Honestly, the "about" is that we've developed medicines that aren't nearly as horrible as the medicines of yesteryear. Prozac wasn't marketed until the 80's, and a lot of other things have been marketed since then. Marketing is key too - it is really hard to take this stuff if you don't know something is available. And misery has been with us for quite some time.

Is that something we should be willing to give up? Well, no. Giving up antidepressants means that people suffer more. We could work on reducing the general population's suffering and anxiety. We aren't 100% sure on how to do this, it seems, but we know things like easily affordable health care and a safety net helps out lots.

It hasn’t always been this way, has it? Actually, yes. And no. I'm not convinced that housewives that used to take vallium in the 70's were taking it because they were happy, for example. We didn't always think to write about this stuff - doubly so when going on about it could get you in a non-modern mental hospital. The 'no' is simply because we can do something about it now. I like to think we are more compassionate overall now, but I have no real reason to think this.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/exercise-is-an-...

So what?

It doesn't help all patients, which means that we just can't cure everyone with exercise. Hence, we'd be worse off without them as some folks would suffer more.

As a man in his 30s growing up I witnessed a shift in attitudes from "just man up" to "seek help", so there's that.

If anything I would suggest humanity to give up dating apps. They're essentially making people feel inadequate and pay for the dubious privilege.

It's completely possible that there's something messed up in modern society that causes depression, or in medicine that diagnoses depression and/or prescribes antidepressants, but the null hypothesis would be that before modern times, people were... just depressed. And then more recently that they'd try treating it with cocaine/meth/etc. Or that they'd fail to treat it, and some percentage of those people would commit suicide, and the remainder would never admit that there was anything wrong, both of which mean the outcome you observe wouldn't happen.

Again, this isn't to say there isn't a more interesting answer, just that you have to at least consider the possibility that it's not something about modern society.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/exercise-is-an-...

I don't believe in 'feeling happy', yet every magazine promises me i'll be happy if I just do X. Instagram says if I just follow <blah>, my life will become infinitely better. It's all a joke. I never feel happy, but I am not depressed. And more importantly, I have no interest in constant happiness... how boring. Most days I just feel meh. Sometimes I feel hungry.

GPs have very limited amounts of time for individual patients. Therapists, counsellors and psychiatrists are expensive and have mixed results, and require a significant time investment from the patient and the professional. It may be a long time before any kind of talk therapy has results. For many people who go into a doctor's office complaining of depression symptoms, it will go away within a reasonable timeframe. In many countries, there are waiting lists for any kind of further treatment.

The whole situation adds up to handing out SSRIs as a first line treatment when anyone comes to a GP reporting depressive symptoms; it's cheap, it buys time, it gives the patient a feeling that they're doing something to work on their issue, and gives them time to sign up for further support and get through their waiting list. As far as the GP knows, in most cases, side effects are rare. For many people coming in with mild depressive symptoms, there is some temporary life factor that will go away within the first course of treatment, and with it the symptoms, and that is a "success" for the SSRI stats.

Of course, anyone who's been on SSRIs of various types for any longer length of time knows that's bullshit, and they're quite serious substances with prolonged side effects and withdrawals. I really hope the situation changes.

Fatty meats, cholesterol heavy foods (butter, eggs), vitamin D have the biggest effect on me, still less than just simply giving up porn.

[citation needed]

There's little space for compassion and sociability. Most people in the West spend 8 hours a day working through an endlessly growing backlog of demands, all the while justifying each hour to clients and managers, then go home to drink and watch TV or scroll through news feeds. Our brains are not suited to constantly worrying over the demands of others while being so disengaged from social face to face contact.

I would argue there is more space now than there used to be.

I mean, women were basically property at one point, with changing degrees of freedom. You might not get out of the house much, depending.

Folks working as servants around 1900 basically had to do what their employers said, even if that meant you simply weren't allowed to have a romantic partner.

We kept slaves, and unfortunately, some folks still do.

We are probably lucky to spend only 8 hours a day on things, and I'm really happy that housework doesn't take up a lot of time now. Doing housework or working long hours doesn't grant you much space for compassion nor sociability.

The television and feeds are hobbies and entertainment. The folks in the past did similar stuff, and they had their own outcries - books, bicycles, women's ankles, and so on.

Drinking has been with us for literally Millenia. The amount of drunkards has varied alongside whatever it is we feel is "too much" - in other words, drinking daily wouldn't be strange if that is in the culture, but it is possible that same culture would frown on daily drunkenness.

Can we please stop just repeating cliches that are not even obviously true? While certain countries certainly had these notions, this is not a universal.

And even in cultures with strong 'female ownership', the picture you're painting is incredibly wrong. While women may be considered 'basically' property, they would constantly be socializing with one another. They would be out of their house often with other women and their children. The appearance of 'ownership' would only be from the vantage point of men.

For example, looking at Middle Eastern society, it's completely false to say women don't get out of the house. Women have entire portions of the house to themselves, where they and their female friends can get together, talk, interact, and gossip without any interference from men, including their own husband.

Today we are way more atomized. Many people work, watch TV, and sleep. That's sad. We used to spend most of our day with friends and family. Even the slaves would.

I have severe anxiety and I always just accepted it. After taking 75mg/day of Effexor, I don't have that anxiety anymore and I can function like a normal human. I'm in my mid-30s and I can have sex 3-4x/day easily and it still functions like when I was 15.

I wouldn't blame it all on anti-depressants, since sexual issues for 35+ year old men are common even without them. Blaming anti-depressants is convenient though since no one wants to blame it on genetics/health.

People overthink dating and mating. We'd all probably be reasonably happy on arranged marriages. With apologies for the non-inclusive language of an old song, "woman needs man and man must have his mate, on that you can rely as time goes by".

There may also be selection effects as men in their late 30s may not have 'paired up' so to speak due to depression. But still, I'm curious if anyone has stats on how many people are on these drugs.

I don’t know how this compares to past eras though.