai người xa 5 năm mà chỉ liên lạc qua thư tay và vài cuộc điện thoại đường dài hiếm hoi với hai người chat với nhau cả ngày, "nói quên ngày tháng" qua Skype, cập nhật ảnh và mọi hoạt động từ việc ngủ dậy lúc mấy giờ đến chuyện vừa bị ngã xe qua Facebook.
17. Ra ngoài ăn trưa: Thói quen này không thể bị "xóa sổ" nhưng ngày càng nhiều người sẵn sàng ngồi lỳ trong văn phòng, vừa gặm bánh mỳ vừa duyệt mạng xã hội, nhất là ở những công ty chỉ cho phép truy cập web vào giờ nghỉ.
Showing posts with label Discursive Essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Discursive Essay. Show all posts
8/3/09
Urbanisation: Problems
Essay: It is often said that industrial and urban development is beneficial to any society in today's world.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
7/12/09
Essay_Discursive vs Argumentative
Here the teacher epxlains to you the difference between the Discussion and Argument essay. Pls click on to the title and it will take you to the lecture.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
6/5/09
How Touch Affects Your Children
The Devastating Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect
Telling your children you love them is not as powerful a reassurance as demonstrating your love for them, and depriving your children of genuine physical affection can have devastating consequences. Years ago many motorists had this sticker affixed to their bumpers: Have you hugged your child today? Many of those stickers have disappeared, along with their message. We become so wrapped up in our own lives that we don't have time to show our children affection anymore. We come home exhausted and we still have to cook for them, bathe them, clean up after them, and shop for them. We use grueling work hours as excuses for not stopping long enough to just hold them and hug them for a few minutes - "Not now - I'm busy." Do we really need to spend more time showing them affection?
In a word: Yes. We can't afford to ignore our children's need for physical affection. Here is why:
While much research has been devoted to the visual, auditory, and olfactory senses, very little research has been conducted on the subject of touch, specifically, its neglect. Volumes have been written on physical and sexual abuse, and many books and articles have been written on the healing properties of touch, but the consequences of its absence can be glimpsed only in sporadic sentences in college psychology texts. More has been written about neglect of touch on monkeys than on human beings, despite the infinitesimally small amount of human research indicating that more needs to be conducted.
Before our eyes see clearly, before we understand what we hear, and long before we identify taste or smell, we feel. Touch is one of the first sensory foundations from which we gain knowledge about life.
We are as affected by touching others as we are by others touching us. If exercised sensitively and wisely, touch in the form of affection and nurturing heals us.
But abusive (physical and/or sexual) touch, if exercised to its fullest expression, may result in our death, either physical or spiritual.
Being deprived of touch can drain us of life, too - physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
Telling your children you love them is not as powerful a reassurance as demonstrating your love for them, and depriving your children of genuine physical affection can have devastating consequences. Years ago many motorists had this sticker affixed to their bumpers: Have you hugged your child today? Many of those stickers have disappeared, along with their message. We become so wrapped up in our own lives that we don't have time to show our children affection anymore. We come home exhausted and we still have to cook for them, bathe them, clean up after them, and shop for them. We use grueling work hours as excuses for not stopping long enough to just hold them and hug them for a few minutes - "Not now - I'm busy." Do we really need to spend more time showing them affection?
In a word: Yes. We can't afford to ignore our children's need for physical affection. Here is why:
While much research has been devoted to the visual, auditory, and olfactory senses, very little research has been conducted on the subject of touch, specifically, its neglect. Volumes have been written on physical and sexual abuse, and many books and articles have been written on the healing properties of touch, but the consequences of its absence can be glimpsed only in sporadic sentences in college psychology texts. More has been written about neglect of touch on monkeys than on human beings, despite the infinitesimally small amount of human research indicating that more needs to be conducted.
Before our eyes see clearly, before we understand what we hear, and long before we identify taste or smell, we feel. Touch is one of the first sensory foundations from which we gain knowledge about life.
We are as affected by touching others as we are by others touching us. If exercised sensitively and wisely, touch in the form of affection and nurturing heals us.
But abusive (physical and/or sexual) touch, if exercised to its fullest expression, may result in our death, either physical or spiritual.
Being deprived of touch can drain us of life, too - physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually.
6/3/09
Is TV delaying child development?
By Clare Murphy
BBC News health reporter
Does CBeebies have a lot to answer for?
New research suggests having the TV on may impair young children's development by reducing the amount of conversation between infant and adult. So how bad is the box for young minds?
A US team recorded more than 300 children aged between two months and four years on several days every month over two years.
They found that when the TV was audible - either on in the background or being watched - the number of words spoken and sounds made by either adult or child reduced considerably.
It is the latest study to imply that delays in language development may be the fault of TV, a medium blamed for a host of other modern ills, from bullying to obesity. But while it is not without its problems, experts warn that to expunge it from our children's lives completely may be as undesirable as it is unrealistic.
Mixed picture
Certainly there is a body of research building up that finds a correlation between heavy TV viewing at an early age and linguistic problems.
This study is the first to demonstrate that when the television is on, there is reduced speech in the home
Dimitri Christakis
Lead researcher
The exact nature of the relationship is unclear, and the role that family circumstances and other social influences play has not been established. However lack of interaction at a personal level is thought to be a key culprit.
But there is equally evidence that, for those over two at least, monitored levels of age-appropriate programmes can in fact foster language skills and indeed improve attention.
Watching with an adult and discussing the contents after a shared experienced has been found to be particularly beneficial, but not always necessary providing children are watching high-quality, tailored programmes which contain familiar words and scenarios.
Indeed some psychologists argue that given young children cannot read their own books or surf the internet, watching may be an empowering experience that gives them access to other worlds which present useful information in a way their parents may not be able to.
But there are some serious caveats: what appears to be particularly undesirable is the viewing of general audience or adult programmes both alone or in the company of a carer.
National Literacy Trust's TV tips
Limit TV time to one hour for 3-5 year olds
Where possible, watch together
Switch off when finished
Encourage imaginative play based on what was watched
Videos/dvds may be better due to repetition of words
Avoid TV in the bedroom
In addition while some TV may be beneficial for the over twos, the evidence for those younger is more shaky. First words, it is argued, are learnt far more effectively from real people than voices on the TV.
In the US, the American Academy of Paediatrics recommends no exposure to TV and computer screens for those under two, but lack of evidence for such a measure means there is no such policy in the UK.
Constant hum
This latest study into TV's effect on children comes from the University of Washington's Dimitri Christakis, the researcher who made headlines after reporting that infants who watched the Baby Einstein series - a set of programmes billed as educational - learnt fewer new words than those who did not.
His new study did not differentiate between TV being watched or background TV, nor did it examine the kind of programmes that were on. But it did find that overall, adults barely spoke to children when the TV was audible.
Research published last year also in the US also found problems with background TV, concluding that it affected both the quality and quantity of play in young children.
Liz Attenborough, director of Talk to Your Baby at the UK's National Literacy Trust, agrees that the permanent presence of the TV in the background is something parents should try to reduce.
"Even if you think you're not paying attention to it, you probably are - and this may well interfere with how much you speak to your child. The TV shouldn't be on all the time.
"But we are lucky to have some high-quality children's programmes in the UK. They are usually well thought-out, often featuring a clear, single voice, and incite children to make responses," she said.
"Of course we need to be aware of the problems TV can pose, but equally we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
BBC News health reporter
Does CBeebies have a lot to answer for?
New research suggests having the TV on may impair young children's development by reducing the amount of conversation between infant and adult. So how bad is the box for young minds?
A US team recorded more than 300 children aged between two months and four years on several days every month over two years.
They found that when the TV was audible - either on in the background or being watched - the number of words spoken and sounds made by either adult or child reduced considerably.
It is the latest study to imply that delays in language development may be the fault of TV, a medium blamed for a host of other modern ills, from bullying to obesity. But while it is not without its problems, experts warn that to expunge it from our children's lives completely may be as undesirable as it is unrealistic.
Mixed picture
Certainly there is a body of research building up that finds a correlation between heavy TV viewing at an early age and linguistic problems.
This study is the first to demonstrate that when the television is on, there is reduced speech in the home
Dimitri Christakis
Lead researcher
The exact nature of the relationship is unclear, and the role that family circumstances and other social influences play has not been established. However lack of interaction at a personal level is thought to be a key culprit.
But there is equally evidence that, for those over two at least, monitored levels of age-appropriate programmes can in fact foster language skills and indeed improve attention.
Watching with an adult and discussing the contents after a shared experienced has been found to be particularly beneficial, but not always necessary providing children are watching high-quality, tailored programmes which contain familiar words and scenarios.
Indeed some psychologists argue that given young children cannot read their own books or surf the internet, watching may be an empowering experience that gives them access to other worlds which present useful information in a way their parents may not be able to.
But there are some serious caveats: what appears to be particularly undesirable is the viewing of general audience or adult programmes both alone or in the company of a carer.
National Literacy Trust's TV tips
Limit TV time to one hour for 3-5 year olds
Where possible, watch together
Switch off when finished
Encourage imaginative play based on what was watched
Videos/dvds may be better due to repetition of words
Avoid TV in the bedroom
In addition while some TV may be beneficial for the over twos, the evidence for those younger is more shaky. First words, it is argued, are learnt far more effectively from real people than voices on the TV.
In the US, the American Academy of Paediatrics recommends no exposure to TV and computer screens for those under two, but lack of evidence for such a measure means there is no such policy in the UK.
Constant hum
This latest study into TV's effect on children comes from the University of Washington's Dimitri Christakis, the researcher who made headlines after reporting that infants who watched the Baby Einstein series - a set of programmes billed as educational - learnt fewer new words than those who did not.
His new study did not differentiate between TV being watched or background TV, nor did it examine the kind of programmes that were on. But it did find that overall, adults barely spoke to children when the TV was audible.
Research published last year also in the US also found problems with background TV, concluding that it affected both the quality and quantity of play in young children.
Liz Attenborough, director of Talk to Your Baby at the UK's National Literacy Trust, agrees that the permanent presence of the TV in the background is something parents should try to reduce.
"Even if you think you're not paying attention to it, you probably are - and this may well interfere with how much you speak to your child. The TV shouldn't be on all the time.
"But we are lucky to have some high-quality children's programmes in the UK. They are usually well thought-out, often featuring a clear, single voice, and incite children to make responses," she said.
"Of course we need to be aware of the problems TV can pose, but equally we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
6/2/09
Tourism benefits and drawbacks
In general, tourism has several advantages as a sector for pro-poor economic growth (Ashley et al., 2000):
Ø The consumer comes to the destination, thereby providing opportunities for selling additional goods and services.
Ø Tourism is an important opportunity to diversify local economies. It can develop in poor and marginal areas with few other export and diversification options. Remote areas particularly attract tourists because of their high cultural, wildlife and landscape value.
Ø It offers labour-intensive and small-scale opportunities compared with other non-agricultural activities, employs a high proportion of women and values natural resources and culture, which may feature among the few assets belonging to the poor.
In case tourism is being considered as one of several land use options, an assessment should be carried out of the likelihood of all the benefits and drawbacks, or advantages and limitations. At the same time, they represent the key issues to bear in mind in impact assessments and in strategies to maximise tourism's benefits and minimise negative impacts. Note that especially many of the disadvantages are not unique to tourism, but can be attributed to other economic activities in rural areas as well. The table gives a listing of the main points, as they have emerged from numerous analyses of tourism practice (many interesting cases illustrating these issues and ways to address them can be found in Boo, 1990; Lindberg, 1991; Wight, 1991; Whelan, 1992; Wells & Brandon, 1992; Lindberg et al, 1993 and 1998; McIntyre, 1993; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; France, 1997; Goodwin et al., 1998; Ashley et al., 2000; Carey et al., 2000).
Table. Advantages and Limitations of Tourism for Development
Advantages
- the positive scenario
Limitations and disadvantages
- the negative scenario
For local development
Ø Jobs (also for labour force with little formal education)
Ø Community income
Ø Enterprise opportunities
Ø Opportunities for training skills and upward mobility
Ø Diversify livelihoods
Ø Improved infrastructure and community facilities in marginal areas
Ø Institutional development
Ø Renewed cultural pride and self-esteem, appreciation of natural and cultural heritage
Ø Recreational and cultural facilities can also be used by residents
Ø Menial jobs only
Ø A ‘bad deal’ for communities
Ø Limited spin-off, high leakage
Ø Limited investment in training
Ø Inequitable distribution of all the above
Ø Conflict with agriculture and livelihood strategies. Risky investment.
Ø Infrastructure only for tourists, not residents, may result in hostility
Ø Local conflicts exacerbated
Ø Control by outsiders
Ø Disempowerment of residents
Ø Cultural disruption
Ø Conflicts over land rights
Ø Conflicts over resources between locals and migrants attracted by tourism success
Ø Possible competition with tourists for basic commodities makes them too scarce or expensive for locals (water, staple foods)
For economic growth
Ø Growing industry
Ø Steady prices (compared to traditional exports)
Ø Job creation, spin-off enterprises, and multiplier effects
Ø Attracts private investment
Ø Economic diversification
Ø Sustainable utilisation of natural assets
Ø Increased markets for local products
Ø Volatile demand
Ø High leakage out of economy; enclave tourism with few spin-offs
Ø Private control not partnership
Ø Over-dependence
Ø Over-use of natural resources
Ø May divert investments from other sectors or regions of higher local importance to tourism infrastructure elsewhere
For conservation
Ø Improved environmental quality
Ø Increased local benefits from wildlife justify its management as a land use option
Ø Enhanced local appreciation of values of nature
Ø Enhanced environmental awareness among tourists; possibly become private donors to conservation projects
Ø Economic justification for establishing PAs or investing in more effective management
Ø Revenues help to cover costs of conservation
Ø Benefits insufficient, narrowly distributed, and not visibly linked to conservation of the resource base.
Ø Capacity and other prerequisites lacking
Ø Conflicts with wildlife protected as tourist attraction (health risks, crop damage)
Ø Deforestation for infrastructure development or to supply fuel wood to tourists
Ø Pollution due to absent waste or sewage treatment at tourism facilities
Ø Disturbance of wildlife, trampling of sensitive vegetation
Ø Immigration as result of tourism success increases pressure on sensitive ecosystems
Ø The consumer comes to the destination, thereby providing opportunities for selling additional goods and services.
Ø Tourism is an important opportunity to diversify local economies. It can develop in poor and marginal areas with few other export and diversification options. Remote areas particularly attract tourists because of their high cultural, wildlife and landscape value.
Ø It offers labour-intensive and small-scale opportunities compared with other non-agricultural activities, employs a high proportion of women and values natural resources and culture, which may feature among the few assets belonging to the poor.
In case tourism is being considered as one of several land use options, an assessment should be carried out of the likelihood of all the benefits and drawbacks, or advantages and limitations. At the same time, they represent the key issues to bear in mind in impact assessments and in strategies to maximise tourism's benefits and minimise negative impacts. Note that especially many of the disadvantages are not unique to tourism, but can be attributed to other economic activities in rural areas as well. The table gives a listing of the main points, as they have emerged from numerous analyses of tourism practice (many interesting cases illustrating these issues and ways to address them can be found in Boo, 1990; Lindberg, 1991; Wight, 1991; Whelan, 1992; Wells & Brandon, 1992; Lindberg et al, 1993 and 1998; McIntyre, 1993; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; France, 1997; Goodwin et al., 1998; Ashley et al., 2000; Carey et al., 2000).
Table. Advantages and Limitations of Tourism for Development
Advantages
- the positive scenario
Limitations and disadvantages
- the negative scenario
For local development
Ø Jobs (also for labour force with little formal education)
Ø Community income
Ø Enterprise opportunities
Ø Opportunities for training skills and upward mobility
Ø Diversify livelihoods
Ø Improved infrastructure and community facilities in marginal areas
Ø Institutional development
Ø Renewed cultural pride and self-esteem, appreciation of natural and cultural heritage
Ø Recreational and cultural facilities can also be used by residents
Ø Menial jobs only
Ø A ‘bad deal’ for communities
Ø Limited spin-off, high leakage
Ø Limited investment in training
Ø Inequitable distribution of all the above
Ø Conflict with agriculture and livelihood strategies. Risky investment.
Ø Infrastructure only for tourists, not residents, may result in hostility
Ø Local conflicts exacerbated
Ø Control by outsiders
Ø Disempowerment of residents
Ø Cultural disruption
Ø Conflicts over land rights
Ø Conflicts over resources between locals and migrants attracted by tourism success
Ø Possible competition with tourists for basic commodities makes them too scarce or expensive for locals (water, staple foods)
For economic growth
Ø Growing industry
Ø Steady prices (compared to traditional exports)
Ø Job creation, spin-off enterprises, and multiplier effects
Ø Attracts private investment
Ø Economic diversification
Ø Sustainable utilisation of natural assets
Ø Increased markets for local products
Ø Volatile demand
Ø High leakage out of economy; enclave tourism with few spin-offs
Ø Private control not partnership
Ø Over-dependence
Ø Over-use of natural resources
Ø May divert investments from other sectors or regions of higher local importance to tourism infrastructure elsewhere
For conservation
Ø Improved environmental quality
Ø Increased local benefits from wildlife justify its management as a land use option
Ø Enhanced local appreciation of values of nature
Ø Enhanced environmental awareness among tourists; possibly become private donors to conservation projects
Ø Economic justification for establishing PAs or investing in more effective management
Ø Revenues help to cover costs of conservation
Ø Benefits insufficient, narrowly distributed, and not visibly linked to conservation of the resource base.
Ø Capacity and other prerequisites lacking
Ø Conflicts with wildlife protected as tourist attraction (health risks, crop damage)
Ø Deforestation for infrastructure development or to supply fuel wood to tourists
Ø Pollution due to absent waste or sewage treatment at tourism facilities
Ø Disturbance of wildlife, trampling of sensitive vegetation
Ø Immigration as result of tourism success increases pressure on sensitive ecosystems
Tourist attraction, rising oxymoron
Tourism: attraction and drawbacks
New York's Little Italy not so Italian anymore
By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office
Tourism changes everything it touches, homogenizing and sanitizing even as it brings in bodies and dollars.
This is tourism's "central paradox," according to Susan Fainstein, a Columbia
Columbia's Susan Fainstein explains that exotic locales marketed for their distinct culture and history become a little less exotic when the streets are teeming with tourists instead of local residents. (Staff photo Justin Ide/Harvard News Office)
University professor and author of the book on tourism "The City Builders." It's the task of local officials and regulators, she said, to keep those homogenizing forces in check even as they promote what can be an important contributor to a region's economy.
Fainstein, who spoke at the John F. Kennedy School of Government's Taubman Building on Thursday afternoon (March 4), outlined tourism's benefits and drawbacks in a presentation before about 40 people in the Taubman's Allison Dining Room. The event was sponsored by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government.
The point of tourism is to escape, even briefly, from life's problems, Fainstein said. So tourist destinations are under pressure to make themselves prettier, to add entertainment and insulate tourist areas from crime, and to hide away evidence of manual labor and poverty.
Exotic locales marketed for their distinct culture and history become a little less exotic when the streets are teeming with tourists instead of local residents. Some locations even change their physical look to meet the expectations of tourists, who in this information age can research even the most remote locations and who arrive with bags packed with expectations as well as garments.
"The old places take on new clothes," Fainstein said. "The real places are scurrying to remake themselves to match the expectations of what people think they should be."
Fainstein described different types of tourist destinations, each with their own characteristics. Tourist cities, such as Cancun and Las Vegas, are created with the tourist in mind. Converted cities, such as Detroit and San Antonio, have more uneven development, and attempt to keep tourists segregated from the rest of the city in special districts.
"In an effort to protect visitors from the city, they are separated," Fainstein said.
Her talk dealt mostly with a third category of city, historic and multicultural cities. Tourism in these cities tends to be much more integrated with the fabric of life.
But in integrating, tourism also changes.
Fainstein offered many examples, describing how tourism changes the experience of a place. Touring a historic European church, she said, is a different experience entirely from worshipping there. Touring a castle, she said, is a different experience from visiting there at the bequest of the king.
Given enough time, she said, tourism becomes part of the fabric of a place. In Venice, for example, glassmakers have been making things for tourists for so long that they're part of the background.
"For 200 years, people have been spinning glass to sell to tourists. That's what people in Venice do," Fainstein said. "The meanings of the places have changed."
Tourism promotes what Fainstein termed "fakery" such as the neighborhood Italian restaurants in New York's Little Italy, where the neighborhood these days is mostly made up of ethnic Asians, rather than Italians.
Though tourism has its drawbacks, it's not purely negative. As a form of economic development, it can be more stable than manufacturing, Fainstein said. Manufacturing jobs can be shipped out of state or overseas, but tourists coming to New York City can't go anywhere else but New York.
Jobs in the tourism industry have been criticized as being low-wage, seasonal, and exploitative. But Fainstein said they're also low-skilled, which makes them accessible to entry-level workers or those laid off from manufacturing jobs.
In addition to bringing dollars to a region, tourism can foster positive change.
Sports teams, conventions, and cultural institutions enrich the life for city residents as well as for visitors, she said.
In Harlem, Fainstein said, tourism has helped revive black culture. Streets are better lit, and jazz clubs and restaurants have opened. Still, Fainstein said, there is resentment among some residents.
"People say, I don't want to be in a 'zoo' walking down the street while a bus full of people seeing 'real life' goes by," Fainstein said.
That highlights the tension that tourism has always brought. The tension is familiar in traditional summer resort areas such as Cape Cod, where the local residents dread the annual onslaught of tourists, even as they rely on them for their livelihood.
"Tourism always inspires ambivalence among the people being visited," Fainstein said. "There is a question whether culture can be maintained, because once you sell it and market it, you change it."
New York's Little Italy not so Italian anymore
By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office
Tourism changes everything it touches, homogenizing and sanitizing even as it brings in bodies and dollars.
This is tourism's "central paradox," according to Susan Fainstein, a Columbia
Columbia's Susan Fainstein explains that exotic locales marketed for their distinct culture and history become a little less exotic when the streets are teeming with tourists instead of local residents. (Staff photo Justin Ide/Harvard News Office)
University professor and author of the book on tourism "The City Builders." It's the task of local officials and regulators, she said, to keep those homogenizing forces in check even as they promote what can be an important contributor to a region's economy.
Fainstein, who spoke at the John F. Kennedy School of Government's Taubman Building on Thursday afternoon (March 4), outlined tourism's benefits and drawbacks in a presentation before about 40 people in the Taubman's Allison Dining Room. The event was sponsored by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government.
The point of tourism is to escape, even briefly, from life's problems, Fainstein said. So tourist destinations are under pressure to make themselves prettier, to add entertainment and insulate tourist areas from crime, and to hide away evidence of manual labor and poverty.
Exotic locales marketed for their distinct culture and history become a little less exotic when the streets are teeming with tourists instead of local residents. Some locations even change their physical look to meet the expectations of tourists, who in this information age can research even the most remote locations and who arrive with bags packed with expectations as well as garments.
"The old places take on new clothes," Fainstein said. "The real places are scurrying to remake themselves to match the expectations of what people think they should be."
Fainstein described different types of tourist destinations, each with their own characteristics. Tourist cities, such as Cancun and Las Vegas, are created with the tourist in mind. Converted cities, such as Detroit and San Antonio, have more uneven development, and attempt to keep tourists segregated from the rest of the city in special districts.
"In an effort to protect visitors from the city, they are separated," Fainstein said.
Her talk dealt mostly with a third category of city, historic and multicultural cities. Tourism in these cities tends to be much more integrated with the fabric of life.
But in integrating, tourism also changes.
Fainstein offered many examples, describing how tourism changes the experience of a place. Touring a historic European church, she said, is a different experience entirely from worshipping there. Touring a castle, she said, is a different experience from visiting there at the bequest of the king.
Given enough time, she said, tourism becomes part of the fabric of a place. In Venice, for example, glassmakers have been making things for tourists for so long that they're part of the background.
"For 200 years, people have been spinning glass to sell to tourists. That's what people in Venice do," Fainstein said. "The meanings of the places have changed."
Tourism promotes what Fainstein termed "fakery" such as the neighborhood Italian restaurants in New York's Little Italy, where the neighborhood these days is mostly made up of ethnic Asians, rather than Italians.
Though tourism has its drawbacks, it's not purely negative. As a form of economic development, it can be more stable than manufacturing, Fainstein said. Manufacturing jobs can be shipped out of state or overseas, but tourists coming to New York City can't go anywhere else but New York.
Jobs in the tourism industry have been criticized as being low-wage, seasonal, and exploitative. But Fainstein said they're also low-skilled, which makes them accessible to entry-level workers or those laid off from manufacturing jobs.
In addition to bringing dollars to a region, tourism can foster positive change.
Sports teams, conventions, and cultural institutions enrich the life for city residents as well as for visitors, she said.
In Harlem, Fainstein said, tourism has helped revive black culture. Streets are better lit, and jazz clubs and restaurants have opened. Still, Fainstein said, there is resentment among some residents.
"People say, I don't want to be in a 'zoo' walking down the street while a bus full of people seeing 'real life' goes by," Fainstein said.
That highlights the tension that tourism has always brought. The tension is familiar in traditional summer resort areas such as Cape Cod, where the local residents dread the annual onslaught of tourists, even as they rely on them for their livelihood.
"Tourism always inspires ambivalence among the people being visited," Fainstein said. "There is a question whether culture can be maintained, because once you sell it and market it, you change it."
6/1/09
Energy of the future
Some countries use fossil fuels such as coal, gas, ... Other countries encourage the use of alternative sourses of energy such as wind and solar power.
What might be positive and negative development of each?
================================================================
Current energy sources will not be able to sustain our growing society. We must look to alternate energy sources for the answer.
For further readings on alternative energy (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear) pls read this (20 pages)
https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alt_energy.pdf
================
Alternate energy sources must replace our traditional energy sources because they are sustainable for our lifestyles. Since the age of industrialization, we have relied heavily upon traditional energy resources (mostly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). These traditional resources have shaped our culture as well as our development. However, when these resources are used to produce energy, they negatively impact our delicate environment. They are also nonrenewable and will one day run out. However, we may solve the problem of our depleting resources through current technology, which promise new alternative methods to produce energy. Using these alternative resources will greatly increase our sustainability.
Alternative sources must replace traditional sources because they are renewable (the resource will never deplete). One example of an alternate resource is hydroelectricity which generates power via moving water. Due to the hydrologic cycle, the fast-moving water will never deplete. Hydroelectricity is therefore a renewable energy resource. Another example of renewable energy is solar power, which generates energy by collecting heat or light from the sun. Since the sun will not stop emitting heat and light (at least not for the next 4,000,000,000 years) it is considered a renewable resource. Wind can also be used to generate large amounts of electricity. As long as the sun’s heat creates wind currents, we will be able to produce power from the wind. Coal will be gone in 200 years, whereas natural gas will have disappeared in less than 100 years. However, these three resources mentioned above, hydro, solar, and wind power, cannot be depleted.
Another advantage alternative power sources have over traditional sources is that they have little to no impact on the environment. Hydroelectricity relies solely on fast-flowing water to generate power. Once a hydroelectric dam is operating it does not emit any pollutants into the atmosphere. Geothermal energy is considered to be the cleanest energy resource yet explored. A geothermal plant does not burn any fossil fuels and requires minimal land space to operate. Its environmental impact is nearly zero. Hydrogen energy promises to be an excellent substitute to gasoline products currently used in cars and trucks. The element hydrogen is much more powerful per liter than gasoline. Unlike gasoline, the exhaust products of hydrogen do not pollute the atmosphere with CO2 or CO1 (carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide respectively) but release clean H2O (water). Since alternative energy sources have minimal effects on the environment, the must be used as substitutes for traditional energy sources which are currently trashing our earth.
The only disadvantages of alternative energy are that they are often unreliable and have high start-up costs. For example, solar energy requires a great number of solar cells to produce any significant amount of electricity. The cells are expensive and may not be affordable for family households or small companies. They also only produce electricity on sunny days. Because the sun is not always shining, the source is not reliable. Another example of an energy resource that is expensive to start up is hydroelectric dams. Though running costs are cheap the building of a hydroelectric dam far exceeds that of a fossil-fuel-burning plant. Many governments and companies may stay away from alternative energy sources such as these because the resource is unreliable or they cannot afford the initial start-up costs.
Alternative energy has more benefits than drawbacks. Unlike traditional resources, it is renewable and has little to no impact on the environment. The only drawbacks to these sources are that they are often unreliable and command high startup costs. Our current technologies employed to produce energy are not sustainable. The resources will not last for future generations. We therefore need to move to alternate energy resources to ensure that our lifestyles are sustainable, both for us and for future generations.
What might be positive and negative development of each?
================================================================
Current energy sources will not be able to sustain our growing society. We must look to alternate energy sources for the answer.
For further readings on alternative energy (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear) pls read this (20 pages)
https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alt_energy.pdf
================
Alternate energy sources must replace our traditional energy sources because they are sustainable for our lifestyles. Since the age of industrialization, we have relied heavily upon traditional energy resources (mostly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). These traditional resources have shaped our culture as well as our development. However, when these resources are used to produce energy, they negatively impact our delicate environment. They are also nonrenewable and will one day run out. However, we may solve the problem of our depleting resources through current technology, which promise new alternative methods to produce energy. Using these alternative resources will greatly increase our sustainability.
Alternative sources must replace traditional sources because they are renewable (the resource will never deplete). One example of an alternate resource is hydroelectricity which generates power via moving water. Due to the hydrologic cycle, the fast-moving water will never deplete. Hydroelectricity is therefore a renewable energy resource. Another example of renewable energy is solar power, which generates energy by collecting heat or light from the sun. Since the sun will not stop emitting heat and light (at least not for the next 4,000,000,000 years) it is considered a renewable resource. Wind can also be used to generate large amounts of electricity. As long as the sun’s heat creates wind currents, we will be able to produce power from the wind. Coal will be gone in 200 years, whereas natural gas will have disappeared in less than 100 years. However, these three resources mentioned above, hydro, solar, and wind power, cannot be depleted.
Another advantage alternative power sources have over traditional sources is that they have little to no impact on the environment. Hydroelectricity relies solely on fast-flowing water to generate power. Once a hydroelectric dam is operating it does not emit any pollutants into the atmosphere. Geothermal energy is considered to be the cleanest energy resource yet explored. A geothermal plant does not burn any fossil fuels and requires minimal land space to operate. Its environmental impact is nearly zero. Hydrogen energy promises to be an excellent substitute to gasoline products currently used in cars and trucks. The element hydrogen is much more powerful per liter than gasoline. Unlike gasoline, the exhaust products of hydrogen do not pollute the atmosphere with CO2 or CO1 (carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide respectively) but release clean H2O (water). Since alternative energy sources have minimal effects on the environment, the must be used as substitutes for traditional energy sources which are currently trashing our earth.
The only disadvantages of alternative energy are that they are often unreliable and have high start-up costs. For example, solar energy requires a great number of solar cells to produce any significant amount of electricity. The cells are expensive and may not be affordable for family households or small companies. They also only produce electricity on sunny days. Because the sun is not always shining, the source is not reliable. Another example of an energy resource that is expensive to start up is hydroelectric dams. Though running costs are cheap the building of a hydroelectric dam far exceeds that of a fossil-fuel-burning plant. Many governments and companies may stay away from alternative energy sources such as these because the resource is unreliable or they cannot afford the initial start-up costs.
Alternative energy has more benefits than drawbacks. Unlike traditional resources, it is renewable and has little to no impact on the environment. The only drawbacks to these sources are that they are often unreliable and command high startup costs. Our current technologies employed to produce energy are not sustainable. The resources will not last for future generations. We therefore need to move to alternate energy resources to ensure that our lifestyles are sustainable, both for us and for future generations.
5/23/09
Computers and Teachers
As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom.
There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people?s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.
Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others? incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.
However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills.
Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student?s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject.
In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences.
This is a great essay. Looks like Band 8 to me. No improvements are necessary, Keep up the good job!
There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people?s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.
Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others? incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.
However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills.
Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student?s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject.
In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences.
This is a great essay. Looks like Band 8 to me. No improvements are necessary, Keep up the good job!
Can computers replace teachers?
Perhaps computers can replace teaching materials such as text books and notebooks, but teachers serve several functions. A teacher is not only teaching but also watching the class and making sure there are no behavioral issues. The classroom is like a small society and the teacher serves as its leader and guide. The teacher also sets an example in this regard.
A computer or robot doesn't have that kind of understanding or intelligence.
teachers are also very helpful to students.and a student can ask a teacher if they dont know any questions.
=============
Computers can be effective tools for helping students learn academic subjects, but young people will always need human teachers to provide moral guidance and foster intellectual growth and social development. Computers provide students with information, but only teachers can teach children to think critically, discriminate among sources of information, and be creative
Never...
For example, computers will never teach students the intuitive critical thinking skills that come from taking liberal arts courses, nor will computers teach students how to be good scientists, journalists, businesspeople, etc. Computers simply allow people who have already developed their job and life skills to access information faster and compute quicker. A good scientist is a good scientist, whether or not she has access to a computer, and likewise with almost all other professions.
Computers will never completely replace teachers, especially not for the younger grades where social interaction cannot be taught through a computer.
However, one argument can be that college students are already taking online classes and in that case computers have already replaced college professors to a certain extent. All the professors have to do is moderate the online sessions.
The Monterey County Herald
OUR VOICE
Monterey County
teens
COMPUTERS CAN'T REPLACE GOOD TEACHING
BY MICHAEL MOEWE
Herald Corespondent
Funding for education is very important to our society as a whole, not just a benefactor for the students in public school. The money we have allotted for public school funding should be used wisely to get the best use out of it.
Bill Clinton has talked about hooking every school to the Internet, as part of his campaign. I think people need to realize what it is that they're getting when they spend money on technology for schools.
The Internet is not a great tool for teaching. The Internet pales in comparison to the hype surrounding it. People think that children can think of any topic and pull up a wealth of information on it, but that is not the case.
The information in a library is what people seem to expect, but nobody has the time to transcribe entire libraries onto computers. There is nothing on the Internet that is incredibly beneficial to education, yet we continue to waste money on it.
I think that the huge amount of money needed to purchase computers could be better used for more traditional forms of education like books and also salaries for better teachers.
Rarely do computers help people learn. I think a good teacher and books really make the difference.
For instance, in my science class we do hands-on experiments that help us to understand the concepts. We also have computers with essentially worthless programs that never get used. I think the computers are just a waste of money that could be better spent on more lab materials. The only use I see for a computer in our class is as a measuring device for speed, temperature and other things in labs. All this can be done on an Apple computer from the 1980s, but we feel the need to get supercomputers just so schools can show off their technology.
I would rather have a huge library at my school than a room full of computers with thousands of dollars worth of programs when the computers are only needed for word processing.
The only thing is that people don't think about the results of spending all the money on the technology and hooking people up to the Internet. We think its the thought that counts, but thought doesn't make a difference if it's a waste of money that does not aid edu- cation.
I'm not saying that we should rid ourselves of technology altogether. Just think about how we need to use computers and buy the computers that schools need, and not go overboard.
People need to understand that computers can't compete with a good teacher. (Michael Moewe recently completed the 10th grade at Carmel High School. High School students interested in contributing to the Our Voice column should contact June Cornea- at 646-4345.)
A computer or robot doesn't have that kind of understanding or intelligence.
teachers are also very helpful to students.and a student can ask a teacher if they dont know any questions.
=============
Computers can be effective tools for helping students learn academic subjects, but young people will always need human teachers to provide moral guidance and foster intellectual growth and social development. Computers provide students with information, but only teachers can teach children to think critically, discriminate among sources of information, and be creative
Never...
For example, computers will never teach students the intuitive critical thinking skills that come from taking liberal arts courses, nor will computers teach students how to be good scientists, journalists, businesspeople, etc. Computers simply allow people who have already developed their job and life skills to access information faster and compute quicker. A good scientist is a good scientist, whether or not she has access to a computer, and likewise with almost all other professions.
Computers will never completely replace teachers, especially not for the younger grades where social interaction cannot be taught through a computer.
However, one argument can be that college students are already taking online classes and in that case computers have already replaced college professors to a certain extent. All the professors have to do is moderate the online sessions.
The Monterey County Herald
OUR VOICE
Monterey County
teens
COMPUTERS CAN'T REPLACE GOOD TEACHING
BY MICHAEL MOEWE
Herald Corespondent
Funding for education is very important to our society as a whole, not just a benefactor for the students in public school. The money we have allotted for public school funding should be used wisely to get the best use out of it.
Bill Clinton has talked about hooking every school to the Internet, as part of his campaign. I think people need to realize what it is that they're getting when they spend money on technology for schools.
The Internet is not a great tool for teaching. The Internet pales in comparison to the hype surrounding it. People think that children can think of any topic and pull up a wealth of information on it, but that is not the case.
The information in a library is what people seem to expect, but nobody has the time to transcribe entire libraries onto computers. There is nothing on the Internet that is incredibly beneficial to education, yet we continue to waste money on it.
I think that the huge amount of money needed to purchase computers could be better used for more traditional forms of education like books and also salaries for better teachers.
Rarely do computers help people learn. I think a good teacher and books really make the difference.
For instance, in my science class we do hands-on experiments that help us to understand the concepts. We also have computers with essentially worthless programs that never get used. I think the computers are just a waste of money that could be better spent on more lab materials. The only use I see for a computer in our class is as a measuring device for speed, temperature and other things in labs. All this can be done on an Apple computer from the 1980s, but we feel the need to get supercomputers just so schools can show off their technology.
I would rather have a huge library at my school than a room full of computers with thousands of dollars worth of programs when the computers are only needed for word processing.
The only thing is that people don't think about the results of spending all the money on the technology and hooking people up to the Internet. We think its the thought that counts, but thought doesn't make a difference if it's a waste of money that does not aid edu- cation.
I'm not saying that we should rid ourselves of technology altogether. Just think about how we need to use computers and buy the computers that schools need, and not go overboard.
People need to understand that computers can't compete with a good teacher. (Michael Moewe recently completed the 10th grade at Carmel High School. High School students interested in contributing to the Our Voice column should contact June Cornea- at 646-4345.)
5/22/09
Can Money Buy Happiness?
By Arthur C. Brooks From the May/June 2008 Issue
Money doesn’t buy happiness, but success does. Capitalism, moored in values of hard work, honesty, and fairness, is key.
On July 23, 2000, a forty-two-year-old forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, named Mack Metcalf was working a 12-hour nightshift. On his last break, he halfheartedly checked the Sunday paper for the winning Kentucky lottery numbers. He didn’t expect to be a winner, of course—but hey, you never know.
Mack Metcalf’s ticket, it turned out, was the winner of the $65 million Powerball jackpot, and it changed his life forever. What did he do first? He quit his job. “I clocked out right then, and I haven’t been back,” he later recounted. In fact, his first impulse was to quit everything, after a life characterized by problem drinking, dysfunctional family life, and poorly paid work. “I’m moving to Australia. I’m going to totally get away. I’m going to buy several houses there, including one on the beach,” he told Kentucky lottery officials.
Metcalf never worked again. But he never moved to Australia. Instead he bought a 43-acre estate with an ostentatious, plantation-style home in southern Kentucky for more than $1 million. There, he spent his days pursuing pastimes like collecting expensive cars and exotic pets, including tarantulas and snakes.
Trouble started for Metcalf as soon as he won the lottery. Seeing him on television, a social worker recognized him as delinquent for child support from a past marriage, resulting in a settlement that cost him half a million dollars. A former girlfriend bilked him out of another half million while he was drunk. He fell deeper and deeper into alcoholism and became paranoid that those around him wanted to kill him. Racked with cirrhosis of the liver and hepatitis, he died in December 2003 at the age of forty-five, only about three years after his lottery dream had finally come true. His tombstone reads, “Loving father and brother, finally at rest.”
Did millions of dollars bring enduring happiness to Mack Metcalf? Obviously not. On the contrary, those who knew him blame the money for his demise. “If he hadn’t won,” Metcalf’s former wife told a New York Times reporter, “he would have worked like regular people and maybe had 20 years left. But when you put that kind of money in the hands of somebody with problems, it just helps them kill themselves.”
So what’s the moral of the story? Is money destined to make us miserable? Of course not. Mack Metcalf’s sad case is surely an aberration. If you hit the lottery, it would be different. You would give philanthropically and do all kinds of fulfilling things. Similarly, if your career suddenly took off in a fantastic way and you earned a great deal of money, you would get much happier. And what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole: When America experiences high rates of economic growth, it gets happier. America is not a nation of Mack Metcalfs, and money is a smart first strategy for attaining a higher gross national happiness.
Right?
You’ve heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn’t buy happiness. Your parents told you this, and so did your priest. Still, if you’re like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness. People throughout history have insisted on striving to get ahead in spite of the well-worn axiom. America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money truly does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. The inconvenient truth, however, is that there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
In 1972, 30 percent of Americans said they were very happy, and the average American enjoyed about $25,000 (in today’s dollars) of our national income. By 2004, the percentage of very happy Americans stayed virtually unchanged at 31 percent, while the share of national income skyrocketed to $38,000 (a 50 percent real increase in average income).
You've heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn't buy happiness. Still, if you're like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness.
The story is the same in other developed countries. In Japan, real average income was six times higher in 1991 than it was in 1958. During the post–World War II period, Japan was transformed at unprecedented speed from a poor nation into one of the world’s richest countries. But the average happiness of a Japanese citizen, measured on a scale of 1–4, stayed exactly the same at 2.7.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness. This is generally the case for nations experiencing rapid and chaotic development and thus opportunities for great wealth for the first time. Post-Soviet Russia is an example of this phenomenon. In the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Empire, a few entrepreneurs made vast fortunes in markets for oil and other primary resources. Yet post-Soviet Russia is a miserable place in which only about one in five citizens say they are very happy about their lives. Some development economists believe that cases of a few lucky entrepreneurs suddenly amassing large fortunes raised unreasonable expectations among ordinary Russians, creating a sense of extreme unfairness and leaving them deeply dissatisfied with their meager lot. And in this way, money created unhappiness.
So individual countries don’t seem to get much happier as they get richer. But are rich countries happier than poor countries?
The answer to this question depends on how poor a “poor country” is. People in poor countries where much of the population lives below subsistence level are much unhappier than people in rich countries, on average. International comparative studies of happiness consistently place the poorest nations of the world—especially the countries of sub-Saharan Africa—at the very bottom.
In 2006, one study ranking countries in terms of happiness found that Zimbabwe and Burundi were the unhappiest places on earth. And this makes sense, of course: It is ridiculous to imagine that illiteracy, high child mortality, and the threat of starvation are any more pleasant or bearable to a Burundian than they would be to an American. But once countries get past the prosperity level that solves large-scale health and nutrition problems, income disparity pales in comparison with other factors in predicting happiness, such as culture and faith.
For example, compare Mexico and France. The cost-of-living difference between the two nations is vast, so economists don’t compare raw income; rather, they compare the “purchasing power” of citizens. In Mexico—a nation in which most people live above the level of subsistence but still are much poorer than residents of the United States or Europe—the average purchasing power was about a third what it was in France in 2004. And yet Mexicans, in aggregate, are happier than the French. In Mexico, 63 percent of adults said they were very happy or completely happy. In France, only 35 percent gave one of these responses.
America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
It might be tempting to dismiss the happiness of Mexicans as delusional or a reflection of the fact that most Mexicans have no idea what life with material wealth is like. But this would be a mistake: There is simply no evidence that Mexicans lack an understanding of true happiness compared to the French. A more reasonable conclusion is that Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
American communities are like countries when it comes to happiness. Like happy Mexico and unhappy France, the happiness of American communities—all of which are above the level of subsistence—depends very little on their comparative prosperity. There are abundant examples of unhappy high-income communities and happy low-income communities. Take eastern Tennessee (which includes the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville, but is mostly rural), where people are 25 percent likelier than people living in tony San Francisco to say they are very happy, despite earning a third less money on average. Obviously, it is more expensive to live in San Francisco than it is to live in Tennessee, but San Franciscans still enjoy more than 30 percent more disposable income.
Like nations and communities, as long as they don’t start out dangerously impoverished, individuals get little or no extra happiness as they get richer—even massively richer. In a classic 1978 study, two psychologists interviewed 22 major lottery winners and found that the joy of sudden wealth wore off in a few months. Further, lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life’s prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth. It’s as if the overwhelming experience of winning the lottery dulls the enjoyable flavors of ordinary life.
This story opened with the sad tale of Mack Metcalf. In truth, it doesn’t necessarily destroy your life to win the lottery, as it evidently did his, but it won’t make your life better either.
So it’s true: Money doesn’t bring enduring happiness for countries, communities, or individuals, except perhaps when people start out in abject poverty. Why not? The answer has to do with what psychologists call “adaptation.” Humans tend to adapt psychologically to their circumstances—including their monetary circumstances—and do so very quickly.
Perhaps you’ve walked into a chain-smoker’s home and wondered how on earth he could stand to live with such a stench. The answer, of course, is that he is used to it. For the most part, the same is true of economic gains and losses in our lives: They give us pleasure or pain when they happen, but the effect wears off very quickly. Adaptation makes money unsatisfying per se because we get used to it quickly. Almost immediately, an increased income becomes the new “normal.”
For individuals, communities, and nations, economic growth is like being on a treadmill, and getting richer is like speeding up the treadmill: We never get any closer to bliss.
According to the great economist Adam Smith, an early proponent of the benefits of pursuing personal economic interests for the common good, “the mind of every man, in a longer or shorter time, returns to its natural and usual state of tranquility. In prosperity, after a certain time, it falls back to that state; in adversity, after a certain time, it rises up to it.”
Indeed, economists even refer to our tendency to adapt as the “hedonic treadmill.” They have found ingenious ways to illustrate how it works. In 1978, for example, researchers presented a sample of adults with a list of 24 big-ticket consumer items (a car, a house, international travel, a swimming pool, and so on). They were asked how many of these items they currently possessed; they were also asked, “When you think of the good life—the life you’d like to have—which of the things on this list, if any, are part of the good life as far as you are personally concerned?”
Inevitably, people felt that the “good life” required more things than they currently possessed. Among the people between 30 and 44 years old, the average number of items owned was 2.5, while the ideal number was 4.3. The same people were interviewed 16 years later, in 1994, and presented with the same list. Naturally, most people had more items; the ones formerly in their 30s and early 40s (now in the next age category, 45 to 59 years old) had 3.2 items, on average. They were closer to the good life, right? Wrong. Their requirements for the good life had now shifted, to 5.4 items. In other words, after 16 years and lots of work, the “good life” deficit had stayed almost exactly the same. The more stuff you have, the more you want.
Lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life's prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth.
Money may not buy happiness, but there is one important way in which money and happiness are related: At any given moment, richer individuals within a country tend to be happier than poorer folks. In 2004, Americans earning more than $75,000 per year were more than twice as likely to say they were very happy than those earning less than $25,000. One study found that when happiness was measured on a 1–3 scale (where 3 was happiest), Americans in the bottom 10 percent of earners in the mid-1990s had an average happiness score of 1.94; those in the middle of the income distribution had a score of 2.19; and those in the top 10 percent scored 2.36.
This is strange, because we know that money by itself doesn’t bring much happiness. Many economists look at these facts and conclude that though we really don’t care about having money for its own sake, we do care about having more money than others. In other words, my money only makes me happy when I notice that I am richer than you. Or that you are poorer than I, of course. (Like the old saying goes, “It’s not enough to succeed—your friends have to fail, too.”)
Some studies appear to back up this idea. For example, in one experiment from the early 1990s, human subjects were presented with two job options, both at magazines. At Magazine A, they would earn $35,000 while their colleagues earned $38,000. At Magazine B, they would earn $33,000 while their colleagues earned $30,000. Most of the participants chose the higher-paying job at Magazine A—the rational choice. However, two-thirds said that, notwithstanding their choice, they would be happier at Magazine B.
In another study involving faculty, staff, and students at Harvard University, participants were asked to choose between earning $50,000 per year while everyone else earned $25,000, or earning $100,000 per year while others made $200,000. The researchers stipulated that prices of goods and services would be the same in both cases, so a higher salary really meant being able to own a nicer home, buy a nicer car, or do whatever else they wanted with the extra money. But those materialistic perquisites mattered little to most people: 56 percent chose the first option, hypothetically forgoing $50,000 per year simply to maintain a position of relative affluence.
Could it be that what we care most about is not material comforts, but one-upsmanship? Perhaps out of our primeval past comes the urge to demonstrate that we are better than others. A hundred thousand years ago, it would have given us happiness to have more animal skins than the troglodyte in the next cave; this would help ensure mating prospects, which would keep our genetic lines going. Still programmed in this way, we get unexplainable pleasure from having a better office than our coworkers and a bigger house than the guy next door, even if we don’t “need” the space.
This theory may sound good, and it is quite common to hear, but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence. Rather, what the data tell us is that richer people are happier than poorer people because their relative prosperity makes them feel successful. Think for a moment about your last big pay raise. Why did you feel such joy over it? Most likely, it was because of what your higher pay represented to you—evidence that you had succeeded, that you had created value. That’s why you enjoyed the raise more when you first were offered it than when you started spending it. It is success (not money) that we really crave.
Imagine two people who are the same in income as well as in education, age, sex, race, religion, politics, and family status. One feels very successful and the other does not. The one who feels successful is about twice as likely to be very happy about his or her life than the one who does not feel successful. And if they are the same in perceived success but one earns more than the other, there will be no happiness difference at all between the two.
The upshot: If you and I feel equally successful but you make four times as much as I do, we will be equally happy about our lives. Of course, successful people make more money than unsuccessful people, on average. But it is the success—not the money per se—that is giving them the happiness. I have no doubt that some people do get pleasure from lording their higher incomes over others. But the evidence says this is not the biggest reason that having more than others gives us happiness.
Financial status is the way we demonstrate to others (and ourselves) that we are successful—hence the fancy watches, the expensive cars, and the bespoke suits. We use these things to show other people not just that we are prosperous, but that we are prosperous because we create value.
There is nothing strange about measuring our success with money; we measure things indirectly all the time. I require my students to take exams not because I believe their scores have any inherent value, but because I know these scores correlate extremely well with how much they have studied and how well they understand the material. Your doctor draws your blood to check your cholesterol not because blood cholesterol is interesting in and of itself, but because it measures your risk of having a heart attack or a stroke. In the same way, we measure our professional success with green pieces of paper called “dollars.”
What scholars often portray as an ignoble tendency—wanting to have more than others—is really evidence that we are driven to create value. Wanting to create value is a virtue, not a vice. The fact that it also brings us happiness is a tremendous blessing.
Have you ever wondered why rich entrepreneurs continue to work so hard? Perhaps you’ve said, “If I had a billion dollars, I’d retire.” This is what Mack Metcalf actually did when he won the lottery. But if he had earned that money doing something creative and productive, things would almost certainly have gone differently for him. People who succeed at what they do tend to keep doing it. The drive to succeed, as opposed to just having more money than others, explains why the super-rich—who already have so much more than virtually everybody—continue to work.
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. But there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
If there is a downside to success, it is that it appears to set the bar high and keep it there. For a star quarterback who throws twice as many touchdowns each season as the league average, it is a letdown for him and his fans when he has a year that is only a little above average. The more you succeed, the more you need to succeed to feel happy.
Take the case of billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle. The world’s 14th-richest man, he would need to spend more than $30 million per week, or $183,000 per hour, just to avoid increasing his wealth. Further, he would have to spend it on items with no investment qualities, meaning that, unless he sets his money on fire, or (better yet) gives it away, he simple cannot not be filthy rich. Yet he continues to slave away, earning billion after billion. Being rich, and having more than the average Joe, simply cannot be driving Larry Ellison. It is the will to succeed and create value at greater and greater heights.
Who enjoys the benefits created from the slaving of Bill Gates (worth $58 billion and counting), Warren Buffett ($62 billion), and all of America’s other success-addicted, ultra-rich entrepreneurs? We all do: As long as fortunes are earned—as opposed to stolen, squeezed from governments, or otherwise extorted from citizens—this is good for all of us.
Oracle has not made Larry Ellison a rich man without any benefit to society. The firm currently has tens of thousands of employees, people with well-paying jobs to support their families. The company has introduced technology that has benefited all parts of the economy, and it has paid billions to its shareholders. And we can’t forget that Oracle has rendered generously unto Caesar, year after year: In 2007 alone, it paid $1.2 billion in corporate taxes, totally apart from the personal taxes paid by Ellison and his employees.
Money is a measure of success, and a handy one at that. But there is a dark side to this fact: People tend to forget that money is only a measure. Some people focus on money for its own sake, forgetting what really brings the happiness.
This is not really a shocking idea, to be sure: We often mistake indirect measures for the actual phenomena we care about. Take, for example, standardized tests in public schools. The purpose of administering them, at least originally, was to see whether schools were providing an adequate education to the majority of their students. When the students at a particular school perform poorly, on average, the school faces sanctions—thus the teachers have incentives to “teach to the test,” focusing on preparing students to take the test instead of teaching the content the test is supposed to measure. There is evidence that this is really taking place. Obviously, it is problematic and ironic if, in order to score higher on the measure of success, we degrade true education.
Just as teaching to the test leads to inferior education, working only for the money can lead to an unhappy life. No doubt you have met people who appear to be trapped in an unsatisfying cycle of materialism and unhappiness. These people confuse money for what it is supposed to measure, and thereby maximize the wrong thing. Among other things, they leave out of the equation all of the kinds of success—in our family lives, in our spiritual lives, in our friendships—that money does not measure. And even their work choices reflect the sad mistake of forgoing what they love doing for what brings in the most monetary compensation. The evidence on happiness is clear that we should avoid the measurement error of materialism.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness.
So why do so many people fall prey to this error? One explanation—a timeless hit for critics of American-style capitalism—is that our commercial culture fosters it. Relying as it does on an unending stream of cash, it creates a cleavage for us between true value creation and the symbols of it: cash, and the stuff it can buy.
But before singling out the American freemarket system for creating this confusion, note that capitalism is not the only culprit— far from it. Governments encourage this measurement error even more egregiously. Remember Mack Metcalf: There is no doubt that he played the lottery—the government-monopoly-controlled lottery—in the belief that it would enhance his happiness if he won. Almost everyone believes this: How many times in your life have you been asked what you would do if you won the lottery? Have you ever said, “I would start by being exploited by manipulative friends and family, and then maybe go into an alcoholic spiral—and then I’d probably die an untimely and tragic death”? No, you list things you imagine you would like to do: go back to school, take vacations, buy homes in warm places, and so on.
What is going on here? On the one hand, you possess anecdotal evidence about cases like Metcalf’s. On the other hand, you are being told by those who are ethically and constitutionally bound to represent your interests—politicians and bureaucrats—that easy money will give you happiness. The New Jersey State Lottery’s slogan is “Give Your Dreams a Chance.” My own state of New York drew in gamblers for years with, “All you need is a dollar and a dream.” No doubt your state makes a similar claim.
But easy money will not bring you happiness—earned success will (and in many cases that earned success will also bring you money). It is simply inconceivable that your state lottery commissioner does not understand this fact at some level. Yet for the sheer sake of raising money for its own purposes, your government perpetuates this cognitive error. President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.” How things have changed! Today, government officials eviscerate the very ideal of achievement while exploiting our citizens.
I am not advocating an end to legal gambling here. While I personally have no use for it, I understand that gambling is an enjoyable diversion for some. Furthermore, I believe there is a lot of benefit to protecting our freedom to make our own decisions about our resources, even including the freedom to confuse money and success. But it is astonishing that the government—for no other reason than monopolistically vacuuming money out of its own citizens—should abet this confusion and lower our happiness.
Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
How could the government make things better for us instead of worse? Here’s an idea: It could tax away our incomes at very high rates so that money and success were no longer so highly correlated. Then, that money (if we still bothered to earn it) could be spent on public goods and services instead of what we would have spent it on, such as big houses and other ostentatious displays of our success. We would be happier if we were forced out of the consumers’ arms race that we have (literally) bought into. And as a bonus, we could enjoy all the good things the government would buy. According to one prominent economist, “We could spend roughly one-third less on consumption—roughly $2 trillion per year—and suffer no significant reduction in satisfaction. Savings of that magnitude could help pay for restoring our infrastructure, for cleaner air and water, and a variety of other things.” It’s so simple!
Unfortunately, this idea is misguided. Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general. Over the past 30 years, Americans have had increasing levels of money taxed away and spent—at least ostensibly—on them. In 1972, the federal government devoted about $4,300 to each American (in 2002 prices). By 2002, the level of spending had risen to $6,900 per person. Yet we have not gotten any happier. In 1972, 30.3 percent of Americans said they were very happy. In 2002, that percentage was still exactly 30.3 percent.
Even worse, when we correct for changing household income levels and the passage of time, higher government spending turns out to be pushing average happiness down, not up. Consider that, while a $1,000 increase in per-capita income is associated with a 1.24 percent drop in the percentage of Americans saying they are not too happy, a $1,000 increase in federal government revenues per person is associated with a 2.91 percent increase in the percentage saying this.
In other words, private prosperity brings us up, but government spending brings us back down. For every dollar in increased GDP that the government taxes away and spends, there is a higher net unhappiness level among the population than if that money had never been earned at all. Why does government spending diminish our happiness so significantly? There are a number of possible explanations. First, in some cases the spending goes to things that make us miserable, such as the Internal Revenue Service. Second, government spending reminds us of how our economic freedoms are abridged, being paid for as they are with taxes. Third, government spending, for some—the nonworking poor, in particular—creates misery, because the people who are supposed to benefit t become dependent on government programs.
Our market system, which often rewards success with dollars, can create the tendency to confuse success itself with money. But giving more money to the government will not fix this; on the contrary, our government tends to exacerbate the problem with its money-making schemes (like the lottery), and it would only make things worse for us if it tried to adjust our values through taxation and redistributive spending. The moral confusion of materialism is one best left to ourselves, our families, our communities, and our faiths to resolve.
Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general.
This is hardly an original observation on my part. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1835 classic Democracy in America about the tendency toward “excessive individualism” in an atomistic American society. Tocqueville noted, however, that the remedy lay not in reordering the American system, but in the institutions of civil society: families, churches, charities, and friendships, which are the connective tissue between people that help us to avoid errors in our values. In other words, markets are not enough—we need morality as well, and the institutions that make it possible to express this morality.
Free markets allow us to live the way we want to live—giving most people maximum buying power, and allowing citizens to find jobs that match their skills and passions.
How we use this power and freedom is up to us, and depends on our values: We can make decisions that lead to happiness, or we can make decisions that make us miserable. But to throw out free markets because capitalism does not bring happiness directly would be senseless: It would be like trashing your computer because it didn’t make your coffee.
What about the losers in a capitalistic economy? Doesn’t a competitive market system make it harder for people unable to participate effectively in the market system to pursue happiness like the rest of us? The answer might be yes, but only if we are bereft of our core values of charity and caring for others. The fact that some sick or handicapped or otherwise-challenged people are miserable because they cannot provide for themselves in a free-market system does not mean there is something wrong with our system—it means there is something wrong with our morals. In a moral society, these people should be aided by the rest of us in a way that preserves dignity and avoids dependence.
The fact that money doesn’t buy happiness is no indictment of capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is the best system to allow people to succeed on their merits in the economy—and we know that it is success that truly does bring happiness. Capitalism, moored in proper values of honesty and fairness, is a key to our gross national happiness, and we should defend it vigorously.
Arthur C. Brooks is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at Syracuse University. This is adapted from “Gross National Happiness” (Basic Books).
Money doesn’t buy happiness, but success does. Capitalism, moored in values of hard work, honesty, and fairness, is key.
On July 23, 2000, a forty-two-year-old forklift operator in Corbin, Kentucky, named Mack Metcalf was working a 12-hour nightshift. On his last break, he halfheartedly checked the Sunday paper for the winning Kentucky lottery numbers. He didn’t expect to be a winner, of course—but hey, you never know.
Mack Metcalf’s ticket, it turned out, was the winner of the $65 million Powerball jackpot, and it changed his life forever. What did he do first? He quit his job. “I clocked out right then, and I haven’t been back,” he later recounted. In fact, his first impulse was to quit everything, after a life characterized by problem drinking, dysfunctional family life, and poorly paid work. “I’m moving to Australia. I’m going to totally get away. I’m going to buy several houses there, including one on the beach,” he told Kentucky lottery officials.
Metcalf never worked again. But he never moved to Australia. Instead he bought a 43-acre estate with an ostentatious, plantation-style home in southern Kentucky for more than $1 million. There, he spent his days pursuing pastimes like collecting expensive cars and exotic pets, including tarantulas and snakes.
Trouble started for Metcalf as soon as he won the lottery. Seeing him on television, a social worker recognized him as delinquent for child support from a past marriage, resulting in a settlement that cost him half a million dollars. A former girlfriend bilked him out of another half million while he was drunk. He fell deeper and deeper into alcoholism and became paranoid that those around him wanted to kill him. Racked with cirrhosis of the liver and hepatitis, he died in December 2003 at the age of forty-five, only about three years after his lottery dream had finally come true. His tombstone reads, “Loving father and brother, finally at rest.”
Did millions of dollars bring enduring happiness to Mack Metcalf? Obviously not. On the contrary, those who knew him blame the money for his demise. “If he hadn’t won,” Metcalf’s former wife told a New York Times reporter, “he would have worked like regular people and maybe had 20 years left. But when you put that kind of money in the hands of somebody with problems, it just helps them kill themselves.”
So what’s the moral of the story? Is money destined to make us miserable? Of course not. Mack Metcalf’s sad case is surely an aberration. If you hit the lottery, it would be different. You would give philanthropically and do all kinds of fulfilling things. Similarly, if your career suddenly took off in a fantastic way and you earned a great deal of money, you would get much happier. And what is true for the parts must also be true for the whole: When America experiences high rates of economic growth, it gets happier. America is not a nation of Mack Metcalfs, and money is a smart first strategy for attaining a higher gross national happiness.
Right?
You’ve heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn’t buy happiness. Your parents told you this, and so did your priest. Still, if you’re like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness. People throughout history have insisted on striving to get ahead in spite of the well-worn axiom. America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money truly does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. The inconvenient truth, however, is that there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
In 1972, 30 percent of Americans said they were very happy, and the average American enjoyed about $25,000 (in today’s dollars) of our national income. By 2004, the percentage of very happy Americans stayed virtually unchanged at 31 percent, while the share of national income skyrocketed to $38,000 (a 50 percent real increase in average income).
You've heard the axiom a thousand times: Money doesn't buy happiness. Still, if you're like me, you would just as soon see for yourself if money buys happiness.
The story is the same in other developed countries. In Japan, real average income was six times higher in 1991 than it was in 1958. During the post–World War II period, Japan was transformed at unprecedented speed from a poor nation into one of the world’s richest countries. But the average happiness of a Japanese citizen, measured on a scale of 1–4, stayed exactly the same at 2.7.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness. This is generally the case for nations experiencing rapid and chaotic development and thus opportunities for great wealth for the first time. Post-Soviet Russia is an example of this phenomenon. In the 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Empire, a few entrepreneurs made vast fortunes in markets for oil and other primary resources. Yet post-Soviet Russia is a miserable place in which only about one in five citizens say they are very happy about their lives. Some development economists believe that cases of a few lucky entrepreneurs suddenly amassing large fortunes raised unreasonable expectations among ordinary Russians, creating a sense of extreme unfairness and leaving them deeply dissatisfied with their meager lot. And in this way, money created unhappiness.
So individual countries don’t seem to get much happier as they get richer. But are rich countries happier than poor countries?
The answer to this question depends on how poor a “poor country” is. People in poor countries where much of the population lives below subsistence level are much unhappier than people in rich countries, on average. International comparative studies of happiness consistently place the poorest nations of the world—especially the countries of sub-Saharan Africa—at the very bottom.
In 2006, one study ranking countries in terms of happiness found that Zimbabwe and Burundi were the unhappiest places on earth. And this makes sense, of course: It is ridiculous to imagine that illiteracy, high child mortality, and the threat of starvation are any more pleasant or bearable to a Burundian than they would be to an American. But once countries get past the prosperity level that solves large-scale health and nutrition problems, income disparity pales in comparison with other factors in predicting happiness, such as culture and faith.
For example, compare Mexico and France. The cost-of-living difference between the two nations is vast, so economists don’t compare raw income; rather, they compare the “purchasing power” of citizens. In Mexico—a nation in which most people live above the level of subsistence but still are much poorer than residents of the United States or Europe—the average purchasing power was about a third what it was in France in 2004. And yet Mexicans, in aggregate, are happier than the French. In Mexico, 63 percent of adults said they were very happy or completely happy. In France, only 35 percent gave one of these responses.
America as a nation has struggled and striven all the way to the top of the world economic pyramid. Are we suffering from some sort of collective delusion, or is it possible that money does buy at least a certain amount of happiness?
It might be tempting to dismiss the happiness of Mexicans as delusional or a reflection of the fact that most Mexicans have no idea what life with material wealth is like. But this would be a mistake: There is simply no evidence that Mexicans lack an understanding of true happiness compared to the French. A more reasonable conclusion is that Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
American communities are like countries when it comes to happiness. Like happy Mexico and unhappy France, the happiness of American communities—all of which are above the level of subsistence—depends very little on their comparative prosperity. There are abundant examples of unhappy high-income communities and happy low-income communities. Take eastern Tennessee (which includes the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville, but is mostly rural), where people are 25 percent likelier than people living in tony San Francisco to say they are very happy, despite earning a third less money on average. Obviously, it is more expensive to live in San Francisco than it is to live in Tennessee, but San Franciscans still enjoy more than 30 percent more disposable income.
Like nations and communities, as long as they don’t start out dangerously impoverished, individuals get little or no extra happiness as they get richer—even massively richer. In a classic 1978 study, two psychologists interviewed 22 major lottery winners and found that the joy of sudden wealth wore off in a few months. Further, lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life’s prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth. It’s as if the overwhelming experience of winning the lottery dulls the enjoyable flavors of ordinary life.
This story opened with the sad tale of Mack Metcalf. In truth, it doesn’t necessarily destroy your life to win the lottery, as it evidently did his, but it won’t make your life better either.
So it’s true: Money doesn’t bring enduring happiness for countries, communities, or individuals, except perhaps when people start out in abject poverty. Why not? The answer has to do with what psychologists call “adaptation.” Humans tend to adapt psychologically to their circumstances—including their monetary circumstances—and do so very quickly.
Perhaps you’ve walked into a chain-smoker’s home and wondered how on earth he could stand to live with such a stench. The answer, of course, is that he is used to it. For the most part, the same is true of economic gains and losses in our lives: They give us pleasure or pain when they happen, but the effect wears off very quickly. Adaptation makes money unsatisfying per se because we get used to it quickly. Almost immediately, an increased income becomes the new “normal.”
For individuals, communities, and nations, economic growth is like being on a treadmill, and getting richer is like speeding up the treadmill: We never get any closer to bliss.
According to the great economist Adam Smith, an early proponent of the benefits of pursuing personal economic interests for the common good, “the mind of every man, in a longer or shorter time, returns to its natural and usual state of tranquility. In prosperity, after a certain time, it falls back to that state; in adversity, after a certain time, it rises up to it.”
Indeed, economists even refer to our tendency to adapt as the “hedonic treadmill.” They have found ingenious ways to illustrate how it works. In 1978, for example, researchers presented a sample of adults with a list of 24 big-ticket consumer items (a car, a house, international travel, a swimming pool, and so on). They were asked how many of these items they currently possessed; they were also asked, “When you think of the good life—the life you’d like to have—which of the things on this list, if any, are part of the good life as far as you are personally concerned?”
Inevitably, people felt that the “good life” required more things than they currently possessed. Among the people between 30 and 44 years old, the average number of items owned was 2.5, while the ideal number was 4.3. The same people were interviewed 16 years later, in 1994, and presented with the same list. Naturally, most people had more items; the ones formerly in their 30s and early 40s (now in the next age category, 45 to 59 years old) had 3.2 items, on average. They were closer to the good life, right? Wrong. Their requirements for the good life had now shifted, to 5.4 items. In other words, after 16 years and lots of work, the “good life” deficit had stayed almost exactly the same. The more stuff you have, the more you want.
Lottery winners have a harder time than the rest of us enjoying life's prosaic pleasures: watching television, shopping, talking with friends, and so forth.
Money may not buy happiness, but there is one important way in which money and happiness are related: At any given moment, richer individuals within a country tend to be happier than poorer folks. In 2004, Americans earning more than $75,000 per year were more than twice as likely to say they were very happy than those earning less than $25,000. One study found that when happiness was measured on a 1–3 scale (where 3 was happiest), Americans in the bottom 10 percent of earners in the mid-1990s had an average happiness score of 1.94; those in the middle of the income distribution had a score of 2.19; and those in the top 10 percent scored 2.36.
This is strange, because we know that money by itself doesn’t bring much happiness. Many economists look at these facts and conclude that though we really don’t care about having money for its own sake, we do care about having more money than others. In other words, my money only makes me happy when I notice that I am richer than you. Or that you are poorer than I, of course. (Like the old saying goes, “It’s not enough to succeed—your friends have to fail, too.”)
Some studies appear to back up this idea. For example, in one experiment from the early 1990s, human subjects were presented with two job options, both at magazines. At Magazine A, they would earn $35,000 while their colleagues earned $38,000. At Magazine B, they would earn $33,000 while their colleagues earned $30,000. Most of the participants chose the higher-paying job at Magazine A—the rational choice. However, two-thirds said that, notwithstanding their choice, they would be happier at Magazine B.
In another study involving faculty, staff, and students at Harvard University, participants were asked to choose between earning $50,000 per year while everyone else earned $25,000, or earning $100,000 per year while others made $200,000. The researchers stipulated that prices of goods and services would be the same in both cases, so a higher salary really meant being able to own a nicer home, buy a nicer car, or do whatever else they wanted with the extra money. But those materialistic perquisites mattered little to most people: 56 percent chose the first option, hypothetically forgoing $50,000 per year simply to maintain a position of relative affluence.
Could it be that what we care most about is not material comforts, but one-upsmanship? Perhaps out of our primeval past comes the urge to demonstrate that we are better than others. A hundred thousand years ago, it would have given us happiness to have more animal skins than the troglodyte in the next cave; this would help ensure mating prospects, which would keep our genetic lines going. Still programmed in this way, we get unexplainable pleasure from having a better office than our coworkers and a bigger house than the guy next door, even if we don’t “need” the space.
This theory may sound good, and it is quite common to hear, but it is not the explanation best supported by the evidence. Rather, what the data tell us is that richer people are happier than poorer people because their relative prosperity makes them feel successful. Think for a moment about your last big pay raise. Why did you feel such joy over it? Most likely, it was because of what your higher pay represented to you—evidence that you had succeeded, that you had created value. That’s why you enjoyed the raise more when you first were offered it than when you started spending it. It is success (not money) that we really crave.
Imagine two people who are the same in income as well as in education, age, sex, race, religion, politics, and family status. One feels very successful and the other does not. The one who feels successful is about twice as likely to be very happy about his or her life than the one who does not feel successful. And if they are the same in perceived success but one earns more than the other, there will be no happiness difference at all between the two.
The upshot: If you and I feel equally successful but you make four times as much as I do, we will be equally happy about our lives. Of course, successful people make more money than unsuccessful people, on average. But it is the success—not the money per se—that is giving them the happiness. I have no doubt that some people do get pleasure from lording their higher incomes over others. But the evidence says this is not the biggest reason that having more than others gives us happiness.
Financial status is the way we demonstrate to others (and ourselves) that we are successful—hence the fancy watches, the expensive cars, and the bespoke suits. We use these things to show other people not just that we are prosperous, but that we are prosperous because we create value.
There is nothing strange about measuring our success with money; we measure things indirectly all the time. I require my students to take exams not because I believe their scores have any inherent value, but because I know these scores correlate extremely well with how much they have studied and how well they understand the material. Your doctor draws your blood to check your cholesterol not because blood cholesterol is interesting in and of itself, but because it measures your risk of having a heart attack or a stroke. In the same way, we measure our professional success with green pieces of paper called “dollars.”
What scholars often portray as an ignoble tendency—wanting to have more than others—is really evidence that we are driven to create value. Wanting to create value is a virtue, not a vice. The fact that it also brings us happiness is a tremendous blessing.
Have you ever wondered why rich entrepreneurs continue to work so hard? Perhaps you’ve said, “If I had a billion dollars, I’d retire.” This is what Mack Metcalf actually did when he won the lottery. But if he had earned that money doing something creative and productive, things would almost certainly have gone differently for him. People who succeed at what they do tend to keep doing it. The drive to succeed, as opposed to just having more money than others, explains why the super-rich—who already have so much more than virtually everybody—continue to work.
Americans have on average gotten much richer over the past several decades than they were in previous generations. But there has been no meaningful rise in the average level of happiness.
If there is a downside to success, it is that it appears to set the bar high and keep it there. For a star quarterback who throws twice as many touchdowns each season as the league average, it is a letdown for him and his fans when he has a year that is only a little above average. The more you succeed, the more you need to succeed to feel happy.
Take the case of billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle. The world’s 14th-richest man, he would need to spend more than $30 million per week, or $183,000 per hour, just to avoid increasing his wealth. Further, he would have to spend it on items with no investment qualities, meaning that, unless he sets his money on fire, or (better yet) gives it away, he simple cannot not be filthy rich. Yet he continues to slave away, earning billion after billion. Being rich, and having more than the average Joe, simply cannot be driving Larry Ellison. It is the will to succeed and create value at greater and greater heights.
Who enjoys the benefits created from the slaving of Bill Gates (worth $58 billion and counting), Warren Buffett ($62 billion), and all of America’s other success-addicted, ultra-rich entrepreneurs? We all do: As long as fortunes are earned—as opposed to stolen, squeezed from governments, or otherwise extorted from citizens—this is good for all of us.
Oracle has not made Larry Ellison a rich man without any benefit to society. The firm currently has tens of thousands of employees, people with well-paying jobs to support their families. The company has introduced technology that has benefited all parts of the economy, and it has paid billions to its shareholders. And we can’t forget that Oracle has rendered generously unto Caesar, year after year: In 2007 alone, it paid $1.2 billion in corporate taxes, totally apart from the personal taxes paid by Ellison and his employees.
Money is a measure of success, and a handy one at that. But there is a dark side to this fact: People tend to forget that money is only a measure. Some people focus on money for its own sake, forgetting what really brings the happiness.
This is not really a shocking idea, to be sure: We often mistake indirect measures for the actual phenomena we care about. Take, for example, standardized tests in public schools. The purpose of administering them, at least originally, was to see whether schools were providing an adequate education to the majority of their students. When the students at a particular school perform poorly, on average, the school faces sanctions—thus the teachers have incentives to “teach to the test,” focusing on preparing students to take the test instead of teaching the content the test is supposed to measure. There is evidence that this is really taking place. Obviously, it is problematic and ironic if, in order to score higher on the measure of success, we degrade true education.
Just as teaching to the test leads to inferior education, working only for the money can lead to an unhappy life. No doubt you have met people who appear to be trapped in an unsatisfying cycle of materialism and unhappiness. These people confuse money for what it is supposed to measure, and thereby maximize the wrong thing. Among other things, they leave out of the equation all of the kinds of success—in our family lives, in our spiritual lives, in our friendships—that money does not measure. And even their work choices reflect the sad mistake of forgoing what they love doing for what brings in the most monetary compensation. The evidence on happiness is clear that we should avoid the measurement error of materialism.
In some countries, there is even some evidence that economic growth can create unhappiness.
So why do so many people fall prey to this error? One explanation—a timeless hit for critics of American-style capitalism—is that our commercial culture fosters it. Relying as it does on an unending stream of cash, it creates a cleavage for us between true value creation and the symbols of it: cash, and the stuff it can buy.
But before singling out the American freemarket system for creating this confusion, note that capitalism is not the only culprit— far from it. Governments encourage this measurement error even more egregiously. Remember Mack Metcalf: There is no doubt that he played the lottery—the government-monopoly-controlled lottery—in the belief that it would enhance his happiness if he won. Almost everyone believes this: How many times in your life have you been asked what you would do if you won the lottery? Have you ever said, “I would start by being exploited by manipulative friends and family, and then maybe go into an alcoholic spiral—and then I’d probably die an untimely and tragic death”? No, you list things you imagine you would like to do: go back to school, take vacations, buy homes in warm places, and so on.
What is going on here? On the one hand, you possess anecdotal evidence about cases like Metcalf’s. On the other hand, you are being told by those who are ethically and constitutionally bound to represent your interests—politicians and bureaucrats—that easy money will give you happiness. The New Jersey State Lottery’s slogan is “Give Your Dreams a Chance.” My own state of New York drew in gamblers for years with, “All you need is a dollar and a dream.” No doubt your state makes a similar claim.
But easy money will not bring you happiness—earned success will (and in many cases that earned success will also bring you money). It is simply inconceivable that your state lottery commissioner does not understand this fact at some level. Yet for the sheer sake of raising money for its own purposes, your government perpetuates this cognitive error. President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Happiness is not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.” How things have changed! Today, government officials eviscerate the very ideal of achievement while exploiting our citizens.
I am not advocating an end to legal gambling here. While I personally have no use for it, I understand that gambling is an enjoyable diversion for some. Furthermore, I believe there is a lot of benefit to protecting our freedom to make our own decisions about our resources, even including the freedom to confuse money and success. But it is astonishing that the government—for no other reason than monopolistically vacuuming money out of its own citizens—should abet this confusion and lower our happiness.
Mexican happiness—and French unhappiness—are caused in large measure by forces other than money.
How could the government make things better for us instead of worse? Here’s an idea: It could tax away our incomes at very high rates so that money and success were no longer so highly correlated. Then, that money (if we still bothered to earn it) could be spent on public goods and services instead of what we would have spent it on, such as big houses and other ostentatious displays of our success. We would be happier if we were forced out of the consumers’ arms race that we have (literally) bought into. And as a bonus, we could enjoy all the good things the government would buy. According to one prominent economist, “We could spend roughly one-third less on consumption—roughly $2 trillion per year—and suffer no significant reduction in satisfaction. Savings of that magnitude could help pay for restoring our infrastructure, for cleaner air and water, and a variety of other things.” It’s so simple!
Unfortunately, this idea is misguided. Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general. Over the past 30 years, Americans have had increasing levels of money taxed away and spent—at least ostensibly—on them. In 1972, the federal government devoted about $4,300 to each American (in 2002 prices). By 2002, the level of spending had risen to $6,900 per person. Yet we have not gotten any happier. In 1972, 30.3 percent of Americans said they were very happy. In 2002, that percentage was still exactly 30.3 percent.
Even worse, when we correct for changing household income levels and the passage of time, higher government spending turns out to be pushing average happiness down, not up. Consider that, while a $1,000 increase in per-capita income is associated with a 1.24 percent drop in the percentage of Americans saying they are not too happy, a $1,000 increase in federal government revenues per person is associated with a 2.91 percent increase in the percentage saying this.
In other words, private prosperity brings us up, but government spending brings us back down. For every dollar in increased GDP that the government taxes away and spends, there is a higher net unhappiness level among the population than if that money had never been earned at all. Why does government spending diminish our happiness so significantly? There are a number of possible explanations. First, in some cases the spending goes to things that make us miserable, such as the Internal Revenue Service. Second, government spending reminds us of how our economic freedoms are abridged, being paid for as they are with taxes. Third, government spending, for some—the nonworking poor, in particular—creates misery, because the people who are supposed to benefit t become dependent on government programs.
Our market system, which often rewards success with dollars, can create the tendency to confuse success itself with money. But giving more money to the government will not fix this; on the contrary, our government tends to exacerbate the problem with its money-making schemes (like the lottery), and it would only make things worse for us if it tried to adjust our values through taxation and redistributive spending. The moral confusion of materialism is one best left to ourselves, our families, our communities, and our faiths to resolve.
Although consumerism does not buy happiness, government spending does not either. On the contrary, more government spending makes us less happy in general.
This is hardly an original observation on my part. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1835 classic Democracy in America about the tendency toward “excessive individualism” in an atomistic American society. Tocqueville noted, however, that the remedy lay not in reordering the American system, but in the institutions of civil society: families, churches, charities, and friendships, which are the connective tissue between people that help us to avoid errors in our values. In other words, markets are not enough—we need morality as well, and the institutions that make it possible to express this morality.
Free markets allow us to live the way we want to live—giving most people maximum buying power, and allowing citizens to find jobs that match their skills and passions.
How we use this power and freedom is up to us, and depends on our values: We can make decisions that lead to happiness, or we can make decisions that make us miserable. But to throw out free markets because capitalism does not bring happiness directly would be senseless: It would be like trashing your computer because it didn’t make your coffee.
What about the losers in a capitalistic economy? Doesn’t a competitive market system make it harder for people unable to participate effectively in the market system to pursue happiness like the rest of us? The answer might be yes, but only if we are bereft of our core values of charity and caring for others. The fact that some sick or handicapped or otherwise-challenged people are miserable because they cannot provide for themselves in a free-market system does not mean there is something wrong with our system—it means there is something wrong with our morals. In a moral society, these people should be aided by the rest of us in a way that preserves dignity and avoids dependence.
The fact that money doesn’t buy happiness is no indictment of capitalism. On the contrary, capitalism is the best system to allow people to succeed on their merits in the economy—and we know that it is success that truly does bring happiness. Capitalism, moored in proper values of honesty and fairness, is a key to our gross national happiness, and we should defend it vigorously.
Arthur C. Brooks is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor at Syracuse University. This is adapted from “Gross National Happiness” (Basic Books).
Happiness conference promises key to inner joy
By Grace Wong
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The state of the economy may be out of people's hands, but their happiness isn't, according to a group of researchers meeting at an international conference on happiness Thursday.
The Happiness and Its Causes conference received a big boost from the Dalai Lama, who attended in 2007.
Experts from fields ranging from neuroscience and philosophy to psychology and theology will gather to discuss the latest insights on living happier lives at the meeting in Sydney, Australia.
Drawn to workshops with titles like The Architecture of Sustainable Happiness and Practical Tools for Positive Relationships, more than 2,000 participants are expected to attend the conference.
The pursuit of happiness has been considered through the ages, but interest has grown in recent years amid a growing number of studies that suggest it is possible to improve your well being, researchers say.
Over the last decade, studies have shown that people who think optimistically and have strong relationships tend to be happier, they say.
With the recession and extra challenges people are facing today, tools for learning how to remain happy or cope with hard economic times may be particularly relevant.
See the world's happiest nations »
"A lot of people want to be happier. They want to know what they can do, and they want to learn scientifically-supported techniques," Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, tells CNN.
Lyubomirsky, who will lead the workshop on lasting happiness, argues that while genetic and environmental factors play a role in determining happiness, individuals can employ strategies to increase their capacity for happiness.
Vital Signs
Each month CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta brings viewers health stories from around the world.
See more from the show »
The two-day conference which starts Thursday is just a small slice of the flourishing happiness business.
While there are no estimates on its size, the broader U.S. self-help market -- which encompasses wellness programs, books and holistic training -- exceeds $11 billion and is forecast to grow an average 6% annually over the next three years, according to Marketdata Enterprises.
Learning how to be happy doesn't come cheaply. The Happiness and Its Causes conference costs about $680, excluding workshops. Attendance at the event this year is expected to be at close to 2,100, down from 2,500 last year.
But participation has swelled since the first event in 2005, which drew about 300 participants, says Cara Anderson of the non-profit World Happiness Forum, organizer of the conference. The meeting received a particularly big boost after the Dalai Lama participated in 2007.
At the conference, participants will explore a vast range of topics, from the latest scientific findings on brain plasticity and positive thinking to more spiritual endeavors such as cultivating contentment and awakening the spirit. There will also be no shortage of opportunities to buy books, DVDs and other materials.
What do you think is the key to happiness? Tell us in the SoundOff box below or send us an iReport
The meeting tends to attract members of the caring industry, including social workers and mental health professionals, as well as educators and the general public, according to Anderson.
There's also been rising interest among human resource managers and companies looking to boost morale in the workplace, she says.
Don't Miss
Quiz: Depression myths
Happiness is contagious in social networks
Feeling lonely? Genes might be at fault
That echoes the trend seen by Tim Sharp, a clinical psychologist based in Sydney who is the founder of The Happiness Institute, which runs positive coaching and courses for individuals and organizations.
"Rather than just wanting to boost happiness, people want to build resilience to get through difficult times," Sharp, who will lead a panel on happiness at work at the upcoming conference, told CNN.
While anxiety about financial matters may be on the rise, past research suggests overall happiness is not correlated to economic well being, according to Ruut Veenhoven, director of the World Database of Happiness, which documents research findings on the enjoyment of life.
Veenhoven, who is also editor of the Journal of Happiness Studies and professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, studied the impact of the 1980-1982 recession on happiness levels in Western European nations.
He says that while worries about money matters did rise, average levels of happiness were not significantly affected. "The general conclusion was that economic ups and downs don't really affect overall happiness in rich countries," he says
There's been an upsurge in the number of researchers studying happiness since he first started working in the field in the 1960s, says Veenhoven, who isn't involved in the upcoming conference.
The big trend is that people are getting happier, he says. "We know that most people are happy, so people know happiness is possible and more or less in their own hands."
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The state of the economy may be out of people's hands, but their happiness isn't, according to a group of researchers meeting at an international conference on happiness Thursday.
The Happiness and Its Causes conference received a big boost from the Dalai Lama, who attended in 2007.
Experts from fields ranging from neuroscience and philosophy to psychology and theology will gather to discuss the latest insights on living happier lives at the meeting in Sydney, Australia.
Drawn to workshops with titles like The Architecture of Sustainable Happiness and Practical Tools for Positive Relationships, more than 2,000 participants are expected to attend the conference.
The pursuit of happiness has been considered through the ages, but interest has grown in recent years amid a growing number of studies that suggest it is possible to improve your well being, researchers say.
Over the last decade, studies have shown that people who think optimistically and have strong relationships tend to be happier, they say.
With the recession and extra challenges people are facing today, tools for learning how to remain happy or cope with hard economic times may be particularly relevant.
See the world's happiest nations »
"A lot of people want to be happier. They want to know what they can do, and they want to learn scientifically-supported techniques," Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, tells CNN.
Lyubomirsky, who will lead the workshop on lasting happiness, argues that while genetic and environmental factors play a role in determining happiness, individuals can employ strategies to increase their capacity for happiness.
Vital Signs
Each month CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta brings viewers health stories from around the world.
See more from the show »
The two-day conference which starts Thursday is just a small slice of the flourishing happiness business.
While there are no estimates on its size, the broader U.S. self-help market -- which encompasses wellness programs, books and holistic training -- exceeds $11 billion and is forecast to grow an average 6% annually over the next three years, according to Marketdata Enterprises.
Learning how to be happy doesn't come cheaply. The Happiness and Its Causes conference costs about $680, excluding workshops. Attendance at the event this year is expected to be at close to 2,100, down from 2,500 last year.
But participation has swelled since the first event in 2005, which drew about 300 participants, says Cara Anderson of the non-profit World Happiness Forum, organizer of the conference. The meeting received a particularly big boost after the Dalai Lama participated in 2007.
At the conference, participants will explore a vast range of topics, from the latest scientific findings on brain plasticity and positive thinking to more spiritual endeavors such as cultivating contentment and awakening the spirit. There will also be no shortage of opportunities to buy books, DVDs and other materials.
What do you think is the key to happiness? Tell us in the SoundOff box below or send us an iReport
The meeting tends to attract members of the caring industry, including social workers and mental health professionals, as well as educators and the general public, according to Anderson.
There's also been rising interest among human resource managers and companies looking to boost morale in the workplace, she says.
Don't Miss
Quiz: Depression myths
Happiness is contagious in social networks
Feeling lonely? Genes might be at fault
That echoes the trend seen by Tim Sharp, a clinical psychologist based in Sydney who is the founder of The Happiness Institute, which runs positive coaching and courses for individuals and organizations.
"Rather than just wanting to boost happiness, people want to build resilience to get through difficult times," Sharp, who will lead a panel on happiness at work at the upcoming conference, told CNN.
While anxiety about financial matters may be on the rise, past research suggests overall happiness is not correlated to economic well being, according to Ruut Veenhoven, director of the World Database of Happiness, which documents research findings on the enjoyment of life.
Veenhoven, who is also editor of the Journal of Happiness Studies and professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, studied the impact of the 1980-1982 recession on happiness levels in Western European nations.
He says that while worries about money matters did rise, average levels of happiness were not significantly affected. "The general conclusion was that economic ups and downs don't really affect overall happiness in rich countries," he says
There's been an upsurge in the number of researchers studying happiness since he first started working in the field in the 1960s, says Veenhoven, who isn't involved in the upcoming conference.
The big trend is that people are getting happier, he says. "We know that most people are happy, so people know happiness is possible and more or less in their own hands."
5/1/09
E-learning - benefits as opposed to traditional classroom settings
ELearning can provide for major benefits for the organizations and individuals involved.
1. Reducing environmental impact: eLearning allows people to avoid travel, thus reducing the overall carbon output.[citation needed] The fact that it takes place in a virtual environment also allows some reduction of paper usage. With virtual notes instead of paper notes and online assessments instead of paper assessments, eLearning is a more environmentally friendly solution.
2. Quality education, made affordable: The fact that instructors of the highest calibre can share their knowledge across borders allows students to attend courses across physical, political, and economic boundaries. Recognized experts have the opportunity of making information available internationally, to anyone interested at minimum costs. This can drastically reduce the costs of higher education, making it much more affordable and accessible to the masses. An internet connection, a computer, and a projector would allow an entire classroom in a third world university to benefit from the knowledge of an opinion leader.[citation needed
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the benefits of e-learning?
e-learning makes use of information and communications technology to provide innovative ways to learn. Distance learning covers learning remotely on courses such as home study or 'self-study' courses, which can be combined with e-learning.
e-learning may appeal to you if you:
• want to learn when and where you want, at your own pace
• have commitments which make it harder for you to attend a regular course
• have mobility or health problems that make travel or attendance difficult
• live a long way from a training provider
• work irregular hours or shifts
What are the benefits of e-Learning?
http://www.learngroup.com.au/cms/about/benefits.asp
As we’ve all learned through the years, e-Learning can be a very effective training tool, but only when it’s used in the right places – for the right prices. Otherwise, it can be a wonderfully broad hole to dump your money into…
But! When applied correctly, e-Learning can have the following benefits:
• reduced training costs – e-Learning can reduce the cost of delivering applicable training by 20% in the first year and up to 50% in subsequent years. Please see the ROI section to understand the breakdowns and our assumptions.
• reduced time – e-Learning can reduce the time your employees take to train by 25% to 50%. This improvement, of course, depends upon the type of training offered, but it is largely due to higher retention which can result from the visual and auditory nature of the medium, and the specific feedback for employees.
• more effective learning / better staff productivity – Not only does this delivery method reduce employee learning time, it can also improve their mastery and retention of the training material. This richer learning environment maximises the way many people retain information. A study by J.D. Fletcher for the Institute for Defense Analysis found that in some situations employee learning achievement was improved by up to 25% over conventional training methods.
• more consistent learning – imagine the consistency of having your best trainer in front of your employees!
• flexible delivery / distance delivery – interactive e-Learning can be delivered in many formats – floppy diskette, corporate networks, CD-ROM’s, corporate intranets, even over the Internet. This means that you can get the same training content to employees virtually anywhere. It is often effectively combined with paper-based materials, such as workbooks and written case-studies.
• measurable learning – because a computer is involved, your management team can track which training areas are giving employees the most difficulty, which competencies are most in need of refocusing, which employees need what training – and you can analyse this across departments, branches, groups and regions!
• recognition of prior learning – effective training needs to reach a variety of audiences, sometimes both experienced and inexperienced employees. Using learner "streaming" methods, you can allow employees to pre-test at the beginning of a module and stream them through the appropriate lessons, based upon their performance.
• multi-cultural learning – this is quickly becoming an important challenge for trainers. Again, using streaming techniques, e-Learning can handle multiple languages and cultural idioms to ensure that the employee’s learning environment is made as "comfortable" as possible.
What are the benefits of e-Learning?
http://www.odportal.com/elearning/index.htm
Yes, e-Learning is "cool," but what are the strategic benefits of this way of learning? When does e-Learning become a strategic imperative?
• Cost The cost of e-Learning becomes an important benefit particularly if you factor in the travel expenses of the learners.
• Time The speed of e-Learning becomes an important imperative in some situations: First, if you have a dispursed group of learners they may spend more time traveling to the instructor than actually learning. Second, the time will be reduced for learners who already know some of the material, as they can skim over what they already know.
• Pace Learners can pace their learning according to their work demands. They can learn during chunks of free time.
• Reference Learners can use the learning as a permanent reference system, which they can go back to for refreshers or if a particular need arises.
There area other reasons for e-Learning, and equally there are benefits for instructor led training. As we see better e-Learning content, organizational development professionals need to be careful to select the most appropriate learning styles. One style that is emerging is the blended learning approach, also called blended e-learning.
What are the benefits of e-learning?
what is E-Academy :
on line Trainings give a whole new dimension to learner-centric approach. It offers a wide range of highly interactive Web-based courses designed specifically to deliver effective knowledge transfer. It comprises of a series of Presentations with explanations, demonstrations and hands-on exercises to ensure that you get the maximum inputs.
Advantages :
E-Academy: e- Learning from SAP Education enables you to:
• Improve the return on your training investment
• Increase productivity
• Reduce TCO (total cost of ownership)
• Boost motivation
• Transfer business process knowledge related to SAP effectively
• Use your time in the most efficient way
• Plan your training to suit your schedule
• Revisit or revise content at later date
• Monitor your performance
• Identify additional learning needs
1. Reducing environmental impact: eLearning allows people to avoid travel, thus reducing the overall carbon output.[citation needed] The fact that it takes place in a virtual environment also allows some reduction of paper usage. With virtual notes instead of paper notes and online assessments instead of paper assessments, eLearning is a more environmentally friendly solution.
2. Quality education, made affordable: The fact that instructors of the highest calibre can share their knowledge across borders allows students to attend courses across physical, political, and economic boundaries. Recognized experts have the opportunity of making information available internationally, to anyone interested at minimum costs. This can drastically reduce the costs of higher education, making it much more affordable and accessible to the masses. An internet connection, a computer, and a projector would allow an entire classroom in a third world university to benefit from the knowledge of an opinion leader.[citation needed
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What are the benefits of e-learning?
e-learning makes use of information and communications technology to provide innovative ways to learn. Distance learning covers learning remotely on courses such as home study or 'self-study' courses, which can be combined with e-learning.
e-learning may appeal to you if you:
• want to learn when and where you want, at your own pace
• have commitments which make it harder for you to attend a regular course
• have mobility or health problems that make travel or attendance difficult
• live a long way from a training provider
• work irregular hours or shifts
What are the benefits of e-Learning?
http://www.learngroup.com.au/cms/about/benefits.asp
As we’ve all learned through the years, e-Learning can be a very effective training tool, but only when it’s used in the right places – for the right prices. Otherwise, it can be a wonderfully broad hole to dump your money into…
But! When applied correctly, e-Learning can have the following benefits:
• reduced training costs – e-Learning can reduce the cost of delivering applicable training by 20% in the first year and up to 50% in subsequent years. Please see the ROI section to understand the breakdowns and our assumptions.
• reduced time – e-Learning can reduce the time your employees take to train by 25% to 50%. This improvement, of course, depends upon the type of training offered, but it is largely due to higher retention which can result from the visual and auditory nature of the medium, and the specific feedback for employees.
• more effective learning / better staff productivity – Not only does this delivery method reduce employee learning time, it can also improve their mastery and retention of the training material. This richer learning environment maximises the way many people retain information. A study by J.D. Fletcher for the Institute for Defense Analysis found that in some situations employee learning achievement was improved by up to 25% over conventional training methods.
• more consistent learning – imagine the consistency of having your best trainer in front of your employees!
• flexible delivery / distance delivery – interactive e-Learning can be delivered in many formats – floppy diskette, corporate networks, CD-ROM’s, corporate intranets, even over the Internet. This means that you can get the same training content to employees virtually anywhere. It is often effectively combined with paper-based materials, such as workbooks and written case-studies.
• measurable learning – because a computer is involved, your management team can track which training areas are giving employees the most difficulty, which competencies are most in need of refocusing, which employees need what training – and you can analyse this across departments, branches, groups and regions!
• recognition of prior learning – effective training needs to reach a variety of audiences, sometimes both experienced and inexperienced employees. Using learner "streaming" methods, you can allow employees to pre-test at the beginning of a module and stream them through the appropriate lessons, based upon their performance.
• multi-cultural learning – this is quickly becoming an important challenge for trainers. Again, using streaming techniques, e-Learning can handle multiple languages and cultural idioms to ensure that the employee’s learning environment is made as "comfortable" as possible.
What are the benefits of e-Learning?
http://www.odportal.com/elearning/index.htm
Yes, e-Learning is "cool," but what are the strategic benefits of this way of learning? When does e-Learning become a strategic imperative?
• Cost The cost of e-Learning becomes an important benefit particularly if you factor in the travel expenses of the learners.
• Time The speed of e-Learning becomes an important imperative in some situations: First, if you have a dispursed group of learners they may spend more time traveling to the instructor than actually learning. Second, the time will be reduced for learners who already know some of the material, as they can skim over what they already know.
• Pace Learners can pace their learning according to their work demands. They can learn during chunks of free time.
• Reference Learners can use the learning as a permanent reference system, which they can go back to for refreshers or if a particular need arises.
There area other reasons for e-Learning, and equally there are benefits for instructor led training. As we see better e-Learning content, organizational development professionals need to be careful to select the most appropriate learning styles. One style that is emerging is the blended learning approach, also called blended e-learning.
What are the benefits of e-learning?
what is E-Academy :
on line Trainings give a whole new dimension to learner-centric approach. It offers a wide range of highly interactive Web-based courses designed specifically to deliver effective knowledge transfer. It comprises of a series of Presentations with explanations, demonstrations and hands-on exercises to ensure that you get the maximum inputs.
Advantages :
E-Academy: e- Learning from SAP Education enables you to:
• Improve the return on your training investment
• Increase productivity
• Reduce TCO (total cost of ownership)
• Boost motivation
• Transfer business process knowledge related to SAP effectively
• Use your time in the most efficient way
• Plan your training to suit your schedule
• Revisit or revise content at later date
• Monitor your performance
• Identify additional learning needs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)