Living standards have soared during the twentieth century, and economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness?

    Not necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the University of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant: The Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes that richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy than poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy have not been accompanied by steady increases in people's self-assessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in average happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin reports.

    The explanation for this paradox may be that people become less satisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin's word: "As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness due to higher income."

    Money can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if one's amounts get bigger and other people aren't getting more. His analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater's finding that Americans' perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose between 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita income. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we have less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.

    Easterlin's findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.

    Maslow suggested that as people's basic material wants are satisfied they seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin's evidence points to the persistence of materialism.

    "Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the history of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the wealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of material need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of economic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead the chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain "real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being deflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield essentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be pleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a more realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in which generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to 20% more income to be perfectly happy.

    Needs are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for envy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking that of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in Easterlin's view.

    "The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is leading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever growing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in which cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve the goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in science and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity of humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last respect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of humanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material wants over humanity."

    人們的生活水平在20世紀(jì)飛速提高，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家預(yù)計(jì)在未來(lái)的幾十年里，人們的生活水平還會(huì)進(jìn)一步提高。這是否意味著我們?nèi)祟?lèi)的日子有望越過(guò)越幸福呢？

    未必如此，南加州大學(xué)一位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家理查德?A?伊斯特林在其新書(shū)《增長(zhǎng)的勝利：從歷史的視角展望21世紀(jì)》中如是告誡世人。他承認(rèn)，一般來(lái)說(shuō)，富人比窮人更有可能稱自己是幸福的。然而，美國(guó)人對(duì)幸福感的自我評(píng)價(jià)并未伴隨著美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)穩(wěn)步發(fā)展而有所提高。伊斯特林指出：“過(guò)去近半個(gè)世紀(jì)中，美國(guó)的實(shí)際人均國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增加了2倍多，而人們并未感到比以往更幸福。”

    對(duì)于這種自相矛盾的現(xiàn)象也許可作如下解釋?zhuān)�隨著時(shí)間的推移，人們對(duì)一定的收入會(huì)越來(lái)越不滿。用伊斯特林的話來(lái)說(shuō)：“收入增加了，人們的期望值也相應(yīng)提高了，期望值的提高會(huì)抵消收入提高所帶來(lái)的預(yù)期有所增加的幸福感。”

    伊斯特林似乎在說(shuō)，金錢(qián)可以買(mǎi)來(lái)幸福，但這只有在自己金錢(qián)不斷增多，而別人收入不變的情況才會(huì)如此。他的分析有助于人們理解社會(huì)學(xué)家李?雷恩沃特的調(diào)查結(jié)果----從1950年到1986年，在美國(guó)持收入“必須維持基本生活”觀念的人隨著實(shí)際人均收入的增加而同比增長(zhǎng)。如果收入比鄰居多，我們就會(huì)感到自己富有；反之，則覺(jué)得自己貧窮。由此可見(jiàn)，人們把幸福感與相對(duì)富裕程度等同起來(lái)。

    伊斯特林的調(diào)查結(jié)果向心理理學(xué)家亞伯拉罕?馬斯洛的“需要等級(jí)體系”理論提出了挑戰(zhàn)，該理論為人類(lèi)未來(lái)的動(dòng)機(jī)提供了可靠指南。馬斯洛認(rèn)為：一旦人們的基本物質(zhì)需求得到滿足后，就會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)而追求更高層次的精神需求。但伊斯特林的論證卻指出人類(lèi)的物欲永無(wú)止境。

    伊斯特林還評(píng)述到：“盡管人類(lèi)歷史上從未實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)普遍水平的富裕，但今日最富有的那些國(guó)家對(duì)物質(zhì)的關(guān)注還是那么迫切，對(duì)物質(zhì)需要的追求還是那樣的強(qiáng)烈。”這表明人類(lèi)并未朝更高層次的精神目標(biāo)進(jìn)展。更確切地說(shuō)，經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展每上一個(gè)臺(tái)階只會(huì)刺激新的經(jīng)濟(jì)需求，進(jìn)而促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)持續(xù)向前發(fā)展。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家通常用國(guó)民收入的貨幣價(jià)值減去平均物價(jià)上漲額度來(lái)計(jì)算“實(shí)際”收入。同樣，人們?nèi)找嬖鲩L(zhǎng)的物質(zhì)欲望，在此主要是持續(xù)不斷對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)富裕的主觀要求，削減了實(shí)際收入。雖然設(shè)想一個(gè)沒(méi)有物欲壓力的世界是件愜意的事，但一個(gè)基于事實(shí)的更為現(xiàn)實(shí)的想法是設(shè)想在這樣一個(gè)世界里，世世代代的人們都認(rèn)為只要將收入再提高10%--- -20%，就可達(dá)到無(wú)比幸福的境界。

    需求是有極限的，而貪欲卻無(wú)止境�？茖W(xué)再進(jìn)步也尚未研制出治療嫉妒的良藥，因此只有當(dāng)我們的財(cái)富讓鄰居相形見(jiàn)絀的時(shí)候，我們才會(huì)感到片刻的幸福。所以在伊斯特林看來(lái)，未來(lái)的前景不容樂(lè)觀：“當(dāng)今經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)告訴我們，未來(lái)經(jīng)濟(jì)會(huì)不斷發(fā)展、永不停歇，未來(lái)世界會(huì)是一個(gè)財(cái)富不斷增長(zhǎng)而欲望節(jié)節(jié)上升的世界；一個(gè)為達(dá)到富裕不斷角逐而導(dǎo)致文化差異盡失的世界；一個(gè)建立在信仰科學(xué)和智力并相信人類(lèi)有最大的能力塑造自己命運(yùn)的世界。具有諷刺意味的是，在最后一點(diǎn)上，歷史的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)似乎告訴我們事物的發(fā)展并非如此：人類(lèi)別無(wú)選擇，并不能掌握自己的命運(yùn)。最后，經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的結(jié)果不是人性戰(zhàn)勝物欲，而是物欲戰(zhàn)勝人性。”