3 of 27

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

need a detailed grasp of history to understand that it is important not to widen this gap too much. People tend to become a little fed up with such inequity and will often take matters into their own hands.

Life expectancy is a decent measure, the thinking here is that if people are living longer, the society in which they live is doing the right thing by them. There are decent health systems, suitable safety measures are in place in work areas, no civil war or similar social unrest, people are happy and as we all know, happy people tend to live longer. According to the 2007 CIA Factbook, if life expectancy at birth is an indicator, then Andorra is the place to be. This little principality, nestled high in the Pyrenees between France and Spain, relies on tourism for its wealth. It is notable that its isolation has tended to insulate it against the major world conflicts and perhaps that is part of the reason for its high life expectancy. The average Andorran is expected to live to around 83.5 years of age, more than a full year more than No. 2 on the list, Macau. The United States, numero uno on all the measures of wealth, doesn't do so well here, slotting in at number 29. That average Andorran has more than double the life expectancy at birth than a citizen of Swaziland, at the other end of the scale, who will struggle to see his/her 40th birthday. Very sad.

So one could argue that if we help the average population to live longer, then we will have made the world a better place. A dubious argument, particularly if you have ever walked into a palliative care ward, as it doesn't take into account quality of life. I also know plenty of people who have died young and lived fuller and happier lives than people who have been oppressed or lived in the most adverse of emotional or physical circumstances, yet somehow managed to survive into their 90s. It is difficult to assign a qualitative element to a raw life expectancy figure. Incorporating some sort of mix of the two would probably yield a more realistic result, but would it really measure how much 'better' the world is between two different times.

Personally, I believe that making the world a better place is all about happiness. According to Martin Seligman, the author of 'Authentic Happiness', happiness is a two-fold concept involving positive emotions and positive activities. Emotions are further categorized into past, present and future. That happiness is a combination of positive emotions relating to satisfaction, pride, contentment and serenity (past); pleasures and gratifications (present); and optimism, hope and trust (future). Positive activities are those that create those positive emotions and the most profound sense of happiness is achieved by going beyond your own happiness and creating happiness for others. For those who remember Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from their university days (or through any leadership/motivational psychology training), this kind of equates to the Self Actualization need.

I think the main message is going beyond your own self. If you can improve the lot of others around you, preferably by increasing their level of happiness as outlined by Seligman, then I really think you can't go wrong. Increasing the happiness of those around you is probably the only way you can make the world a better place and, funnily enough, that doesn't seem to have much to do with either GDP or life expectancy.

Oh yes, and make sure to pay it forward...

Learn more about this author, Jimmy Nightingale.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about If you want to make the world a better place ...?
We want to hear your view. Write now!