Information
Facts About Tigers
Facts About Tigers
Male Bengal tigers measure 275 - 310 cm (sometimes up to 360 cm) with their tail. The tail of a large male is usually 85 - 95 cm long. Their weight ranges from 180 to 272 kilograms (400 - 600 pounds), with an average weight of 200–236 kg (440 - 520 lb). The heaviest Bengal tiger ever reported was 389.5 kg (857 lb)and measured 334 cm (11 ft) between curves. This tiger was shot in Uttar Pradesh, Northern India, in 1967 by David Hasinger and is the heaviest tiger with reliable source. However, according to Mazak, the occurrence of those exceptional large tigers is debatable and not confirmed via reliable references. Females are considerably smaller and have an average weight of 141 kg (310 lb), but they can reach up to 180 kg (400 lb). Males have a maximum skull length of 330 to 380 mm, females 275 to 311 mm. Jim Corbett once shot a tiger called the Bachelor of Powalgarh, with a total length of 3.23 m "over curves" (3.10 m between curves), thought to be "as big as a Shetland pony" by the famous hunter Fred Anderson. Pictures of this cat documented that it was indeed a very large tiger.
Jim Corbett can refer to three different people: Gentleman Jim James J. Corbett (1866 - 1933) was the Heavyweight Champion of the World in boxing.
The fur of this subspecies is generally orange-brown with black stripes, although there is a mutation that sometimes produces white tigers, as well as a rare variation (less than 100 known to exist, all in captivity) called the Golden Tabby as a white coat with golden patches and stripes that are much paler than normal.
Diet
Bengal tigers hunt small-sized and large-sized animals, such as wild boar, sambar, barasingha, chital, nilgai, gaur, water buffalo and they also feed on fish and other animals too. They sometimes prey on smaller animals like hares, monkeys, langurs or peacocks and carrion is also readily taken. Bengal tigers have also been known to prey on young Asian Elephants and Rhinoceros|rhino calves in rare documented cases. For instance, the World Wildlife Fund is fostering an orphaned rhino whose mother was killed by a tiger. Famous Indian hunter and naturalist Jim Corbett described an incident where two tigers fought and killed a large bull elephant. Bengal tigers have also been known to take other predators such as Indian Leopard|leopards, Indian Wolf|wolves, jackals, foxes, crocodiles and dholes as prey, although these predators are not typically a part of the tiger's diet.
Bengal tigers prefer to hunt mostly by day, but are awake in the nighttime. During the day, the cover of the tall "elephant grass" gives the feline excellent camouflage. Bengals kill prey by overpowering their victim and severing the spinal cord (preferred method for smaller prey), or applying a suffocation bite of the throat for large prey. A Bengal tiger will usually drag its kill to a safe place to eat away from possible predators. Despite their size, Bengal tigers can climb trees effectively, but they are not as adept as the smaller leopard and jaguar, which hides its kills from other predators in the trees. Bengal tigers are also strong and frequent swimmers, often ambushing drinking or swimming prey or chasing prey that has retreated into water. The Bengal tiger can consume up to about 30 kg (66 lb) of meat at a time and then go without eating for days. These tigers normally hunt deer or anything above 100 pounds, but when driven to hunger, it will eat anything, such as frogs, fowl, crocodiles, domestic livestock and sometimes humans. Bengal Tigers are apex predators and have no natural predators outside of man.
Population
Estimations in 2005 indicate an approximate worldwide population of 3,000 Bengal tigers: The bulk of the population is found in Bangladesh and India. There are about 200 tigers in Nepal and a small, unknown number in northwest Myanmar.
The Bengal tiger is now strictly protected and is the national animal of Bangladesh. Following the introduction of a tiger conservation program in India, known as Project Tiger, the population of wild tigers has increased significantly. The tiger population of Bangladesh is officially estimated to have reached about 500 (unverified), up from 200 in the 1970s. In the Sunderbans, a 2004 survey found the presence of about 280 tigers on the India side & 500 tigers in the Bangladesh side. But since the early 1990s, the tiger population has begun to decline again, due to habitat destruction and large-scale poaching for tiger skins and bones. The Bangladeshi government is trying hard to show the world that the tiger is thriving in Bangladesh, often using controversial techniques like taking molds of paw prints to track tiger populations. It was recently discovered that tigers have been wiped out from one of Project Tiger's leading sanctuaries, Sariska.
The current population of wild Bengal tigers in the Indian subcontinent is now estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,500[8], which is less than half of the previous estimate of 3,000-4,500 tigers. This estimate is based on a state-by-state census conducted in India in 2001.
Habitat loss and poaching are important threats to species survival. Poachers kill tigers not only for their pelts, but also for body parts used to make various traditional East Asian medicines. Other factors contributing to their loss are urbanization and revenge killing. Farmers blame tigers for killing cattle and will shoot them. Poachers also kill tigers for their bones and teeth to make medicines that are alleged to provide the tiger's strength. The hunting for Chinese medicine and fur is the biggest cause of decline of the tigers. In India, retired Indian Army personnel are being recruited to save the Bengal tiger from poaching gangs.
Genetic pollution in wild Bengal tigers
Tara, a hand-reared supposedly Bengal tigress acquired from Twycross Zoo in England in July 1976, was trained by Billy Arjan Singh and reintroduced to the wild in Dudhwa National Park, India with the permission of India’s then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in an attempt to prove the experts wrong that zoo-bred hand-reared tigers can ever be released in the wild with success. In the 1990s, some tigers from Dudhwa were observed which had the typical appearance of Siberian tigers: white complexion, pale fur, large head and wide stripes. With recent advances in science it was subsequently found that Siberian tigers genes have polluted the otherwise pure Bengal tiger gene pool of Dudhwa National Park. It was proved later that Twycross Zoo had been irresponsible and maintained no breeding records and had given India a hybrid Siberian-Bengal Tigress instead. Dudhwa tigers constitute about 1% of India's total wild population, but the possibility exists of this genetic pollution spreading to other tiger groups; at its worst, this could jeopardize the Bengal tiger as a distinct subspecies.
Bengal tigers hunt small-sized and large-sized animals, such as wild boar, sambar, barasingha, chital, nilgai, gaur, water buffalo and they also feed on fish and other animals too. They sometimes prey on smaller animals like hares, monkeys, langurs or peacocks and carrion is also readily taken. Bengal tigers have also been known to prey on young Asian Elephants and Rhinoceros|rhino calves in rare documented cases. For instance, the World Wildlife Fund is fostering an orphaned rhino whose mother was killed by a tiger. Famous Indian hunter and naturalist Jim Corbett described an incident where two tigers fought and killed a large bull elephant. Bengal tigers have also been known to take other predators such as Indian Leopard|leopards, Indian Wolf|wolves, jackals, foxes, crocodiles and dholes as prey, although these predators are not typically a part of the tiger's diet.
Bengal tigers prefer to hunt mostly by day, but are awake in the nighttime. During the day, the cover of the tall "elephant grass" gives the feline excellent camouflage. Bengals kill prey by overpowering their victim and severing the spinal cord (preferred method for smaller prey), or applying a suffocation bite of the throat for large prey. A Bengal tiger will usually drag its kill to a safe place to eat away from possible predators. Despite their size, Bengal tigers can climb trees effectively, but they are not as adept as the smaller leopard and jaguar, which hides its kills from other predators in the trees. Bengal tigers are also strong and frequent swimmers, often ambushing drinking or swimming prey or chasing prey that has retreated into water. The Bengal tiger can consume up to about 30 kg (66 lb) of meat at a time and then go without eating for days. These tigers normally hunt deer or anything above 100 pounds, but when driven to hunger, it will eat anything, such as frogs, fowl, crocodiles, domestic livestock and sometimes humans. Bengal Tigers are apex predators and have no natural predators outside of man.
Population
Estimations in 2005 indicate an approximate worldwide population of 3,000 Bengal tigers: The bulk of the population is found in Bangladesh and India. There are about 200 tigers in Nepal and a small, unknown number in northwest Myanmar.
The Bengal tiger is now strictly protected and is the national animal of Bangladesh. Following the introduction of a tiger conservation program in India, known as Project Tiger, the population of wild tigers has increased significantly. The tiger population of Bangladesh is officially estimated to have reached about 500 (unverified), up from 200 in the 1970s. In the Sunderbans, a 2004 survey found the presence of about 280 tigers on the India side & 500 tigers in the Bangladesh side. But since the early 1990s, the tiger population has begun to decline again, due to habitat destruction and large-scale poaching for tiger skins and bones. The Bangladeshi government is trying hard to show the world that the tiger is thriving in Bangladesh, often using controversial techniques like taking molds of paw prints to track tiger populations. It was recently discovered that tigers have been wiped out from one of Project Tiger's leading sanctuaries, Sariska.
The current population of wild Bengal tigers in the Indian subcontinent is now estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,500[8], which is less than half of the previous estimate of 3,000-4,500 tigers. This estimate is based on a state-by-state census conducted in India in 2001.
Habitat loss and poaching are important threats to species survival. Poachers kill tigers not only for their pelts, but also for body parts used to make various traditional East Asian medicines. Other factors contributing to their loss are urbanization and revenge killing. Farmers blame tigers for killing cattle and will shoot them. Poachers also kill tigers for their bones and teeth to make medicines that are alleged to provide the tiger's strength. The hunting for Chinese medicine and fur is the biggest cause of decline of the tigers. In India, retired Indian Army personnel are being recruited to save the Bengal tiger from poaching gangs.
Genetic pollution in wild Bengal tigers
Tara, a hand-reared supposedly Bengal tigress acquired from Twycross Zoo in England in July 1976, was trained by Billy Arjan Singh and reintroduced to the wild in Dudhwa National Park, India with the permission of India’s then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in an attempt to prove the experts wrong that zoo-bred hand-reared tigers can ever be released in the wild with success. In the 1990s, some tigers from Dudhwa were observed which had the typical appearance of Siberian tigers: white complexion, pale fur, large head and wide stripes. With recent advances in science it was subsequently found that Siberian tigers genes have polluted the otherwise pure Bengal tiger gene pool of Dudhwa National Park. It was proved later that Twycross Zoo had been irresponsible and maintained no breeding records and had given India a hybrid Siberian-Bengal Tigress instead. Dudhwa tigers constitute about 1% of India's total wild population, but the possibility exists of this genetic pollution spreading to other tiger groups; at its worst, this could jeopardize the Bengal tiger as a distinct subspecies.
Re-wilding project in South Africa
There is a Bengal tiger rewilding project started by John Varty in 2000. This project involves bringing captive-bred zoo Bengal tiger cubs, and for them to be trained by their human trainers so that the tigers can regain their predatory instincts. Once they prove that they can sustain themselves in the wild, they would be released into the wilderness of Africa to fend for themselves. Their trainers, John Varty and Dave Salmoni (Big Cat trainer and zoologist), have to teach them how to stalk, hunt, and most importantly to associate hunting with food. All of these instincts would be taught to them by their biological mothers in the wild.
Two Bengal tigers have already succeeded in re-wilding and two more tigers are currently undergoing their re-wilding training. The tiger canyons project is not an attempt to introduce tigers into Africa, but an experiment to create a free-ranging, self-sustaining tiger population outside Asia. From this population, third and fourth generations of tigers can be returned to parks in Asia that meet a set of criteria which give the tigers a chance of surviving in Asia. This project is featured by The Discovery Channel as a documentary, "Living With Tigers". It was voted one of the best Discovery Channel documentaries in 2003.
A strong criticism about this project is with the chosen cubs. Experts state that the four tigers (Ron, Julie, Seatao and Shadow) involved in the rewilding project are not purebred Bengal tigers and should not be used for breeding. The tigers are bred by Ron Witfield, world renowned as having the best breeding line of Bengal tigers, and the tigers' genealogy can be traced back through many generations. However, the four tigers are not recorded in the Bengal tiger Studbook and should not be deemed as purebred Bengal tigers. Many tigers in the world's zoos are genetically impure and there is no reason to suppose these four are not among them. The 1997 International Tiger Studbook lists the current global captive population of Bengal tigers at 210 tigers. All of the studbook-registered captive population is maintained in Indian zoos, except for one female Bengal tiger in North America. It is important to note that Ron and Julie (2 of the tigers) were bred in the USA and hand-raised at Bowmanville Zoo in Canada, while Seatow and Shadow are two tigers bred in South Africa.
The tigers in the Tiger Canyons Project have recently been confirmed to be crossbred Siberian/Bengal tigers. Tigers that are not genetically pure are not allowed to be released into the wild and will not be able to participate in the tiger Species Survival Plan which aims to breed genetically pure tiger specimens and individuals. In short, these tigers do not have any genetic value.
However it is important to note that wild living self sustaining experimental tigers like these (either maintained in fenced enclosures or on game reserves on another continent like Africa where there are no other purebred tigers which will get threatened by interbreeding with them) which can now hunt their own prey successfully can be made to raise litters of certified purebred ones through a process of litter swapping as soon as the cubs are born, or also through the much more expensive process of embryo transfer; once purebred cubs are raised then their genepool can be maintained by artificial insemination and other ex-situ conservation methods.
There is a Bengal tiger rewilding project started by John Varty in 2000. This project involves bringing captive-bred zoo Bengal tiger cubs, and for them to be trained by their human trainers so that the tigers can regain their predatory instincts. Once they prove that they can sustain themselves in the wild, they would be released into the wilderness of Africa to fend for themselves. Their trainers, John Varty and Dave Salmoni (Big Cat trainer and zoologist), have to teach them how to stalk, hunt, and most importantly to associate hunting with food. All of these instincts would be taught to them by their biological mothers in the wild.
Two Bengal tigers have already succeeded in re-wilding and two more tigers are currently undergoing their re-wilding training. The tiger canyons project is not an attempt to introduce tigers into Africa, but an experiment to create a free-ranging, self-sustaining tiger population outside Asia. From this population, third and fourth generations of tigers can be returned to parks in Asia that meet a set of criteria which give the tigers a chance of surviving in Asia. This project is featured by The Discovery Channel as a documentary, "Living With Tigers". It was voted one of the best Discovery Channel documentaries in 2003.
A strong criticism about this project is with the chosen cubs. Experts state that the four tigers (Ron, Julie, Seatao and Shadow) involved in the rewilding project are not purebred Bengal tigers and should not be used for breeding. The tigers are bred by Ron Witfield, world renowned as having the best breeding line of Bengal tigers, and the tigers' genealogy can be traced back through many generations. However, the four tigers are not recorded in the Bengal tiger Studbook and should not be deemed as purebred Bengal tigers. Many tigers in the world's zoos are genetically impure and there is no reason to suppose these four are not among them. The 1997 International Tiger Studbook lists the current global captive population of Bengal tigers at 210 tigers. All of the studbook-registered captive population is maintained in Indian zoos, except for one female Bengal tiger in North America. It is important to note that Ron and Julie (2 of the tigers) were bred in the USA and hand-raised at Bowmanville Zoo in Canada, while Seatow and Shadow are two tigers bred in South Africa.
The tigers in the Tiger Canyons Project have recently been confirmed to be crossbred Siberian/Bengal tigers. Tigers that are not genetically pure are not allowed to be released into the wild and will not be able to participate in the tiger Species Survival Plan which aims to breed genetically pure tiger specimens and individuals. In short, these tigers do not have any genetic value.
However it is important to note that wild living self sustaining experimental tigers like these (either maintained in fenced enclosures or on game reserves on another continent like Africa where there are no other purebred tigers which will get threatened by interbreeding with them) which can now hunt their own prey successfully can be made to raise litters of certified purebred ones through a process of litter swapping as soon as the cubs are born, or also through the much more expensive process of embryo transfer; once purebred cubs are raised then their genepool can be maintained by artificial insemination and other ex-situ conservation methods.
Using technology to save tigers in the wild
Though millions of dollars have been spent in tiger conservation in India, the government of India has not really used latest technological innovations in the efforts. In fact, it was the use of technology itself that prompted the latest outcry against the declining numbers. For the first time in India, tiger census was done in a more scientific manner by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), using DNA profiling and camera traps rather than pugmarks. The new method reduced drastically the numbers of tigers in India, as quoted by the forest department.
The WII estimates showed that tiger numbers had fallen in Madhya Pradesh by 61%, Maharashtra by 57%, and Rajasthan by 40%. Compare this with the government's first tiger census; conducted under the Project Tiger initiative, begun in 1973, it counted 1,827 tigers in the country that year. Since then the tiger population saw a steady rise to reach 3,700 tigers in 2002. Use of technology has effectively curtailed the numbers by half.
Tiger scientists in India like Raghu Chundavat and Ulhas Karanth have faced lot of backlash from the forest department. Both these scientists have been for years calling for use of technology in the conservation efforts. For instance, Raghu, in the past, had been involved with radio telemetry, i.e., collaring the tigers. Ulhas has been instrumental in using camera traps. Even the project to map all the forest reserves in India has not been completed yet, though the Ministry of Environment and Forests had sanctioned Rs. 13 million for the same in March 2004.
A recent article written by Shashwat DC and published in the Dataquest Magazine, talks about the issue in complete detail. In the story noted Wildlife expert, George Schaller has been quoted as saying:
India has to decide whether it wants to keep the tiger or not. It has to decide if it is worthwhile to keep its National Symbol, its icon, representing wildlife. It has to decide if it wants to keep its natural heritage for future generations, a heritage more important than the cultural one, whether we speak of its temples, the Taj Mahal, or others, because once destroyed it cannot be replaced. If the answer is yes, then plans can be made and implemented.
refernce: NationMaster.comThough millions of dollars have been spent in tiger conservation in India, the government of India has not really used latest technological innovations in the efforts. In fact, it was the use of technology itself that prompted the latest outcry against the declining numbers. For the first time in India, tiger census was done in a more scientific manner by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), using DNA profiling and camera traps rather than pugmarks. The new method reduced drastically the numbers of tigers in India, as quoted by the forest department.
The WII estimates showed that tiger numbers had fallen in Madhya Pradesh by 61%, Maharashtra by 57%, and Rajasthan by 40%. Compare this with the government's first tiger census; conducted under the Project Tiger initiative, begun in 1973, it counted 1,827 tigers in the country that year. Since then the tiger population saw a steady rise to reach 3,700 tigers in 2002. Use of technology has effectively curtailed the numbers by half.
Tiger scientists in India like Raghu Chundavat and Ulhas Karanth have faced lot of backlash from the forest department. Both these scientists have been for years calling for use of technology in the conservation efforts. For instance, Raghu, in the past, had been involved with radio telemetry, i.e., collaring the tigers. Ulhas has been instrumental in using camera traps. Even the project to map all the forest reserves in India has not been completed yet, though the Ministry of Environment and Forests had sanctioned Rs. 13 million for the same in March 2004.
A recent article written by Shashwat DC and published in the Dataquest Magazine, talks about the issue in complete detail. In the story noted Wildlife expert, George Schaller has been quoted as saying:
India has to decide whether it wants to keep the tiger or not. It has to decide if it is worthwhile to keep its National Symbol, its icon, representing wildlife. It has to decide if it wants to keep its natural heritage for future generations, a heritage more important than the cultural one, whether we speak of its temples, the Taj Mahal, or others, because once destroyed it cannot be replaced. If the answer is yes, then plans can be made and implemented.
Politics Of Happiness
This is a very interesting book--see reviews below--with studies that blast conventional wisdom out of the water as to what REALLY makes us happy, with Bhutan's concept of Gross National Happiness being more important than Gross National Product ringing true.
As India plows ahead with 'development at any cost,' the question is will this really make us happy? I certainly think not -- when the forests are gone and water is unfit to drink, when food is poisoned and people die in their 20s and 30s from heart attacks and stroke from the heavy stress they are under at work, when life is so speeded up we have no chance to breathe much less spend time with friends and family or to enjoy a sunset or the songs of birds (if there are any left!!), we have to ask ourselves, "Is this really worth it?? Is this kind of insane life really making me happy?"
Some quotes from the pdf above that contains the intro of the book:
"Among these findings, four are especially thought-provoking, since they depart in intriguing ways from conventional wisdom. The first conclusion...is that average levels of happiness in the United States have risen very little if at all over the past 50 years despite substantial growth in per capita incomes".
"The second discovery is that people are often surprisingly bad judges of what will make them happy...They attach too much importance to the immediate effects of a happy or unhappy experience without realizing how quickly they will adapt and grow used to what has occurred... When asked what would make the greatest positive difference in their lives, Americans are likely to reply: "more money." As previously noted, however, decades of increasing prosperity do not seem to have made people happier".
"Instead, Americans seem to be stuck on a hedonic treadmill. As incomes rise, people soon grow used to their higher standard of living and feel they need even more money to lead a good life".
"The third finding is that the growing inequality of incomes in the United States over the past 35 years has not made Americans more dissatisfied.16 Those with below-average incomes, who would presumably be most adversely affected, turn out to be no less content with their lot than they were several decades earlier when incomes were more evenly distributed. The only identifiable group of people who seem perceptibly upset by increasing inequality are well-to-do Americans."
Source:Pamela Gale Malhotra - Trustee
SAI (Save Animals Initiative) Sanctuary Trust,
Theralu Village & Post, South Kodagu, 571249
Karnataka, India
www.saisanctuary.com
This is a very interesting book--see reviews below--with studies that blast conventional wisdom out of the water as to what REALLY makes us happy, with Bhutan's concept of Gross National Happiness being more important than Gross National Product ringing true.
As India plows ahead with 'development at any cost,' the question is will this really make us happy? I certainly think not -- when the forests are gone and water is unfit to drink, when food is poisoned and people die in their 20s and 30s from heart attacks and stroke from the heavy stress they are under at work, when life is so speeded up we have no chance to breathe much less spend time with friends and family or to enjoy a sunset or the songs of birds (if there are any left!!), we have to ask ourselves, "Is this really worth it?? Is this kind of insane life really making me happy?"
Some quotes from the pdf above that contains the intro of the book:
"Among these findings, four are especially thought-provoking, since they depart in intriguing ways from conventional wisdom. The first conclusion...is that average levels of happiness in the United States have risen very little if at all over the past 50 years despite substantial growth in per capita incomes".
"The second discovery is that people are often surprisingly bad judges of what will make them happy...They attach too much importance to the immediate effects of a happy or unhappy experience without realizing how quickly they will adapt and grow used to what has occurred... When asked what would make the greatest positive difference in their lives, Americans are likely to reply: "more money." As previously noted, however, decades of increasing prosperity do not seem to have made people happier".
"Instead, Americans seem to be stuck on a hedonic treadmill. As incomes rise, people soon grow used to their higher standard of living and feel they need even more money to lead a good life".
"The third finding is that the growing inequality of incomes in the United States over the past 35 years has not made Americans more dissatisfied.16 Those with below-average incomes, who would presumably be most adversely affected, turn out to be no less content with their lot than they were several decades earlier when incomes were more evenly distributed. The only identifiable group of people who seem perceptibly upset by increasing inequality are well-to-do Americans."
Source:Pamela Gale Malhotra - Trustee
SAI (Save Animals Initiative) Sanctuary Trust,
Theralu Village & Post, South Kodagu, 571249
Karnataka, India
www.saisanctuary.com
The Politics of Happiness:
What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being
Derek Bok
Download PDF
What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being
Derek Bok
Download PDF
Reviews:
Compelling.
(David Brooks New York Times)
Delving into the burgeoning field of happiness research, former president of Harvard University Bok (The State of the Nation) sifts through scientific studies on how societal well-being indications can and should be used to shape social and political policy. . . . Bok's arguments on how good government, access to education, and adequate child care make for a pleasanter society are incontrovertible, and he initiates an important, jargon-free discussion of American public policy, especially when its aims contradict or diminish the public weal.
(Publisher's Weekly)
Bok addresses how happiness research could inform US policy. The first three chapters unpack the claims of happiness psychologists, evaluate reliability and discuss policy application. The remainder address happiness in relation to economic growth, inequality, financial hardship (retirement, healthcare and job loss), suffering (chronic pain, sleep disorder and depression), marriages and families, education and the quality of government. The debate on happiness, Bok concludes, 'will be an accomplishment of enduring importance to humankind'.
(Paul Stenner Times Higher Education)
Careful and cogent. . . . Bok believes . . . that the American government, which is in no danger of tranquilizing its citizens, can and should design policies to enhance their happiness.
(Glenn C. Altschuler Boston Globe)
Bok reviews a wide range of surveys that consistently associate levels of happiness or satisfaction with several demographic and social variables. . . . Bok concludes that the scientific evidence on well-being is now robust enough for politicians to start taking action.
(Felicia Huppert Nature)
With his clear analysis and outside-the-box ideas, Bok encourages thoughtful consideration of what we should want for ourselves and expect from our government.
(Sarah Halzack Washington Post)
[Bok asks] whether governments should really try to maker their citizens happier. Answer: yes, not through promoting economic growth, but through environmental policies, healthcare, and strengthening marriage and the family.
(Glenda Cooper Prospect Magazine )
Provides insights into the mysteries of happiness.
(Phillip Longman Washington Monthly)
Bok, former president of Harvard, outlines the work of 'happiness scholars' and suggests that their findings would be an 'eminently defensible way' of informing public policy, at least as valuable as opinion polls or economic indexes. Among the most significant findings he cites is that an increase in wealth does not correlate with an increase in happiness and that rising inequality has not caused a decrease. From these and other points, Bok argues for many general and specific policy measures that, he believes, would add to the sum of happiness in the United States. . . . Readers will find him in turn provocative and quixotic.
(Bob Nardini Library Journal)
[A] sweeping study of behavioural research and public policy. . . . This is a book that leaders of developing nations obsessed with economic growth will find puzzling and troubling, but not as much as market economists will.
(Stephen Matchett The Australian)
Okay, I hear your protests, your gut telling you that Bok is a naive professor with his head in the clouds. Skeptical myself, I found his book full of surprises. Example: The growing inequality of incomes in the United States has not made Americans more dissatisfied than in previous times. Only one group is upset by this growing disparity--wealthy Americans! See what I mean? Counterintuitive conclusions, like this one, abound.
(Mandy Twaddell Providence Journal)
Relatively light and accessible. . . . Although Bok is partisan, his is a good introduction to the subject. He accurately outlines the findings of the research while questioning its shortcomings.
(Daniel Ben-Ami Spiked Review of Books)
Bok explores a number of new studies related to the concept of happiness and then painstakingly asks whether and how government can do much to increase human happiness. . . . The Politics of Happiness raises a number of challenges to our assumptions.
(Debbie Bruno Roll Call)
Bok provides a lucid analysis of scientific research on human happiness, and shows how it can and should be used to shape social policy. The breadth of his knowledge is matched only by the depth of his insight. There is not a word in this book to be missed.
(Daniel Gilbert, author of "Stumbling on Happiness")
Compelling.
(David Brooks New York Times)
Delving into the burgeoning field of happiness research, former president of Harvard University Bok (The State of the Nation) sifts through scientific studies on how societal well-being indications can and should be used to shape social and political policy. . . . Bok's arguments on how good government, access to education, and adequate child care make for a pleasanter society are incontrovertible, and he initiates an important, jargon-free discussion of American public policy, especially when its aims contradict or diminish the public weal.
(Publisher's Weekly)
Bok addresses how happiness research could inform US policy. The first three chapters unpack the claims of happiness psychologists, evaluate reliability and discuss policy application. The remainder address happiness in relation to economic growth, inequality, financial hardship (retirement, healthcare and job loss), suffering (chronic pain, sleep disorder and depression), marriages and families, education and the quality of government. The debate on happiness, Bok concludes, 'will be an accomplishment of enduring importance to humankind'.
(Paul Stenner Times Higher Education)
Careful and cogent. . . . Bok believes . . . that the American government, which is in no danger of tranquilizing its citizens, can and should design policies to enhance their happiness.
(Glenn C. Altschuler Boston Globe)
Bok reviews a wide range of surveys that consistently associate levels of happiness or satisfaction with several demographic and social variables. . . . Bok concludes that the scientific evidence on well-being is now robust enough for politicians to start taking action.
(Felicia Huppert Nature)
With his clear analysis and outside-the-box ideas, Bok encourages thoughtful consideration of what we should want for ourselves and expect from our government.
(Sarah Halzack Washington Post)
[Bok asks] whether governments should really try to maker their citizens happier. Answer: yes, not through promoting economic growth, but through environmental policies, healthcare, and strengthening marriage and the family.
(Glenda Cooper Prospect Magazine )
Provides insights into the mysteries of happiness.
(Phillip Longman Washington Monthly)
Bok, former president of Harvard, outlines the work of 'happiness scholars' and suggests that their findings would be an 'eminently defensible way' of informing public policy, at least as valuable as opinion polls or economic indexes. Among the most significant findings he cites is that an increase in wealth does not correlate with an increase in happiness and that rising inequality has not caused a decrease. From these and other points, Bok argues for many general and specific policy measures that, he believes, would add to the sum of happiness in the United States. . . . Readers will find him in turn provocative and quixotic.
(Bob Nardini Library Journal)
[A] sweeping study of behavioural research and public policy. . . . This is a book that leaders of developing nations obsessed with economic growth will find puzzling and troubling, but not as much as market economists will.
(Stephen Matchett The Australian)
Okay, I hear your protests, your gut telling you that Bok is a naive professor with his head in the clouds. Skeptical myself, I found his book full of surprises. Example: The growing inequality of incomes in the United States has not made Americans more dissatisfied than in previous times. Only one group is upset by this growing disparity--wealthy Americans! See what I mean? Counterintuitive conclusions, like this one, abound.
(Mandy Twaddell Providence Journal)
Relatively light and accessible. . . . Although Bok is partisan, his is a good introduction to the subject. He accurately outlines the findings of the research while questioning its shortcomings.
(Daniel Ben-Ami Spiked Review of Books)
Bok explores a number of new studies related to the concept of happiness and then painstakingly asks whether and how government can do much to increase human happiness. . . . The Politics of Happiness raises a number of challenges to our assumptions.
(Debbie Bruno Roll Call)
Bok provides a lucid analysis of scientific research on human happiness, and shows how it can and should be used to shape social policy. The breadth of his knowledge is matched only by the depth of his insight. There is not a word in this book to be missed.
(Daniel Gilbert, author of "Stumbling on Happiness")
