... that is, there is no way to form such a ranking without deciding what things you are trying to measure and judging what available measures are the best indicators for what you are trying to measure. Both of those will draw heavily upon the way that you understand the world, which is a less loaded way of saying "ideology".
However, if you are happy, live reasonably close to the standard life expectancy, and live in a political economy which lives more lightly on the land, that means that your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren are more likely to be able to experience the same ... which seems to me to be a defensible position regarding a Happy Life. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Which is a clear counter-factual, and that counter-factual is what the index of Haiti highlights.
In terms of sustainability, it would seem to make sense to bring the actual sustainability of the national footprint into the ranking ... something along the lines of ...
[Happiness_Index]*biocapacity/footprint
... though the actual structure of a reasonable index along those lines is not something I've thought through. So if the US is living 50% over our means, Germany is living 50% over its means, and Japan is living 50% over its means, each would have its happiness index scaled down by .67.
Ranking a generally miserable place to live that is consuming beyond its biocapacity highly because their footprint outstrips their biocapacity at such a low absolute footprint they are living beyond such a low per capita biocapacity seems to me to be a flaw in the index. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
