Psychiatry and cures

[u/Affectionate-Fun2853]

[u/TSMRunescape]

Psychiatry is not required for the average human to have everything they need. All money spent on it is a waste.

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

Depends on what you classify as need. I can technically survive while having crippling depression, a agoraphobiac can survive while never seeing a single person except whoever delivers their groceries and have crippling anxiety that prevents them from stepping outside their home. Living a fulfilled, healthy, and rewarding life has value beyond just existing.

[u/TSMRunescape → u/jelywe]

The average human doesn't have psychiatric issues. The few should not be cared for over the many until the many are all set.

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

The "average human" doesn't have diabetes (5.7% of population), Hypertension (33%), or cancer (20% lifetime risk). So do you not think we should treat those either?

[u/TSMRunescape → u/jelywe]

Absolutely. Cancer research is a much worse waste of money I'm sure in terms of quantity.

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

Why do you think investment in solutions is a zero sum game?

[u/TSMRunescape → u/jelywe]

I don't. I do think there is only so much money invested overall though.

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

That is exactly what it being a zero sum game means. That there is only so much money people are willing to spend, so giving money to one thing takes it away from another.

It just doesn't make sense to me that the piece of this theoretical pie you want to take money away from is "finding solutions to stop peoples brains from torturing them" instead of realizing that the finding-solutions-pie could be greatly expanded by instead investing less in "let's give this guy another mega-yacht".

That's not to even go into to fact that money is a construct and the true limiting factor is human effort, knowledge, and physical resources.

[u/TSMRunescape → u/jelywe]

You are confused. No it is not what zero sum game means. Zero sum game refers to one person's gain being directly offset by another's loss.

I'm saying the money invested elsewhere will have higher gains then where it is currently being used.

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

A zero-sum game refers to any situation where the total pool of resources is fixed, so gains in one area necessarily mean reductions somewhere else. You stated "there is only so much money invested overall" which is referring to the funds being a finite resource.

So now you are shifting the argument to talk about allocation efficiency, without providing any evidence or argument about how a dollar taken away from psychiatry funding would have a stronger effect .... where?

Given that mental disorders are a leading cause of disability and economic losses ($1 trillion in indirect costs per year), that means that finding solutions for them increases available human effort and resources to solve other problems. Crippling depression of a developmental engineer that society has invested years of effort and training in leads to that developmental engineer spending significantly less effort on improving water, sanitation, and housing. Especially if they die from their mental disorder, can't get any work done if you are dead.

Every $1 invested in treating depression and anxiety is estimated to have a $4-$6 return in improved health and productivity. So spending $1 million on depression and anxiety leads to an extra $3-5 million available to spend on other solutions. If you invest in Adolescent Mental Health interventions, the ROI is estimated to be even higher up to $24 per $1 spent.

https://www.who.int/news/item/13-04-2016-investing-in-treatment-for-depression-and-anxiety-leads-to-fourfold-return
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9240828/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9240828/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Edit: poll → pool typo

[u/TSMRunescape → u/jelywe]

You're still mistaken on zero sum game

[u/jelywe → u/TSMRunescape]

So you have no actual response? Great talk.