Wonder if that was a conscious insight on Rand's part?

Interesting you should mention that Duncan, there are a variety of theories about the evolutionary advantages of depression.

It's all Dawkins' fault. I've been reading his stuff a lot lately and I've been looking at a lot of behaviour - especially when it directly relates to survival - from an evolutionary perspective. It seemed reasonable that behaviour that prevented suicide (esepcially in youth) would be pretty heavily selected for, all things being equal.

Under some theories, the help is somewhat coerced, eg, in a small group, everyone has to pull their weight. Depressed people are sort of blackmailing their friends and family to get help.

That's really interesting; now you've got me thinking about it from a game theory perspective.

Will definitely have a read of your essay.

"...does that mean that depression might be an evolved defense mechanism against suicidal tendencies?"

That's an interesting question in relation to the first appearance of Gail Wynand.

does that mean that depression might be an evolved defense mechanism against suicidal tendencies?

Interesting you should mention that Duncan, there are a variety of theories about the evolutionary advantages of depression. I'll dig up an essay I wrote surveying the ideas. Brief summary of a view of the ideas:

In a situation of social conflict, i.e., if you challenge for a leadership position and fail, you get depressed and withdraw, become quiet and non-threatening. This stops the conflict, sends a message to the leader not to hurt you, and stops you expending any more energy on this failed conflict. That's evolutionarily advantageous.

When something bad happens to you, e.g., death of a partner, or having a baby you don't the resources to support, depression signals other people in your group to give you increased social support and resources. That's similarly advantageous.

Under some theories, the help is somewhat coerced, eg, in a small group, everyone has to pull their weight. Depressed people are sort of blackmailing their friends and family to get help.

Back in the day*, before firearms and tall buildings, it was relatively difficult to commit suicide, so committing vs not-committing suicide isn't a big part of the evolutionary theories. It might be that being suicidal occurs when these depressive mechanisms go wrong.

You can read more on my old website, or in PDF format.

* Interesting fact: The Day was a Wednesday.

I think, there is a bit of confussion in regard to the issue of the addition of microelements to the water. Lithium, flourid, selenium, iron, iodine etc are not drugs, they are normal natural elements of human biochemistry. In certain cases there is deficiency of these elements in the water and food and that can cause different diseases-anaemia, goiter, caries, heart diseases and so on. So there are two different ways to attend the problem: first-to wait for development of clinical symptoms, that is, actual diseases and to supply microelements to the only affected people. This approach could be dangerous, since prolonged defficiency could cause irreversible changes, deterioration and eventually death (like in the case of suicide). Another way is to take preventive measures and to supply the deficient element to the affected population as a whole. Bear in mind that this measure doesn't add anything to the human body as drugs do, but simply restores normal natural supply of the elements which are essential for the normal human physiology. Prevention is always better than cure as any doctor would testify. There is nothing wrong with greater good for greatest numbers as long as sacrifice is not involved. What is wrong that people are denied the possibility to make free choice in this matter and, yes, this option could be abused by government, but I'm sure that there are ways to prevent that. Treatment of bipolar desease with lithium is altogether different matter since the dosage they use is apparently million time bigger than that which could be supplied with water.

Off-the-cuff thought (not being a psychologist) ... but does that mean that depression might be an evolved defense mechanism against suicidal tendencies?

There is also the fact that some antidepressants have proved to be, in some instances, the catalysts of suicidal behavior, especially in children and teens. There seems to be a lot about neurochemistry that we don't yet know.

This was discussed in my psychology classes. The basic idea is that depression does two things:

• Makes one suicidal (suicidal ideation, i.e., depressed people think about and plan suicide)
• Makes one unable to actually carry out these plans (i.e., depressed people don't have enough 'oomph' to actually get out of their rut and jump off a bridge)

When someone first starts taking antidepressants, the suicidal thoughts and ideas don't go away immediately, but the mental inertia does; so the person suddenly has the energy and impetus to go ahead and get a gun, or go to a bridge, etc.

7-up Takes the Ouch out of Grouch. I've known friends on lithium carbonate for bipolar disorder. They described it as a real mood-deadener, making them not just more stable but feeling utterly disconnected from the world. (I don't know what concentrations are being considered to know if it's a concern too, but dosage is supposed to be carefully monitored to avoid overdose). This is rather frightening that additives justified by safety have been pushed further into additives rationalized by dental health, or now the worst, mental health.

Aaron

Leonid,

The first time I heard Lindsay speaking was on a radio interview. He related a story about Peikoff, who spent some months convincing a friend that it would be wrong to nationalise the (IIRC) coal industry. His friend finally relented, but followed up with the question "what about the steel industry?"

The issue of water is the same. Fluoridation, selenisation, lithiumation ... the choice of which additives are present in my water should be my choice, and no-one else's. In an ideal world it would be possible to choose a water provider whose water I want; in practice what we must do is demand mains water without additives, & then add those of our own choosing.

Chlorine, as I've said, is a special case. It is essential to the provision of mains water - as I understand it, no alternative method of sterilization (e.g. ozone or UV) would suffice. It is as much a part of mains water provision as the pipes themselves.

Chlorination is done for the purpose of keeping the water potable as it travels to the end user.
It's done for the benefit of the water supply.
Flouridation is done for the (alleged) benefit of the end user; it adds nothing to the quality of the water, which is as potable after the addition of the flouride as before. Same with Lithium and Selenium, if they were added.

Therefore flouride, lithium, et al should be treated as optional additives, with the choice left to the end-user, not the supplier.

There is also the fact that some antidepressants have proved to be, in some instances, the catalysts of suicidal behavior, especially in children and teens. There seems to be a lot about neurochemistry that we don't yet know.
And there is also the fact that some people take antidepressants for non psychological reasons-- for instance, I take one at low doses to control digestive spasms associated with Crohn's Disease, my mother takes another to help control the numbness caused by neuropathy. Adding Lithium to the diet of these people may have unforeseen consequences.

Oh, and the Crohn's Disease seems to have come about as part of my body's response to a government mandated MMR shot I had to take to enroll in some courses at a local college some twenty years ago, when I was contemplating becoming a teacher (an idea abandoned when I saw from close up how the government and union bureaucracies in combination completely messed up all possibility of actually teaching a classroom of kids something worthwhile--do you see a theme here?).

(According to Wikipedia, this song was ranked #20 in heavy metal magazine Kerrang!'s "100 Greatest Rock Tracks Ever" in 1999.)

Well, now I know not to bother with Kerrang!

What's the difference between your argument and "for the greater good"?

As you said, water supply is government monopoly and we don't have the choice to buy it on the free market. Therefore the only way which is open to us is close monitoring of the water to prevent government abuse. I suppose that some people are allergic to chlorine, but so far the benefits of chlorination overweight possible harm. I think that this also applicable to fluoride. Lithium is potent antidepressant when it used in very high doses-about 2 grams a day to treat major depression and I doubt that this amount could be supplied with water.I don't know what effect it has in small doses, but if it has beneficial effect like reducing of suicide rates without any harmfull side effects including normal mind alteration, I cannot see why to object to it. Obviously the whole issue needs thoroughfull research. BTW, selenium deficiency apparently associated with increased risk of heart disease. What you'd think about selenization of water supply?

I'm all for lithium in my water supply.

If they'd had lithium in Seattle's water supply 20 years ago, perhaps Kurt Cobain would still be with us.

Nevermind. Here's Nirvana with Lithium.

(According to Wikipedia, this song was ranked #20 in heavy metal magazine Kerrang!'s "100 Greatest Rock Tracks Ever" in 1999.)

Leonid,

I'm not arguing against food additives per se, rather that as mains water supply is a Government monopoly (at least in Australia) those additives in water should be held to a bare minimum. I am also arguing that adding lithium to mains water is an attempt by Goverment to alter the psychology of its citizens.

Firstly there is the issue of choice; there is a difference between additives in food that I buy in a (mostly) free market, and a water supply that is monopolised by the Government. I can choose to buy table salt without iodine; I can not choose a supplier of mains water who does not add fluorine. Therefore, the Government should keep water additives to a minimum, in order to maximise individual choice in the matter.

Secondly, there is a difference between fluoride, lithium and chlorine. Chlorine is - as you point out - as necessary for a mains water supply as pipes themselves. Fluoride however isn't added in order to make mains water usable; it's added in an effort to improve dental health, based upon shoddy research carried out by the US Government in an attempt to defend itself against lawsuits relating to fluoride exposure while working in nuclear weapon manufacture. Lithium (specifically, lithium salts) has a direct effect on the brain, acting as a mood stabiliser.

There is a clear progression at work: from making the water safe to drink (chlorine), to disposing of harmful waste material while claiming health benefits (fluoride), to introducing mood-altering substances into water in order to change the psychology of the population (lithium).

Full disclosure: my wife suffers from a condition that makes her teeth particularly sensitive to fluoride; her teeth were irrevocably damaged during childhood as a result of the elevated fluoride content in mains water. Hence I'm a little sensitive about the issue myself.

You haven't mentioned chlorination which makes your water drinkable and prevents numerous diseases. This is not about "doping" population with mind-altering drugs but about supplement of deficient micro-element. Why don't you object to iodine supplement in the table salt to prevent goiter, iron supplement in the milk to prevent anaemia etc...I'd agree with you that this is not a job for the government, but as far as I know currently there is no private water supply in existence anywhere in the world. Do you think that objectivists should drink unprocessed water and die from cholera? "How would we tell?"-by simple chemical test, called spectrography.

How would we tell?