TED演讲：全球幸福指数（英文原稿）

For too long, we have peddled a nightmarish vision of what's going to happen. We have focused on the worst-case scenario. We have focused on the problems. And we have not thought enough about the solutions. We've used fear, if you like, to grab people's attention. And any psychologist will tell you that fear in the organism is linked to flight mechanism. It's part of the fight and flight mechanism, that when an animal is frightened -- think of a deer. A deer freezes very, very still, poised to run away. And I think that's what we're doing when we're asking people to engage with our agenda around environmental degradation and climate change. People are freezing and running away because we're using fear. And I think the environmental movement has to grow up and start to think about what progress is.

What would it be like to be improving the human lot? And one of the problems that we face, I think, is that the only people that have cornered the market in terms of progress is a financial definition of what progress is, an economic definition of what progress is -- that somehow, if we get the right numbers to go up, we're going to be better off, whether that's on the stock market, whether that's with GDP and economic growth, that somehow life is going to get better. This is somehow appealing to human greed instead of fear -- that more is better. Come on. In the Western world, we have enough. Maybe some parts of the world don't, but we have enough. And we've know for a long time that this is not a good measure of the welfare of nations. In fact, the architect of our national accounting system, Simon Kuznets, in the 1930s, said that, "A nation's welfare can scarcely be inferred from their national income." But we've created a national accounting system which is firmly based on production and producing stuff. And indeed, this is probably historical, and it had its time. In the second World War, we needed to produce a lot of stuff. And indeed, we were so successful at producing certain types of stuff that we destroyed a lot of Europe, and we had to rebuild it afterwards. And so our national accounting system became fixated on what we can produce.

But as early as 1968, this visionary man, Robert Kennedy, at the start of his ill-fated presidential campaign, gave the most eloquent deconstruction of gross national product that ever has been. And he finished his talk with the phrase, that, "The gross national product measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile." How crazy is that? That our measure of progress, our dominant measure of progress in society, is measuring everything except that which makes life worthwhile? I believe, if Kennedy was alive today, he would be asking statisticians such as myself to go out and find out what makes life worthwhile. He'd be asking us to redesign our national accounting system to be based upon such important things as social justice, sustainability and people's well-being.

And actually, social scientists have already gone out and asked these questions around the world. This is from a global survey. It's asking people, what do they want. And unsurprisingly, people all around the world say that what they want is happiness, for themselves, for their families, their children, their communities. Okay, they think money is slightly important. It's there, but it's not nearly as important as happiness, and it's not nearly as important as love. We all need to love and be loved in life. It's not nearly as important as health. We want to be healthy and live a full life. These seem to be natural human aspirations. Why are statisticians not measuring these? Why are we not thinking of the progress of nations in these terms, instead of just how much stuff we have? And really, this is what I've done with my adult life -- is think about how do we measure happiness,

how do we measure well-being, how can we do that within environmental limits.

And we created, at the organization that I work for, the New Economics Foundation, something we call the Happy Planet Index, because we think people should be happy and the planet should be happy. Why don't we create a measure of progress that shows that? And what we do, is we say that the ultimate outcome of a nation is how successful is it at creating happy and healthy lives for its citizens. That should be the goal of every nation on the planet. But we have to remember that there's a fundamental input to that, and that is how many of the planet's resources we use. We all have one planet. We all have to share it. It is the ultimate scarce resource, the one planet that we share. And economics is very interested in scarcity. When it has a scarce resource that it wants to turn into a desirable outcome, it thinks in terms of efficiency. It thinks in terms of how much bang do we get for our buck. And this is a measure of how much well-being we get for our planetary resource use. It is an efficiency measure. And probably the easiest way to show you that, is to show you this graph.

Running horizontally along the graph, is "ecological footprint," which is a measure of how much resources we use and how much pressure we put on the planet. More is bad. Running vertically upwards, is a measure called "happy life years." It's about the well-being of nations. It's like a happiness adjusted life-expectancy. It's like quality and quantity of life in nations. And the yellow dot there you see, is the global average. Now, there's a huge array of nations around that global average. To the top right of the graph, are countries which are doing reasonably well and producing well-being, but they're using a lot of planet to get there. They are the U.S.A., other Western countries going across in those triangles and a few Gulf states in there actually. Conversely, at the bottom left of the graph, are countries that are not producing much well-being -- typically, sub-Saharan Africa. In Hobbesian terms, life is short and brutish there. The average life expectancy in many of these countries is only 40 years. Malaria, HIV/AIDS are killing a lot of people in these regions of the world.

But now for the good news! There are some countries up there, yellow triangles, that are doing better than global average, that are heading up towards the top left of the graph. This is an aspirational graph. We want to be top left, where good lives don't cost the earth. They're Latin American. The country on its own up at the top is a place I haven't been to. Maybe some of you have. Costa Rica. Costa Rica -- average life expectancy is 78-and-a-half years. That is longer than in the USA. They are, according to the latest Gallup world poll, the happiest nation on the planet -- than anybody; more than Switzerland and Denmark. They are the happiest place. They are doing that on a quarter of the resources that are used typically in [the] Western world -- a quarter of the resources.

What's going on there? What's happening in Costa Rica? We can look at some of the data. 99 percent of their electricity comes from renewable resources. Their government is one of the first to commit to be carbon neutral by 2021. They abolished the army in 1949 -- 1949. And they invested in social programs -- health and education. They have one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America and in the world. And they have that Latin vibe, don't they. They have the social connectedness. (Laughter) The challenge is, that possibly -- and the thing we might have to think about -- is that the future might not be North American, might not be Western European. It might be Latin American. And the challenge, really, is to pull the global average up here. That's what we need to do. And if we're going to do that, we need to pull countries from the bottom, and we need to pull countries from the right of the graph. And then we're starting to create a happy planet.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is looking at time trends. We don't have good data going back for every country in the world, but for some of the richest countries, the OECD group, we do. And this is the trend in well-being over that time, a small increase, but this is the trend in ecological footprint. And so in strict happy-planet methodology, we've become less efficient at turning our ultimate scarce resource into the outcome we want to. And the point really is, is that I think, probably everybody in this room would like society to get to 2050 without an apocalyptic something happening. It's actually not very long away. It's half a human lifetime away. A child entering school today will be my age in 2050. This is not the very distant future. This is what the U.K. government target on carbon and greenhouse emissions looks like. And I put it to you, that is not business as usual. That is changing our business. That is changing the way we create our organizations, we do our government policy and we live our lives. And the point is, we need to carry on increasing well-being. No one can go to the polls and say that quality of life is going to reduce. None of us, I think, want human progress to stop. I think we want it to carry on. I think we want the lot of humanity to keep on increasing. And I think this is where climate change skeptics and deniers come in. I think this is what they want. They want quality of life to keep increasing. They want to hold on to what they've got. And if we're going to engage them, I think that's what we've got to do. And that means we have to really increase efficiency even more.

Now that's all very easy to draw graphs and things like that, but the point is we need to turn those curves. And this is where I think we can take a leaf out of systems theory, systems engineers, where they create feedback loops, put the right information at the right point of time. Human beings are very motivated by the "now." You put a smart meter in your home, and you see how much electricity you're using right now, how much it's costing you, your kids go around and turn the lights off pretty quickly. What would that look like for society? Why is it, on the radio news every evening, I hear the FTSE 100, the Dow Jones, the dollar pound ratio -- I don't even know which way the dollar pound ratio should go to be good news. And why do I hear that? Why don't I hear how much energy Britain used yesterday, or American used yesterday? Did we meet our three percent annual target on reducing carbon emissions? That's how you create a collective goal. You put it out there into the media and start thinking about it. And we need positive feedback loops for increasing well-being At a government level, they might create national accounts of well-being. At a business level, you might look at the well-being of your employees, which we know is really linked to creativity, which is linked to innovation, and we're going to need a lot of innovation to deal with those environmental issues. At a personal level, we need these nudges too. Maybe we don't quite need the data, but we need reminders. In the U.K., we have a strong public health message on five fruit and vegetables a day and how much exercise we should do -- never my best thing. What are these for happiness? What are the five things that you should do every day to be happier?

We did a project for the Government Office of Science a couple of years ago, a big program called the Foresight program -- lots and lots of people -- involved lots of experts -- everything evidence based -- a huge tome. But a piece of work we did was on: what five positive actions can you do to improve well-being in your life? And the point of these is they are, not quite, the secrets of happiness, but they are things that I think happiness will flow out the side from.

And the first of these is to connect, is that your social relationships are the most important cornerstones of your life. Do you invest the time with your loved ones that you could do, and

energy? Keep building them. The second one is be active. The fastest way out of a bad mood: step outside, go for a walk, turn the radio on and dance. Being active is great for our positive mood. The third one is take notice. How aware are you of things going on around the world, the seasons changing, people around you? Do you notice what's bubbling up for you and trying to emerge? Based on a lot of evidence for mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, [very] strong for our well being. The fourth is keep learning and keep is important -- learning throughout the whole life course. Older people who keep learning and are curious, they have much better health outcomes than those who start to close down. But it doesn't have to be formal learning; it's not knowledge based. It's more curiosity. It can be learning to cook a new dish, picking up an instrument you forgot as a child. Keep learning. And the final one is that most anti-economic of activities, but give. Our generosity, our altruism, our compassion, are all hardwired to the reward mechanism in our brain. We feel good if we give. You can do an experiment where you give two groups of people a hundred dollars in the morning. You tell one of them to spend it on themselves and one on other people. You measure their happiness at the end of the day, those that have gone and spent on other people are much happier that those that spent it on themselves.

And these five ways, which we put onto these handy postcards, I would say, don't have to cost the earth. They don't have any carbon content. They don't need a lot of material goods to be satisfied. And so I think it's really quite feasible that happiness does not cost the earth. Now, Martin Luther King, on the eve of his death, gave an incredible speech. He said, "I know there are challenges ahead, there may be trouble ahead, but I fear no one. I don't care. I have been to the mountain top, and I have seen the Promised Land." Now, he was a preacher, but I believe the environmental movement and, in fact, the business community, government, needs to go to the top of the mountain top, and it needs to look out, and it needs to see the Promised Land, or the land of promise, and it needs to have a vision of a world that we all want. And not only that, we need to create a Great Transition to get there, and we need to pave that great transition with good things. Human beings want to be happy. Pave them with the five ways. And we need to have signposts gathering people together and pointing them -- something like the Happy Planet Index. And then I believe that we can all create a world we all want, where happiness does not cost the earth. (Applause)

TED演讲：全球幸福指数（中文翻译）

马丁·路德·金 在他推动民权运动的时候 不是说： "我有一个恶梦"。 他说的是："我有一个梦想。" 而我也有一个梦想. 我的梦想是我们不再觉得 未来会是一场恶梦。 这对我们来说是一个挑战, 因为, 如果你回想 一下最近所有的关于人类未来的大片, 几乎所有对人类未来的景象 都是灾难性的。 我觉得 "末日危途(The Road)"是让人看了最难过的一部电影。 从电影拍摄的角度来说，它的制作非常优美, 但是一切都是那么的荒凉, 所有的东西都是死的。 只有一对父子 努力的生存下去,在路上走着。 而我也觉得环保运动， 这个我自己也参与的运动， 一直在推波助澜 地制造这这么一种未来的景象。

在太长的一段时间里, 我们兜售着一个噩梦般的景象 来描述将要发生的一切。 我们一直把注意力集中在最坏的情况上. 我们一直把注意力集中在问题上. 而我们没有认真地思考 怎么解决这些问题。 可以说，我们在使用恐惧 来吸引人们的注意力. 而任何心理学家都会告诉你 恐惧感在生命体里 是和逃跑机制挂钩的. 这是当一只动物感受到恐惧的时候 决定是

战斗还是逃跑的生物系统的一部分-- 想象一只鹿. 一只鹿会停下来一动不动, 做好逃跑的准备。 而我想这正是我们所做的, 当我们要求人们加入到我们的 关于环境破坏和气候改变的计划的时候。 人们停下来，然后准备逃跑， 因为我们在用恐惧作为工具。 我认为环保运动应该成熟起来， 开始思考 我们所谓的进步是什么意思。

怎样才算改善全人类的生活? 我认为我们面对的问题之一, 是那些操纵了市场的人: 在定义进步的时候 是用金钱来定义进步， 是用经济来定义进步 -- 他们说，通过某些办法, 只要我们让某些恰当的项目的数值增加， 那么我们就会好起来。 无论是股市也好, 国民生产总值也好, 或者经济增长也好, 只要是增长，生活就会好起来。 这从某种角度是符合人类的贪欲 而不是恐惧 -- 觉得越多越好。 其实，在西方世界,我们拥有的够多了. 也许世界上的一些地方在物质上还缺乏,但我们拥有的已经够多了. 而我们也早就知道了这并不是一个好的衡量 国家的福利的标准。 事实上，我们的会计制度的设计师, 西蒙·库兹涅茨在19xx年代 就说过, "一个国家的福利 是难以从这个国家的收入来推断的." 但是我们创造的这个会计系统 却是牢牢地建立在生产力 和生产东西之上的。 确实，也许在历史上这个生产力标准也有它适用的时候。 在二战的年代，我们必须生产很多东西。 确实，我们以前在生产某些东西上是多么的成功， 以至于我们摧毁了欧洲的很大一部分,然后又不得不进行重建. 所以我们的国家核算制度 就只计算我们所能生产的东西了。

但早在19xx年, 这位卓有远见的人, 罗伯特.肯尼迪 在开始他没有成功的总统竞选的时候 对国民生产总值这个标准 进行了史无前例的 最有力的抨击。 他用以下这段话结束了他的演讲, 他说："国民生产总值 衡量了所有的东西，唯独没有衡量的 是那些使生命真正有价值的东西。" 是不是很荒唐? 这个我们衡量增长的标准， 我们衡量社会进步的最重要的标准, 衡量一切, 唯独不衡量让生命有意义的东西? 我相信, 如果肯尼迪今天还在世, 他一定会要求我们这些统计学家 到社会中去，去找到 到底是什么让生命有价值。 他会要求我们重新设计 我们的国家核算系统, 让它建立在 那些重要的东西上, 例如社会的公正和正义, 可持续性, 还有人民的幸福感。

而实际上，社会科学家们已经开始 在世界各地问这些问题。 这是一个全球性的调查. 它问人们,他们想要什么。 不足为奇地,世界各地的人们 说他们所要的 是幸福和快乐, 他们自己的, 他们家庭的, 他们孩子的, 他们社区的幸福和快乐. 不错, 他们觉得金钱有一点重要，. 这是事实, 但是它跟幸福相比是微不足道的， 它跟爱相比也是微不足道的。 我们在人生中都需要爱和被爱。 金钱跟健康相比也是微不足道的。 我们都想要健康地过圆满的一生. 这些都是人类天生的渴望。 为什么统计学家们没有去衡量这些东西呢? 为什么我们不从这些角度来考虑国家的进步 而不是只计算我们有多少物质呢? 确实, 这是我成年后一直在做的-- 就是思考我们怎么样来衡量快乐和幸福, 怎么样来衡量满足和惬意, 我们怎样在不过度破坏环境的前提下做到这点。

在我上班的地方， 新经济基金会，我们提出了 一个我们称之为全球幸福指数的指标, 因为我们认为人们应该快乐而整个地球也应该快乐。 为什么我们不建立一个指标来衡量这方面的进步呢? 而我们所做的, 就是我们指出衡量一个国家的最终指标 是它能多成功地 为它的公民带来快乐而健康的生活。 这个目标应该是 世界上每个国家的目标。 但我们必须要记住 它有一个最基本的元素， 而那就是我们使用了地球上多少的资源。 我们只有一个地球,我们都需要分享它. 这个我们共享的星球 是我们的终极稀有资源。 经济学对稀有的东西是非常感兴趣的。 当它有一个稀有资源 而它要把其变成 一个合意的结果, 它会从效率上来考虑问题. 它会考虑我们要为我们的所得付出多少. 而这个标准衡量我们可以通过消耗多少地球资源 来换取多少幸福。 这是一个衡量效率的标准. 也许最容易说清楚的办法 是看这个图。

这个图的横坐标 是"生态脚印," 这是一个衡量我们使用多少自然资源 和我们给地球多少

压力的标准。 这个指标越高越不好. 往上走的纵坐标, 是一个叫"快乐生命年数"的标准. 这是一个关于国家幸福度的标准. 它是一个根据幸福度做过调整的寿命期望值， 象征着各个国家的生命质量和数量。 那个黄点，是全球的平均值。 现在, 那里有很多国家 在全球平均值附近. 在这个图 的右上角, 是一些提供幸福生活上做得比较好的国家， 但代价是他们用了地球很多的资源。 包括美国, 其他一些在那些三角形上的西方国家, 还有几个波斯湾的国家。 相反地, 在这个图的左下方, 是那些没有提供多少幸福生活的国家-- 典型的便是非洲沙哈拉以南的国家. 用托马斯·霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes)的说法, 那里的生命是短暂而又粗野的. 在很多这些国家的人均寿命 只有40岁。 疟疾, 艾滋病 夺走了那些地区的 很多生命。

现在给大家一点好消息! 在这上面的一些国家,那些黄色的三角形, 做得比全球平均值好, 在向这个图的左上角移动。 这是一个让人鼓舞的图像. 我们要达到图的左上方, 在那里好的生活并不会消耗地球太多资源. 那些是拉丁美洲国家. 那个在图的上方独占鳌头的国家 是一个我没去过的地方. 也许你们当中的一些人去过那里. 哥斯达黎加. 哥斯达黎加-- 人均寿命是78.5岁. 这比美国要长. 根据最新盖洛普（Gallup）全球民意调查，他们 是地球上最快乐的国家-- 他们比谁都快乐,比瑞士和丹麦都更快乐. 他们是最快乐的地方. 但是他们只使用了 典型的西方世界所用资源的 四分之一， 只用四分之一的资源。

那怎么回事呢? 哥斯达黎加有什么不同? 我们可以看看一些数据. 他们的电力99%来自可再生能源. 他们的政府是最早承诺 在20xx年之前做到碳中和的政府之一. 他们在19xx年 取消了军队， 1949 年。 他们在社会项目上投资， 健康和教育。 他们有着在拉丁美洲甚至全世界 最高的识字率。 而他们也有着那拉丁的韵律, 对吧， 他们有着社会人际网。 (笑声) 这其中的挑战在于,也许还有我们可能要考虑到的-- 就是我们未来的学习的榜样 也许不是北美洲, 也许不是西欧. 也许是拉丁美洲. 而真正的挑战在于, 把全球平均值提升到这里. 这就是我们必须做到的. 如果我们要做到这点, 我们需要把在底部的国家拉上来, 而我们也需要把在图的右边的国家拉过来左边. 那么我们就是在开始创建一个快乐的地球. 这是看待这件事的一个方法.

另外一个看待这个幸福地球理论的方法是看历史发展趋势。 我们没有好的数据来追溯世界上的每个国家, 但是我们有世界经贸合作组织中一些富有的国家的数据。 而这正是那个时代追求幸福指数的历史趋势, 是一个小的进步, 但这是生态脚印的催势, 所以从严格的快乐地球的方法论的角度, 我们在把稀有资源转化为 我们想要的产出这方面来说， 变得效率更低了。 这其中的要点是,我想, 也许在这个会场里的每一个人 都希望我们的社会在到达20xx年的时候 不会出现世界末日 的某种景象。 这其实离我们并不是很遥远. 这只是一个人寿命的一半。 一个现在开始上学的孩子 在20xx年的时候会跟我现在同龄. 这并不是遥远的将来. 这是根据英国政府 在碳排放和温室气体排放的目标来制作的图像。 我跟你们说, 这不是舞照跳马照跑. 这意味着我们必须改变做事方式， 意味着我们必须改变我们创建组织的方式, 行政的方式, 还有生活方式。 其要点在于, 我们必须继续调高生活的幸福度. 没有一个去投票的人 会说生活的质量将要下降。 我相信没有人 会希望人类停止进步。 我想我们都希望这些进步能继续下去. 我觉得我们都希望人类能够变得更加美好。 我觉得这正是为什么会有对气候变化质疑和否定的人. 我想这是他们所要的, 他们要生活水平继续提高. 他们要保留住他们所有的东西. 如果我们要把他们笼络进来， 那些就是我们需要满足他们的。 这就意味着我们真的需要更进一步的提高我们的效率。

制作一些图表或者类似的东西很容易, 但是要点是我们要把那些曲线转过来. 这是我觉得我们应该向 系统理论和系统工程师学习的地方, 他们制造出反馈回路, 在恰当的时间反馈正确的信息。 人很容易对"马上可以看到的东西"作出反应。 比如你放一个智能电表在家里, 当你看到电表显示你正在用多少电， 告诉你花掉多少钱的时候, 你的小孩会很快的去把灯

关掉。 这样的东西应用在社会上会怎么样呢? 为什么每天晚上的新闻 我都听到伦敦金融时报100指数，道琼斯工业指数, 美元对英镑的汇率 -- 我都不知道美元对英镑的汇率到底谁高算是好消息。 为什么我们要听到这些呢? 为什么我没有听到英国昨天用了多少能源， 或者美国昨天用了多少? 我们有没有达到减少废气排放 百分之三的的年度指标? 这是设立一个共同目标的方法。 你把它交给媒体然后开始思考. 而我们需要积极的反馈回路 来提高幸福度。 在政府层面,他们可以建立国家级的幸福统计指数. 在商业层面, 你可以看你的员工是否幸福快乐, 我们知道这是和创造力直接相关的, 也是很能鼓励创新的。 而我们将需要很多创新来面对种种环境问题. 从个人的角度, 我们也需要这些提示. 也许我们不是那么需要这些数据,但我们需要提醒. 在英国,我们有一个很强的关于大众健康的提醒信息， 每天吃五份水果和蔬菜， 还有我们要做多少锻炼 -- 我自己不是很擅长这个. 对于快乐，我们能从中得到什么启示？ 有没有哪五件事我们每天都应该做 来变得更幸福快乐呢?

几年前我们为政府的科技办做了个项目, 一个很大的叫"远虑 (Foresight)"的项目 -- 很多很多的人-- 包括很多的专家 -- 一切结论都是有证据的 -- 一部巨著. 我们所做的那一部分是: 你可以做哪五件积极的事来 让你的生命更幸福? 这其中的要点是 它们是，不能完全说是，关于幸福的秘密, 但我觉得快乐会从那些积极的行动中自然而然地产生。

第一个行动是：与人保持联系， 就是你的社会关系， 是你生命里最重要的基石。 你在你所关爱的人身上花了 你能花的时间与精力了吗? 你要不断的建设和维护这些关系。 第二点是：保持活跃。 摆脱坏心情的最快的方法就是: 走出去,散一个步, 打开收音机来跳个舞. 保持活跃对维持美好心情是很有帮助的. 第三点：关心周围。 你关心这世界上发生的事吗, 你注意到四季的转换,还有你身边的人吗? 你注意到你身边有什么东西在酝酿中，而快要发生吗? 根据很多研究意念的证据, 感知行为心理学, 这对我们的身心健康是很有影响的。 第四点是：不断学习。 而坚持是很重要的 -- 活到老，学到老。 坚持学习的老人他们有好奇心, 他们的健康状况比那些闭塞的老人要好得多. 但这不需要是正式的学习; 它不是以学习知识为目的。 更重要的是保持好奇心。 这可以是学煮一份新菜式, 重温你小时候玩过的已经忘记的乐器。 坚持学习。 最后一点， 是经济学上最不能理解的事, 那就是：给予和付出。 我们的慷慨，舍己为人, 同情， 都是我们天生就有， 直接和我们脑袋里面的奖励机制相连的。 当我们给予的时候我们会感觉很好。 你可以做一个实验, 在早上你给 两组人每人一百美元。 你让其中一组人把钱花在他们自己身上 然后让另外一组人把钱花在别人身上. 这天结束的时候你评估他们的快乐度, 那组把钱花在别人身上的人要远比 把钱花在自己身上的人高兴。

我们把这五个方法 印在这些方便携带的卡片上。 我要说，这并不消耗地球的资源， 因为它们没有任何碳含量。 要做到这些积极的行动并不需要很多物质。 所以我想这是很可行的, 幸福快乐并不需要牺牲地球。 马丁·路德·金 在他去世的前夜, 做了一个让人赞叹的演讲. 他说,"我知道前面的路充满了挑战, 也许荆棘满途, 但我谁都不害怕,我不在乎. 我已经到过了顶峰, 我已经看到了乐土." 他是个传教士, 但我相信环保运动 实际上还有商业界, 政府, 也需要走到顶峰, 他们都需要高瞻远瞩, 他们都需要看到那片乐土, 或者说传说中的桃源, 他们都需要有一个 我们都想要的未来世界的远景. 不止如此, 我们需要创造一个巨变 来到达那里, 我们也需要在这条巨变的道路上铺满美好的东西.

人类都想要幸福快乐。 用这五个行动来走向幸福吧。 我们还需要路标 来召集人们一起，告诉他们 全球幸福指数这样的东西。 这样的话，我相信 我们就可以创立一个我们都想要的世界， 一个不需要以消耗地球来达到幸福快乐的世界。

(鼓掌)