The issue is that Mental Health is genuinely a fleeting, seemingly slowly renewable resource brought down by either screens, stress, or something else. I believe that openly talking about it, while a great way to de-stigmatize it, may have inadvertently caused self-diagnoses and worsening symptoms to increase.
There is also something else to be said about Mental Health, coming from one of the countries with the lowest rates of someone taking their own lives, and its not just due to underreporting.
Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
> Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
Handling a mental health crisis or living through hardship in a stoic manner means nothing about your overall performance. People in the past used to take year-long sabbaticals due to sicknesses of all sorts which can definitely be classified as PTSD today. People handled hardship through alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and a level of physical violence that nobody who's experienced it would like it to return.
I see it as the kid that falls and gets up because kids are made of rubber, but if the parents are watching and become alarmed, it gets scared, cries, gets cuddled, and adopts the pattern. Resiliency is not about being stoic and bottling emotions, it's about not framing small setbacks as tragedies.
In these times, the parents might even be aware of the consequences of what they're doing, but can't give the impression to neighbors and authorities that they neglect their kids.
That is a prevalent part of Peruvian culture, which is also collectivist due to Andean culture.
"Resiliencia" is pretty tied to accepting your faults as they are, saying "pucha que (Peruvian slur) ya fue pues". This is often followed up with something akin to "do you want to eat"?
I think everything you said is true, although as an addendum I (anecdotally) often find that some poorer nations are often closer and tight knit, which does cause stigma, but also reduces loneliness and stress associated with some mental issues.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I remember reading about a son of a Japanese-Colombian couple that felt anxious and lonely in Japan, but much more fulfilled and happy in Colombia. He said something about the Chaos bringing life into him, which makes him less introspective, less pensive of the future, yet also more optimistic and welcomed. I feel something similar in the States compared to Peru.
I think it could be because wealthier nations are more socially atomized, and much later in their stages of "Industrialization related anomie", and thus dissolves the "Asabiyya" or social cohesion of that culture.
Or I could just be biased, but I do think social atomization is much greater in wealthier nations.
> I think everything you said is true, although as an addendum I (anecdotally) often find that some poorer nations are often closer and tight knit, which does cause stigma, but also reduces loneliness and stress associated with some mental issues.
I don't disagree as I am from Latam too and feel the same about socialization in first world countries, and social isolation is very likely a culprit of many of the modern world's ills. But let's not sugarcoat the fact that resiliency in Andean culture is a survival mechanism for the brutal working and living conditions that a lot of the population is exposed to, and that resiliency is just the visible, healthier coping mechanism but most of it is invisible and silent suffering too.
Parents and Adults in America are often afraid. Sometimes rightfully so, sometimes not.
There is likely too much crime in urban areas for children to walk freely, and it could be dangerous to even try to walk in areas that barely have walkable streets.
Europe can let this happen since their city planning is much better for people who either walk or bike to different areas. Some, like in Switzerland, even have extremely low crime rates as well. Still, a sentencing seems rough for letting a kid walk, in a probably safe area.
That's not just a rough sentence though, it kinda flies in the face of trying to protect the child. Putting a parent of a 5 year old in jail? For this? To make sure the child has a better childhood?
I would not feel safe walking the street, or being at home, or even being dead or in the afterlife, while such stupid and vindictive adults walk freely. Who knows what they'll get up to next!
> There is likely too much crime in urban areas for children to walk freely
This is very much not true. If there are any urban areas that have too much crime for kids to walk freely, it's a vanishingly small percentage, and certainly does not include gated communities in Williamsburg, VA.
I would argue it depends on where. Most of the rural areas are likely too loosely populated to commit any serious crimes, especially against children. And it is a large part of the United States.
However, looking at say, Downtown Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, the amount of crime does seem to increase overall. This is partially due to density, and also poverty. Saint Louis, a good chunk of Louisiana, parts of the South (Not including Texas), the Appalachian region, a good chunk of the Eastern United States barring New England, many of these regions have had issues with crime.
There's also the issue of crime happening in schools, including but not limited to drug sales (mostly between teenagers and not generally violent), and shootings (which is rare but far more common compared to other similarly wealthy nations).
Also I said Sometimes the Adults are scared due to truths, and exaggerations.
You can disagree with someone while still treating them the best they can. A Doctor shouldn't leave a patient mid-surgery simply because he found out he's an Anti-Vaxxer or votes a certain way.
Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless).
It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
A doctor refusing to heal a bigot is not even remotely the same thing as refusing to work for a megacorp because of their direct involvement in military action that kills children.
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm.
> Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.
At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
I think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake.
To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded.
This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.
Not sure if you really mean it, but you're kind of making the argument that a person that mindlessly shovels dirt from one hole to another in a circle should be paid. People are paid for the result, not for their labor.
Not at all. You're presuming that nobody can be taken off this hypothetical salary once they're on it, and that they would be placed on it indiscriminately.
Simple safeguards are already in practice in today's economy to prevent such circumstances.
Copyright is described by its proponents as a "Monopoly held by the creator". Considering how much we take from the Public Domain, I'd argue that Copyright should only last as long as Patents do, up to a maximum of 20 years.
Anything beyond that is not personal property, but a literal monopoly which impedes creativity, seeing the many, many, many sequels which are terrible often made to keep a studio's grasp on an IP. It happens so often those are often called "ashcan copy" or "rights-retention" films, which wouldn't happen if Copyright law expired as naturally as Patents do.
As an example, the entirety of the Disney Catalogue makes multiple references, or retellings of old Folk Tales from Europe, while also defending their "Intellectual Property" so fiercely, that they artificially extended copyright from 56 years to 96 years for corporately owned products, or the author's life and 70 years for a single author.
It used to be roughly on par with Patent expiration, but it's now almost either 100 years to almost 200.
I've never actually gotten into programming despite learning so many different languages, and never really knew where to start after learning the basics. Any project I wanted to do simply fell apart after a few days, barring some simple Mods in XML for some old games.
Even I don't really feel like doing much in programming, although I've always wanted to code. Vibe coding still feels a little nebulous and difficult to direct to make something good.
I'm looking to go into Medicine, so I don't think its just me being less intelligent (even though I recognize that as a possibility).
It's written by someone who lived through the "End of History".
That is, someone who lived through the best periods of America and Liberalism, and didn't know that it ended at 2014, the exact year China surpassed the US in PPP, and still lives with the "End of History" optimism and wealth the rest of us never got to experience.
I've only ever felt alive when I left back to Peru. You're quite literally forced to always live in the moment, rather than plan for the future, or even ruminate in the past.
Something about the environment, maybe the increased Microbiota due to food, higher freshness and Non-GMO food, being forced to talk with family. Its not as though as screens aren't present, but they don't feel so overwhelming back there.
Despite Lima having pretty bad places (hence the joke of Perukistan), Peru overall has one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, with underreporting being unlikely, since their neighbors with similar culture have less infrastructure yet report much more.
There is also something else to be said about Mental Health, coming from one of the countries with the lowest rates of someone taking their own lives, and its not just due to underreporting.
Peru probably isn't the best place to live, but the food, weather, people, and general culture which almost normalizes suffering in an almost Buddhist way (Sufre Peruano sufre! lit. Suffer Peruvian, Suffer!) might have something to do with a more robust mental health situation?
reply