Im not too sure about this article. a lot of stats are dubious and the reasonings being them are fish-eyed, though true. Its just not well rounded.
Yes, some of it makes sense, but its not enough for a solid theory.
For example, the claim that advanced countries have more suicide rates than developing ones is simply not true.
"According to World Health Organization (WHO) data and related analyses:
- The age-standardized suicide rate in high-income countries was approximately 12.7 per 100,000 population.
- In upper-middle-income countries, it was 7.5 per 100,000.
- In lower-middle-income countries, it was 14.1 per 100,000 (the highest among groups).
- In low-income countries, it was 13.4 per 100,000.
While the absolute number of suicides is higher in low- and middle-income countries (accounting for about 73% of global suicides due to larger populations), the per capita rates show variability, with lower-middle-income countries often having the highest rates. Factors like reporting accuracy, access to mental health services, cultural differences, and economic uncertainty can influence these figures, and some high-income countries (e.g., Japan at 17.4 per 100,000 or South Korea, mostly attributing to culture) do have elevated rates, but the overall pattern does not support the claim that rates are systematically higher in more prosperous nations."
While the removal of good things is a suicide risk, having a life of no good things is an equal risk as well. And there's no reason to blame it on lack of adaptability, as even developing areas cant adapt to loss either.
i could even argue that having a background of privilege could make someone even more stubborn against negativity due to a healthy foundation of self being built.
and thats only one point in the article, idk i have a lot of opinions about the various other points...