Happiness is undoubtedly a very ambiguous and subjective word. The Royal Spanish Academy defines it as the "State of pleasing spiritual and physical satisfaction, also as the person, situation, object or group of them that contribute to make happy. Also the absence of inconveniences or trips. " Therefore, it is logical to think that to combine the factors or situations that allow a person to be "happy" must have a good quality of life, especially in the economic field. It is even funny to imagine that people with low living conditions in terms of education, health, food, home, among other things, may become "happier" compared to others who, according to the standards, are above in the Aspects mentioned above.
However, on the other hand there are strong figures which indicate that the suicide rate in the most developed countries in the world by far exceeds those considered "underdeveloped". In addition, most of the world's "happiest" nations are considered "underdeveloped." Now, how is this possible? How can one explain that people without economic problems take their lives massively? What factors influence to Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, among others lead the list of "quality of life" on the planet and, counterproductively, also the attacks on their own lives?
The answer can be found by investigating the most intrinsic aspects and behaviors of the human being. In the first place, resilience is the ability of our species to find positive things in the most hostile situations, such as hunger, poverty, violence, misery, etc. Those same situations we find little in the "first world", therefore it is expected that the inhabitants of the countries with lower "quality of life" are much more resilient than their "rich" neighbors, even by a customary theme, which transmits from generation to generation.
On the other hand, many experts say that in reality the "exaggerated optimism" of these societies has not been a consequence of their underdevelopment, but rather the cause: It is completely logical to think that the fact of Being "happy" with what you have, with the minimum desire for personal and social improvement, leads to a society being affected by the aforementioned problems, even when they also lead to that same improvement becoming more and more complicated. It is a kind of vicious circle which can only be broken by a fact of great magnitude and that leads the inhabitants to change their way of seeing life.
It is there where we enter into the other determining factor: The complications that once had to overcome developed societies. The last clear example of this is the Second World War, where nations today world powers had huge losses both economic, war, but above all, social. This, however counterproductive, raised ashes what are now societies with "minimal" social problems compared to others. But how? Well, when going through this series of traumatic situations, the societies become much more "cold" in relation to the others, since the fair value is given to things, which at the time were scarce and difficult to achieve, so much so that you can not admit that someone can acquire them so easily, to what we would call "selfishness" on this side of the world.
Precisely that "coldness" at the time of social relations, they are much more distanced, measured and even with a certain level of distrust, contrasting with the trust and interaction of the people in the most "happy" countries. To establish a comparison, it would be similar to a person who was raped, that generates a trauma difficult to overcome which prevents him from trusting someone else again. However, that same "distancing" among its inhabitants has made them position themselves as world "powers". The fact of "thinking" very well before acting in the human being of success, but not so happy.
And the fact that thinking too much, being suspicious and having a "cold" relationship with family, friends and partners develops a sense of emptiness in the individuals that make up society, which does not It can be filled neither by success, nor by telephone, nor by clothing, nor by travel, nor by sex, nor by economic stability, only by much more pleasant and close emotional relationships. On the other hand, fear of failure in developed societies is too much for the same reasons mentioned. The social pressure and the obligation to overcome is immense, this is the main reason for suicides in Japan, for example. A fact: in the Asian country, teachers who are beyond the first floor, must close the classroom doors during exams. The reason? Many of the children prefer to take their own lives by jumping on the balconies before they fail the tests.
Otherwise it happens in our countries, where success in the suburbs is minimal and overcoming in the cities, quite poor. Therefore, the social pressure to achieve objectives is very low, and motivation, even less.
Faith is another factor to consider. And it is not coincidence that the societies of the first world are, for the most part, atheists. Contrasting enough with Latin American countries for example, where at least 8 or 9 out of 10 people believe in some deity. Cause or effect? Possibly. The fact of living in misery makes it practically obligatory for people to find a reason to live and many times find it in the hope of an "eternal life", which causes much suspicion in other nations, perhaps because of wisdom, perhaps because they do not need it .
Finally, and although it seems incredible, there is a geographical theme in all this. According to studies, the countries considered to have the best "quality of life" not only respond to atheism and historical tragedies, but also to climates. And it should not be easy to live much of the year at temperatures below zero and establish connections with those closest to you. It can even be reflected in the festivities of each society. While in Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden alcohol is taken as a tradition theme, in Latin America it is danced, it is enjoyed constantly.
In conclusion we can say quote a phrase of great philosophers, like Fiedrich Nietzsche, Socrátes, Plato, among others, who agreed that "The secret of happiness is ignorance", and perhaps they had a lot of reason. On the one hand we can see stable powers and a high standard of living quite depressed and on the other societies with very happy economic, social, humanitarian problems, with a smile for everything. Can they be conjugated someday? What do you think? For now, we can say that better "quality of life" does not always mean greater "happiness" ...
If the post you liked please leave your vote ... soon we will see more content.
Why are the underdeveloped countries more "happy"? | Ecency
