Poverty and Depression
According to Prof. Elizabeth Gould, of Princeton University: "We have found that stressful experiences inhibit the production of new neurons in the hippocampus of adult rodents and primates. Moreover, developmental stress (either prenatal or early postnatal) persistently diminishes the production of new neurons, even into adulthood."
The social implications of this research, according to an article by Johah Lehrer in the Feb/March issue of Seed Magazine, are that: "If boring environments, stressful noises, and the primate's particular slot in the dominance hierarchy all shape the architecture of the brain - and Gould's team has shown that they do - then the playing field isn't level. Poverty and stress aren't just an idea: they are an anatomy. Some brains never even have a chance."
Poor people are not poor because they are lazy. The growth of their brain cells has been limited by their environment.
If you take a man or woman who was raised in an environment of wealth, and take away that wealth, they are very likely to rebuild their fortune and return to their previous status within a year. Part of the reason why, is that they know how to handle money and they understand what is needed to be successful. But a larger part is that they have a brain capable of working on the problem.
If you take a person born into poverty and give them several million dollars (let's say they win the lottery), what will they do with it? It is a very rare individual who will invest their winnings and build it into a sustainable base. Most of the time, they just blow it and end up right back where they started. In some cases, they end up worse off than before.
That may be old news, but this part is not: the condition may be treatable.
Page 65 of the Feb/March issue of Seed Magazine, in the above-named article: "The theory that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin is mostly wrong; Yale's Ronald Duman is showing that Prozac triggers neurogenesis."
Poverty kills. The Canadians, at least, seem to understand this. The United States seems to find it baffling.
I'm not suggesting giving free Prozac to the poor (though Eli Lilly and company could sure use the positive publicity), but, once we know we can do something to repair a problem in our society, shouldn't we be working on it?
The social implications of this research, according to an article by Johah Lehrer in the Feb/March issue of Seed Magazine, are that: "If boring environments, stressful noises, and the primate's particular slot in the dominance hierarchy all shape the architecture of the brain - and Gould's team has shown that they do - then the playing field isn't level. Poverty and stress aren't just an idea: they are an anatomy. Some brains never even have a chance."
Poor people are not poor because they are lazy. The growth of their brain cells has been limited by their environment.
If you take a man or woman who was raised in an environment of wealth, and take away that wealth, they are very likely to rebuild their fortune and return to their previous status within a year. Part of the reason why, is that they know how to handle money and they understand what is needed to be successful. But a larger part is that they have a brain capable of working on the problem.
If you take a person born into poverty and give them several million dollars (let's say they win the lottery), what will they do with it? It is a very rare individual who will invest their winnings and build it into a sustainable base. Most of the time, they just blow it and end up right back where they started. In some cases, they end up worse off than before.
That may be old news, but this part is not: the condition may be treatable.
Page 65 of the Feb/March issue of Seed Magazine, in the above-named article: "The theory that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin is mostly wrong; Yale's Ronald Duman is showing that Prozac triggers neurogenesis."
Poverty kills. The Canadians, at least, seem to understand this. The United States seems to find it baffling.
I'm not suggesting giving free Prozac to the poor (though Eli Lilly and company could sure use the positive publicity), but, once we know we can do something to repair a problem in our society, shouldn't we be working on it?
Labels: ethics, politics, technology
posted by M. B. Dezotell at 9:48 AM
0 comments
