[intheitmines]

A UK doctor friend mentioned they believed a lot of people being prescribed anti-depressants were suffering from "shit life syndrome" rather than real depression. This wasn't to belittle the issues but rather to highlight the issues they maybe facing, which society doesn't deem valuable enough to fix and the GP is one of the only perceived options they have for help.

[techblueberry]

I feel like there’s a balance between —- a thing that really helped me in life was seeing a therapist in my early twenties who really validated a lot of my struggles and take them seriously. But also, kept me from going to far in the other direction of wallowing or being driven by a label.

Part of the problem is the medical system doesn’t have great language around this, I think in America in order for insurance to pay for therapy there has to be diagnosis. My therapists solution to that was to provide a diagnosis but we didn’t really lean into it, he just explained that’s the process.

But the language around diagnosis unfortunately has implicitly power. We probably should talk about mental illness much less that way.

[only-one1701]

This is correct. It’s amazing how easy it is to relax when you don’t feel economic precarity etc.

[carlmr]

This is also why I kind of hate it when rich people say that money doesn't make you happy. It's true, it doesn't but if you don't know how to pay for your next meal or worse your kids next meal, or you're sick and can't afford good care, then money does make all the difference.

In mathematical terms money might not be sufficient to make you happy, but it's a necessary condition indeed.

[nlawalker]

“Having money isn’t everything, not having it is” - Kanye West

[mettamage]

Ah thanks for putting it into the necessary/sufficient vocab. Makes so much more sense to explain it that way.

[only-one1701]

Yeah, and like, a nontrivial amount of it tbqh

[voisin]

It’s almost like we are not optimizing society for human flourishing.

[Workaccount2]

There is a persistent and perhaps fundamental problem of balancing self optimization and social optimization.

A group of people are trudging through the desert with limited water arduously pumped from scattered wells. Do you ration water such that everyone gets equal amounts or such that those sweating the most get the most.

Solve this dilemma accounting for the fractal parameters that go into it, and you'll have a utopia.

[lo_zamoyski]

> balancing self optimization and social optimization

A person in a society has a right to the minimum of essential ordinary resources (food, shelter, clothing) to function as a general matter. (We have a right to pursue other goods, and in some cases a right to them once had, but we cannot say we have a right to them per se and before the fact. We have to be careful to distinguish between the two, as undisciplined and entitled people consumed by appetite tend to be unprincipled and like to inflate the list of “essentials” in self-serving ways. There’s certainly a pathology of envy at work as well, and we should in no way naturalize envy.)

In a situation of scarcity where there isn’t enough for everyone (which does not apply to the developed world), there is no solution that could satisfy that right universally. There is therefore no injustice committed when such basic resources are not distributed accordingly. Whoever gets their share gets it; whoever doesn’t simply doesn’t. You would expect competition here. Now, you could be charitable and self-sacrificial and give up your own share for another, but you have no such obligation to do so, and thus no one has the right to your share. Such charity would be an extraordinary act that transcends mere justice. It is entirely voluntary, even if heroic.

> and you'll have a utopia

Well no, you wouldn’t. This is the fallacy of consumerism and homo economicus. Even if everyone were rich, you would still have plenty of misery. The idea that human well-being is rooted in mere consumption - full stop - is at the root of so many ills. There is no well-being without virtue.

[r0ckarong]

More like most people are dragging a cruise ship through a desert while being baited with the possible opportunity to belong to those enjoying the endless buffets and on-board water park.

This whole "should we ration so everybody gets some" is complete BS. There is an abundance of resources that are concentrated to a few and the rest made to suffer. We don't have to ration, we have to prevent the greedy from hogging it all. It's quite the opposite.

[rixed]

Funny how the choice of an analogy can set bounds to the set of accepted solutions.

Instead of trudging through the desert, or escaping a sinking ship, or surviving in a dog eat dog jungle, I prefer to compare modern society with a large boarding house, where every one has to cooperate a bit to make it work reasonably well.

A poltical philosopher from the XXth century once wrote: "At the end of the day, all we are trying to achieve is a basic level of decency, for which all that's required from citizens is the simple politeness commonly found in any boarding house."

Maybe it's not an optimization problem?

[ath3nd]

> Solve this dilemma accounting for the fractal parameters that go into it, and you'll have a utopia.

Progressive tax on income

Progressive wealth tax

Universal basic income

Universal healthcare

Housing as a human right

Done

[Workaccount2]

Then who pumps the well?

[voisin]

Progressive taxes just mean that at the highest levels more income is going to redistribution. At all other levels there is still incentive to work.

[candiddevmike]

We are optimizing society for some human flourishing.

[TimorousBestie]

It’s hard to believe that even the billionaires are flourishing.

Musk certainly doesn’t seem to be a poster child for eudaimonia, being allegedly addicted to drugs.

[gtowey]

Anyone who makes like 100 million dollars and thinks to themselves "this isn't enough money to stop working and just enjoy life" has something seriously wrong with them. The billionaire class will never be happy, and it's time for society to stop letting these loonies ruin society to satisfy their insanity.

[voisin]

I think it is far to keep working if you love what you are doing. To filter, there should be an absolute cap on wealth at a few hundred million dollars. This would eliminate the incentive to manipulate politics in favour of yourself, but if you want to keep working you should be doing it for society via charity or taxes on anything additional that is earned.

Have a nice ceremony and present a medal for winning capitalism.

[krapp]

>To filter, there should be an absolute cap on wealth at a few hundred million dollars.

One million dollars and not a penny more. Enough for most people to live comfortably, but not enough to buy governments, or for the upper classes to never need to work again to maintain their lifestyle and privilege.

No human being needs or deserves a hundred million dollars.

[whynotmaybe]

I know a guy who has a few millions that he earned while being an executive of a startup that was bought.

Some of his friends are disappointed in him because he works as a dev in a huge company and now "sits on his millions".

[daymanstep]

He can retire whenever he wants.

[InsideOutSanta]

That's the crazy part. The people at the top seem to think they're better off if they can get another billion in the bank, regardless of the impact on the rest of society. But they, too, live in that same society that they are destroying.

They seem to think it's better to be a king in the Middle Ages than just a regular rich person in modern society. They forget that the lives of kings in the Middle Ages were absolutely terrible.

[krapp]

The purpose of capitalism is the flourishing of the capitalist classes.

The labor classes only need to be maintained like machines or draft animals, kept just alive and well enough to afford the rent on their lives so they can continue to create value.

The collective reactions to this aren't mental illness, they're trauma responses. Capitalism is accelerating towards its final form and the shock is giving people PTSD.

[Workaccount2]

Billionaires are a convenient distraction for the upper middle class.

The wealthiest group of people (on the whole) is the 70-95th percentile.

If we were to have the toppling of "the rich" that brought about meaningful change to the "poor", it would necessarily include the toppling of the ~$200k income households.

[TimorousBestie]

Did you perhaps respond to the wrong comment? I didn’t say anything about toppling the rich or whatever.

[hackable_sand]

Not even casually?

[vixen99]

I'd dispute the 'almost'.

[echelon_musk]

It's just common sense that things would not be geared toward the patient's best outcome.

It's easier (read: cheaper) for the broken NHS and cash strapped government to shovel pills than it is to get someone to revamp their life.

Imagine the alternative cost of talking therapies for the NHS. There are three year waiting lists for them already.

Depression usually occurs for a causal reason, it just may not have been found for the individual yet. It could be poor diet, lack of exercise, excessive escapism as a response to unprocessed trauma etc. Ultimately though these causes require the patient to exert effort toward improving their life, and so they have to have willpower and motivation.

Thankfully exercise can now be prescribed by doctors in the UK!

[robocat]

> exercise can now be prescribed by doctors in the UK

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/22/gps-to-presc...