Is depression a natural reaction to an insane world?

[Unbeliever]

This is a thought I have been pondering for a while.

The default to view depression as "something wrong", or a "brain chemical imbalance" or as "a disease" or something that "needs to be fixed" or requires "medication" or "therapy" appears to be the most common response of practically everyone. 

From doctors, to psychiatrists, to therapists, to the general population, to the depressed individuals themselves... the universal belief appears to be that "the person needs to get help".

But what if... the living in depressed state is correct? What if it isn't an "imbalance" or isn't something "wrong"? What if being depressed is the only natural state to be in for an intelligent, empathetic, compassionate, informed, thinking individual to exist in the current state of our world?

What if to NOT be depressed about is the true indication of mental sickness?

I'm not saying that being depressed is fun in any way... most people on this forum would be well aware that it sucks. But that is not what I'm saying. 

What I mean is... could existing in a state of depression be completely natural for someone living in a place where so many things are obviously terrible... both on a personal level and in the world as a whole?

My reasons for this perspective are numerous. Far too many to write in only 2500 words. But basically...

The real world is an extremely depressing place for any person that cares at all about anything outside of themselves.

Eg. If you care about animals... the reality is many beautiful species are already lost forever, many others are so close to the verge of extinction that even if everyone worldwide decided to do everything they could to save them... they would still be lost. At home there are people that still buy people animals as christmas gifts, refuse to desex their pets, the massive amount of pets put down in pounds annually. There is backyard animal cruelty, the dog racing industry using live bait, shooting race horses with legs, women's hormonal treatments for menapause, the meat industry, birds choking on our plastic half a world away, overfishing. The list goes on and on.

It is reality and it is depressing. Care about animals and feeling "depressed" about it IS correct. And that is one tiny subject in a plethora of subjects.

3 billion people in starving poverty, the water wars, religious fanatics, corrupt governments, womens rights violations, slavery, wars, child rape, etc etc

It's the people that are not depressed that worry me.

[Unbeliever]

Oh... and just in case I wasn't clear in my previous post.

I do agree with pretty much everything you said Pepper.

Thanks 🙂

[Peppermintbach]

Hi Unbeliever,

Thanks for elaborating 🙂 I appreciate what you’re trying to convey and am beginning to get a better idea of what you’re trying to get across...

Yeah, sure, I agree with your point that many (not all) people are only driven to act when there is a personal connection to an issue regardless of whether it’s homelessness, addiction, etc. I’m not saying every single person is like that of course but I see your point about how many- perhaps even the majority of people- operate in that fashion.

I’m not saying it’s right and I’m not saying wrong- I’m not here to debate morality. Too controversial. But perhaps I can offer my personal thoughts as to why people are like this.

I wonder if some of it stems from a combination of a kind of survival mechanism combined with empathy. I think empathy can sometimes motivate us to act but we can also become “overwhelmed” by empathy as in if we felt for the plight of every single person, most of us wouldn’t be able to get through even 1 day.

So for the sake of self preservation, I think many of us consciously (or subconsciously) are selective in the causes we engage in. Causes where we have a personal connection usually translates to deeper empathy and that motivates us more to act (compared to a cause where we have no personal connection). This could be why we tend to engage more in causes where there is a personal connection to it.

I mean, if we were all to engage with every worthy cause out there, it would be very overwhelming and borderline impossible. Thus to self preserve, maybe that’s why people tend to engage more with personally meaningful causes. Again, I’m not talking about morality but simply exploring possible reasons.

Of course my saying that probably doesn’t help lessen your disillusionment. Perhaps some of us have deeper wells of empathy so are more driven to act- stronger sense of social responsibility?

I once crossed paths with an activist. Dedicated to environmentalism and animal welfare since childhood. Wants to become an environmental lawyer.

She spends most of her time working on campaigns to save whales and dolphins, and has received many accolades for her work. But it’s not about the honours, it’s her sense of social responsibility that drives her.

When people compliment her, she seems frustrated. Once, she snapped and said she does it because she feels compelled to do it- feels a sense of “responsibility.” I have a feeling you can empathise with her...

kind thoughts,

Pepper

[Unbeliever]

"A sense of responsibility"... exactly. You got it.

Not doing things just because we feel "guilty" for them (as in we take PERSONAL responsibility for problems or issues that exist that we personally did not contribute to) or because we are inspired to because we understand an issue personally via direct experience ourselves or via a family member or friend etc (ie something that perforates into our own personal bubble so are unable to keep ignoring) ... but simply because it is obvious that it is something that needs to be fixed, needs to be changed and because we can.

... and if we all did it (even in just small ways) likely those issues would simply cease to exist.

I think what frustrates me so much is the obviousness of so many these things... I've literally never understood how people can't see it. Especially when my teenage self could.

I already know what many people will say in response to what I've written above. "Most issues are too big" therefore we are "helpless to do anything" and it is better to "focus on your local area".

While I agree that there do exist some things that an individual would struggle to influence (like the war in Syria for example) I disagree that most issues fall into that catagory anymore, because of 1 simple aspect... everything is connected. The very economics that humans have artifically connected into them have become their weakness.

It does not require us to become a hardcore activist (like the person you mentioned above), in fact, the reason people feel the need to become hardcore activists is because they are trying to carry the burden of millions of people who do not do "small things" on their own shoulders. If those millions did, then hardcore activists would not need to be "hardcore" anymore.

Again, 2500 words. So I'll try to explain simply.

Let's say Coca Cola was a "undisputed evil company". Billions of dollars company exists everywhere right?

If no-one bought their product for 3 months, just in Aus. Desperate promotions, 2 for 1, free prizes offered. Still no-one bought for another 3 months. Stock plummets, people withdraw money and run, debt collecters start knocking, legal proceedings start, their properties start being dismantled by force. Less than a year, the company doesn't exist in Aus and executives have run with whatever cash they could carry to a foreign island.

2 years later, small children in Aus asking parents "What's Coca Cola"?

There is no "too big" and it really is that simple.

[Unbeliever]

Oh, and once again Pepper. I agreed with practically everything that you said.

[Unbeliever]

I read a while ago about a group of people referred to as "Empaths" (the word is a direct reference from sc-fi fantasy of people with supernatural abilities to tap into other peoples emotions).

However... getting away from the "sci-fi/supernatural" stuff.

Scientists are looking into an area of the brain that has what they are calling "mirror neurons" and a resulting process they are calling "mirror-touch synesthesia".

It is early stages of research still, however, scientists are speculating that mirror neurons are how small babies learn that the "happy face" their parents have on is connected to the "happy feeling" (and of course sad face, for sad feeling, frustated face for frustrated feeling etc etc).

This is not an understanding in a logical sense. This is actually feeling the emotion inside you as a direct result of seeing that emotion on another persons face (so you feel it despite not actually creating that emotion yourself).

The mirror-touch synesthesia is seperate and is theorised as a way that you can feel something physically that happens to someone else. For example, if you see someone hurt themselves, you feel "ouch" and for a brief moment you feel it, or if you see a couple hugging, you can "feel" the hug. etc etc

These are oversimplified examples of course, but just to give you an idea. Apparently it is essential to very small children development to connect with the world around them (still in theory of course). So everyone has them.

However, it is speculated that in about 5% of the adult population these neurons have never decreased in activity, as active as they were when they were tiny infants.

It is assumed that the result would be... feeling of being drained when exposed to large amounts of people (massive amounts of extra data coming in and "feeling" those people all the time) and an inability not to empathise with what they saw, and increased drive to "act" as a result.

In turn, increased depression, frustration, need to be alone, feelings of isolation from few people understanding, accusations of "needing to be thicker skinned" etc etc

Still just theory of course, early stages of research, the mirror neurons exist definitely, but studies take time.

Unfortunately, many people already have turned it into a "mini-cult" of people thinking they have supernatural powers.

However, "sci-fi/supernatural" aside... this does describe most of the symptoms I have felt since I was in primary school.

[Peppermintbach]

Hi Unbeliever,

Just a quick post from me for now as I’m on my way out.

I read your latest posts and appreciated your insight and perspective. Thank you for sharing...

As you write a bit more each time, I’m gradually getting more of a sense of what you’re trying to articulate and why you feel as disillusioned- or pick another word if it works better- as you do.

I guess that’s the thing about communication...it’s imperfect and a learning curve for every single person involved. Trial and error. And yes, I’m obviously including myself in this (always learning).

Kind thoughts,

Pepper

[Peppermintbach]

Hi again,

It does not require us to become a hardcore activist (like the person you mentioned above), in fact, the reason people feel the need to become hardcore activists is because they are trying to carry the burden of millions of people who do not do "small things" on their own shoulders. If those millions did, then hardcore activists would not need to be "hardcore" anymore.

This, in particular, elicited a smile from me. I once had a similar conversation with a friend a few years ago...

Anyway, as I said, I’m not here to debate right or wrong but I’m happy to exchange ideas and perspectives.

Okay, seriously, I need to head out now...talk later.

kind thoughts,

Pepper

[Unbeliever]

I absolutely agree.

I have a rather good grasp of words, I even learned to "dumb down" my word usage back in high school because I realised that a great deal of wonderful and useful words either most people I spoke to didn't know or they didn't quite have the right definition.

So I spend a great deal of time experimenting through trial and error to find the best way to communicate very complex ideas and concepts in a way that most people I talked to could grasp quite easily.

I actually got quite adept at it (I even learned to do it while drunk and when conversing with equally drunk people), but one of the drawbacks is that it extended dramatically the amount of words necessary to convey something across (that and I lost many words in my own vocabulary from sheer lack of use over time). The more complex the perspective or concept the more noticable this extention becomes.

So that meant that instead of trying to go straight to the heart of my point or go for the metaphorical "hole in one" approach, I have to gradually reveal things in bite sized chunks before I can finally reveal the ultimate conclusion that I started with in the first place.

On a forum of course this can be even more problematic, because a lot of the small details that are so necessary to understand to make up the "whole" are inevitably lost in exchange for relaying the basic message.

I know that at least 2 of my previous posts were lost because it was perceived to not relate to the thread topic... when in reality they actually did but in the process of trying to explain in "bite sized chunks" it would be difficult to see how (which I completely understand). Because logically when viewing only a small part of the whole it is going to be difficult to see the whole picture.

I mean technically if I was going to try and truly communicate why I started this thread in the first place, I would have needed to start 2 seperate threads of discussion and then after a certain amount of time eventually started a 3rd thread bringing together the conclusions of the discussions in the first 2 threads into a new "conclusive" discussion.

Noone wants that, not even me. It's just too overly complicated and time consuming (and I'm sure tedious) for everyone involved.

I'm not trying to bore anyone, I'm trying to open up avenues of discussion about commonly accepted perceptions in new ways that they (and myself) have perhaps not considered before.

I assumed that was what the best thing about communication was...

[Peppermintbach]

Hi Unbeliever,

First things first, thank you, I appreciate these online conversations with you 🙂

As I said, I won’t be discussing morality; whether the way people act is “right” or “wrong” is something I’m not going to touch on. But I’m happy to explore ideas in a general sense.

Yes, I agree if more people acted - each in relatively small but nonetheless significant ways- the “hardcore activists” probably wouldn’t need to dedicate every fibre of their being to the causes they believe in. The cumulative effect...

But you’re right that this isn’t the case. Again, I’m not saying it’s right and I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m merely saying that I agree that not everyone contributes even in small, “doable” ways. And I can empathise that is, in part, a huge source of your frustration and disillusionment (or pick another word that better suits).

Obviously, the reasons range from outright apathy to a sense of helplessness (for example). Granted, I’m oversimplifying and those examples don’t cover the full breadth of possible reasons.

Aside from doing your “part”, which I know you are already doing, I wonder if perhaps you can challenge yourself to think of ways to engage people to act and to feel a stronger sense of “social responsibility”?

I mean, I don’t feel you can tell people what to do or what not to do- any more than anyone else can- but what you can do is to try to engage people. Plant “idea seeds” in people’s heads, so to speak...I suppose you’re sort of doing it here on these forums, which is great but I mean in a broader sense too.

Perhaps you can build on your current understanding of why people do/don’t act and why people feel passionate and engaged or apathetic and overwhelmed (for example). And I don’t mean at a surface level but really get into the heart of the motivating factors for action or inaction.

After all, I think that the crux of communication is listening, and I will be the first to admit that I definitely need to work on my listening skills. I think this is important because I feel if one can better understand the cause(s) for relative inaction then perhaps one can start to help reverse it....just a thought.

I mean, take your Coca-Cola example. You have some highly valid points, yes, but I feel that’s only half the struggle; the other half is how to convey your message in relatable terms so people don’t emotionally shut down and feel disengaged or overwhelmed by the info. Hopefully I’m making sense...

Respectfully,

Pepper

[Peppermintbach]

Hi Unbeliever,

I wanted to drop in to say thank you. At the end of the day, I don’t really “know” you any more than you “know” me and that’s not the point anyway. I think it’s just nice to be able to have these kinds of discussions.

In a way, and without wanting to get into details, these discussions have helped remind me of a core part of myself. I might not be making much sense as I’m aware that I can sometimes be evasive or vague. But I don’t think the reasons are necessarily important, I just wanted to say thank you and acknowledge your contributions on this thread.

Respectfully,

Pepper