A global survey of 156 countries, conducted between 2010 and 2012 by the Earth Institute, shows that Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world’s happiest countries. People in Rwanda, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Benin and Togo are the least satisfied with their lives.
The United States came in at number 17 in the world in terms of overall happiness, and lags behind Canada (6), Australia (10), Israel (11) the United Arab Emirates (14) and Mexico (16), according to the Earth Institute. The report ranks the United Kingdom as the 22nd happiest country in the world. Other major nations included Germany (26), Japan (43), Russia (68) and China (93) (Earth Institute).
Given that 30 million people in the US are dependent on food stamps (money for them is about to be cut by the Tea Party) and well paid, interesting jobs are increasingly rare, and the government is disfunctional, this result is surprisingly good. Well done! Less surprising is the UK at number 22. Most of the old certainties, traditions and politenesses having been junked, and everyone is poorer, but I suppose the British are happier than Germans, who are rich and miserable. Helped by my rose-tinted spectacles, I’m sure the British used to be happier in the good old days, when everyone in the country spoke English.
Epicurus would suggest more time in the Garden, more friends, more support for others, and more laughter and jokes. Especially laughter and jokes, although I doubt Epicurus, were he alive today, would think some of the comments about body parts that all too often pass for jokes in Britain, were either funny or clever. But maybe that’s why the UK is number 22.
P.s Are these rankings really meaningful? Discuss.
“
The obvious deduction to make from the rankings is that the more equality of opportunity there is, and the smaller the gap between rich and poor, the happier is the population. If a government operates mainly to please and entrench a rich oligarchy, the less stable the country is. This boringly obvious bit of common sense is not understood by political right-wingers and libertarians. If Epicureanism stands for anything it stands for fair and equal treatment of all citizens and a helping hand for those who are physically or mentally unable to be high fliers.
That’s surprising. A recent poll in the Netherlands says the most popular political party (24%) is Geert Wilders’ anti-immigration party. Conclusion: nobody is very happy anywhere at the moment.
Thank you for commenting. The problem of immigration is shared throughout Western Europe. A liberal though I confess to being, even I wish we could see better governance, fairness and peace and prosperity in the countries where this mass immigration originates, so that people don’t feel they have to leave their countries for a better life. Another way of putting it is “Why should Europeans have to pay for the incompetence of foreign politicians?” Immigration can be a real benefit to a country (Australia?) , but not when people don’t fit in and insist on maintaining their own languages and cultures. You end up with no nation and no common values. In London one involuntarily turns ones head when one hears British English being spoken. I exaggerate only slightly. You have to have some sympathy with the dissidents.
I remember visiting the city of Leicester years ago. Unfamiliar with the place I asked my way. Of the seven people approached not one of them spoke English. Leicester is an old Roman city with a 2000 year old history. Imagine the reaction of a Roman, arriving in Leicester in the year 200 a.d, and finding no one spoke Latin! Oh tempera, oh mores!
“Imagine the reaction of a Roman, arriving in Leicester in the 200 A.D. and finding no one spoke Latin!”
================
Yes, there is that but switch it around. Imagine how the men and women of the indigenous Corieltauvi felt when they saw the Roman legionnaires marching over the horizon. Not a one of those blokes could speak a word of Brythonic.
– – – – –
“Consonant shifts in Celtic languages repeat themselves. One of these shifts was ‘m’ to ‘v’, as in Dumnonii to Devni (Devon). If it can be accepted that the Romans couldn’t get their name right (after all they called the island and the people Britain, not Pretain), then Coritani could have been Coritami, but the ‘l’ was lost in the same manner as the Damnonian Alt Clut / Attacotti name shift. Corieltauvi would have been Corieltami before the shift in the consonant. The first element of both versions of the tribe’s name is ‘corio-‘, the Brythonic word for ‘army’ from the proto-Celtic ‘korjo-‘, meaning ‘army’. However, both spellings of the tribal name as shown above would appear to be incorrect.” http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainCoritani.htm
Good gracious! More than I needed to know.