> Some people manage more than others, and we just blame this on mental illness

I agree, but I don't accept that this has to be immutable, and it would be a very bleak world/future if it did.

Rather than a world in which a class of people just has to accept a disempowered existence with basic services and resources provided, I hope for a world where effectively everyone can have agency over their own life, and aspire to good health, good relationships, and a reasonable level of material wealth.

That hope is part of what keeps me determined to explore the possibilities in this field; to see what kinds of improvements I can attain in my own life, then think about how these approaches could benefit others, including those who are currently written off as "mentally ill" (which I have been at certain times in my life).

I think I understand what you mean with that and agree with it in principle. However you should keep in mind that you are a person with a "business mindset". There is plenty of people out there who may well have something valuable to contribute to this world, but have no chance of getting an economic return out of that. This can be due to a lack of economic mindset/understanding/education or also just due to the type of value one is able to provide not fitting any monetization model. I believe that a modern society can and should afford to relieve their members from existential fear related to biological needs. That is not about taking away aspiration and agency.

The combination "something valuable to contribute to this world" and "have no chance of getting an economic return out of that" sounds like a market failure, and something that could/should be fixed, both for the benefit of the individual and for society.

There are indigenous Australians in remote communities, who grew up and remain living in cultures that have little familiarity with modern commerce, but who produce artworks that sell for thousands of dollars on international markets. The proceeds are invested back into those communities for their future benefit. This happens because systems have been established to make it happen.

So I'm not convinced that there is an immutable state in which a certain class of people, while providing valuable contributions to society, cannot reap any economic benefit or improve their own lot in life.

Can you describe an example of this situation that you've observed?

... in other words: based on personal observation, I believe that the correlation of personal wealth and value contributed to society is not strong enough (which doesn't mean there's none) to justify making one's existence dependent on it - in a sophisticated society which could easily afford otherwise.