[laserlight]

> You'll always have to go 'happiness as defined ...'

How is one meter defined?

You claim that happiness cannot be measured, yet in the next sentence you talk about measuring it by self reporting. One unreliable way of measuring doesn't equal to “cannot be measured”.

[JackPoach]

My argument is as follows - happiness can not AND should not be measured.

Now, that doesn't mean that you can't define happiness as you want it and pursue it on an individual level. For instance - walking in the park makes you 'happy' (as self reported feeling). Yoga makes you happy. Meditation makes you happy. Great - go for it.

BUT it's pointless to even attempt to measure 'group happiness' and try to increase it. People make pointless statements and point fingers in on the wrong directions. The article is about technology and I am sick and tired listening to how technology makes people unhappy or happy. Governments are often blamed for policies that make people unhappy. Society is probably blamed the most for people not being happy. It's too materialistic, the goals are wrong, bla-bla-bla.

BTW Here's the exact meter definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

[laserlight]

Thanks for the pointer. It seems that there is no such thing as a meter except the “meter as defined”. And when people discovered that measuring length is not as reliable as they wanted, they didn't say it “can not AND should not be measured”. Instead, they found better ways of measuring it.

If happiness is not as well defined or well-behaved as we would like it to be, perhaps we can make it better rather than dismissing the problem.