The Price Of Glee In China

A sharp, honest essay on the Easterlin Paradox. Against Sumner's 'lifting a billion Chinese out of poverty was the best thing that ever happened,' Scott notes Chinese happiness DECLINED during the growth boom — national GDP doesn't seem to raise national happiness (cultural variation dominates; richer South Korea is sadder than China). The hard implication: if development doesn't raise happiness, should effective altruists fund disease-cures over development? Three uncomfortable exits (abandon consequentialism; non-subjective consequentialism — paperclips?; preference utilitarianism), plus the 'progress doesn't raise happiness YET' rescue. Ends admitting happiness research 'makes no sense to me and tempts me to crazy beliefs.' ⚠ REPLICATION CAVEAT: the argument leans on the now-contested Easterlin Paradox / subjective-well-being research (and invokes the Brickman-style adaptation factoid, which he flags as an urban legend) — Med confidence, docked for resting on shaky happiness data even as he hedges heavily.

Quality 73 · Strong. A sharp, intellectually-honest application of the Easterlin Paradox to EA/development ethics, with the three-uncomfortable-options framing. Med conf and docked because the argument's force depends on the contested happiness-research literature (the Stevenson-Wolfers critique cuts the other way), which Scott flags but still leans on.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate. A fresh, sharp application of the Easterlin Paradox to EA/development ethics, though the empirics are others' and contested.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Minor (2) — an applied-ethics/development essay with within-sphere reach; no concrete real-world change.