More vs. Better

Earlier this week we discussed the first chapter of Bill McKibben's Deep Economy in class, in which he examines the economic rationale for continued growth, considers some problems with economics, and lays out the framework for his book's argument. He promises to show us that there are alternatives to economic growth that are more environmentally sustainable over the long run and that don't sacrifice happiness or social stability. Will his arguments and examples be convincing?

We should keep our eye on the three points he promises to develop. These are challenges to the idea that there are no limits to economic growth (p.11).

1. One is political: growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress.
2. [T]he second argument draws on physics and chemistry as much as on economics; it is the basic objection that we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?
3. The third argument is both less obvious and even more basic: growth is no longer making us happy.

The central claim of this chapter is that for 19th century utilitarianism (which is the foundation of our contemporary economic outlook), when society aimed at “MORE” economic growth and material wellbeing, it could ultimately achieve the ethical aim of "BETTER" human welfare and opportunities to pursue happiness. McKibben claims that in the U.S. at the beginning of the 21st century, getting "MORE" stuff and achieving a “BETTER” quality of life are no longer aims which are in sync with one another.

Utilitarians measure what is good according to the total of human happiness. That is, overall happiness provides the criterion for morality. If we had a science of happiness, it would contribute to a science of ethics.

Interestingly, we do now have a science of happiness which has been developed mostly by psychologists, but also by economists, anthropologists, and political scientists. They've found out that people are often mistaken about what will make them happy. It turns out that we're not very good at predicting our future happiness. There is a difference between what people anticipate will affect their happiness and what really makes them happy. If you think this is an interesting question, you might like this bloggingheads.tv interview with Eric Weiner, the author of a book on happiness.

Any further reactions to this chapter?