[BeetleB]

The better (safer, healthier, whatever) a society gets, the greater the impact of any problem (inequity, health, etc) on the people, and the more sensitive they become. It's not at all a given that people in countries that are chronically worse off have more negativity.

Personal example: Lived in a country where corporal punishment of 2 years old is the norm. I didn't like it, but seeing it happen didn't negatively affect me much. Then lived in a country where it was definitely not the norm, and highly discouraged. A decade later, seeing someone slap a 2 year old is definitely invokes a strong negative reaction from me. I'm pretty sure that were I to move back to the first country, within a year it wouldn't.

Example on a wider scale: The level of outrage, fear, and paranoia when someone in the US gets measles. Go live in a country where it's more common, and getting measles is viewed as merely an annoyance. That it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death isn't enough to justify the extremes of vitriol I see in the US. At the end of the day, far too many things in the US cause more deaths. We don't call fines and imprisonment for parents who allow their kids to become obese (well, most of us don't).

From some people's perspective, this is also at play with the concept of safe spaces in colleges, perceived microaggressions[0], etc. The US has generally gotten more polite in the last few decades, so there is less tolerance for anything that is not perceived as being polite. And if someone is less polite, it has to be explained by a narrative. The concept that people are simply rude is eroding. Instead, they must be racists, misogynists, homophobes, nationalist, etc.

Science and technology do wonders for physical health and physical quality of life. Unfortunately, countries like the US focus a lot more on those without focusing on the required mental perspectives that need to go along with it. You're simply not going to improve people's perceptions of how well they are doing without addressing psychological factors. Not to get too philosophical, but most of a person's sense of suffering is generated by the narrative the person is telling him/herself. In a different country, when someone catches measles, it's "Pity." Or even "Thank goodness he'll get it out of his system and be immune" (which was the mentality when I was growing up). Over here, it's "X should go to jail for refusing to vaccinate the kid!" That mentality will no doubt reduce the amount of measles in a given society, but it is not going to improve the society's mental well being. Other strategies are needed.

[0] I say perceived, because it is often invoked for behavior that has little to do with what you see on the Wiki page for microaggressions - in my work place we've been taught that appearing distracted while someone is talking to you is a microaggression, for example.

[stuxnet79]

> You're simply not going to improve people's perceptions of how well they are doing without addressing psychological factors. Not to get too philosophical, but most of a person's sense of suffering is generated by the narrative the person is telling him/herself.

I spent my formative years in both a poor, poverty-stricken country and a rich first-world country. I couldn't agree with this more.

You'd think that a more affluent society would result in healthier, happier people but it really doesn't ... there are so many psychological factors that come into play.

[BeetleB]

Frankly, you don't even need to compare richer vs poorer countries. Just compare today's generation with older generations.

My father was significantly older than me. He didn't have electricity early in his life. He didn't have comforts like an electric fan till he was in his teens. He could afford air conditioners only when he was in his 40's. When he was younger, smallpox was a constant presence in society (measles is nothing in comparison). He went from being close to food insecurity to not having to worry about food and shelter. I could make a really long list.

Now while in general he was a content person, at times it was clear that all these gains (with the possible exception of not having to worry about food and shelter) played little role in his mental happiness. As society progressed, the reference points all got reset.

This isn't all that different from comparing rich with poor societies. If even in a rich society you find that all these gains (which even the poor in society benefited from) haven't made a big impact on one's mental happiness, one shouldn't expect the same when comparing rich with poor societies.

[ummonk]

>That it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death isn't enough to justify the extremes of vitriol I see in the US.

Depends on what you consider vaccine-preventable. The flu kills far more, and increased adoption of the annual vaccine would have a bigger impact in reducing deaths than anti-Baxter’s getting measles vaccinations would.

[BeetleB]

I double checked my source - and it turns out I read it wrong. It is "one of" the leading causes of vaccine preventable death.

Flu definitely kills a lot more. I don't know how many would be preventable by a vaccine, given that the vaccine isn't that effective (compared to measles).