I think I agree with what rayiner said but I don't agree how he arrived to what he says. I think it's rather that in a society where work is absolutely a necessity for survival to the point where you need to physically go foraging for food to make sure you have food with your bare hands due to absence of advanced modern technology, questions of 'what is the meaning of life' dilute and dissolve in perceived importance. So when the equation of -what- someone has to do in front and center and always there, there is clarity about one's purpose at least in a short-term basis, and somewhere just in this pursuit you have a very achievable sense of happiness and meaning. And ... we're sort of wired that way aren't we, that's how we've operated since the dawn of time.

The thing is, I know way, way too many people who have undergone years or decades of therapy and they (by their account) are no better for it. Maybe existing literature has something else to say, but my experiences coincide with rayiner's: folks I know who've lived in rural areas doing the hard life just seem much happier and seem to have it more together. Extended therapy sessions seem too much like gazing into the abyss, I'd rather that our culture evolve back to valuing closer ties to friends and family, enjoying outdoors in communal ways, dedicating time to teaching the new generation, etc.

You need medication to meaningfully address those major conditions, which most people in the developing world don’t have. Even there it seems like the reaction of people in the Philippines (to ostracize people with those conditions to avoid them becoming a burden to thecommunity) is a rational adaptation to their circumstances.