You know, I've been thinking that, with automation making human work in a lot of areas less and less necessary, that there's questions about what people will do for work. I have a simple solution. Setup a public system to pay people to be part of scientific research by providing data. Obviously yes we'll need to create a strong privacy protection system (find a way to anonymize things as much as possible, and be very strict in allowing access to the data), but we also need to figure out how to get reliable honest data (meaning we can't just take people at their word). But it will help us monumentally in advancing science knowledge. We're already trying to do that, but so much of the studies rely on self-reporting, and other factors (for instance, right now, going out of your way to be part of a study will require action on your part that will potentially - I'd even say likely - change your behavior, which will screw up the results, especially when it can't be properly accounted for), that is making it unreliable, if not outright leading to false results and conclusions. Granted, that could still happen as people would almost certainly change behavior knowing that they're feeding data, but over time people would act more normally once they get used to it. Also, they would have to prove they can maintain the strong privacy (or anonymity) control and show the data can be used for good.
Mental health is an area I think could especially be improved with more data. Even stuff like brain scans (I mentioned it in another thread about a researcher that seems to have found that brain scans can actually show psychopathy - even found out that he himself was one) could lead to more understanding. It could also help in pre-emptive care (find out what causes Alzheimer's and other degenerative brain disorders, then try and find out the sources for the causes, and then be able to work to deal with that).
Maybe tie it to a general public income (which is one of the ways being suggested for dealing with the move to automation and loss of jobs) for opt-in. Regardless, I'd say do it as a gradual transition (which is how I feel we can move to universal health care and changes in economics), and early on we start with more rudimentary/basic data that can't be tied specifically to individuals, while letting people opt in for more personal data. Once proven that the data is beneficial and isn't being misused (and with oversight and possibly further strengthening of protections), then possibly expand.
Three words.
Ronald Fucking Reagan.
Ding, ding, ding. This is why fiscal conservatives need to realize that they are fueling social issues that actually end up making the economy worse. I'd even be willing to somewhat forgive Reagan, at the time, our data/information was often lacking, and lots of things (speaking of policies) at the time seemed to make sense but did not in the real world. He showed some willingness to realize mistakes and change, even though he started out in pretty goddamned awful position to start (by that I mean his opinions, for instance how his administration reacted to AIDS; their approach to the Russians and the Cold War where Reagan was spewing apocalyptic rhetoric until he realized "oh shit, the stupid shit I've been spouting has serious consequences and actually cause nuclear war" when coupled with their actions; sadly our current President seems hell bent on making the same mistakes, but instead of realizing and changing, is doubling down on making it worse at every opportunity, which given that our knowledge and understanding far far more robust now there's absolutely no excuse for the leaders of our country to be this way).
Health care is so blatantly obviously something that the benefits outweigh the costs and lead to a much more productive society that I cannot understand people that support defense budgets using that exact reasoning, but then refuse to accept health care is the same. Considering lack of and/or poor health care is a much bigger danger to our country it should even have priority as it is more critical to the overall health of our country. Plus, healthier people would also bolster defense, as we'd have healthier people and better knowledge for how to get healthy and maintain health.
Health care is the biggest public good you can offer.
Short term, it could massively help the economy too. Health care jobs can't be outsourced much (that might change, I know they're working to provide remote doctor-patient interaction/diagnosis, but so far we're a long ways from that being realistic for anything but simple checkups), it would bolster STEM jobs and education in general (it would be a million more times likely to provide real trickle down economics than the shit policies that claim to do that), and normalizing it would also provide stability. That latter would be huge for a major crisis (regardless of the cause, but especially for epidemics or biological attacks).
You're a bigger societal problem than someone with purple hair or tattoos.
Can't like this enough.
The LACK of mental health can/is a crime in this country. Recently took a multi-week course from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). It was a real eye-opener. Apparently about 80% of the people locked up in this country suffer from some form of mental illness.
Bingo. Someone mentioned that "guess its not profitable to help people", well this is where the profits on this are happening. Privatizing prison then gives them extra reason to funnel as many of the mentally ill into it as they can. Unfortunately, because there's so much corruption in that, and their methods are known to just make both mental illness and criminality worse, it is actually adding fuel to the negative aspects, and not working to make it better.
It does gives us a great setup for reform. Ban private prisons, but let them convert into care facilities (with significant changes, and massive near constant objective oversight a major goal).
Well, I'm a psychiatrist so obviously I agree with the critical lack of appropriate attention to mental health and complex relationship with society. I'm glad that this thread really hasn't treaded into the territory of equating mental illness to violent potential as was the impetus to talk about the topic. Violence is important with a minority of mental health treatment.
I will stay out of the politics here, but I do want to say that deinstitutionalization was in part motivated by a background of significant human rights problems in mental institutions. This is not to say that we have a good system for treatment of mental illness. We don't. But institutionalization was not a good system either, though more effective at keeping severe mental illness out of view.
Yep. Sorry to hijack your comment to make a political statement, but that's exactly why the typical "its a mental health issue!" response that a certain side of the political spectrum has made their standard mindless response to mass shootings completely fucks things up. People suffering mental health problems are far more likely to be victims of violence than the perpetrators. Not only that, but being victims of violence is often the source of mental health issues (studies seem to indicate spankings given to children actually leads to people being more likely to have mental health issues later on, in spite of the "I was spanked and turned out perfectly fine!" people that in my experience definitely did not turn out perfectly fine). But then that side has shown a general callous disregard for actual mental health science.
With that being said, I do think making access to mental health care and support would help with regards to that stuff, but I will always call out their empty and dismissive words since they have proven that's all they are (if not when they prove just how heinously ignorant they are about mental health).
There is truth (that there was rife abuse and that was one of the things used as reasoning for shuttering facilities), although there had been a good amount of reform in the industry (certainly that's not to say it had eradicated it or there weren't still major issues, even plenty that were systemic and due to fundamental flaws in our understanding of the situations; but relative to the nightmare that mental health facilities had been like earlier in the century it was progress). However, there's also been a lot of misinformation. Shock therapy for instance actually is a legitimate method that can work (now, I can't speak to it being used properly, overused, misused, etc, but when done correctly it is not the torture that its portrayed as).