You may, of course, argue whether or not the Theory of Evolution applies to this situation.
Warning: Long Read! But worth it. =P I had to explain a lot of things, moreso on the theory for (which was difficult to understand) than the argument against (easy to understand!). So don't think I'm being unfair or anything. =P
Recently, a theory has been published regarding the evolutionary advantages of depression. The theory states that depression (minor to major) is not, in fact, an illness (unless there is a definite physical reason, such as brain damage), but rather an evolutionary behavior that is designed (in the end) to benefit the individual. This theory only applies to depression which is a result of an actual problem - a loved one died, an individual is not happy with their job/lifestyle/wealth/place in life, or any emotional trauma that is a result of an event or relationship. This accounts for most depression, no matter the severity.
Evolutionary behavior is something that is a very tricky subject, but generally regarded as sound. For example, a cat will arch its back, or a dog will raise its hackles, when threatened. This is not behavior that is learned - if you took a baby away from its mother the moment it was born, and raised it completely separate from others in its species, it will still exhibit this sort of behavior in adulthood. You would also refer to this sort of thing as "instinct".
However, how evolutionary behavior relates to genetics isn't something that scientists have been able to define on the genome - and it will be quite a while before anyone does, as we have barely touched the surface of DNA analysis.Evolutionary psychology is even trickier. For example, there is definite evolutionary advantages to emotions like love, fear, disgust, happiness, humour. Love promotes society (security in numbers) and protection of relatives (genetic information). Fear gets adrenaline pumping, a very handy hormone in stressful situations. Disgust will help you avoid ingesting anything that could possibly be toxic (like being disgusted by rotting meat). Happiness - well, happy people generally live healthier, longer lives, and are more successful at passing on genetic information (everyone likes happy people!), and, of course, humour perpetuates happiness.
But sadness is one of those things that evolutionary psychology cannot define. There is no (obvious) benefit to being sad, as often it is not a situation that you can change. And of course, there's some explainable sadness - for example, being sad at the untimely death of a loved one may promote activism on your part regarding the safety of other loved ones (generally, relatives with your genetic information), which would extend to natural (old age) death of loved ones, or death/destruction of objects or pets with which you have an emotional attachment with. As in, if you felt it in one occasion, it would make sense that you feel it in ALL occasions, even if those occasions did not benefit you, because of the nature of human emotions.
However, feeling glum when it rains, or sad about a failed achievement - those are harder to define. You cannot change the weather, or the past, and the evolutionary advantages thereof are not so clear (although arguments could be made, as I have already thought of some while writing this).
But an evolutionary advantage to depression is not something you would immediately see benefit to. In fact, depression is regarded as a disease - but this theory states that because of medical misconceptions, depression is being treated incorrectly. Rather, therapists are throwing medication to alleviate symptoms, rather than actually curing the problem that perpetuates it.
Anyway, the theory of the advantage to depression goes something like this...depression is a heavy risk. If there is something wrong in an individual's life that they cannot fix by themselves, depression is a "cry for help" to the other people involved in the individual's life. If other people are dependent on this person - monetarily or emotionally - they are motivated to help this individual fix their problem, because otherwise, the individual imposes strain on others' lives. This very much a calculated gamble, because the individual is also imposing great complications in their own life.
But let's use an analogy to describe this. If you work for a company, and are not happy with your salary or working conditions, you may go on strike in order to force the management to change the situation. Now, of course, this is a big risk - you would lose money while on strike, your family may suffer because you could not support them, and you may lose your job. But if you are important enough to the company, you would impose a great cost to them for not fixing your wishes.
Of course, the obvious argument to this is, "Well, what if they just hire someone else?" Well, you cannot fire family.
Remember, however, evolution is slow (to us), in that while depression would not benefit someone of the modern environment - in the Stone Age, it could definitely cause an impact. People were not isolated nor in large society; they were in small hunter/gatherer groups. If someone simply stopped hunting, stopping gathering, stopping taking care of children, it would impose a great cost on the community, because it depends on every individual. The community would then be forced to help the individual fix their problem.The theory even suggests that this the reason behind post partum depression. A mother feels (for whatever reason, subconscious or not) she is unable to take care of a child, and is asking for support from the community.
There is an alarming number of suicides caused by depression, which is obviously against evolutionary theory, so how is it explained? Well, two ways. First, once again, in those primal times, it wasn't as easy to kill yourself as it is now. An individual talking about suicide, or showing suicidal tendencies, would be a very alarming thing to a group, and thus they would be forced to step in (as we do today). However, it's much easier to kill yourself today as it was back then - you had to walk off a cliff (how many people threaten, but do not actually jump off of tall buildings?), you had to purposely find a predator, or even cut yourself with rocks (not as easy as a razor!) - all of which you have strong instincts against, and thus would be much more difficult than simply drinking poison, sitting in an enclosed area with the car on, hanging yourself, etc. - which you have no real instincts against, rather than "I don't want to die." So the actual suicide rate would be extremely low, practically unheard of, compared to today. It's evolutionarily sound as long as you do not go through with it.
The other idea is much more cruel, but is exhibited by other social creatures - in that, your community benefits from your suicide. By killing yourself, you alleviate any strain you imposed on your community by being a burden. Your relatives (with your DNA) could get on with their lives and reproduce, etc.
Now remember, this is all very radical, and is offensive to some - but the idea is not about being nice. It's about correctly treating a problem, in that, instead of just throwing drugs at it (because it's a disease and needs to be cured), you correctly locate the problem in your life and are given solutions to the problem. It's something that, where applicable, your friends and family would get involved with, as depression tends to be a social conflict. However, medication will still be used to alleviate symptoms, but not as a "cure".
The argument AGAINST this theory goes something like this...while sadness IS normal, an evolutionary advantage...depression is like cancer. A normal biological process gone wrong, and is out of control. And generally, scientists are afraid that by not treating it as a disease, that we'll revert back to former (destructive) therapies like they had in the 60's. In that, depression was regarded as not serious, as a problem on your part, drink some tea and get over it.
It is not something that would make sense, statisically, as a natural behavior of the species - but rather, as an uncommon disease. In that, it is not something that occurs frequently in all people who undergo similar situations, and it has a predisposition to occur in certain families (once again, like cancer; even though it is a genetic trait, a cat of a certain family isn't more predisposed to arch its back, after all).
However, both sides contend that it is not a thoroughly studied as it should be, and further testing would reveal whether or not the theory of depression as an evolutionary behavior trait is credible or not.
So, if you've read through that, discuss what you think! Is it a disease, or a roundabout solution?
Edited by Casilla, 18 May 2006 - 02:32 AM.
