Recently governments around the world have been inspired to measure GNH (Gross National Happiness), in part inspired by the King of Bhutan? This lively article argues that such efforts are futile, and even ethically mistaken? Any comments?

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/mag ... s?page=0,6

Measuring happiness is extremely difficult, and if they wrong vectors are chosen, then yes it can result in negative outcomes (for example, heroine/cocaine tend to make people VERY happy for short periods).

But given the priorities of the economy are currently based entirely on the GDP - a measure which skyrockets during wars due to the increased spending - any attempt to factor in other vectors that approximate human welfare are very, VERY welcome.

I recommend checking out the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) that did the rounds about 10 years ago.

Does that also mean that we can't be happy by making others unhappy?
Is happiness after all not just a state of mind entirely within our own control?

I'd never engage in it myself, I find the very idea extremely offputting at best!
It's just that there was a case here in Australia recently where a married couple and a male friend were caught watching the wife with a male Dog. It was widely publicized and their faces shown on TV and in the print media and the subject of the case, and the embarrassment involved, came up at a party I attended around the time.

While a good idea it is something that would be hard to fully quantify. What is happiness and what makes me happy is very subjective and we each may have our own individual definition, which in of its self is ok but makes it hard to have a standardized way of measuring it???????