This is a troubling article in a less-than-obvious way.
There's something fundamentally flawed with the underlying concept of what constitutes "depression" and "mental illness." In a world of death, suffering, abuse and sin, who is delusional, who is irrational -- those who feel sadness from time to time, or those who have blithe, oblivious happiness and are affected by little or nothing? I ask you, in the face of the realities of the world, are the latter normal? Are they rational?
There's something flawed with labeling 25% of a population as genetically less blessed because they are "less resilient."
There is something fundamentally flawed with the idea that the capacity for feeling hurt is a defect.
The motive, of course, is that of creating market -- the more people labeled as "ill," the more will seek, or be prescribed medication and treatment. But there's something a bit more insidious -- a disempowerment of a large segment of the populace (by saddling with a label of defective or ill) and taking away their "rational" voice (they're mentally ill, you know, so they really aren't to be taken seriously) and making them another entitled victim group.
A society made up exclusively of people who are universally "resilient" would be a coarse and brutal society. Abuse would be tolerated under a "no harm, no foul" mindset. There would be no motive to search out and excise tyranny and evil. Those who are hurt by it would be marginalized as defective because of an "inferior gene," or castigated as "weak" for not being able to take it and bounce back. There would be no one motivated to change things for the better.
Aren't most of the greatest advances and discoveries of science and culture -- and even religion -- achieved by those who are most motivated to make the advances and find the truths? In other words, aren't most advances and truths that lead to the changes discovere by those who are looking because they are unhappy with the way things are in the moment?
This is a bad road, these negative labelings of sensitive, normal people. We need sensitive people, people who feel. If they are removed, by drugs or more extreme treatments, advancement and improvement will decrease and the worst aspects of humanity -- it's latent inhumanity -- will flourish.
Your excellent response reminds me of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World published way back in 1932, Brave New World has
remarkable meaning in today's world (IE SOMA).
Soma use is encouraged by the government to be
consumed by the citizens. The main reason for this is that soma puts the person into a deep numbness, void of all feeling. In the novel, a character that is feeling too emotional takes a dose of soma to rid herself of those
odd sensations.
Huxley showed that when the citizens were either alone or had a moment of free time, creative forces tended to creep out.
This is when it was most opportune to take soma tablets, when the individual is conscience
of being an individual.
But, we must remember sometimes we are dealing with life and death issues.
The latter probably don't exist; and depression is nothing at all like the former. This article, and our discussions here, have nothing to do with what you are posting.