I think the point was that human history predates the recent increase in depression. Having unmet needs you need to work to fill is the baseline state of all animals, and the unending grind to fill them is what we are evolved to do.

People would still have plenty of unmet needs if the basic physiological and safety needs in Maslow's hierarchy are met. What kind of straw man are you trying to argue here? If anything, having those needs met makes it easier -- nay, possible -- to "grind" toward needs at upper levels of the heirarchy (not that I accept your contention that humans were "evolved" to "grind").

Who says the increase in depression is "recent?" The article itself mentions the strong upward trend since 1990. You know 1990 is 30 years ago now, right? (Not trying to be condescending here -- I genuinely forget this myself sometime.)

I'm not arguing any strawman.

I don't accept your non-acceptance of my contention.

I say 30 years is recent. Particularly given I was referring to evidence on a prehistoric timescale.

I hope that clears everything up for you. Totally not trying to be condescending either.

Then, what are you arguing? Why does it even actually matter if the increase in depression is recent, or not? What does that have to do with the fact that mere survival does not have to be a constant 24/7 struggle for anyone, really? And, what is your evidence we were "evolved" to do much of anything besides survive and breed? More importantly, who cares?