Have a look at the article at this link, entitled “Are You Happy?” By Sue M. Halpern: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21197

The author makes a great point that defining something like happiness really can't be done as a global all-encompassing concept; rather, each and every person needs to define it for him/her self. Further, how we rate our happiness is by no means static; i.e. how happy we are is a function of our current state/status.  Last, what makes one person happy may be quite different from that of another person.  For example, I have a friend in Phoenix who is an entrepreneur; he (and his partners) start up companies, and then sell them when (or if) the company becomes successful (i.e. makes money).  Because he has no spouse or children (he's happier this way, he says) he doesn't worry about losing his capital/property/possessions.  In other words, taking risks is what he *needs* to do to be happy.  Others I know are just the opposite, and would never risk their savings, e.g., on a business start-up; they *need* the security of a weekly (or other frequency) paycheck to feel happy (I'm more in this category). 

As Americans, it is my view that we tend to think everyone else around the world would want to be us, if only they could (and there is reason to believe there is some truth to this, based on looking at patterns of immigration--in contrast, its also painfully obvious that there is a great deal of resentment toward Americans outside the U.S. It is, e.g. paradoxical, that Mexicans are among the happiest people, but that they still are literally swimming across rivers, tunneling under fences, and hiking through the desert to get here.  On the other hand, its clear that striving, in and of itself, is no more likely to lead to happiness than simply going with the flow.  Should we therefore choose the path of least resistance?

For me, the answer is no, for the following reason:  my study and training in science, philosophy, religion, psychology, sociology, etc. have collectively led me to believe strongly that a higher purpose than human happiness does exist.  Namely, ensuring (or at a minimum, enabling) the survival of not only the human species, but of life on this planet.  I agree with the author of this piece that the individual pursuit of immediate gratification (not to be confused with true happiness, at least for me) has resulted, and continues to yield, long-term degradation of the planet's resources, and that coordinated human action (which caused it) is the only solution over the longer event horizon of hundreds of years (which, for the foreseeable future at least, will continue to exceed the human lifespan).  Therefore, I (and, I personally know, many others) feel a certain sense of urgency to do what we can to promote education of the next generation, not only in science and math, but also environmental stewardship, leadership, etc. 

Personally, I am happiest when I am writing, teaching, or leading in some fashion.  I am least happy when I am separated from family, and when I am not being, in one way or another, productive.  Of course I am conditioned by not only my upbringing, but also by the influence of my liberal arts and hard sciences education, and by my ongoing intensive study of (primarily Anglo-American) history, to feel this way.  It is how I am, for better or worse.  I have no expectation that the majority of people (or even a substantial minority) agree with me; I can say, however, that real and mountain-moving change never happens from within the mass of people.  To the contrary, its always the outlier, the person willing to speak up and say that the status quo will not do. 

This is probably more than you want to know, but actually, writing helps me to better identify and articulate my own views.  I found this article at a most interesting website.  Check this out periodically, and you will be surprised by some of the interesting essays you will find:   http://aldaily.com/