Miacat,
Your previous post reminds me of questions relating to mental illness and reproduction.

Individually, if someone were mentally ill, there would be less likelihood that they would have children. So nationally, if a country has a low birth rate, would that be indicative of wide scale mental illness in that country, or more indicative of the fact that the general environment of that country is not conducive to having children.

I think both, but more than likely in a ratio of about 70:30.

In the case of many countries, the country may have a low birth-rate nationally, but there are often pockets within that country that have high rates of birth. In many countries with Muslim populations, Muslim families will usually have more children than other families, and I have heard that this is the case in Australia, but I haven’t seen the actual figures.

In the case of the US, “the conservative, deeply religious state of Utah has a much higher birth rate (2.76 per woman in 2000) than the ultra-liberal state of Vermont (1.57 per woman). In other words, women in Utah produce 73% more children per woman than Vermont. Similar trends can be observed in studies comparing birth rates amongst Orthodox Jews versus secular Jews.”

The reversal of this trend will be difficult. Financial incentives alone have proven, in Europe, to not be effective in encouraging parents to have children.”
http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/fmn/How%20Feminism%20killed%20fml.html

So overall, I would think that low birth rates within many countries, would be indicative of wide scale mental neuroses within that country. There would be other symptoms (or secondary symptoms) of this general mental illness also, such as high rates of divorce, high rates of Single Person Households, high rates of childless couples etc

However populations cannot expand indefinitely either, but I think that the shrinking populations of many countries, would be indicative of widespread mental illness in those countries.

The Emotional Life of Nations, by Lloyd deMause, and his analysis which claims ""It is no exaggeration to state that human progress is a function of the evolving space between mother and infant. . . . It is the baby who is the wild card in human evolution, the flexible template through which culture has the opportunity to slowly improve itself generation by generation." from a book review by Godwin on http://www.primal-page.com/godwin2.htm otherwise see Google, where you find Lloyds book "Emotional Life of Nations" and other material from him.

I was struck by this material as it was what i was thinking - see www.miacat.com my journal page on http://www.miacat.com/SantasLetter/CommunityDevelopment/ShireBuilding/Altmann_Resume/MTKA_Resume.asp and; where I write my poem on "No War is the Loss of One" and the journey down from "Time - Scape - Time". It was the first thing I wrote where I was trying to find out "what I was thinking" for post-war generations" and expressed it as it is on the page.

Given that I have found Lloyd DeMause, I will eventually attempt to write a book or some papers addressing some of these themes. I think the thing I am struct with is how to understand culture through "The Historical Reproduction of Human Conflict" and I ask if there is ever to be a place for "Empathy"?

I find there is so much we fail to see, and I know there is so much I don't understand, but "reproduction" patterns in humanity be it through past or present, has given me a better grip of the NOW, even without all the background.

I was looking at it in a similar way to deMause. I feel the perspective can help widen discussion because it takes a macro and micro view on cultural exchanges and conflict. This for me is the way I intend to advocate notions of "conflict resolution" and promote acceptance through sustainable development.

That listening and understanding all sides of the human experience, must be a way forward. I am always wondering ... can we ever do it?

Tanveer Ahmed is quite correct in many of his assertions, but does not come to grips with real issues such as lack of acute beds for admission of acute patients, reduced and cutting of services for the out of hours crisis care. Satisfactory care of those with a mental illness needs to be over a 24 hour period, whether they are in or out of the system, not 9-5 as politicians and bureauracats prefer for their own healthy economies.
Mental Health has been ignored over many years by politicians who are solely responsible for the care of those with a mental illness. The Richmond report was a blatant cost cutting exercise.
The Report promised community care as a replacement for instituitional care. A total failure for the care of the mentally ill, who are just as worthy and human as any one of us, led to their placement in "for profit" hostels and boarding houses, prisons and detention centres where they receive inadequate care. There are exceptions, but these are outweighed by the fact that many of these unfortunate people are living on the streets.
Drugs and alcohol are abused by the mainstream population, in many cases attempting to avoid every day stresses of life. This is also true for many suffering a mental illness, many would have us believe that this is some new phenomonin, and confusing the issue with diagnosis of an illness. It is true that there are drug induced psychotic episodes occuring in people who are not suffering from a mental illness.
The fact is that there is a lack of services and care for drug related issues, which urgently needs addressing by the politicians. If a person is in a prison, a mental health facility, or any other instituition, they are entitled to be treated for their drug problem. I have heard the notion that psychiatric nurses are not qualified to treat those with a drug problem. This is a furphy, as qualified drug workers, should be part of the team in any psychiatric facility.
Tanveer Ahmed, there is a crisis in mental health.