THE PRAWN BLOG

MY TWO CENTS ON WHETHER WE ARE HAPPIER TODAY COMPARED TO A CENTURY AGO

What is happiness? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is a state of well-being and contentment. To some, it is a fleeting feeling; to others, it’s a long-term state of being. If you ask me, I categorize it as a choice – one influenced by how we interpret and respond to life’s circumstances.

To answer whether we are happier today compared to a century ago, I believe that humans, as a collective, are not inherently happier. The amount of happiness we experience now is likely the same as it was a century ago, albeit distributed differently among individuals.

The distribution of happiness may never be fair or equal, and perhaps it never has been. To assess this question meaningfully, we must adopt the perspective of a neutral, all-seeing observer who has witnessed humanity across different eras. Key historical events such as world wars and epidemics, or advancements in technology and invention, cannot singularly determine our collective happiness. Instead, happiness must be understood as a multifaceted equation, comprising hedonic, stoic, and eudemonic elements.

Hedonic happiness arises from material possessions or pleasurable experiences. Stoic happiness stems from self-satisfaction and resilience. Eudemonic happiness is derived from purpose and meaning in life. These components interact uniquely for everyone, making it impossible to measure happiness through a single factor.

For instance, claiming that we experienced more wars in the past, leading to higher death tolls and greater economic disruption, only considers hedonic happiness. Similarly, stating that modern technology creates stress due to overwhelming choices focuses solely on stoic happiness. Likewise, arguing that social media fosters harmful comparisons in our interconnected world addresses only eudemonic happiness. Each perspective captures a fragment of the whole but misses the broader picture.

A Singaporean citizen might experience abundant hedonic happiness due to the country’s stable economy and government support. However, they may struggle to achieve eudemonic happiness if they cannot filter the unrealistic expectations perpetuated by social media. Additionally, the pressure-cooker environment of Singapore might make stoic happiness more challenging to attain.

Conversely, a citizen from a less affluent country might lack consistent meals or proper shelter, limiting their hedonic happiness. Yet, they could find purpose and maintain a positive outlook, achieving stoic and eudemonic happiness instead. These examples illustrate that the components of happiness manifest differently depending on circumstances, yet they balance out across humanity.

If we were to aggregate individual happiness levels, the data might follow a normal distribution, with most people rating their happiness as a 6 or 7 out of 10. This distribution would likely remain consistent whether observed today or a century ago. While this is theoretical, it suggests that for every exceptionally happy person (scoring 9 out of 10), there’s another who is less happy (scoring 1 out of 10), maintaining an equilibrium.

Happiness does not have a fixed measure over a person’s lifetime, whether it’s hedonic, stoic, or eudemonic. Once happiness is achieved, one cannot truly know how much more could have been experienced. Therefore, the idea that someone might feel less happy because they failed to reach a supposed level of happiness is implausible. Life naturally provides opportunities to experience all three forms of happiness at different points.

Moreover, despite our advancements over the past century, atrocities and injustices still occur daily. This is why neither stance – that we are happier or less happy – can be definitively validated. The complexities of happiness resist simplistic conclusions.

Ultimately, happiness is a choice – one influenced by our attitudes, decisions, and interpretations. Where you land on the distribution curve depends on how you navigate life’s challenges and opportunities.