一直以來，人類歷史的主旋律就是痛苦，這樣說會不會太過分？要把過去想象成一首浪漫的田園詩，其實很容易－只要對不斷降臨的戰爭、瘟疫和饑荒視而不見就行了。折衷一下，你可能不想過于沉浸在恐懼、迷信或宗教迫害的陰影之中。經濟學家約翰•梅納德•凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)曾寫道：對生計的要求或斗爭，是人類永恒的問題。對此，我們卻無法回避。

Is it going too far to suggest that, until very recently, the leitmotif of human history had been misery? It is easy to imagine the past as some kind of bucolic idyll, but only by ignoring the perpetual visitations of war, pestilence and famine. In between, you might have hoped to avoid living too much in the shadow of fear, superstition or religious persecution but there was no escaping what the economist John Maynard Keynes described as the permanent problem of the human race: want, or the struggle for subsistence.

    近代經濟史上最令人震驚的成就之一就是：在發達的工業社會里，這個看似永恒的難題已迎刃而解。發達國家絕大多數的人過著過度富足、而不是貧困的生活。他們擔心的不再是能否讓孩子吃飽，是否居無定所，而是他們應該選擇哪個有線頻道的節目，應該去哪里度假，應該挑選哪位服裝設計師的品牌？

It is one of the most startling achievements of recent economic history that, in the advanced industrial world, this seemingly permanent problem has been solved. For the most part, people in developed countries live in a state of surfeit, not of want. They no longer worry whether they can afford to put food in their children's bellies or keep a roof over their heads, but which cable channel package they should subscribe to,swheresto spend their holidays and which designer labels they should wear.

    但有些人永遠不會知足。即使他們比以往更富有、更健康、更安全，即使他們享有更多的自由、擁有更多的機會，可他們仍滿腹牢騷。他們抱怨抑郁癥人數、自殺率和犯罪率節節攀升；他們感嘆世風日下，肥胖的人越來越多；他們對愈演愈烈的“馬路憤怒（Road Rage）”和濫用毒品大發牢騷；他們對超競爭加劇，物質主義猖獗表示不滿，還有最主要的是----垃圾郵件泛濫。

But some people are never satisfied. Even though they are richer, healthier and safer than ever before, and even though they enjoy more freedoms and opportunities, they continue to moan: about rising depression and suicide rates, about crime, about the decline of civility, about obesity, road rage and drug abuse, about hyper-competition and rampant materialism and, above all, about spam.

    事實上，在西方國家，人們的幸福程度據報道不再與經濟產量和消費的增長成正比。而且，隨著兩者差距的拉大，這幾乎成為一種困擾。本周，我在同一天收到了兩個智囊團所做的有關“追求幸福”的報告：一份來自倫敦的新經濟基金會(New Economics Foundation)，另一份則來 自堪培拉的澳大利亞研究會(Australia Institute)。上周，英 國最負盛名的科學院英國皇家學會召開了一次為期兩天的會議，探討幸福。上月，《新科學家》雜志也以此為題，刊登了總共兩個部分的系列。諸如此類，不一而足。

The fact is that, in the west, increases in economic output and consumption are no longer being matched by increases in people's reported levels of happiness. And as the gap widens, it is close to becoming an obsession. This week, I received reports on the pursuit of happiness from two think-tanks on the same day: one from the London-based New Economics Foundation and another from the Canberra-based Australia Institute. Last week, the Royal Society, Britain's top scientific academy, held a two-day conference on the science of well-being. Last month, New Scientist magazine devoted a two-part series to the subject. And so on.

    幾句話就可以概括出幸福研究的主要調查結果。雖然在你貧窮時，更多的金錢可以帶來更多的幸福，可一旦你的基本需求都已滿足，多一元錢就變得不那么重要。這時，更為重要的是那些非物質的東西，比如幸福的婚姻以及與摯愛親朋共度美好時光。

You can sum up the main findings of happiness research in a few sentences. Although more money delivers big increases in happiness when you are poor, each extra dollar makes less difference once your basic needs have been met. Much more important are non-material things such as a good marriage and spending time with loved ones and friends.

    然而，在一個方面，金錢和物質的確顯得十分重要：人往往喜歡追求地位，因此會以他人成功可見的標志來評價自己。不幸的是，正如新經濟基金會研究報告所說，這是一場沒有止境的競爭，因為要求不斷增高。曾幾何時，擁有一套房子是一種地位的象征，但如今，要有兩套才行。

However, money and material goods do make a difference in one respect: people tend to seek status, and therefore judge themselves against the visible signs of others' success. Unfortunately, as the New Economics Foundation report remarks, this is a never-ending competition because the bar simply gets raised all the time. One house used to be a sign of status; now only two will do.

    只要人們不再為地位所困擾，他們的幸福之路將變得一目了然：人們應該放慢腳步，犧牲一點工資來換取與家人、朋友共聚的時間。你可能會說，這是永遠不可能的，但克萊夫•漢密爾頓(Clive Hamilton)所做的調查顯示，在30歲 到59歲的英國人中，在過去的10年里，有25％的人就是這么做的。為了改善生活質量，他們寧愿少賺一點。克萊夫•漢密爾頓是澳大利亞研究會幸福研究報告的作者，也是劍橋大學的訪問學者。

If people could only overcome their worries about status, their route to happiness would be clear: they should downshift, trading less pay for more time with their families and friends. It will never happen, you may say. But according to Clive Hamilton, author of the Australia Institute report and a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, an astonishing 25 per cent of Britons aged 30-59 have done just that in the past 10 years, voluntarily taking a cut in earnings to improve the quality of their lives.

    如果我從事廣告業，我想我會對這樣的調查結果開始有點擔心。我們整個經濟體制建立在滿足人們日益膨脹的物質欲望這個概念之上，并以每年實現國內生產總值（GDP）增長為目標。廣告的存在就是要幫助產生那種欲望。但如果人們都相信，貪得無厭并不會增加他們的幸福，反而會成為幸福的絆腳石，那么廣告業將何去何從？

If I were in advertising, I think I would be starting to worry a bit about findings like these. Our whole economic system, with its targeted annual increases in gross domestic product, is founded upon the concept of satisfying the desire for more; and advertising exists only to help generate that desire. But what if people became convinced that acquisitiveness, rather than adding to their happiness, was standing in its way?

    人們對廣告總是將信將疑，害怕廣告會欺騙他們，讓他們買些根本不需要的東西。也許，這就解釋了為什么當社會變得更加自由時，人們對待廣告的態度卻背道而馳這個矛盾的現象。廣告也不能象從前那樣，只要法律許可，就可以任意推銷。人們要求，廣告不能超出社會目標，甚至道德目標的范圍。在煙草廣告禁令出臺后，現在，大眾又強烈要求限制其它“不受歡迎”產品（例如酒和快餐）的廣告。此外，嚴禁向兒童進行推銷的呼聲也越來越高，這主要是擔心兒童自出生起就受到消費主義思想的灌輸。

People have always been equivocal about advertising, worrying that it hoodwinks themsintosbuying things they do not need. Perhaps that explains the paradox that, as society has grown more liberal, attitudes towards advertising have gone in the opposite direction. It is no longer the case that you can market any goods that can be legally sold. People are demanding that advertising should operate within the parameters of social, even moral, objectives. Bans on tobacco advertising are now being followed by calls for restrictions on the advertising of other "undesirable" products such as alcohol and fast food. And there is a rising clamour for bans on marketing to children, much of it driven by fears that they are being brainwashedsintosconsumerism from birth.

    如果是這樣的話，我們也可以說，廣告讓成年人變得不快樂，所以應當被禁止。當然，這種事永遠不會發生。即使人們不再那么重視物質，但他們對物質始終會有要求（其實是欲望），所以廣告將擔綱一個必不可少的角色。但試想，會不會有這么一天，每一個廣告都必須標有政府的健康警語，例如“危險：物質主義可能會破壞你的幸福感”？

From there, it is quite a short step to argue that advertising to adults should be banned on the grounds that it makes them unhappy. It will never happen, of course; people will always require - indeed, desire - material goods, even if they give them a lower priority, so advertising will fulfil a necessary role. But is it possible to imagine a day when every advertisement will have to be accompanied by a government health warning such as: "Danger: materialism may damage your sense of well-being"?

    畢竟，貪得無厭與吸煙有許多相似之處：有害健康，容易上癮，與其他人一起戒煙就會容易得多。因此，如果社會政策排斥那些追求社會地位的人，把他們變成遭社會遺棄的可憐蟲，那么其他人就能放慢腳步，備感安慰地認為，我們不僅占大多數，而且所做的一切也很正確。這樣，大多數人將獲得更多的幸福。

Acquisitiveness, after all, is a lot like smoking: harmful, addictive and much easier to quit if everyone else does so at the same time. So the greater happiness of the many would best be served if social policy were directed towards marginalising status-seekers and turning themsintospitiful pariahs, leaving the rest of us to downshift in the comfortable knowledge that we were not only in the majority but also doing the right thing.

    相信嗎？我相信。告訴你吧，如果你答應不再做一個只滿足自我的貪婪的人，我也能夠做到，那么我們的生活都將快樂許多。準備好了嗎？1,2,3……嗨！你干嘛？別碰我的信用卡。

Convinced? I am. Tell you what, I'll agree to stop being a greedy self-maximiser if you will, then we'll both be much happier as a result. Ready? One, two, thr . . . Hey! What do you think you're doing? Get your hands off my credit card RIGHT NOW.

    譯者/夏璇