[witty_username]

> May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without.

Citation? I haven't heard of anyone who is dependent on tranquilizers or anti-depressants (well, apart from the Internet from people with clinical depression), so it can't be that common.

[legulere]

The first thing I found on duckduckgo: http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20111019/use-of-antidep...

"About 11% of Americans aged 12 or older take antidepressants" (2011)

"the rate of antidepressant use in the U.S. has increased nearly 400% since 1988."

Many people that are on anti-depressants won't tell you about it.

edit: Really? Downvote me just because I provided a source to the claim that more people are on antidepressants today?

[JoeAltmaier]

I'm sure its high. I'm also sure we use more vaccines, bone marrow transplants and leukemia cures than before. Its not always a bad thing that folks aren't suffering as they used to historically.

[witty_username]

Probably due to higher diagnosis and superior antidepressants (so patients are more likely to be prescribed).

Rate of antidepressant use isn't a good proxy for mental illnesses.

[mjevans]

While the criticisms in parallel may be founded, I think a better comparison would be the relative trajectory over time and the comparable rates of prescription in other nations.

It could be that the US is still under diagnosed compared to nations that have national healthcare systems as part of their tax structure.

It could also be that even with the above the US receives more diagnosis for anti-depressants due to quality of life and interactions between the individual and the culture of a given area.

It is my hypothesis (but I've no idea what terms to use for the search) that the culture in the US is less supportive and less about inclusion and empowerment than it has been in the past or possibly than other cultures. However researching that is much more something that those in social sciences should be performing as part of their education and society's investment in to scientific experiments for the public good.

[marknutter]

That doesn't necessarily people are more depressed now than they were in the past. It could also mean that people who would have been depressed either way are now finally getting treatment for it. Sounds pretty good to me.

[cookiecaper]

It's very common in the US. Present to a medical professional with a bit of lethargy and doubt or confusion over the general direction of your life and these medications seem to be prescribed almost immediately. It's almost like they don't want people to analyze their lives and address their issues such that their life is bearable without the aid of pharmaceuticals.

[Grishnakh]

Or maybe they'd prefer to make this option readily available to you so that you'll use these pharmaceuticals which have relatively minor side-effects, rather than you "self medicating" with alcohol or illegal narcotics as people generally did in the past (and still do today).

You tell me, which is better for someone under a lot of stress in life: should they take a Xanax one or two times a day, or should they drink themselves into a stupor every evening? Because the latter is the standard way of treating anxiety and depression, and has been for centuries.

[kps]

The US has a very strong puritan streak that says suffering is generally the result of personal moral failure, good for people, and it's wrong to make it ‘too easy’ to alleviate.

[cookiecaper]

What about neither? There are people who value sobriety.

[maccard]

That option is available too.