NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Why has evolution not corrected this problem?
All evolution requires is survival and reproduction. It doesn't create perfection.
All evolution requires is survival and reproduction. It doesn't create perfection.
Wouldn't schizophrenics have a harder time reproducing and raising a child. Seems like there would be selective pressure against it.
Isn't is possible that more mental illnesses have labels and definitions than in previous years?
To clarify, people were institutionalised as being hysterical - which would encompass any number of psychiatric disorders currently labelled.
I do not think that more people are suffering from mental illness, rather that we, as a society, are beginning to recognise that mental illness is just that - an illness, and so we are seeking to understand it.
I don't know if 'better diagnosis' is entirely accurate. There are certainly a lot more labels, which makes it look to the layman like they're making progress in the diagnosis of discrete problems, which implies equal progress in the treatment, but in reality we're just desperately using the trappings of science in our denial, and in our attempt to hide from the fact of demonic possession.Most definitely, we are able to diagnose it better.
Edward?Hey -- I thought these records were supposed to be sealed.
I'm sueing!
Assuming that schizophrenia is even partially based on genetics, the individual with that gene sequence does not have to successfully reproduce in order for the genes to be retained in the gene pool.Wouldn't schizophrenics have a harder time reproducing and raising a child. Seems like there would be selective pressure against it.
And then "mental illness" is deviation from the norm. If the norm was people living in a constent state of depression, then anyone who wasn't depressed would be said to have a mental illness.
That's obviously because this isn't a problem!Why has evolution not corrected this problem?
Why has evolution not corrected this problem?
It's not a problem for evolution.
It's a individual problem for the many individuals affected by an illness and a problem for the familly and society. Not for the reproduction of enough healthy human beings to ensure the continuation of the species.
Beside, most mental illnesses are not as serious as schyzophrenia.
Also, 1 in 5 is possibly the result of a recent increase in the ratio of people with a mental illness, so evolution wouldn't have had the time to step in so to speak.
Further, this recent increase in the ratio of people with a mental illness may be the result of a newly found ability of society first to help people survive with thier illness and second to cope with a higher ration of people with a mental illnesses. In which case, there would be no case for evolution to step in.
Finally, for it to make a difference, there would have to be a competitor species, which the human species doesn't have just yet.
EB
And then "mental illness" is deviation from the norm. If the norm was people living in a constent state of depression, then anyone who wasn't depressed would be said to have a mental illness.
God, you're so happy all the time, off to the asylum with you.
http://viewpointsonline.org/2014/05/01/happiness-easily-overlooked/
This month is Mental Health Awareness and there’s a health issue that needs its turn to be addressed as well.
With the all-good attention of telling people who are afflicted with depression and anxiety to be positive, we tend to overlook the opposite with those who are too happy.
Can happiness be an actual disorder? How can something that makes us feel good and have positive physical results be bad?
We all too easily notice when someone is depressed and make encouragements for them to seek help but what if you saw someone who was overjoyed? Too happy?
That excessive happiness could be an underlying medical condition that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Why has evolution not corrected this problem?
And then "mental illness" is deviation from the norm. If the norm was people living in a constent state of depression, then anyone who wasn't depressed would be said to have a mental illness.
And then "mental illness" is deviation from the norm. If the norm was people living in a constent state of depression, then anyone who wasn't depressed would be said to have a mental illness.
That said, towards answering the OP; it should be noted that mental illnesses are not necessarily a drawback that leads to its sufferers not passing the evolutionary fitness test. Take depression for instance; if you get this when you already have kids, then why the fuck would it impact your evolutionary fitness? Some illnesses can even be an advantage; psychopathy for instance could give you an edge in almost any time period. Or what about a combination of illnesses that would lead to someone becoming a rapist? It's hard to argue that a mental illness that causes someone to impregnate lots of women (with or without their consent) would hurt their evolutionary chances to procreate.