zlacker

>>KenCoc+(OP)
This may seem tangential, but I swear it's not. We live in a country (US) where growth and progress is measured primarily in GDP. Poverty is measured economically. People's happiness is blithely assumed to be some kind of function of their economic well-being, especially because that can be measured.

There are alternative ideas like "Gross National Happiness" that attempt to measure what could arguably be called the end, as opposed the means (economic). This is generally presented as an alternative goal, to raise the "GNH" of a country. And it's certainly a valid one.

But what if, even more importantly, it's not the gross "national happiness", but rather its distribution?

The perpetrator in this horrible tragedy was clearly horribly unhappy, and almost certainly with severe mental problems. But this isn't a private concern, because in cases like this it becomes a national problem.

When are we going to stop concentrating so much on economic progress and GDP, and start considering how our society and institutions provide for people at the bottom rung of the "happiness" ladder? When are we going to move mental health from a "side issue" about "sick people" that "doesn't concern me", to a central national priority?

There's so much work to be done, and it's barely even a blip in the conversation.

>>crazyg+ic
I don't think it's a matter of focusing on happiness. Mental illness a medical issue, like cancer and heart disease.

We need to develop a cure, and when we do, days like this will be far less common.