Society World Happiness Report 2018

The new World Happiness Report 2018 was published last week. 156 countries were surveyed. The ranking includes a number of factors such as y: GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and perceptions of corruption.

Generosity is based on the question “Have you donated money to a charity in the past month?”. However I fail to see how this impact local happiness, as charities are often international (e.g. scientific research) or geared toward poorer countries.

The survey also includes what they call "Positive affect" (defined as the average of previous-day affect measures for
happiness, laughter, and enjoyment) and "Negative affect" (defined as the average of previous-day affect measures for worry, sadness, and anger). These two are averaged in the Dystopia category, which is the biggest component of the Happiness Index.

Here is the top 25.

1. Finland (7.632)
2. Norway (7.594)
3. Denmark (7.555)
4. Iceland (7.495)
5. Switzerland (7.487)
6. Netherlands (7.441)
7. Canada (7.328)
8. New Zealand (7.324)
9. Sweden (7.314)
10. Australia (7.272)
11. Israel (7.190)
12. Austria (7.139)
13. Costa Rica (7.072)
14. Ireland (6.977)
15. Germany (6.965)
16. Belgium (6.927)
17. Luxembourg (6.910)
18. United States (6.886)
19. United Kingdom (6.814)
20. United Arab Emirates (6.774)
21. Czech Republic (6.711)
22. Malta (6.627)
23. France (6.489)
24. Mexico (6.488)
25. Chile (6.476)

Not too many surprises here, except maybe the good scores of Costa Rica (but it has been ranking well for years), Mexico and Chile compared to their GDP and life expectancy. Costa Rica, Mexico and other Central American nations (Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua) perform exceptionally well (better than most Western countries) for the Dystopia score, meaning that their subjective happiness can be high despite corruption, lower life expectancy and lower material wealth than rich countries.

The Czechs rank much higher than the Spaniards, Italians or any other Slavic or Baltic country. Once again, it is because of their positive attitude to life (Dystopia score).

Some developed countries perform surprisingly poorly for their level of development.

34. Singapore (6.343)
36. Spain (6.310)
47. Italy (6.000)
51. Slovenia (5.948)
54. Japan (5.915)
57. South Korea (5.875)
61. Cyprus (5.762)
63. Estonia (5.739)
69. Hungary (5.620)
76. Hong Kong SAR, China (5.430)
77. Portugal (5.410)
79. Greece (5.358)

Singapore has the highest score of any country for all factors combined except Dystopia. This is a good example of how material wealth does not bring happiness. Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea are in the same situation. Japan would have the same overall score as the USA, Germany or Belgium were it not for the Dystopia factor. Hong Kong ranks even higher in statistics, closer to Scandinavian countries, but is even less happy.

In fact, many of the countries that are unhappier than one would expect from statistics have high suicide rates. This is the case of Japan and South Korea, and of Poland, Estonia and Hungary in Europe. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the developed world after Lithuania. All Northeast European countries have high suicide rates, and that can be partly explained by the climate (and post-communist gloom).

However that is not the case of Southern European countries. Portugal Spain, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Greece have some of the lowest suicide rates in the developed world. So why is it that the Maltese are so much happier than their Mediterranean neighbours? Except for Spain, all these countries are less happy than most Latin American nations, Poland, Slovakia or Uzbekistan, despite higher levels of development.

What makes it all the more astonishing is that Mediterranean countries enjoy great climates, excellent food and are generally more relaxed cultures taking time to enjoy life (long lunches, siestas, rich sex life, lots of friends, dolce vita). That may be a bit stereotypical, but that is certainly more true than in many other parts of the world. France actually fits in that cultural scene too, and it too performs less well than countries with equivalent levels of development (UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany). So what causes speakers of Greek and Romance languages in Europe to be so negative? Is it down to genetics? Is it because of the economic malaise since the 2008 crisis? (most countries have recovered by now, so it's doubtful). I am at a loss.

UPDATE: Here are the World Happiness maps for 2019 and 2023.

1693684466296.png


1693684476577.png
 
Last edited:
In fact, many of the countries that are unhappier than one would expect from statistics have high suicide rates. This is the case of Japan and South Korea, and of Poland, Estonia and Hungary in Europe. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the developed world after Lithuania. All Northeast European countries have high suicide rates, and that can be partly explained by the climate (and post-communist gloom).

Didn't Finland, now the world's happiest country as per this report, have a very high suicide rate at least a few years ago? I remember having done a homework about "curious things about Finland" in my English classes more than 10 years ago and I was quite surprised about those abnormally high suicide rates, which I could only think were related to the climate and perhaps to a certain lack of close-knit family and community ties.
 
However that is not the case of Southern European countries. Portugal Spain, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Greece have some of the lowest suicide rates in the developed world. So why is it that the Maltese are so much happier than their Mediterranean neighbours? Except for Spain, all these countries are less happy than most Latin American nations, Poland, Slovakia or Uzbekistan, despite higher levels of development.

What makes it all the more astonishing is that Mediterranean countries enjoy great climates, excellent food and are generally more relaxed cultures taking time to enjoy life (long lunches, siestas, rich sex life, lots of friends, dolce vita). That may be a bit stereotypical, but that is certainly more true than in many other parts of the world. France actually fits in that cultural scene too, and it too performs less well than countries with equivalent levels of development (UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany). So what causes speakers of Greek and Romance languages in Europe to be so negative? Is it down to genetics? Is it because of the economic malaise since the 2008 crisis? (most countries have recovered by now, so it's doubtful). I am at a loss.

Don't forget the absurdly high rates of youth unemployment in almost all the Mediterranean region coupled with the very high and still unrelentingly increasing proportion of old people under increasing financial restrictions. My guess is that most of that "dystopian" feelings come from the two tail ends of the adult cohorts, and not from more established and still active people in their later 30's and 40's.
 
The sharpest drop worldwide in the last 5 years was in Venezuela, which passed from 19th happiest to 102th!

They'd have to be crazy not to drop that much. Not only are they amidst a horrible crisis that makes even present Brazil look promising and paradisical (I'm not kidding, Brazil is just getting out of its worst economic crisis ever - well, at least since the 19th century - and it still received more than 40,000 Venezuelan immigrants just last year)... but, worst of all, crime in Venezuela is totally out of control, the gangs and highly organized and well equipped criminal organizations have gained too much influence and power in several places, virtually competing with the state (that's a Latin American phenomenon that's worsening in the last 10 years, but let's just say that Venezuela is way ahead in that process and got into a virtually chaotic situation). It's not just about an ineffective and increasingly authoritarian government or an economic crisis ("just"). The Venezuelans, like Brazilians, are increasingly let down by the utter perception of public unsafety and abnormally high proportions of murdered or injured people all round them, but probably 3x times as seriously as some of their South American neighbors (and we know that comparative perceptions count a lot for a people to feel unhappier).
 
Southern Europeans never tell the truth in polls. The general attitude is to tease the interviewer. So the whole poll is bolloni. How can one live in Island and be happy, or Canada or Finland, with that terrible weather? Only for being born in Mediterranean is a 50% bonus to be happy, with magic taste of food, magic nature, terrific people.
Oh, that "50% bonus" definitely becomes 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% bonus the longer you live in the place, my friend. People still acknowledge how lucky they are and so on, but virtually nobody becomes a happy person - not just momentary moments of satisfaction - just because he or she lives amidst a wonderful natural landscape or eats a very good food. The gains from those things like beauty and physical pleasures tend to be diminishing every year as one gets used to them, and even more so when they are the reality that you know since you were born. People usually don't value that much things that they take for granted, only when they lose the.
 
If robots take over, and produce in our place, how do we get the money to buy what the robots produce ? How can we disconnect production (+ salary) from consumption (= expense)? Learn to live with it all right, but then it is an entirely new socio-economic model that remains to be invented. It takes a degree of optimism to imagine we'll go unhurt through such unprecedented changes.


I think the fear of robotics is rather unwarranted and some of their expected effects misunderstood or exaggerated. I cannot say when or at what pace they will eliminate the majority of traditional jobs or speculate on what kind of radical changes the singularity would bring, but so far most jobs in western countries have not been lost due to automation, but to outsourcing labor. What about in the future though? When we compare a robot to a person on an assembly line who is more productive? Well the robot is, but when you have a robot and a person working in tandem on this line they are actually more productive working together than either are alone. Then we have to also imagine who will design and develop this robot, who will program it, who will keep its maintenance and install it? Until the intelligence and dexterity of robots reach the level of a human, (an occasion where we would have a lot more to consider than just economics) there is still plenty of opportunity for human labor to thrive along side automation.

So what is going wrong now then? Well moderately skilled labor that has been the core of the middle class in the past is shrinking both due to automation and outsourcing, but the good news is that low skilled labor jobs are still increasing and high skilled labor growth is exploding. So what should we do? Perhaps instead of implementing Universal Basic Income we should consider using the excess capital from automation to pay for educating those in former middle income jobs so they can fill this growing demand for high skilled labor, continue contributing to the economy and innovation while improving their own economic and social standing. If we still believe in a capitalist system and that the future holds more economic growth then the best investment we can possibly make is towards increasing human capital. Obtaining education is quite expensive in the US (Although this is not an existential threat as some might believe, 80 percent of all college debt is owed by 20 percent of debtors) and this would be a practical solution towards solving issues involving college debt/high cost of educational obtainment, high skill labor demand and addressing job polarization due to automation.

Didn't Finland, now the world's happiest country as per this report, have a very high suicide rate at least a few years ago? I remember having done a homework about "curious things about Finland" in my English classes more than 10 years ago and I was quite surprised about those abnormally high suicide rates, which I could only think were related to the climate and perhaps to a certain lack of close-knit family and community ties.


The economic success of nordic countries like Finland here are most likely skewing them higher than they should be. Even the paper admits "well-being is better assessed by subjective well-being measures than by indicators of its potential drivers." There are certainly decreasing returns to scale here with how much national socioeconomic factors influence individual happiness. Wealth and economic prosperity of the nation probably matters up to a point in terms of happiness, just as it does on the individual scale. If you are from a nation that used to be poor and has recently begun to stock it's shelves with bread the happiness that bread affords you will be much greater than the variety of bread choices in a more developed nation. In fact that variety might just make your more anxious about your choices and dissatisfied with what purchase you make in the end. When a country meets a level where it can afford the basic needs of it's citizens it is more likely that culture will play a more important factor in happiness than anything economic. I'm willing to "bet" it also works like gambling: in the same way losing 500 dollars one night makes you angrier than the happiness you receive from winning 1000 dollars another night, an effect we can see in the Mediterranean nations.
 
Oh, that "50% bonus" definitely becomes 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% bonus the longer you live in the place, my friend. People still acknowledge how lucky they are and so on, but virtually nobody becomes a happy person - not just momentary moments of satisfaction - just because he or she lives amidst a wonderful natural landscape or eats a very good food. The gains from those things like beauty and physical pleasures tend to be diminishing every year as one gets used to them, and even more so when they are the reality that you know since you were born. People usually don't value that much things that they take for granted, only when they lose the.

You probably have a valid point here. People get used to beauty after a while and take it for granted the same way they get used to a bigger home, nicer car, faster Internet connection, more advanced smartphone... Technologies we thought were amazing a few years ago are now the norm and that leaves us craving for even better products. That is essentially why money doesn't augment happiness past a certain point. People who win the lottery may become ecstatic for a few weeks or months, then little by little they get used to their new lifestyle and their mood returns to what it used to be. Many studies have shown that ultimately happiness is set in one's genes.

I read The Year of Living Danishly: Uncovering the Secrets of the World's Happiest Country, and after analysing every aspect of Danish lifestyle, the author had to come to the conclusion that Danes are just naturally happier because of their DNA. The explanation was that Nordic winter is so bleak and lacking in sunlight that a natural selection took place over the centuries and millennia, and only those who had a cheery disposition survived (others died of depression, depression-induced illnesses or committed suicide). That is very likely to be true and explain perfectly why Nordic countries rank the highest in happiness. Finland isn't that rich (25th worldwide in GDP per capita, around the same level as Belgium, France and the UK), nor is life expectancy exceptional (20th worldwide). The country is relatively boring, all flat, with long winters, hardly any history, and no cuisine to speak of. Yet the Finns are ranked as the happiest people on Earth. Like for Denmark there is no better explanation than genetics.

Scandinavian people spread their genes with the Germanic migrations, and genes for positive attitude and happiness were passed along with them. That explains why in the happiest Western countries in the list, the ranking follows very closely the percentage of Germanic/Nordic ancestry, with Finland and Scandinavia on top, followed by the Netherlands, countries with high British ancestry (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, besides the UK), Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, then Ireland, France and the Czech Republic.

Germanic_Europe.gif

maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml


In fact studies about happiness were conducted within Germany and France to see differences between regions. Of course many factors influence regional happiness inside a country, like the sunshine and the local economic situation (East Germans cannot be expected to be as happy as West Germans). Yet, the study about Germany found that the happiest people were those of the northernmost state of Schleswig-Holstein, just under Denmark, followed by Hamburg - the two regions with the highest Germanic ancestry. The lowest were of course in East Germany.

The happiness survey for French regions gave the Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Flanders-Artois, historically a part of Belgium until the late 17th century) as the happiest region of France. This is not a given considering that it is one of the bleakest regions (war fields of WWI), with little sunshine, and one of the worst regional GDP per capita in the country, and the highest unemployment rate anywhere in France. The economic situation is so bad that it has become the home base for Marine Le Pen's Nation Front Party. Yet the region is the happiest, and that surely has something to do with the fact that people have by far the highest Germanic ancestry within France (actually they can't be considered ethnically French, but annexed Low Countries people).

Celtic and Roman genes did not undergo the same natural selection for natural optimism. French people were ranked as the most pessimistic in the world in a study published in late 2016, with 88% of the population thinking that their country was going in the wrong direction. Other Latins were also pessimistic, with Mexicans, Brazilians, Italians and Spaniards completing the bottom 5 in the 25 countries surveyed. Another survey by the World Economic Forum in 2015 confirmed the French as both the most pessimistic people (88%) and the least optimistic (3%). Within Europe the most optimistic were the four Nordic countries.

The happiest Slavic-language country is unsurprisingly the Czech Republic, which has the highest Germanic ancestry, with levels of Germanic haplogroups similar to Austria and Switzerland.
 
I think the fear of robotics is rather unwarranted and some of their expected effects misunderstood or exaggerated. I cannot say when or at what pace they will eliminate the majority of traditional jobs or speculate on what kind of radical changes the singularity would bring, but so far most jobs in western countries have not been lost due to automation, but to outsourcing labor. What about in the future though? When we compare a robot to a person on an assembly line who is more productive? Well the robot is, but when you have a robot and a person working in tandem on this line they are actually more productive working together than either are alone. Then we have to also imagine who will design and develop this robot, who will program it, who will keep its maintenance and install it? Until the intelligence and dexterity of robots reach the level of a human, (an occasion where we would have a lot more to consider than just economics) there is still plenty of opportunity for human labor to thrive along side automation.

Exactly. No robot exists yet with intelligence and dexterity on a par with a human being. But we are getting really close. All those robots are prototypes under development. At present, apart from robots replacing waiters or hotel staff, which is seen more as a tourist attraction due to its novelty, robots aren't a cause of worry for taking people's jobs. But as soon as you combine robots with this kind of dexterity, this physical aptitude and that kind of AI, (actually the video is 7 years old, AI is much closer to human intelligence now), we are going to have robots very much like in the Swedish series Real Humans or its recent British spin-off Humans.

We are really on the verge of a big societal change. Self-driving cars are in their infancy, and today we have mostly regular cars with lots of automated functions. But in a few years fully self-driving cars will hit the market (automated taxis for the Tokyo Olympics in 2 years). Now, no taxi driver has lost his job because of automation. As soon as self-driving taxis hit the market, it will only take a few years before all human jobs are lost in that sector. The same is true for everything else. Today we are at a point where automation completes human work and help increase human productivity. This is essentially why the economy in developed countries has been doing so well in recent years and unemployment has sharply fallen in many Western countries since 2009, reaching some of the lowest levels seen in a generation. But I expect that within 7 years (by 2025) robots will have become good enough and cheap enough to start replacing humans in most sectors.

Between 2025 and 2035 most human jobs will have become redundant, except those where a human presence is required or desired. The truth is that most people prefer a self-driving taxi to a human one if it is safer and cheaper, and won't go around the block three times to overcharge them. People (not just companies) prefer a software doing their accounting, taxes and legal paperwork, instead of the hassle of finding someone that is knowledgeable, reliable and honest. Humans are imperfect and too often prone to committing errors and trying to cheat other people to make more money. If we have the choice, who wouldn't go for the honest and error-free software or robot, especially if it is cheaper and easier. That's human nature and that is why it is going to happen.

Why rely on humans driving buses, trains and metros if we know that there is a high chance they will strike several times a year (well in places like Belgium, France, Spain and Italy at least) and prevent you to go where you want to go, causing hug traffic jams even for those who have their own cars? That's simply unacceptable to most people and I can say that I will be very happy once the transport industry is free of human interference if it makes everything run more smoothly, safely and predictably. Why waste time going to physical shops and risking not finding what you need when you can order online in a few clicks? Why prefer a delivery man to a delivery drone when the man is likely to leave note in your postbox instead of ringing at the door to deliver your Amazon package because he doesn't have time? (something all too common with UPS in particular here) Hardly a day goes by when I am not disappointed by humans doing their job poorly, leaving me wishing for automations to replace them. I am sure I am not the only one, nor in the minority.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Finland, now the world's happiest country as per this report, have a very high suicide rate at least a few years ago? I remember having done a homework about "curious things about Finland" in my English classes more than 10 years ago and I was quite surprised about those abnormally high suicide rates, which I could only think were related to the climate and perhaps to a certain lack of close-knit family and community ties.

It is contre-intuitive, but it is normal that a high seasonal suicide rate correlates with higher happiness. Let me explain. If, as I explained above, Nordic people are happier for genetic reasons, it is because people who do not have genes for exceptional cheerfulness and optimism do end up killing themselves more frequently, often as young people, therefore not passing their genes. That is how natural selection works. But one of the prerequisites is a challenging natural environment (very little sunlight between November and February in this case).

That does not apply to all suicide rates worldwide. For example, in East Asia suicide is not more common in autumn and winter. In fact, this study found that the opposite is true for Japan (highest suicide rates from March to July + October). Suicide in Japan is often work related. It happens to office workers who often work very long hours (sometimes several days in a row without sleeping) and just can't take it anymore. Another cause is shame (East Asian cultures are much more shame-driven, as opposed to guilt-driven Western cultures), although this is also typically work related (e.g. failure to reach one's objectives). It's not a coincidence that samurai committed seppuku (ritual disembowelment) out of shame for having lost their honour or lost a battle. That's part of the East Asian mindset. But it has nothing to do with overall happiness in the society. It has more to do with the strong collectivist culture in which one's life is seen as worthless if one is excluded from the group or loses honour in an irretrievable manner. Nevertheless such cultures do put a lot of pressure on individuals on an everyday basis, and that may be why East Asians are more anxious and less joyful (bad score for Dystopia).
 
The explanation was that Nordic winter is so bleak and lacking in sunlight that a natural selection took place over the centuries and millennia, and only those who had a cheery disposition survived (others died of depression, depression-induced illnesses or committed suicide). That is very likely to be true and explain perfectly why Nordic countries rank the highest in happiness.

In my opinion, that can only be a very probable explanation if we manage to prove that there is a consistently higher level of happiness induced by slow natural selection in all the societies that are in similar latitudes as the Scandinavian nations. Do people in the northernmost parts of Canada, Greenland, Russia, Ireland, Scotland and so on show the same pattern? If they don't, we should then investigate why natural selection didn't happen in them, or even if it happened at all in significant, game-changing ways. However, if that higher level of happiness is only found in Scandinavia and nowhere else with a similar exposure to sun and similar seasonal patterns, then we have to keep looking for cultural and social reasons, even the most unlikely ones. Particularly, in any country, not only in Scandinavia, I'd look for the small but decisive things that happen in the family home, in the micro level of schools and neighborhood communities, and in the work environment. I'd bet that those things in the long term matter much more than things that, after some years, cause a lot of excitement only on tourists, like historic buildings, natural landscapes, etc.

P.S.: Just one small doubt about your very interesting and thought-provoking correlations between level of happiness/optimism and Germanic ancestry... doesn't Finland, according to the map you provided, have quite little Germanic admixture at all? So why and how would they be related to that supposed spread of happiness genes to other regions along the routes of Germanic/Scandinavian expansion? (though I'd guess that Corded Ware-related admixture must exist in significant percentage there, I'd be interestest to know how much the Uralic and, possibly only much later, speciifically Finnic migrations and assimilation changed the local autosomal DNA)
 
It is contre-intuitive, but it is normal that a high seasonal suicide rate correlates with higher happiness. Let me explain. If, as I explained above, Nordic people are happier for genetic reasons, it is because people who do not have genes for exceptional cheerfulness and optimism do end up killing themselves more frequently, often as young people, therefore not passing their genes. That is how natural selection works. But one of the prerequisites is a challenging natural environment (very little sunlight between November and February in this case).

That does not apply to all suicide rates worldwide. For example, in East Asia suicide is not more common in autumn and winter. In fact, this study found that the opposite is true for Japan (highest suicide rates from March to July + October). Suicide in Japan is often work related. It happens to office workers who often work very long hours (sometimes several days in a row without sleeping) and just can't take it anymore. Another cause is shame (East Asian cultures are much more shame-driven, as opposed to guilt-driven Western cultures), although this is also typically work related (e.g. failure to reach one's objectives). It's not a coincidence that samurai committed seppuku (ritual disembowelment) out of shame for having lost their honour or lost a battle. That's part of the East Asian mindset. But it has nothing to do with overall happiness in the society. It has more to do with the strong collectivist culture in which one's life is seen as worthless if one is excluded from the group or loses honour in an irretrievable manner. Nevertheless such cultures do put a lot of pressure on individuals on an everyday basis, and that may be why East Asians are more anxious and less joyful (bad score for Dystopia).

That really makes perfect sense! I hadn't thought much about the different causes of higher suicide rates, but, yes, they do manifest different social conditions that may or may not be very related to the overall individual happiness of the society at large.
 
In my opinion, that can only be a very probable explanation if we manage to prove that there is a consistently higher level of happiness induced by slow natural selection in all the societies that are in similar latitudes as the Scandinavian nations. Do people in the northernmost parts of Canada, Greenland, Russia, Ireland, Scotland and so on show the same pattern? If they don't, we should then investigate why natural selection didn't happen in them, or even if it happened at all in significant, game-changing ways. However, if that higher level of happiness is only found in Scandinavia and nowhere else with a similar exposure to sun and similar seasonal patterns, then we have to keep looking for cultural and social reasons, even the most unlikely ones. Particularly, in any country, not only in Scandinavia, I'd look for the small but decisive things that happen in the family home, in the micro level of schools and neighborhood communities, and in the work environment. I'd bet that those things in the long term matter much more than things that, after some years, cause a lot of excitement only on tourists, like historic buildings, natural landscapes, etc.

P.S.: Just one small doubt about your very interesting and thought-provoking correlations between level of happiness/optimism and Germanic ancestry... doesn't Finland, according to the map you provided, have quite little Germanic admixture at all? So why and how would they be related to that supposed spread of happiness genes to other regions along the routes of Germanic/Scandinavian expansion? (though I'd guess that Corded Ware-related admixture must exist in significant percentage there, I'd be interestest to know how much the Uralic and, possibly only much later, speciifically Finnic migrations and assimilation changed the local autosomal DNA)

Good point. Finland's case actually gives you a partial answer to your question, as they are not a Germanic people but are just as happy as the Scandinavians by evolving for thousands of years at the same latitude. However the natural selection between Scandinavians, Saami and Finns most probably evolved conjointly, as these population did intermix with one another, exchanging any gene for optimism and resistance to depression or negative feelings induced by lack of sunlight. All of them inherited DNA from Mesolithic Fennoscandians (SHG), who have inhabited the region since it became ice free 13,000 years ago (well, at least since 11,000 years ago from archaeological evidence). Germanic culture did not appear until about 1000 o 500 BCE, although Indo-European genes arrived with the Corded Ware (from 2800 BCE) and Nordic Bronze Age (from 1700 BCE). The Finns and Saami probably reached Fennoscandia with the development of the Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). So the current ethnic groups are relatively young (3000 to 4500 years) compared to the time the genes of first Mesolithic HG (mostly inherited maternally through mtDNA U2, U4 and U5) spent in Fennoscandia. Once a positive mutation arose in one individual (and that could have been back in the Mesolithic), it would have spread quickly in the population, including to later waves of immigrants/invaders. So the fact that the Finns and Scandinavians speak different languages named after Bronze Age invaders does not mean that they aren't related (through their shared SHG ancestry). Besides, the western and southern coast of Finland were heavily colonised by Scandinavians (mostly Swedes) between the Middle Ages and the 19th century, and you can see on the map above that these regions are really quite Germanic ethnically (and even linguistically in the west as Swedish is still spoken and an official language there). So even if the gene(s) for happiness or optimism or resilience arose in the last 4000 years, there was plenty of opportunity for the Finns and Scandinavians to exchange them.

It would be great to see if North Siberians and the Inuits and Eskimo of Canada and Alaska have also developed some sort of genetic resistance of their own for life in northern latitudes. My guess is that they did, otherwise they wouldn't have survived. But these are not necessarily the same mutations as Fennoscandians. If they were, then chances are that the mutation was exchanged across Siberia between Uralic populations. I can't see how Inuits/Eskimos could have exchanged any genes with Siberians though, as they were cut off from them 13,000 years ago. Unless of course one or several mutation was already found in Paleolithic North Asians, but that's unlikely as it would have spread throughout Eurasia over time.

Unfortunately there is no survey on happiness from tribal Siberians, Eskimos or Inuits. We also don't know for sure how long they have lived in the areas they inhabit now. Haplogroup N1c, the main lineage associated with Uralic people, originated in Neolithic northern China. According to Honkola et al. (2013), Proto-Uralic language originated 5000 years ago, and genetic and archaeological evidence suggest that they spread from the Volga-Ural region in the last 4000 years. So the Nenets, Nganasans, Mansi, Khanty, Komi and Selkups haven't lived at the same northernly latitude as Fennoscandia for longer than 3000 or 4000 years at most, a far cry from the 11,000 years of Mesolithic Fennoscandians. Furthermore, their populations have always been tiny in comparison to Scandinavia. Today there are only about 100,000 Uralic people in northern Siberia, against 26 millions people in Scandinavia and Finland. That is because Europe benefits from the Gulf Stream which warms up the continent and allows farming at much more northerly latitudes than in Canada or Siberia. Scandinavia was always more densely population than northern Siberia, and it was colonised thousands of years earlier, giving a considerable head start to natural selection to live in northerly latitudes.

What's more, the larger a population, the faster it adapts to local conditions, as more babies mean more mutations, and a higher population density makes new favourable mutations spread faster throughout the population. Imagine that a favourable mutation took place in a Nganassan individual. How would it spread to other Siberian people if they live in tiny communities hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from other tribes? Even if they occasionally exchanged brides, the process would be extremely slow.

As for the Eskimos and Inuits in North America, they have also colonised the Arctic region relatively recently. Paleo-Eskimo culture emerged 5000 years ago (same as Proto-Uralic) and started spreading around Alaska from 4000 years ago. The Proto-Inuits (Thule people) appeared 1000 years ago and did not reach Greenland until the 13th century, i.e. about 200 years after the Vikings reached Greenland! They are newcomers to the region and I doubt that they developed a lot of beneficial mutations in such a short timeframe and with such a tiny population (150,000 people).

So there is really no equivalent anywhere else on Earth to Fennoscandia. It is the only place above 60° of latitude that was inhabited for so long (11,000 years, as opposed to maximum 4000 years elsewhere) and that is warm enough to support high population densities.
 
Good point. Finland's case actually gives you a partial answer to your question, as they are not a Germanic people but are just as happy as the Scandinavians by evolving for thousands of years at the same latitude. However the natural selection between Scandinavians, Saami and Finns most probably evolved conjointly, as these population did intermix with one another, exchanging any gene for optimism and resistance to depression or negative feelings induced by lack of sunlight. All of them inherited DNA from Mesolithic Fennoscandians (SHG), who have inhabited the region since it became ice free 13,000 years ago (well, at least since 11,000 years ago from archaeological evidence). Germanic culture did not appear until about 1000 o 500 BCE, although Indo-European genes arrived with the Corded Ware (from 2800 BCE) and Nordic Bronze Age (from 1700 BCE). The Finns and Saami probably reached Fennoscandia with the development of the Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). So the current ethnic groups are relatively young (3000 to 4500 years) compared to the time the genes of first Mesolithic HG (mostly inherited maternally through mtDNA U2, U4 and U5) spent in Fennoscandia. Once a positive mutation arose in one individual (and that could have been back in the Mesolithic), it would have spread quickly in the population, including to later waves of immigrants/invaders. So the fact that the Finns and Scandinavians speak different languages named after Bronze Age invaders does not mean that they aren't related (through their shared SHG ancestry). Besides, the western and southern coast of Finland were heavily colonised by Scandinavians (mostly Swedes) between the Middle Ages and the 19th century, and you can see on the map above that these regions are really quite Germanic ethnically (and even linguistically in the west as Swedish is still spoken and an official language there). So even if the gene(s) for happiness or optimism or resilience arose in the last 4000 years, there was plenty of opportunity for the Finns and Scandinavians to exchange them.

It would be great to see if North Siberians and the Inuits and Eskimo of Canada and Alaska have also developed some sort of genetic resistance of their own for life in northern latitudes. My guess is that they did, otherwise they wouldn't have survived. But these are not necessarily the same mutations as Fennoscandians. If they were, then chances are that the mutation was exchanged across Siberia between Uralic populations. I can't see how Inuits/Eskimos could have exchanged any genes with Siberians though, as they were cut off from them 13,000 years ago. Unless of course one or several mutation was already found in Paleolithic North Asians, but that's unlikely as it would have spread throughout Eurasia over time.

Unfortunately there is no survey on happiness from tribal Siberians, Eskimos or Inuits. We also don't know for sure how long they have lived in the areas they inhabit now. Haplogroup N1c, the main lineage associated with Uralic people, originated in Neolithic northern China. According to Honkola et al. (2013), Proto-Uralic language originated 5000 years ago, and genetic and archaeological evidence suggest that they spread from the Volga-Ural region in the last 4000 years. So the Nenets, Nganasans, Mansi, Khanty, Komi and Selkups haven't lived at the same northernly latitude as Fennoscandia for longer than 3000 or 4000 years at most, a far cry from the 11,000 years of Mesolithic Fennoscandians. Furthermore, their populations have always been tiny in comparison to Scandinavia. Today there are only about 100,000 Uralic people in northern Siberia, against 26 millions people in Scandinavia and Finland. That is because Europe benefits from the Gulf Stream which warms up the continent and allows farming at much more northerly latitudes than in Canada or Siberia. Scandinavia was always more densely population than northern Siberia, and it was colonised thousands of years earlier, giving a considerable head start to natural selection to live in northerly latitudes.

What's more, the larger a population, the faster it adapts to local conditions, as more babies mean more mutations, and a higher population density makes new favourable mutations spread faster throughout the population. Imagine that a favourable mutation took place in a Nganassan individual. How would it spread to other Siberian people if they live in tiny communities hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from other tribes? Even if they occasionally exchanged brides, the process would be extremely slow.

As for the Eskimos and Inuits in North America, they have also colonised the Arctic region relatively recently. Paleo-Eskimo culture emerged 5000 years ago (same as Proto-Uralic) and started spreading around Alaska from 4000 years ago. The Proto-Inuits (Thule people) appeared 1000 years ago and did not reach Greenland until the 13th century, i.e. about 200 years after the Vikings reached Greenland! They are newcomers to the region and I doubt that they developed a lot of beneficial mutations in such a short timeframe and with such a tiny population (150,000 people).

So there is really no equivalent anywhere else on Earth to Fennoscandia. It is the only place above 60° of latitude that was inhabited for so long (11,000 years, as opposed to maximum 4000 years elsewhere) and that is warm enough to support high population densities.

Fascinating comment, but let me just point out that, as for what you said about "I can't see how Inuits/Eskimos could have exchanged any genes with Siberians though, as they were cut off from them 13,000 years ago", that is actually not a problem at all in my opinion, because the Inuits/Modern Esikmos do not descend mostly from the Native Americans that colonized America 13,000-15,000 years ago. They're in fact a much, much latter wave of Siberian migrants that (but probably one that already lived in very northern latitudes in Asia, as we can see from their genetic mutations which seem to favor living in very cold climates). According to the most recent genetic evidences combined with the archaeological evidences, probably only came to the northern portion of America some 2,000-3,000 YBP, and there they absorbed the Paleo-Eskimos as a minority of their genetic makeup. Those Paleo-Eskimos were a totally different people, but were themselves also a relatively recent people in the New World, a mix of the ancient Amerindian wave with a latter, but not latest (that was the Inuit migration wave), migration dating to about 5,000 YBP related to modern Athabaskan languages of America and also very probably to the Yeniseian languages of Siberia. So, at least theoretically, the Inuits could perfectly have exchanged genes with other North Siberian populations (perhaps even with Uralic speakers during the Bronze Age), because until a few milennia ago they were still in the Arctic portion of Asia, not in the Americas. If that really happened, especially with such low population densities and huge constraints to mobility in the northern part of Siberia, is another, more unlikely matter.
 
Fascinating comment, but let me just point out that, as for what you said about "I can't see how Inuits/Eskimos could have exchanged any genes with Siberians though, as they were cut off from them 13,000 years ago", that is actually not a problem at all in my opinion, because the Inuits/Modern Esikmos do not descend mostly from the Native Americans that colonized America 13,000-15,000 years ago. They're in fact a much, much latter wave of Siberian migrants that (but probably one that already lived in very northern latitudes in Asia, as we can see from their genetic mutations which seem to favor living in very cold climates). According to the most recent genetic evidences combined with the archaeological evidences, probably only came to the northern portion of America some 2,000-3,000 YBP, and there they absorbed the Paleo-Eskimos as a minority of their genetic makeup. Those Paleo-Eskimos were a totally different people, but were themselves also a relatively recent people in the New World, a mix of the ancient Amerindian wave with a latter, but not latest (that was the Inuit migration wave), migration dating to about 5,000 YBP related to modern Athabaskan languages of America and also very probably to the Yeniseian languages of Siberia. So, at least theoretically, the Inuits could perfectly have exchanged genes with other North Siberian populations (perhaps even with Uralic speakers during the Bronze Age), because until a few milennia ago they were still in the Arctic portion of Asia, not in the Americas. If that really happened, especially with such low population densities and huge constraints to mobility in the northern part of Siberia, is another, more unlikely matter.

I didn't know that. What is your source? Maybe you are referring to the Na-Dene tribes of NW Canada and Alaska only? Dulik et al. (2012) analysed the Y-DNA of Athapaskan- and Eskimoan-speaking populations and found that, if we exclude recent European introgression, the Athabaskan-speakers (Na-Dene linguistic family) such as the Tłı̨chǫ and Gwich'in were about half C3b (the typical "Mongolian" Y-DNA, now called C2a) and half Native American Q1a-M3. However, the Inuit people, such as the Inuvialuit and the Iñupiat belonged exclusively to haplogroup Q1a-M3. Zegura et al. (2004) also found that Greenland Inuits only possessed Y-DNA Q1a-M3 (once European lineages are deducted).

The Na-Dene speakers are thought to be related to the Yeniseian speakers from central Siberia (just north of Mongolia), who also belong to haplogroup C2a. They would represent a recent migration from Siberia to North America. However if they originated just north of Mongolia, at a latitude comparable to North Germany or South England, that wouldn't be northerly enough to be comparable to Scandinavia and Finland. Their absence of Y-DNA N1c also shows that they probably didn't mix with Uralic peoples, which isn't surprising as Uralic tribes are generally found in western to central-north Siberia, which isn't on the path from Mongolia to Alaska.
 
I didn't know that. What is your source? Maybe you are referring to the Na-Dene tribes of NW Canada and Alaska only? Dulik et al. (2012) analysed the Y-DNA of Athapaskan- and Eskimoan-speaking populations and found that, if we exclude recent European introgression, the Athabaskan-speakers (Na-Dene linguistic family) such as the Tłı̨chǫ and Gwich'in were about half C3b (the typical "Mongolian" Y-DNA, now called C2a) and half Native American Q1a-M3. However, the Inuit people, such as the Inuvialuit and the Iñupiat belonged exclusively to haplogroup Q1a-M3. Zegura et al. (2004) also found that Greenland Inuits only possessed Y-DNA Q1a-M3 (once European lineages are deducted).

The Na-Dene speakers are thought to be related to the Yeniseian speakers from central Siberia (just north of Mongolia), who also belong to haplogroup C2a. They would represent a recent migration from Siberia to North America. However if they originated just north of Mongolia, at a latitude comparable to North Germany or South England, that wouldn't be northerly enough to be comparable to Scandinavia and Finland. Their absence of Y-DNA N1c also shows that they probably didn't mix with Uralic peoples, which isn't surprising as Uralic tribes are generally found in western to central-north Siberia, which isn't on the path from Mongolia to Alaska.

There was a recent study that analyzed that issue of the several wave of migration in the Americas in depth, focusing on the Paleo-Eskimo, supposedly partial ancestors of the modern Athabaskan tribes.

I didn't find the link to the detailed discussions that I read at the time, but the ultimate source of them was this very interesting study (and they used ancient DNA to establish the connections that led to the modern peoples like Neo-Eskimos and Na-Dené):
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/13/203018.full.pdf

In this study, we resolve the debate around the distinctive ancestry in Na-Dene and
determine the genetic origin of Neo-Eskimos and their relationships with Paleo-Eskimos
and Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers. We present the first genomic data for ancient
Aleutians, ancient Northern Athabaskans, Chukotkan Neo- and Paleo-Eskimos, and
present-day Alaskan Iñupiat. We also present new genotyping data for West Siberian
populations (Enets, Kets, Nganasans, and Selkups). Analyzing these data in conjunction
with an extensive set of public sequencing and genotyping data, we demonstrate that the
population history of North America was shaped by two major admixture events between
Paleo-Eskimos and the First Americans, which gave rise to both the Neo-Eskimo and Na-Dene populations
 
Going back to the World Happiness Report 2018, what really stands out the most to me and is perhaps most striking and relevant is how some Latin American countries perform extremely well above their real weight if you consider their main ancestry (Southern European, African and Native American with varying proportions from country to country - and Southern Europe and Africa aren't in general very well positioned in the ranking), their actual levels of social and economic development, and especially their public and private levels of safety (which I'd assumed were very decisive to one's general feelings of happiness in life).

Brazil for example is ranked 75th in the Human Development Index (HDI) and is usually between ~70-80 in almost all relevant social and economic data. But it's still ranked as the 28th happiest country in the world. Mexico performs even better. They aren't exceptions. Most Latin American countries, with few exceptions like unfortunately present-day Venezuela (abnormal temporary conditions, not their usual conditions), perform above what we would expect from them if their social-economic development/happiness factor was similar to that of Southeast Asia, East Asia or Middle East. In the emerging, non-developed world, Latin America is pretty much peerless in terms of overall levels of happiness.

To explain that, the report puts a great emphasis on the particularities of family bonds and formation of social links (friends, workmates, etc.) among Latin Americans, and they seem to believe that those stronger, more intimate/affectionate and closer-knit relations are the "key" to explain the surprisingly high happiness in countries that are not only underdeveloped, but in several cases (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico) very violent and unsafe, in some cases even going through big economic crisis right now (that usually pulls down the level of happiness, and in fact they also did this time, as you can clearly see in the results that Brazil had a big dip in the happiness score after 2014, the start of its present crisis).

Are those patterns of social interaction really that unique (on a worldwide scale) in Latin America? Being Latin American myself, that is just social "life as usual" for me, so I'd be very curious to learn if there is really something very unusual - and, apparently, benefitial - in the way that people in Latin America form relations not only within the family, but also in their work, school, any collective environment.
 
This is why I don't pay attention to these kinds of surveys or the conclusions you can draw from them. You can find data instantly which contradicts a lot of what is asserted here:
Prevalence%20of%20depression.gif


antidepressant-consumption1.png


screen-shot-2015-05-16-at-12-07-48-pm.png



Frankly, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that Mediterranean people feel no sense of shame in admitting they're unhappy, gloomy, depressed, worried, anxious, you name it, and they're also not shy about criticizing their own country, people, you name it, whereas northerners, including Americans of northern extraction just, to be blunt, lie about it in my experience. You know they're really anxious and depressed, you even know why they feel that way, but when you ask it's "oh, fine, great, thank you, couldn't be better." Then they go away to get drunk or wasted out of their minds. I don't mean to sound mean. :) I do the first myself; it's one way I'm not typically Italian. I don't confide my troubles to other people, so I understand it, but drinking or drugging yourself is not the answer.

Clinical depression is different. If you've ever known anyone who has it you'd know. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason, it can descend rapidly, it's very resistant to therapy and even to heavy duty medication, it runs in families so heavily genetic, and yes, it's more prevalent in northern Europeans and northwest Europeans, and tied to alcoholism. The data is there.

As for family and friendship bonds, I wouldn't know how to compare the ones in Italy to the ones in Latin America, having never lived there, but the bonds are very strong in Italy, even today from my relatives and all the people I know, although I see some younger Italians being taught to be ashamed of them by foreign media and visitors.
 
This is why I don't pay attention to these kinds of surveys or the conclusions you can draw from them. You can find data instantly which contradicts a lot of what is asserted here:
Prevalence%20of%20depression.gif


antidepressant-consumption1.png


screen-shot-2015-05-16-at-12-07-48-pm.png



Frankly, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that Mediterranean people feel no sense of shame in admitting they're unhappy, gloomy, depressed, worried, anxious, you name it, and they're also not shy about criticizing their own country, people, you name it, whereas northerners, including Americans of northern extraction just, to be blunt, lie about it in my experience. You know they're really anxious and depressed, you even know why they feel that way, but when you ask it's "oh, fine, great, thank you, couldn't be better." Then they go away to get drunk or wasted out of their minds. I don't mean to sound mean. :) I do the first myself; it's one way I'm not typically Italian. I don't confide my troubles to other people, so I understand it, but drinking or drugging yourself is not the answer.

Clinical depression is different. If you've ever known anyone who has it you'd know. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason, it can descend rapidly, it's very resistant to therapy and even to heavy duty medication, it runs in families so heavily genetic, and yes, it's more prevalent in northern Europeans and northwest Europeans, and tied to alcoholism. The data is there.

As for family and friendship bonds, I wouldn't know how to compare the ones in Italy to the ones in Latin America, having never lived there, but the bonds are very strong in Italy, even today from my relatives and all the people I know, although I see some younger Italians being taught to be ashamed of them by foreign media and visitors.

From my experience I find this to be true as well.
 
Frankly, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that Mediterranean people feel no sense of shame in admitting they're unhappy, gloomy, depressed, worried, anxious, you name it, and they're also not shy about criticizing their own country, people, you name it, whereas northerners, including Americans of northern extraction just, to be blunt, lie about it in my experience. You know they're really anxious and depressed, you even know why they feel that way, but when you ask it's "oh, fine, great, thank you, couldn't be better." Then they go away to get drunk or wasted out of their minds. I don't mean to sound mean. :) I do the first myself; it's one way I'm not typically Italian. I don't confide my troubles to other people, so I understand it, but drinking or drugging yourself is not the answer.

Clinical depression is different. If you've ever known anyone who has it you'd know. There's not necessarily a rhyme or reason, it can descend rapidly, it's very resistant to therapy and even to heavy duty medication, it runs in families so heavily genetic, and yes, it's more prevalent in northern Europeans and northwest Europeans, and tied to alcoholism. The data is there.

As for family and friendship bonds, I wouldn't know how to compare the ones in Italy to the ones in Latin America, having never lived there, but the bonds are very strong in Italy, even today from my relatives and all the people I know, although I see some younger Italians being taught to be ashamed of them by foreign media and visitors.

While I certainly agree with some of your points, especially your observation about Southern Europeans' blunt honesty and Americans' often fake smiles (that could also apply perfectly to Brazil, so maybe it's a New World thing), I don't think it is adequate to measure the mean levels of happiness in any population by looking at the % of the population who have been diagnosed with depression. First of all, there is the decisive issue that in some countries people are much more open than in others to seeking medical help (and are thus diagnosed) and taking pills for some mental condition. I'd say in some countries people are even way too open to the idea of seeking a medical explanation and a medicine for everything they feel, while in others it's considered a last desperate measure or even a shame.

But besides that, there are several causes related to the condition of depression, and some of them don't even have to do with the actual degree of satisfaction or the actual agreeableness (or lack thereof) of people's lives. It actually even seems to me that people with tendencies to depression often feel even more unsupported and isolated when they're in a social environment that doesn't let them be totally honest and feel "normal" despite that.

There is nothing worse than feeling miserable among a bunch of people who are all so glad and cheerful, you feel even more strongly like a loser. Besides, there are demonstrably some genetic causes to depression, especially in several sad cases of people who even claim things like "I know my life is great, I don't have anything to complain about, but I just don't like to live, I don't feel alive" (and the guilt that often comes with that must make their depression even more unbearable).

Some people, for random reasons, may have a higher proportion of people genetically predisposed to depressive conditions and/or humor instability, even when and if the overall society they belong to actually shows high levels of life satisfaction.
 
As for family and friendship bonds, I wouldn't know how to compare the ones in Italy to the ones in Latin America, having never lived there, but the bonds are very strong in Italy, even today from my relatives and all the people I know, although I see some younger Italians being taught to be ashamed of them by foreign media and visitors.

That's also what I thought, and I found it really weird that the report attributes the much higher than average level of happiness among Latin Americans to their family relations and friendships, but had nothing to say about why that would supposedly not apply to Southern European countries, who even according to their own (the report's) graphs in the chapter 6 certainly rival the Latin Americans in several of the questions they used to measure the strength of social bonds in societies. The report should've made it clearer why they propose an explanation for Latin Americans' happiness that doesn't seem to have affected South Europe the same way, despite similar patterns of social relations.

In my opinion Latin Americans learned that kind of closely knit extended families at least in a relevant proportion from the Southern European settlers.
 

This thread has been viewed 43872 times.

Back
Top