My main goal in life is to be happy. Unfortunately, I have no clue how to achieve this goal. So, I turned to the Internet for answers. On that vast and wonderful resource I found a survey conducted by the UK’s New Scientist magazine, which concluded that Nigeria was the happiest country of the 65 surveyed, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and El Salvador.

Now, this may be ringing alarm bells in your mind. Nigeria is poor: it’s citizens have a lower average income, educational attainment and life expectancy than the United States. How could they be happier than us?

The researchers who conducted this survey also concluded that happiness has not risen appreciably in the West since World War II, despite massive increases in income.

It appears that income is unrelated to happiness. Perhaps, then, the average level of happiness has always been constant. Maybe the cavemen were exactly as happy as we are today. They didn’t live as long, and their lives were full of physical exertion and constant struggle, but because they didn’t know any better, they thought their lives were just hunky-dory. Those cavemen lived, learned and loved in exactly the same way we do. Perhaps they found their struggles to be just as fulfilling as we find our own.

And if that is true, then what is the point of helping those less fortunate than ourselves? Are the metrics by which we measure human welfare actually worth anything? What is the point of increasing life expectancy or raising income if it doesn’t make people any happier?

The purpose of humanitarian effort is mostly aimed at alleviating suffering, thus increasing the net amount of happiness in the world. Granted, there are tens of millions of people who struggle to find food, and international aid helps decrease their suffering. Once basic needs such as food and shelter are met, however, the survey implies that material gain may not necessarily increase happiness.

Perhaps we would be better served by finding the root causes of happiness, and then working within that framework. What if happiness is largely relative?

What if our happiness is largely derived by comparing our situation to those of other people around us? If we consider our situation to be above average, we are satisfied, and if we view it as below average, then we are not. If happiness is largely relative, then efforts to increase global communication will only decrease happiness in poorer areas.

What if ignorance really is bliss? What if poorer people within the United States did not know the relative wealth of their fellow countrymen? They would view their state, which is objectively worse in terms of material wealth, as being the natural order of things.

What if each generation is just as dissatisfied as the one before it? If that is true, then nothing we strive for will benefit our descendants. They will take for granted what they are born with, and seek even more.

I have been given the good life, one with every conceivable advantage. Yet is my chance of achieving happiness no greater than that of anyone else?

To wallow in your Western opulence and incredible unhappiness, email Rahul at rahkan@stanford.edu.