What are the socio-political effects of mass psychological changes brought about by putting a large chunk of the population on medications without full knowledge of the side effects?
Imagine putting an equally large percentage of the population on androgenic medications.
Because there's no reason to assume that the "default" state of nature is some ideal or good for anything. It could be but what are the odds? We're still apes in a world that changed wildly out of pace with the speed of natural evolution.
> equally large percentage of the population on androgenic medications
Its funny you say this because doing this would actually put humanity back to the testosterone levels men had for most of human history.
If you're gonna make this case you're going to have to additionally argue that said evolution makes sense in an environment that is not the one we evolved to survive in. A lot of our evolutionary baggage is maladaptive.
It’s never perfect, but it still is a high barrier to pass.
As for modern therapies, I mean - depends? A lot of our modern illnesses also simply didn’t exist at the scale they do now.
Heart disease has been going up steadily in the past few centuries for example.
ADHD is an interesting one too. I have ADHD. For the vast majority of human history it probably won’t have been a big deal for my mental health, but it is now due to what’s expected of me.
Probably people would become more risk-averse, on average. Interest rates would tend to go lower, as money in the future would gain relative value compared to present money.
Curious if it's this black and white. Normally, younger people are advised to have portfolios that tend riskier, as they have more time to make up for downturns in the markets, which (it is at least taken for granted) otherwise are on a perpetual upward trend. Even if we assume retirement still happens at 65, and you're just extending the length of retirement, that'd be a reason why you need your portfolio to do MORE heavy lifting for you to get the amount you'll need to cover that long retirement, so it'd suggest a higher appetite for risk. If you're working longer, on the other hand, all the more ability to weather downturns in the market, and so less out of necessity and more opportunity, the appetite for risk would also seem to increase, for most persons.
I assume you were talking more about physical risk taking though, because as "tomorrow you may die" becomes less and less likely, you're perhaps that much less incentivized to "live for today" (to deconstruct the popular boomer adage). This angle I'd take less issue with.
> What are the socio-political effects of mass psychological changes brought about by putting a large chunk of the population on medications without full knowledge of the side effects?
Not really a question big pharma is interested in discussing ...
What are the socio-political effects of mass psychological changes brought about by putting a large chunk of the population on medications without full knowledge of the side effects?
Imagine putting an equally large percentage of the population on androgenic medications.