“It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general well-being.”
“Well-being can’t be measured by money or traded in markets. It’s about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture and, above all, the strength of our relationships.”
“Improving our society’s sense of well-being is, I believe, the central political challenge of our times.” - David Cameron.
Now this is kind of an old news piece (2006) and most readers out there from the UK will probably already be familiar with this as national happiness seems to be a bit of a hot topic over there.
I think this raises an interesting question though. To what degree should our governments be working to raise the GWB? (General Well-Being, as David Cameron puts it)
And another question, are there any other examples out there of governments taking an interest in GWB? (keep in mind that they might not call it GWB)
I think also it’s interesting that this hasn’t come up in any of the US presidential campaigns. (at least not that I’m aware of) Candidates talk a lot about making people’s lives better, but I can’t recall any of the candidates talking specifically about happiness or General Well-Being like David Cameron does in that quote.
Here’s another question for all the Americans out there. If one of the presidential candidates you’re not planning to vote for started talking about GWB, would you change your vote? I think I would.
Further Reading:
- Make People Happier, says Cameron from the BBC
Popularity: 4% [?]
Have you subscribed yet?
There’s a lot of candidates I wouldn’t vote for even if it was proven that they were Jesus’ second cousin. That said, as a Ron Paul supporter, I’m wondering if he’s addressed similar subjects. I’ll have to look into this.
The thing is, though: I think the sort of change Cameron was talking about can’t be orchestrated politically. It could be encouraged by the government (though the media (both entertainment and news) would have a lot more sway than any political powers), but I think that it ultimately comes down to society. Make your little corner happy and healthy.
The biggest problem I’m having, Stu, is that I don’t think the GWB is defined specifically here. “Candidates talk a lot about making people’s lives better . . .” Wouldn’t that contribute to the GWB?
Sorry for not defining it better. GWB is measured based on how high your levels of these are: positive well-being, self-control, vitality, and general health; and how low your levels of these are: anxiety and depression.
That’s not really a great definition either but you can see it’s just a very general measurement of mostly mental health (or well-being), with a little physical health thrown in there.
I think government policy could play a big part in orchestrating a rise in GWB. Take New Urbanism for instance. (New Urbanism is a backlash against suburbs. It promotes neighborhoods where people can work, live, and do most average daily things within walking distance) New Urbanism promotes health (walking) and close knit neighborhoods where you would have more meaningful relationships with the people who live around you.