Debates
08 Jun 11
08 Jun 11
1 edit
How would you define "quality of life"? What factors should be considered in
whether a country has a high or low "quality of life"? Access to health care?
Political and social egalitarianism? Consumption per capita? Televisions per
capita? Quality of public education? Something more general?
In case you missed all the fun in Thread 139858, a debate emerged
around the technical definition of "standard of living," as defined by the makers of
the Human Development Index, so unless you’re willing to argue about the
legitimacy of the HDI’s definition thereof, please keep the discussion in the context
of "quality of life," however you would define that.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe extent to which men live free from force. And I'm not talking about airy fairy forces like 'mean names' or 'vague hints' which aren't force at all.
How would you define "quality of life"? What factors should be considered in
whether a country has a high or low "quality of life"? Access to health care?
Political and social egalitarianism? Consumption per capita? Televisions per
capita? Quality of public education? Something more general?
In case you missed all the fun in [threadid]139858[/threa ...[text shortened]... keep the discussion in the context
of "quality of life," however you would define that.
This leaves people free to pursue their own values and join with others with like goals,
'free' health care is your dream? Join the 'free' healthcare club. In this internet age these groups need not be confined by arbitrary borders. I'm sure there are many millions from third world countries would gladly sign on to the 'free' health care dream.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaWe could take a leaf of the Bhutanese government's book and measure "Gross National Happiness" rather than Gross National Product.
How would you define "quality of life"? What factors should be considered in
whether a country has a high or low "quality of life"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
The Bhutanese grounding in Buddhist ideals suggests that beneficial development of human society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance. At this level of generality, the concept of GNH is transcultural—a nation need not be Buddhist in order to value sustainable development, cultural integrity, ecosystem conservation, and good governance. Through collaboration with an international group of scholars and empirical researchers the Centre for Bhutan Studies further defined these four pillars with greater specificity into eight general contributors to happiness- physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance; social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance; and ecological vitality. Although the GNH framework reflects its Buddhist origins, it is solidly based upon the empirical research literature of happiness, positive psychology and wellbeing.
09 Jun 11
"Quality of life" is hard to measure, but it's clear it should include some measure of deprivation - someone who does not have access to proper health care, education, food, housing, infrastructure, etc. arguably has a lower "quality of life" than someone who does. Freedom of speech and free media are important too.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaHappiness
How would you define "quality of life"? What factors should be considered in
whether a country has a high or low "quality of life"? Access to health care?
Political and social egalitarianism? Consumption per capita? Televisions per
capita? Quality of public education? Something more general?
In case you missed all the fun in [threadid]139858[/threa ...[text shortened]... keep the discussion in the context
of "quality of life," however you would define that.
if you can pursuade someone they are happy regardless of their circumstances then are they not happier than someone with much more (but not enough)???
Even if that happiness is borne of ignorance it still equates to a greater quality of life.
Knowledge of a better life inevitably leads to some degree of "unhappiness".
10 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59How would you define "happiness"? Would this definition apply in all countries?
Happiness
if you can pursuade someone they are happy regardless of their circumstances then are they not happier than someone with much more (but not enough)???
Even if that happiness is borne of ignorance it still equates to a greater quality of life.
Knowledge of a better life inevitably leads to some degree of "unhappiness".
One person may claim to be unhappy without a personal iPhone. Another may claim to be unhappy without access to clean water.
Even if both people were equally unhappy, surely they would be deprived of a "high quality of life" unequally?
11 Jun 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would maintain that someone who is happy with a relatively low standard of living has a better quality of life than someone who is unhappy who has an iPhone and everything else.
How would you define "happiness"? Would this definition apply in all countries?
One person may claim to be unhappy without a personal iPhone. Another may claim to be unhappy without access to clean water.
Even if both people were equally unhappy, surely they would be deprived of a "high quality of life" unequally?
Just from my own experience I am far happier now than 20 years ago when I had far more material things and a lot more money.