> I tend to disagree. Our society is seriously not that bad, the fact we can talk freely about how bad it is show that is better than many other societies.

This seems analogous to Stockholm Syndrome. The “kidnappers aren’t that bad, if they were really bad they would have taped our mouths shut rather than just tying us up and locking us in this room”.

> While I didn't experience it first hand, a common thing I see when people visit really shitty places is how happy people are, from North Korean farmers to women of Saudi Arabia.

So if the people there are that happy, why are some of them risking their lives to flee?

> On the other hand, Scandinavian countries are often a model when it comes to a "good" society, topping all the "happiness" charts, and yet, they are in the worst quartile when it comes to suicide rate. So, I won't blame society for depression,

This argument doesn’t make sense. You seem to be saying:

- autocracies and democracies are societies

- some poor people in autocracies are happy

- some people in well regarded democracies kill themselves

- therefore societal factors do not play a leading role in depression.

> it looks like mentally healthy people are pretty resilient, and if put in extreme situations (ex: torture) to beyond breaking point, the result is usually more anxiety than depression.

not sure on this. PTSD correlates pretty strongly with both anxiety and depression.

> I know a few people with depression, treated and followed by psychiatrists. And while the trigger can be some hardship, which can be related to society, or can be a simple breakup, it is just that, a trigger, most people would have just moved on.

> And one trait I notice the most is apathy, not sadness. And it is really unsettling. At least, when people are sad, they react to your sollicitations, they may cry, get angry, complain, attempts to get them out will be warmly welcome or they will oppose resistance. For the depressive people I know, there is no reaction, it is not catatonia, their intelligence is unaffected, but it looks like they can't have emotions of their own. They may get good support from friends, family, and even society, but it all seem to go down in a black hole, I really think it helps, but it doesn't show. Drugs seem to be the most effective treatment, unfortunately, because these things induce tolerance and are addictive.

I agree with the apathy part. But I think it has varying levels of severity, and at its most severe is when it leads to a catatonic state. I agree that these people are the most likely to need medical treatment. I think this illustrates the first point I’m making though which is that we need to either do away with “depression” as a term or that people need to get more specific with it. Also just because drugs are the cure for the disease, doesn’t rule out the fact that the social triggers may have been responsible for causing the biological issues.

> Depression is a disease, and we don't know the cause.

Well if this thread is anything to go by, people can’t even agree on what the term ‘depression’ is meant to represent. You’re making a bold claim here stating it is a disease, which implies that the cause is purely biological. Most medical definitions state it is a mood disorder.

> We know heredity is important, being healthy and well supported is certainly better than sick and alone, but we are not sure about the details, and therefore what society can do. Quoting scientists favorite phrase: "more research is needed".

Quoting https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay0214

> Rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide correlate negatively with income (4–7) and employment (5, 8). Those with the lowest incomes in a community suffer 1.5 to 3 times more frequently from depression, anxiety, and other common mental illnesses than those with the highest incomes.

It would seem that actually yes, as a society we do know what to do to alleviate depression. We can help these people out of poverty.

> As for what society can do to promote healthy habits, this is really a complex thing.

Well yes but also no. We seem to have reduced smoking very effectively. Sugar taxes work well. It seems that in general, if you tax unhealthy things and subsidise healthy things, it tends to have the intended effect.

> You may not realize but that's what Hitler tried to do (for their own people), in fact Hitler could have seriously tackled depression, though eugenics, healthy labor and campaigning against unhealthy habits like smoking. And yet, it would be an absolutely terrible society to live in.

You seem to be trying to make the point that any societal attempts aimed at boosting physical and mental wellbeing should be avoided because Hitler also ran societal programs so any such initiatives are destined to lead to fascist societies. This does not appear to be the case.

> So, I don't think a better, more equal society, as good as it is, is the ultimate solution to depression. Still nice to have though.

No, it is not the “ultimate solution” (ironic choice of words given the contents of the last paragraph) to depression but it is a giant leap in the right direction.