Dreams Help Soothe Your Bad Memories

Scientific American Mind and Brain 29.12.11
Research finds that dreams may help consolidate and soothe troubled memories and experiences. Christie Nicholson reports

November 28, 2011

Sleep also helps us learn. During REM sleep, which is the dreaming stage of sleep, the brain stops releasing stress chemicals. Now a new study finds that as we dream we can even soothe our stressful associations to certain experiences.
Scientists scanned the brains of 35 subjects while they viewed emotionally arousing images. Half of the subjects viewed the images in the morning and again in the evening of the same day. The other half viewed the same images in the evening and then again the next morning after sleeping.
Those who slept between viewings reported a significant decrease in their emotional reaction to seeing the images the second time. And brain scans corroborated the self-reports, showing a reduction of activity in the amygdala, an area responsible for processing emotions.
The research was published in the journal Current Biology.
The researchers note that by processing emotional experiences during REM sleep, when norepinephrine levels are dramatically reduced, we feel less strongly about such experiences when we wake.
As Shakespeare knew when he said that sleep “knits up the ravell’d sleave of care” and was “the balm of hurt minds.”
—Christie Nicholson

The Science Behind Dreaming

New research sheds light on how and why we remember dreams--and what purpose they are likely to serve

By Sander van der Linden  | July 26, 2011 SciAm M&B

For centuries people have pondered the meaning of dreams. Early civilizations thought of dreams as a medium between our earthly world and that of the gods. In fact, the Greeks and Romans were convinced that dreams had certain prophetic powers. While there has always been a great interest in the interpretation of human dreams, it wasn’t until the end of the nineteenth century that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung put forth some of the most widely-known modern theories of dreaming. Freud’s theory centred around the notion of repressed longing -- the idea that dreaming allows us to sort through unresolved, repressed wishes. Carl Jung (who studied under Freud) also believed that dreams had psychological importance, but proposed different theories about their meaning.
Since then, technological advancements have allowed for the development of other theories. One prominent neurobiological theory of dreaming is the “activation-synthesis hypothesis,” which states that dreams don’t actually mean anything: they are merely electrical brain impulses that pull random thoughts and imagery from our memories. Humans, the theory goes, construct dream stories after they wake up, in a natural attempt to make sense of it all. Yet, given the vast documentation of realistic aspects to human dreaming as well as indirect experimental evidence that other mammals such as cats also dream, evolutionary psychologists have theorized that dreaming really does serve a purpose. In particular, the “threat simulation theory” suggests that dreaming should be seen as an ancient biological defence mechanism that provided an evolutionary advantage because of  its capacity to repeatedly simulate potential threatening events – enhancing the neuro-cognitive mechanisms required for efficient threat perception and avoidance.
So, over the years, numerous theories have been put forth in an attempt to illuminate the mystery behind human dreams, but, until recently, strong tangible evidence has remained largely elusive.
Yet, new research published in the Journal of Neuroscience provides compelling insights into the mechanisms that underlie dreaming and the strong relationship our dreams have with our memories. Cristina Marzano and her colleagues at the University of Rome have succeeded, for the first time, in explaining how humans remember their dreams. The scientists predicted the likelihood of successful dream recall based on a signature pattern of brain waves. In order to do this, the Italian research team invited 65 students to spend two consecutive nights in their research laboratory.
During the first night, the students were left to sleep, allowing them to get used to the sound-proofed and temperature-controlled rooms. During the second night the researchers measured the student’s brain waves while they slept. Our brain experiences four types of electrical brain waves: “delta,” “theta,” “alpha,” and “beta.” Each represents a different speed of oscillating electrical voltages and together they form the electroencephalography (EEG). The Italian research team used this technology to measure the participant’s brain waves during various sleep-stages. (There are five stages of sleep; most dreaming and our most intense dreams occur during the REM stage.) The students were woken at various times and asked to fill out a diary detailing whether or not they dreamt, how often they dreamt and whether they could remember the content of their dreams.
While previous studies have already indicated that people are more likely to remember their dreams when woken directly after REM sleep, the current study explains why. Those participants who exhibited more low frequency theta waves in the frontal lobes were also more likely to remember their dreams.
This finding is interesting because the increased frontal theta activity the researchers observed looks just like the successful encoding and retrieval of autobiographical memories seen while we are awake. That is, it is the same electrical oscillations in the frontal cortex that make the recollection of episodic memories (e.g., things that happened to you) possible. Thus, these findings suggest that the neurophysiological mechanisms that we employ while dreaming (and recalling dreams) are the same as when we construct and retrieve memories while we are awake.
In another recent study conducted by the same research team, the authors used the latest MRI techniques to investigate the relation between dreaming and the role of deep-brain structures. In their study, the researchers found that vivid, bizarre and emotionally intense dreams (the dreams that people usually remember) are linked to parts of the amygdala and hippocampus. While the amygdala plays a primary role in the processing and memory of emotional reactions, the hippocampus has been implicated in important memory functions, such as the consolidation of information from short-term to long-term memory.
The proposed link between our dreams and emotions is also highlighted in another recent study published by Matthew Walker and colleagues at the Sleep and Neuroimaging Lab at UC Berkeley, who found that a reduction in REM sleep (or less “dreaming”) influences our ability to understand complex emotions in daily life – an essential feature of human social functioning.  Scientists have also recently identified where dreaming is likely to occur in the brain.  A very rare clinical condition known as “Charcot-Wilbrand Syndrome” has been known to cause (among other neurological symptoms) loss of the ability to dream.  However, it was not until a few years ago that a patient reported to have lost her ability to dream while having virtually no other permanent neurological symptoms. The patient suffered a lesion in a part of the brain known as the right inferior lingual gyrus (located in the visual cortex). Thus, we know that dreams are generated in, or transmitted through this particular area of the brain, which is associated with visual processing, emotion and visual memories.
Taken together, these recent findings tell an important story about the underlying mechanism and possible purpose of dreaming.
Dreams seem to help us process emotions by encoding and constructing memories of them. What we see and experience in our dreams might not necessarily be real, but the emotions attached to these experiences certainly are. Our dream stories essentially try to strip the emotion out of a certain experience by creating a memory of it. This way, the emotion itself is no longer active.  This mechanism fulfils an important role because when we don’t process our emotions, especially negative ones, this increases personal worry and anxiety. In fact, severe REM sleep-deprivation is increasingly correlated to the development of mental disorders. In short, dreams help regulate traffic on that fragile bridge which connects our experiences with our emotions and memories.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Sander van der Linden is a doctoral researcher in social experimental psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His research is concerned with the process of behavioral change and funded by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

A Role for REM Sleep in Recalibrating the Sensitivity of the Human Brain to Specific Emotions Ninad Gujar et al

Although the impact of sleep on cognitive function is increasingly well established, the role of sleep in modulating affective brain processes remains largely uncharacterized. Using a face recognition task, here we demonstrate an amplified reactivity to anger and fear emotions across the day, without sleep. However, an intervening nap blocked and even reversed this negative emotional reactivity to anger and fear while conversely enhancing ratings of positive (happy) expressions.

Most interestingly, only those subjects who obtained rapid eye movement (REM) sleep displayed this remodulation of affective reactivity for the latter 2 emotion categories. Together, these results suggest that the evaluation of specific human emotions is not static across a daytime waking interval, showing a progressive reactivity toward threat-related negative expressions. However, an episode of sleep can reverse this predisposition, with REM sleep depotentiating negative reactivity toward fearful expressions while concomitantly facilitating recognition and ratings of reward-relevant positive expressions. These findings support the view that sleep, and specifically REM neurophysiology, may represent an important factor governing the optimal homeostasis of emotional brain regulation.

Full paper: http://walkerlab.berkeley.edu/reprints/Gujar-Walker_CC_2011.pdf

Huge Donation to the HGF from The Slow Ride to Turin appeal

Philippa Corbin was a talented, successful young woman who put her heart and mind into working creatively with food at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's River Cottage project. As one might expect, she was passionate about the ethical dimensions of food production and was enthused by the Slow Food Movement, regularly visiting Turin, the movement's beating heart.

Unfortunately, Philippa suffered from depression, and although she fought against her difficulties for many years she ended up tragically taking her own life in January 2011, aged only 27. Philippa's family had felt powerless to help Philippa during her illness and wanted to do something to ensure that other people would not have to share their experience.

When, shortly after Philippa's death, the Corbins heard about the Human Givens ideas from a doctor they had become friends with, they recognised something that could have helped Philippa and possibly saved her life. So the family devised the Slow Ride to Turin to help promote the Human Givens approach as an effective treatment for depression and to support the Charlie Waller Memorial Trust, which aims to raise awareness of depression and its symptoms so that people can recognise the condition in themselves and in others.

After an enormous amount of planning and preparation 30 cyclists, including Philippa's sister Maddie, and their support crew took off from the River Cottage Deli and Canteen in Axminster, Devon in October of last year and cycled the 800 miles to Turin to arrive for the Slow Food Festival. It took them two weeks and in that time they raised a fantastic £65 000, half of which has been given to the HGF.

We feel immensely privileged to have been chosen to receive this money. It will be used to help raise awareness of human givens principles and to help make effective treatments based on these accessible to more and more people. Insofar as deciding the means by which we go about such a mission, we will be meeting with the family soon to discuss ideas and possibilities.

We are hugely grateful to the Corbin family for this donation and offer them our heartfelt thanks for their gift.

This article by Professor Damien Ridge in Huffington Post caught my eye because of a few HG-relevant points I've highlighted

Creating Hope Out of Your Depression

Posted: 03/04/2013 00:00

When I told people I was going to go around the country and talk to dozens of people about their depression, the common response was "Oh, that sounds really depressing." But it was actually the opposite. The remarkable courage and creativity that people - dealing with depression and striving to get better - demonstrated, showed me the human spirit at its best. The people I talked to welcomed me into their homes and told me their stories of their road to hell and back.
Let me tell you now, negative attitudes to depression - or any mental health problem for that matter - make no sense to me. One in four of us will experience a mental health problem in any given year. Gone are the days of hopelessness, although you may well feel hopeless in the depths of your depression. Depression tends to lift in time, and people find ways to get better. Your recovery is about trying to build a meaningful life, as you see it, regardless of enduring difficulties you may face. No one else walks in your shoes. So ultimately, no one knows what is best for you. Whatever we as professionals say, the stories you tell about yourself and your depression will create or cut off possibilities.
Depression is supremely isolating and frequently terrifying. One mother said of her depression, "I couldn't feel anything [for my family]... It was like being inside a very, very thick balloon, and no matter how hard I pushed out, [the balloon] would just push me back in." Not to mention the negative thoughts, and the irritability that comes with it. Racing minds, "zooming into miserable places." For some, depression led to a kind of suicide logic, as if a kind of spell over-took them. You felt at times that there was "no point wading through this s***', and the 'world would be a better place' without you. But fortunately, you hung on. Something happened to break that spell and when you felt better, you realised that your depression was lying to you.
With experience, many people found a way of relating to depression differently. You are not your depression. Some finally got angry with it, and treated depression like an intruder. Some saw depression as a visitor with an important message you had been ignoring. Regardless, you stopped equating depression with yourself.
You talked about the tools of the trade. Despite all the myths in the media, many (but not all) said that antidepressants worked. Some of you felt even more authentic on medication. One woman told me it was "exactly seven weeks to the day that I took... the first tablet. I woke up that morning and I just knew that inside myself that I felt different... I began to laugh out loud again and, and that it was from inside, it wasn't just a sort of superficial laugh, it was a sort of deep inside laughing." You also said other approaches worked too (e.g. exercise), but its horses for courses (see Blue Pages for details).
An awful lot of you said that talking about depression - with counsellors, others suffering the same issues, or curious friends who really listened without offering solutions - is crucial for gaining support and awareness. As one person said: "It was a big relief to have someone who I could tell anything I wanted." Some people needed to process childhood pains "that hadn't been processed properly". Some came to realise they had learnt to be actors in their own lives: "I could wake up and feel s***, I could drag myself through the day feeling s***... [But] I could get out there and sparkle!"
Talking about it, you discovered you were not the failure you thought you were. You challenged your distorted thinking, grieved for your losses, befriended the real you, and many times felt better for it. While you feared that depression might happen again, you realised it could be better managed. One lovely man in his 70s said to me he felt 'joyful' at rock bottom, because he knew things could only get better.
You rewrote your own story in various ways, so rather than being the enemy, perhaps depression was the wake-up call you needed (e.g. for over-work, always putting yourself last, needing to live more authentically). Or was it all part of your spiritual journey? Or could it be that you have positive qualities that are not yet recognised because of your narrow view of yourself?
I understand, it is frightening to move past depression "...to actually take life as it is... dust myself off... it's scary" and finding better ways to deal with depression 'takes discovery and it takes courage and it takes persistence and energy,' as one woman told me. So, while getting better is sometimes spontaneous, it can take work in the long run.
But there is so much help available now. Don't forget that your GP is often a first port of call, and can help with medication as well as finding therapy and support groups. There are organisations like the Samaritans and Depression Alliance ready to help you too. Above all else, there is hope.

Compassion is not just for nurses, it's for managers too

21 March 2013

The Francis Report should form a landmark in the quest to address deeply damaging flaws in the health service – and begin to turn compassion from a 'hurrah word' into a concept cemented at the heart of  healthcare design, says Professor Paul Crawford

One of the key elements of the Francis Report into the appalling treatment of patients by Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust is its foregrounding of systemic failure and the need for responsible management. We can only hope this marks a long-overdue shift in emphasis in the quest to address fundamental and deeply damaging flaws within the health service.

The stock response to the question of compassion depletion – acting with coldness, cruelty or uninterest in the suffering of others – has been far too simplistic for too long. The customary reaction is that the fault must lie entirely with the nurse rather than with the production-line cold clinics and threat cultures in which health systems in high-income societies all too frequently ask their practitioners to work.

As a result, the term "compassion" has come to be used rhetorically or uncritically, often as a kind of "hurrah word" that is connatural with or defines nursing. In fact, compassion is a highly complex and under-researched concept that we might best attempt to capture in a list of adjectives: kind, warm, loving, affectionate, caring, sensitive, helpful, considerate, sympathetic, comforting, reassuring, soothing, attentive and so on.

It is tempting to reflect how wonderful it would be if every nurse could be imbued with these qualities, but this, again, is to massively over-simplify both the problem and the solution. Compassion is not just for nurses: it is for all the professionals who work in the NHS and, indeed, for all those who manage it.

Moreover, compassion does not reside solely in our moral ambit: it is generated by compassionate environments. This is why we need to cement it at the very heart of the design of the healthcare system – across place, process and person – instead of limiting it to individuals and, as has repeatedly been the case, presenting it as a dilemma that the nursing profession alone should tackle.

Growing calls for "compassionate design" have been born out of an increasing body of work centred on the role of dignity and compassion in healthcare and how these phenomena can be measured and enhanced. The King's Fund's Point of Care initiative raised concerns about the NHS's target culture and the way in which relational work and interaction habitually default to the least qualified members of staff.

Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, has argued that a major contributory factor to the poor care of older people is a care assistant workforce that is not properly trained. Francis has now added to the mounting disquiet by laying bare the catastrophic extent to which compassion has been overlooked in favour of financial objectives and a desire to hear only good news.

Even now, there are those who maintain that effectiveness and efficiency are paramount, yet the reality is that the current bent for a factory-style NHS causes untold harm to patients and practitioners alike. The conveyor belt mentality it ineluctably cultivates in staff is so prominent that it is not unusual to hear nurses speaking like supervisors at a car plant. The atmosphere is deleterious for all concerned.

Kari Martinsen, a Norwegian professor of nursing science, poses a straightforward question in her book Care and Vulnerability: "Does the hospital, with its rooms, corridors and interiors, invite people to dwell in its midst?" She posits that nurses should not have to contend with surroundings that are "painful to be in" or "rooms with shameful architecture". Later, presaging some Francis observations, she warns: "People must always come before numbers. Statistics, benchmarks and action plans are tools, not ends in themselves. This is what must be remembered by all those who design and implement policy for the NHS."

We ignore at our peril the emerging message that the genuine transformation of hospitals and care homes into compassionate spaces will not occur merely through practitioners applying the right attributes like some kind of miracle cream. The development of a more compassionate NHS will need to go much deeper than mandating angelic nurses or setting up new box-ticking initiatives to be poured in as a skill through linear or values-based curricula.

What we have to see, particularly in light of the Francis Report, is a significant and essential change in both government policy and NHS organisation – a change focused on how services and processes can maximise the likelihood of compassionate relationships from and among nurses and other clinical and non-clinical staff. The rule of the clock or the excuse of being "far too busy" should not blind us to opportunities to encourage meaningful engagement that will ultimately benefit not just patients but practitioners.

We should all demand that our NHS not be turned into a production line. As a starting point, the government, policymakers and managers of healthcare organisations could do worse than spend some time reading up on the psychology of threat and its aftermath. Patients should not have to be treated amid threat cultures that lead to compassion fatigue and moral slide – and, equally, practitioners should not have to work in them. We all deserve better than that.

Professor Paul Crawford holds the world's first chair in health humanities and is the founder/ director of the International Health Humanities Network (www.healthhumanities.org) and a founder of the Madness and Literature Network (www.madnessandliterature.org)

This article first appeared in Public Servant magazine

Why Happiness Should Be a Global Priority

Posted: 18/03/2013 23:00, by Richard Layard

This Wednesday sees the very first United Nations International Day of Happiness, which is being celebrated around the world on 20 March. This follows a recent resolution adopted by all members of the UN General Assembly calling for happiness to be given a greater priority. So why are people now taking happiness so seriously at national and global levels?
Happiness means the quality of life as each person experiences it. This is a key outcome in itself and is an important measure of success for any country, regardless of the level of economic development. It tells us whether people are leading lives they find satisfying and fulfilling. So information on the causes of happiness helps policy-makers to choose policy goals that serve the real needs of their people.
But, in addition, happiness is a major determinant of the other goals that policy-makers care about. Personal resilience predicts educational performance better than IQ does; and higher wellbeing improves work performance and workers' earnings. By contrast depression and anxiety account for 40% of underperformance at work, 40% of time off work and 40% of disability. Their overall cost amounts to some 10% of GDP. Greater happiness increases life expectancy; by contrast depression reduces life expectancy as much as smoking does. So happiness is a major contributor to many of our most important social goals.
As a result of 30 years of research, we now know a lot about what affects happiness. The main influences are economic, personal/social and environmental. On the economic front, income is important in every country, and poverty is a major source of unhappiness. But it is not the only thing that matters. In most countries income explains less than 2% of the overall variance in happiness (the other identifiable factors explain about 20%). Across countries, income differences explain about 6% of the differences in average happiness, while social factors explain a great deal more. Work is also vital for happiness and its importance goes well beyond the income which it provides. Education is also important, largely as a factor affecting productivity, income, employment and health.
Turning to personal/social determinants of happiness, the most important in developed countries is mental health. In these countries it accounts for 40% of all illness (weighted by severity) - more than heart disease, cancer, lung disease and diabetes all combined. It is also largely a disease of working age so that it has massive economic consequences, while physical illness is more concentrated in later life. In poorer countries by contrast physical illness has major impacts at every age but mental illness remains an equally important cause of low wellbeing.
Another crucial determinant of happiness is the quality of human relationships - above all in the family but also in the community and at work. Secure employment is vital for those who want to work and personal security against violence is vital for everyone. Good governance is essential too - wellbeing studies show the corrosive effect of corruption, and the crucial role of personal freedom and the rule of law.
Finally comes the environment. Research shows clearly the importance of today's environment for people who are alive today - including housing, urban design, transport systems, and green space. But the environment is also important in a quite different sense, since how we treat the planet today determines the world which future generations will inhabit. So when we are considering happiness and quality of life, we must take into account those future generations as well as our own.
The implications of all this evidence are far reaching. Here are six of the most important actions which are required if we want to create a happier society:

• Mental Health. Evidence-based treatment should be as available for mental illness (including depression and anxiety disorders) as it is for physical illness.
• Economic Policy. Employment is so important that no risks should be taken with economic stability, simply in order to increase economic growth.
• Communities. Measures to promote economic growth should be accompanied by explicit policies to sustain social cohesion, stable family life, and personal security.
• Equality. More equal incomes are desirable because extra money improves wellbeing more for the poor than the rich. Moreover a greater spirit of equality in a country increases mutual respect and trust, which are crucial for wellbeing.
• Schools. Schools should aim explicitly at developing young people who are emotionally resilient and eager to contribute to the social good.
• Families. Stable families are so important that every society needs its own system of support for couples in conflict.

Governments should make the happiness of the people the main outcome which they pursue. As Thomas Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness... is the only legitimate object of good government". That is why there is now a growing demand to include subjective wellbeing in the new post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
But, perhaps most importantly of all, we need to encourage a more empathic and caring culture, where people care less about what they can get for themselves and more about the happiness of others.
This is why I'm supporting the Day of Happiness, when Action for Happiness is encouraging people everywhere to make a personal pledge to live in a way that contributes to the happiness of others. If more of us made that our central purpose in life we would have a far happier and more cohesive world.

This Wednesday sees the very first United Nations International Day of Happiness, which is being celebrated around the world on 20 March. This follows a recent resolution adopted by all members of the UN General Assembly calling for happiness to be given a greater priority. So why are people now taking happiness so seriously at national and global levels?
Happiness means the quality of life as each person experiences it. This is a key outcome in itself and is an important measure of success for any country, regardless of the level of economic development. It tells us whether people are leading lives they find satisfying and fulfilling. So information on the causes of happiness helps policy-makers to choose policy goals that serve the real needs of their people.
But, in addition, happiness is a major determinant of the other goals that policy-makers care about. Personal resilience predicts educational performance better than IQ does; and higher wellbeing improves work performance and workers' earnings. By contrast depression and anxiety account for 40% of underperformance at work, 40% of time off work and 40% of disability. Their overall cost amounts to some 10% of GDP. Greater happiness increases life expectancy; by contrast depression reduces life expectancy as much as smoking does. So happiness is a major contributor to many of our most important social goals.
As a result of 30 years of research, we now know a lot about what affects happiness. The main influences are economic, personal/social and environmental. On the economic front, income is important in every country, and poverty is a major source of unhappiness. But it is not the only thing that matters. In most countries income explains less than 2% of the overall variance in happiness (the other identifiable factors explain about 20%). Across countries, income differences explain about 6% of the differences in average happiness, while social factors explain a great deal more. Work is also vital for happiness and its importance goes well beyond the income which it provides. Education is also important, largely as a factor affecting productivity, income, employment and health.
Turning to personal/social determinants of happiness, the most important in developed countries is mental health. In these countries it accounts for 40% of all illness (weighted by severity) - more than heart disease, cancer, lung disease and diabetes all combined. It is also largely a disease of working age so that it has massive economic consequences, while physical illness is more concentrated in later life. In poorer countries by contrast physical illness has major impacts at every age but mental illness remains an equally important cause of low wellbeing.
Another crucial determinant of happiness is the quality of human relationships - above all in the family but also in the community and at work. Secure employment is vital for those who want to work and personal security against violence is vital for everyone. Good governance is essential too - wellbeing studies show the corrosive effect of corruption, and the crucial role of personal freedom and the rule of law.
Finally comes the environment. Research shows clearly the importance of today's environment for people who are alive today - including housing, urban design, transport systems, and green space. But the environment is also important in a quite different sense, since how we treat the planet today determines the world which future generations will inhabit. So when we are considering happiness and quality of life, we must take into account those future generations as well as our own.
The implications of all this evidence are far reaching. Here are six of the most important actions which are required if we want to create a happier society:

• Mental Health. Evidence-based treatment should be as available for mental illness (including depression and anxiety disorders) as it is for physical illness.
• Economic Policy. Employment is so important that no risks should be taken with economic stability, simply in order to increase economic growth.
• Communities. Measures to promote economic growth should be accompanied by explicit policies to sustain social cohesion, stable family life, and personal security.
• Equality. More equal incomes are desirable because extra money improves wellbeing more for the poor than the rich. Moreover a greater spirit of equality in a country increases mutual respect and trust, which are crucial for wellbeing.
• Schools. Schools should aim explicitly at developing young people who are emotionally resilient and eager to contribute to the social good.
• Families. Stable families are so important that every society needs its own system of support for couples in conflict.

Governments should make the happiness of the people the main outcome which they pursue. As Thomas Jefferson said "The care of human life and happiness... is the only legitimate object of good government". That is why there is now a growing demand to include subjective wellbeing in the new post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
But, perhaps most importantly of all, we need to encourage a more empathic and caring culture, where people care less about what they can get for themselves and more about the happiness of others.
This is why I'm supporting the Day of Happiness, when Action for Happiness is encouraging people everywhere to make a personal pledge to live in a way that contributes to the happiness of others. If more of us made that our central purpose in life we would have a far happier and more cohesive world.

Allan Savory: How to green the desert and reverse climate change