[finaliteration]

I feel like this is something that is often ignored when these discussions arise. We tend to heap blame on some failure of willpower or chemical imbalance within a given individual. Though there are a number of individuals with such a chemical imbalance, how often do we sit down and consider that maybe, just maybe, our society and way of living is fucked up and that is what’s driving so many people to breakdowns and suicide?

[danso]

I don't think this problem is "often ignored" as much as it is seen, rightly, as so difficult to be near unfeasible. And looking for intermediate fixes that can help many in the meantime is a reasonable strategy. Anything that would fix society at large, in a reasonable timespan (i.e. to help the people most afflicted) would by necessity require a legislative overhaul and/or massive reallocation of resources. There is no easy path to that.

[finaliteration]

Maybe not often ignored, but often mentioned or seriously evaluated? I guess my point is: As someone who has struggled with mental illness and PTSD for most of my life, I generally get the sense that somehow I’m to blame for it because I don’t exercise, meditate, eat well, etc., enough or can’t just “visualize” myself without it (Though I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying should happen, and I get the monumental difficulty involved).

Of course I don’t believe in absolute free will so that may have something to do with my outlook...

[extralego]

http://dsausa.org

[starpilot]

The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. 11 * 1 Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects that most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. And for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse.

The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

[darkmighty]

Meh. Competitive race to dehumanization, ruthless proggressivism, are not physical laws. If there are sufficiently many actors unwilling to make accords, sure, it's inevitable. But there is enough structure and organizations, and interested humans, such that we can alter society to give a little more weight to basic human values than surrender to the endless march of domination.

We needn't halt it -- after all, if we can create a good desirable society, a billion more societies would be welcome.

But we have, and should continue to, what's truly valuable and worthwhile to pursue. An universe filled with automatons (even if scientific or mathematics god-like savants) is boring -- and I love mathematics -- but in general problem-solving ability is certainly not the whole story of cognitive experience, even general problem-solving ability. The life experience of Lee Sedol is more interesting than the synthetic "experience" of AlphaGo, even if it is superior at his life's work. If we had an AGI strictly geared towards solving technological problems the same might be said, even if ultimately other aspects of human experience are "wasteful", unnecessary for conquest and dominion.