 In just listening to these very interesting presentations, I thought we have at least three groups of issues. One group of issues are really more philosophical and how you're all trying to develop indices or ways of explaining what people want, what people need, how we should live together. Then we have another set of questions focusing on the policy aspects. The questions a number of you have asked, what is it that we should do in our cities so that we can improve our well-being or happiness? And we talked, thirdly, about the two great countries, great in terms of size at least, China and India. And what are the policies that we need in China to go forward? Of course, we have reflections from other parts of the world that may be able to inform us. So we only have about half an hour left. And I thought if we could concentrate on these two issues, then maybe we have a chance of arriving at at least some broader conclusions again. I wonder if that's acceptable to everyone. OK, shall we just spend a little time on the philosophical? Having heard everybody, well, Professor Ho, you've already got your hand up. Having heard everybody, some general comments about each other's perspectives. Because you said that philosophical versus the policy. But I'd like to say that the philosophical part has also to do with policy. In particular, I pointed out that happiness appears to have a negative relationship with education. And it comes out every time when you do it. It seems to be so robust. And my suggestion is that maybe in our education system, the way we conduct our education policy and our education curriculum hasn't paid sufficient attention to what we call life education. And I think that's a policy. And it also has to do with the mental qualities of people. So what we are teaching people. Yeah. Well, I'm sure you can already see that. What we're teaching and how we're teaching. I think that is important. Yeah, I don't find something special that with education, people is less happy. If we understand happiness as Richard was suggesting, with pleasure. Richard was talking about, I understood that your uneasiness about measurement happiness is that happiness is, if it's only measured as pleasure, it's something that it's not really very interesting. The change from infancy or to adolescence to adulthood is not a very happy in that sense. It's not a very pleasant thing. But it's something that at the end we go through. And then growth and development for us is a difficult process, not necessary and pleasurable. Knowing or not knowing, which is about education and unhappiness, when you know things, you tend to be more serious about life, not less serious about life and about things. To know is not just the party is over. The party is a party. And the party, it's over at some time. And then you realize that things are difficult, that the law of gravity is always there. And you realize you know better life things. Then what is happiness? Professor Senet, maybe happiness is not that important. I wanted to respond to your first comment about this, give you a practical instance of why we take issues of social competence seriously. In American cities, the problems of getting poor, mostly African-American but to some extent Latinos into the workforce often have to do with what you would take to be very small details of behavior in which there's a kind of misreading of class and cultural symbols. For instance, in American ghettos, to make eye contact with somebody else is an aggressive activity. If you see a stranger on the street, you make eye contact with him, it's a challenge. When young people who have grown up in ghettos go for a job interview and somebody else wants to make eye contact with them, the instant thing is that they're being aggressed against. And so a lot of the work with very poor adolescents, particularly young men, is how to get them to be able to be competent to read the signals of something which is a different kind of culture. And you can spin this out in many, many other kinds of ways. This just happens to be a rather powerful American example of it's one of the reasons that it's so hard for young African-Americans and young Latinos to get a hold into the job market because they're in a culture which has ghettoized them in terms of their understanding of how different people work. If I may just finish about this. Let's say it's not an issue of feeling. It's not a subjective question. It's a question of social understanding. And my view about this is that empowering that kind of social understanding has a profoundly important, in all cultures, has a profoundly important impact in terms of policy. But we're not paying enough attention to it. And if I can just say one more thing. And we particularly don't pay enough attention to it by trying to build up people's self-confidence in terms of their distinctive personal identities. So this is a real issue in empowerment about the question of not giving people the wrong signals about what it is that makes them present in the larger world. And that's why I'm interested in this phenomenon. May I ask the question in terms of exploring what we can do in terms of policy in China and India and other countries. I think each one, I'd like to hear from each one of you. You've all come, you come from different countries, different cultures have had different experience. And I think many of you have also lived in other people's countries. What do you think? I mean, and we've had a presentation of different types of things that we're trying to measure. You've called it different things and yes, satisfaction, happiness, wellbeing, livability and so on and so forth. In where you're living now, what kind of measurements or indicators do you think your government would find most attractive to use? And how will it help them to devise policies that would be useful? May I ask Professor Hussain this question? You've studied India and China deeply. China, much more deeply than India, I would say that the best thing can do in China is government to finally get rid of the distinction between rural inhabitants and urban inhabitants, which has created an art class of 220 million people in Chinese cities who actually live and work in place where they are not recognized as permanent residents. So they, in fact, in like no man's land. Professor Zuo, what do you think the Chinese government might find most attractive to use? Okay, I think one thing is how to provide services to the patent workers and their families in cities. Yes, in cities that are in migrants. I think there are some difference between the central and the local governments. The central government tried to push the local government to provide all the necessary services to those migrants, but the fiscal burden on the local governments. So many local governments are reluctant to do this. I think maybe we should consider the social insurance programs that the compulsory contribution rate to be lowered for the first pillar for something. So make the local governments easier to provide social insurance for those migrants. And also there should be some fiscal restructure of the fiscal system in China because at this moment the central account for over half of the revenues, but they spend about around 20%. So there'll be a lot of transfer from the central to localities. I think the other thing is the land in China, the land institution problem in China, I was not able to mention this. One problem in China's newly organized area is the low density development because the land is very cheap for the local government to take from farmers. So that lead to overuse of land and the low density development of cities. So in this aspect, I think that the first thing the government can do is to pay the farmers that the fair market price for land are quite. So that will promote the more efficient use of land in cities and the more densely development of cities. We have some recommendations specifically for India and China and I want to fill it from Australia. You've, your research shows a particular way of assessing well-being. Is this kind of work useful to the New Zealand government? How do they use it? Or how could they use it? Yes, I think that's a real challenge because our treasury have now introduced a quality of life measure in order to complement the GDP per capita. So they along with the Australian treasury and the British treasury are definitely broadening these instruments. So I think it's a real challenge to us just to indicate how you translate our studies of quality of life into policy. I think the studies of satisfaction and happiness are much broader than the issues of pleasure. They have to do with people's assessment of the whole gamut of their lives and a judgment on how it's going. And often it's satisfaction actually represents the gap between aspirations and reality, which is one of the reasons why education is often negatively related to happiness because education raises people's aspirations but other things in the economy don't necessarily provide the jobs and the opportunity to allow this education opportunity to be realized. My own feeling about having looked at this, been in this area for a little while is that we need to return to the family. We need to return to parenting skills. We need to return to those important things that give young people resilience. And those are important because they will help them cope with situations. Even heavily agglomerated cities, resilient people can deal with those and flourish within them. So I think our focus on cities needs to be complemented with our focus on the family. The other thing is that we know that family relationships are so important in generating people's senses of well-being. So my own feeling is that we need to somehow merge our interests in the city with perhaps a broader notion of public health that includes early childhood education, parenting, and those sorts of things. Professor Ho, I just thought I'd ask you, now that you've done this happiness index in Hong Kong, what kind of reaction have you had from the authorities? Is this something that could help them with policymaking? Well, as a matter of fact, I've been trying to encourage the census and statistics department to collect some information because the kind of surveys that we can do, we can conduct, typically it's about 800 to 1,000 respondents. We don't cover so many. We had this online survey which covers about 8,000 something, which is pretty good, but it is not a random sample. So I think some kind of official collection of data would be extremely useful to us. And I also think that the government has to, every government actually has to be sensitive to people's concerns. And to be sensitive, you have to put yourself in a position of other people. And it goes back to the interconnectedness that I referred to before. Because we are human beings and we actually share similar characteristics. We share similar concerns. If you put yourself in the position of other people and then you will know what kind of difficulties that they may face under different contexts and then you will think about how you improve, for example, the infrastructure or the institutions to help them. And I think that care is really important. That's why an interest in the well-being of other people, that interest in the quality of life of other people is really important. So I had three eyes to offer. One is this interest in the well-being and one is infrastructure which has to be adequate and one is institutions. Institutions have to be fair and I think with these three eyes, people will be happier. I guess what I'm looking for is, because all of you have been doing such tremendously important work, how can we get policy makers to take into account this kind of work as they go forward? So I was looking for whether you have some insights into how you would advise policy makers. But beyond that, one more question. None of you have mentioned religion and spirituality. Whether any of you would like to make a statement on this? The evidence from hundreds and hundreds of well-being studies is that religion does matter. It loads positively on subject to well-being regardless of how you measure it. How you interpret that? I leave to others. Yes, I have something to say about it. You know, because I just published a book. That's with the title, Human Spirituality and Happiness. So spirituality really matters and spirituality has everything to do with our life. So if you're really concerned about life, the quality of life and well-being of all others, then you're spiritual. You don't have to be affiliated with any special religion in order to be spiritual. You have to be concerned about people's lives. And Professor Senate, to finish off this morning's discussion. Some reflections from you? No, I have some difficulties in order to mix this such a distant level of analysis from kind of variables like subjective happiness and urban layout. It's something difficult intrinsic here. And in this kind of so distant level of variables, I think that there's a lot of intermediate variables which can explain the correlation. I think that we learn in statistics at the first class that correlation is not causation. And then we can find hundreds and thousands of correlations which don't have any causation. Because otherwise, shall we promote to build more churches in the cities? Shall we, is that perhaps a speedy access to happiness? Because if that is the case, we know the solution, how to build churches. Then, of course, return to the values of the families. Yes, of course, we know that that is true. But I don't feel really comfortable with these kind of affirmations because it doesn't touch the political issues which I think are more important. The power conflict in the society. Who is in control? Who takes the decisions? And for which purpose? And who is profiting of the situation? Who is gaining the match? Those are other kind of wordings that perhaps explain social relations and reality in another way which is more practical and in more... Although it's harsh. What is happening in the Arabic Spring? Why the people in Egypt uprises? How is that the Syrians fight in the street even if they are killed? Where is the happiness here? Professor Senate, perhaps you can help us round off this conversation. This is a very eloquent statement that my friend makes. And I would only say to all of you since we're all interested in cities, that I think a lot of the issue about the quality of the physical environment is really a question for us now about thinking how to take down the barriers that are increasingly grown up in the modern city. When I look at the slide that Richard Bredet showed you of the Corbusier plan was I remember with these towers? It's a place in which nobody relates to anybody else neither vertically in the same tower nor certainly between tower and tower. There's no street life. There are no foci for places for people to meet. And I would say that in terms of the quality of urban life, specifically urban life, it's how to avoid this, what has become almost prophetic design for cities in which people are more and more drawn away from exposure. And we as urbanists can do something about that practically. I don't know if government can do it alone, but certainly we can design places which today, using very modern technologies, which don't wind up looking like the plan of Lausanne. Can I just say as I quote it to this, we've lost a little of the connection between this, this part of the discussion under discussion of issues of public health. And I hope we can return to those connections in the afternoon. What difference does the particular parts of the city make to public health? So I hope that can open up our afternoon session. Great.