# data[].attributes.body
"You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art. We've sacrificed the high art."

I chose this quotation because Mustapha Mond answers to John Savage's protestations that Shakespeare's literature is superior to anything produced by society's emotional engineering. I believe that happiness is the highest benefit in this world, and great writing can only emerge from conflict and suffering. Cultured civilization has sacrificed art in order to acquire the greatest amount of enjoyment possible.

# data[].attributes.body
“It’s basic assumption is that the social whole has greater worth and significance than its individual parts, that inborn biological differences should be sacrificed to cultural uniformity, that the rights of the collectively take precedence over what the eighteenth century called the Rights of Man.”

I chose this quote because it briefly explains how people turn to society to live their life instead of having individuality for themselves. Their freedom is kind of taken away from them meaning that they don’t really have an option to choose such as the vaccine in today’s world. It’s not mandatory but the government is forcing us to take it and if we don’t, our freedom to have fun and be outside is taken away.

# data[].attributes.body
" These millions of abnormally normal people living without fuss in a society to which if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish "the illusion of individuality", but in fact have been to a great extent deindividualized"

I chose this quote because Huxley stresses the importance to being an individual, what makes us happy and what makes us different are important to our character. The society that's being built is has us conditioned and this is to ensure they get the perfect world that they want.
Huxley is asking us if we really feel that our happiness means more then our freedom so it poses one important question, are we really free?

# data[].attributes.body
“Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they don't even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does”

I chose this one because it really is reflective in our society and how we are not being progressive in this area. I see that there is a notion that people are less than others because of their mental illness. This happens many times in early childhood and creates a unhealthy mindset that instead of receiving Help they must hide and suffer forever.

# data[].attributes.body
"we know the pursuit of good ends does not justify the employment of bad means"
I chose this quote because no matter how pure your intentions seem to be something will definitely be wrong for someone else.
for example we're helping afghans get out of their country but we can't help Haitians at the southern border

# data[].attributes.body
" We see, then, modern technology has led to the concentration of economic and political power, and to the development of a society controlled by big business and big government." I chose this quote because most business are affected by technology.

# data[].attributes.body
YISROEL RAYMOND
"Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature."

In religious circles, the prevailing motive seems to be that people find it their life's purpose to air their moral assumptions and values as objective truths when it is in fact impossible to establish said morals or values as objective truths. Most people understand authoritarian religious groups to be extremist or fundamentalist in their nature, but I put forward the idea that it is a short step from basic observance to those ultra orthodox ways of life. When one forms their life, their personality, their beliefs, hopes, and dreams on a higher power, they must by definition believe in the absolute truth of that doctrine, or they will soon lose faith in those ideas. Perhaps it is a simple aversion to cognitive dissonance, but regardless of the motives for why one must convince themselves of these "truths," the end result is always the same. If one thing is true, the other is false. If one man's god is the true God, the other's is false. If one man is an adherent of the "true" religion, then the other is living a life of immorality and heresy. The Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, Christian Fundamentalists, and Islamic extremists all have this one thing in common: they believe they are the chosen servants of God, that their way of life is the one true way to serve god. While the result of Islamic extremism is a far more abhorrent result and can be equally condemned by all who have basic human decency, it is far more difficult to condemn Ultra-Orthodoxy and Christian fundamentalists. Indoctrination and the coercion used by organized religions works for many, but for those few who do not buy into those human distractions from the great question of human nature--what is our purpose, what is our meaning?--the damage of rejecting indoctrination creates individuals who are constantly at war with themselves.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/choice-and-rebirth/202006/the-invisible-demographic

# data[].attributes.body
“...Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed.” 12/66 Huxley is saying that everyone is being pushed to be the same and in everyone being the same, people suffer mentally. This is shown with the pandemic for instance. Citizens are being forced to take the pandemic to be like everyone else, despite long term use being unknown, and different people reacting to the vaccine differently. Despite all this unknown stuff, it’s being shoved down people’s throats and they are ostracized if they don’t. They face loss of job, unable to go to school, go out to eat and do all the things they are used to do, and so naturally there will be a significant decline in mental health. The feeling of anxiousness for being forced to inject something into your body that you don’t know how it will harm you long-term, the depression or not being able to live financially if you don’t and the loss of pursuing education... all things that would contribute significantly to the basis of mental health being destroyed.

# data[].attributes.body
"The dehumanizing effects of over organization are reinforced by the dehumanizing effects of over population."(page 13, second to last paragraph)

I chose this quote because of the way how people see their worth less than a average human being. I disagree with making someone not have their freedom because everyone deserves a fair and equal opportunity. And they should just control people's lives a certain and we are all unique in different ways

# data[].attributes.body
I think the point Huxley is making is that in today's world, we have all different kinds of technology to help us every day of our lives. Nowadays we use our computers to do our school work. One of the quotes that I found from page 9 is ''Today, thanks to sanitation, modern pharmacology, and the social consciences, most of the children born with considerable....''

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2017/03/29/429442/corporate-capture-threatens-democratic-government/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/28/why-big-business-and-big-government-haunt-america

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill Clinton-the necktie-eschewing, more loosely hinged 2016 edition-went to New Hampshire last month to attack Bernie Sanders on behalf of his wife's Presidential campaign. At one stop, he derided Sanders as "the champion of all things small and enemy of all things big." This was partly sarcasm (Sanders was posing, Clinton suggested) but partly critique: the implication was that Sanders was simply turning his back on the high-tech, globalized world of the twenty-first century.

One of the surprises of the current campaign has been how strongly the 2008 financial crisis still resonates. Presidential candidates don't often refer to specific pieces of financial regulation, but Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have disagreed repeatedly on the debate stage about the Clinton-era repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which strictly limited banks' activities. Sanders says that as President he will push for a piece of legislation he calls the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act, which would break up the biggest banks-an idea that both Clintons resist. That seems to be part of what Bill Clinton was talking about in New Hampshire.

The Clinton-Sanders argument is anything but a momentary campaign blip; it's not even specific to those two candidates. Hostility toward bigness has been cutting across party lines. One of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee, joined Sanders in calling for a restoration of Glass-Steagall. Ted Cruz has said he would have let all the big banks that were in peril in 2008 fail. (He has insisted that "big business" is a natural ally of big government, and that Republicans "should be the party of small business.") Donald Trump has attacked hedge-fund managers, promised to tax the profits big corporations make overseas, and complained that big banks lend to people like him instead of to small-business owners who really need the money; he's adept at playing the role of the very, very big guy who uniquely understands the little guy. In the realm of commerce, authors, agents, and publishers are campaigning against Amazon's domination of their world. Nobody seems to like Big Pharma, Walmart, or agribusiness. The Justice Department has blocked proposed mergers between the country's biggest cable and telephone companies. Concentrated private economic power has emerged as a principal villain of our day.

Suspicion of bigness-in government and in business, especially banking-has been a venerable theme in American politics. Writing about the musical "Hamilton" in The New York Review of Books, the eminent American historian Gordon Wood observed that Alexander Hamilton, whom the play celebrates for having founded the American financial system, also put his Federalist Party on a path to political failure. Federalists like Hamilton, Wood wrote, "never really understood the way the American economy was developing," and "tended to favor big merchants and financiers and to ignore artisans, small businessmen, and farmers." This, Wood wrote, left an opening for his archrival Aaron Burr, who aligned himself with Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party and its anti-financial constituency. In the year Burr died, 1836, Andrew Jackson, the head of Jefferson and Burr's party, presided over the end of the distinctly Hamiltonian Second Bank of the United States, to broad public approval.

A similar mistrust of magnitude came to a head in 1890, when Congress almost unanimously passed the Sherman Act, its first major response to the rise of big business. The act's harshest passage specified fines and imprisonment for anyone "who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Monopolists, then, would not be too big to jail.

In 1909, in "The Promise of American Life," a Progressive Era policy blueprint, Herbert Croly picked up this thread, asserting that American politics could be understood as an ongoing struggle between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians. Croly preferred Hamilton; he believed the large businesses that had recently come to dominate American economic and political life had arisen naturally. But the country needed an enhanced central government to keep them in line when they misbehaved, break them up when they stifled competition, and, occasionally, even take them over.

In 1914, Croly's friend Walter Lippmann wrote about the leading Jeffersonian of the time, William Jennings Bryan, in terms that sound strikingly like Bill Clinton discussing Bernie Sanders: "He is the true Don Quixote of our politics, for he moves in a world that has ceased to exist." In Lippmann's view, Bryan and his people were fruitlessly at war with "the economic conditions which had upset the old life of the prairies, made new demands on democracy, introduced specialization and science, had destroyed village loyalties, frustrated private ambitions, and created the impersonal relationships of the modern world." Croly and Lippmann, and their ally Theodore Roosevelt, were modernizers, eager for an aggressive expansion of all aspects of American power. And they were challenging what had been the dominant strain in Democratic Party liberalism: a mixture of Jeffersonian suspicion of government and Jacksonian little-guy populism. Roosevelt, despite his current reputation as a trust-buster, was the President who declined to break up Standard Oil and permitted J. P. Morgan to establish monopoly control of the steel industry.

Lippmann and Croly would not have expected that hostility to bigness would still be around a hundred years later. They identified the Jeffersonian tendency with a vanished America of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, dominated by agriculture and small proprietorships, and Bryan's popularity (three Democratic nominations for President, and almost a fourth) with a doomed feud with modernity. How long could that feeling last?

They might have paid more attention to the fact that not a few of their fellow-Progressives-most notably Louis Brandeis-had come to fear that government was too complacent about the rise of corporate power. Testifying before the Senate in 1911, on behalf of a proposal to put new teeth in the Sherman Act, Brandeis, then a crusading liberal lawyer, declared that "social unrest among the American people is due to the industrial injustice of which such flagrant examples are afforded by the promotion of the United States Steel Trust, the conduct of the Tobacco Trust and the Standard Oil Trust, the sense of helplessness which confronts our people opposed to such forces." These trusts, he said, "have stabbed industrial liberty in the back."

The following year, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for President, asked Brandeis to sketch out a position for him on the "Trust problem" which would be different from that of Theodore Roosevelt, who was running as a third-party candidate. Brandeis wrote a letter making the point that the Democrats were for enforced competition in industry, whereas Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party believed that trusts and monopolies "should be made 'good' by regulation." Brandeis went on, "We believe that no methods of regulation ever have been or can be devised to remove the menace inherent in private monopoly and overweening commercial power. This difference in the economic policy of the two parties is fundamental and irreconcilable."

Wilson, as President, signed into law the Clayton Act, which Brandeis helped devise, and which was a significant enhancement of the Sherman Act. In 1916, Wilson put Brandeis on the Supreme Court. Brandeis, in his letter to Wilson, had advocated government's taking over ownership of monopolies, so that they would be "owned by the people and not by the capitalists." But over the years Brandeis's aversion to bigness seems to have trumped his friendliness to government. In 1935, he joined the Supreme Court decision that decreed the National Recovery Administration (which Kiran Klaus Patel, in a new history of the New Deal, calls "a process of government-sanctioned cartelization of epic dimensions") unconstitutional, and told one of Franklin Roosevelt's aides, "I want you to go back and tell the President that we are not going to let this government centralize everything." During these years, according to Brandeis's biographer, Melvin Urofsky, the Justice was lobbying Roosevelt through a back channel-his protégé Felix Frankfurter, soon to become a Supreme Court Justice himself-to make the breakup of big businesses into smaller units a central feature of the New Deal. It didn't work. Jefferson Cowie, in a new short history of the New Deal called "The Great Exception," writes, "The Democrats' historic mission had been to restore the individual smallholder and his community to a place of economic prominence through dismantling the trusts," but "industry of once unimaginable scope and scale now dominated the economic landscape, and the 'Brain Trust' that Roosevelt gathered around him had come to believe that the future of the political economy lay in regulating monopoly-not eliminating it." Besides, a severe economic crisis can make the question of whether it's better to have bigger or smaller economic units seem like a nicety. During the 2008 financial crisis, a similar logic prevailed: an economic emergency made dramatic government action possible, but the focus was on keeping the big banks alive, so that they wouldn't take down the whole economy, not on limiting their size. By the time that issue arose, politics as usual-that is, the incremental kind-had returned.

What opponents of economic bigness have always had in common is not so much party or ideology as location: the provinces. Jefferson was from Virginia. Brandeis grew up in Kentucky. Carter Glass and Henry Steagall, the authors of the Glass-Steagall Act, were from Virginia and Alabama, respectively. John Sherman, the principal author of the Sherman Act, was from Ohio. Conversely, both Roosevelts, Lippmann, and Croly grew up in or around New York City, and lived there as adults; Hillary Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago area, also lived in New York as an adult. So did the ultimate present-day Hamiltonian, Michael Bloomberg. (So did Hamilton himself.) James Madison (from Virginia) and most of the other framers of the Constitution created a political system that institutionalized provincial mistrust of centralized political power by creating two levels of government, state and national; then by dividing the national government into three branches; and then by dividing the legislative branch, which they thought of as the most powerful, into two houses. Remote, sparsely populated jurisdictions got a thumb on the scales of governance. The Federal Reserve is a Hamiltonian institution that compromised with the Jeffersonian perspective through being divided into twelve geographic districts, each with its own bank.

But big business itself tends to nationalize and globalize. Liberals, who think of themselves as the countervailing force to business, have over the long term only intermittently embraced Brandeis's view that government should deal with a concentration of economic power by breaking big businesses into smaller units. Brandeis had few allies of his stature, and his own writing on the subject was copious but unspecific. In 1934, he published a collection of writings called "The Curse of Bigness," but it does not make a sustained, rigorous argument. Brandeis usually said that bigness led to monopoly, which, by stifling competition, led to economic inefficiency-but Melvin Urofsky observes that this was really a sentimental view, which grew out of a Jeffersonian conviction that nothing good could possibly come from a large organization, in business or in government. Brandeis, Urofsky writes, "made these arguments not as an economist but as a moralist and a democrat. . . . The curse of bigness adversely affected everyone and in every way, and therefore had to be fought." This seems to describe Bernie Sanders's attitude toward corporations and the market economy, too. The novelist Joshua Cohen wrote recently in The New Republic, after spending some time watching Sanders campaign, "With Sanders, huge is bad. Enormous bank, bad. Huge deficit, bad. The word has become so big that it must fail."

In one respect, Croly and Lippmann called it right. The dominant line of liberalism, in the past century, has been in the tradition they favored, based on the conviction that the age of small economic units had ended, and the way to tame the formidable power of the corporation was to have equally large forces on the other side. These could take various forms-a vast, centrally organized labor movement, or new kinds of federal regulation, or Keynesian management of the economy, or even centralized economic planning-but the common thread was the idea of one great liberal power center.

Another development favored this strategy. Liberal reformers of the early twentieth century usually counterpoised big business and small business; Ida Tarbell crusaded against Standard Oil on behalf of local oil producers, such as her father had been before Standard drove him out of business. But, as the United States became more urban and more affluent, critics of the corporation began focussing on protecting its consumers rather than its smaller competitors. A 1927 best-seller called "Your Money's Worth," by Stuart Chase and F. J. Schlink, led to the establishment of Consumers' Research and Consumers Union, both of which still exist. (The much larger Consumers Union publishes Consumer Reports.) During the Kennedy Administration, the federal government began appointing officials whose job was to attend to the needs of the consumer (the post-financial-crisis Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the latest of these), and Ralph Nader became one of the country's most celebrated private citizens by making himself into a crusader for consumer rights. It was easy to miss the fact that reformist political energies, in migrating to the defense of consumers, had migrated away from the assault on conglomerate power as such.

Lawrence Glickman lays out the history of consumer activism in his 2009 book, "Buying Power." Glickman prefers to think of American consumer movements as a long-running, historically neglected form of political protest. (His favorite example is the boycott of the segregated city buses in Montgomery, Alabama, which Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Montgomery Improvement Association organized, in 1955.) For Glickman, a "technocratic individualist" approach that views the consumer as a buyer of commercial products who needs protection from being ripped off is a narrow, arid way of understanding the subject. In practice, though, the legal protection of the consumer is indifferent to bigness in business.

Often, in fact, economic giants destroy smaller competitors by obsessive attention to consumer preferences. If Walmart drives a small-town general store out of business, that's bad for the general store but not necessarily bad for consumers concerned with price, selection, and quality. Amazon has hurt bookstores and publishers not by fleecing consumers but by offering them improbably low prices, vast selection, and quick delivery. The rise of agribusiness has hurt small farmers-and lowered food prices in the supermarket. Today, you'll often hear eloquent defenses of the small producer, rather than the consumer, but they are usually limited to an area where the defender has a particular concern. Amazon's critics in the literary world seldom fret about its effect on the lawn-care industry. Tim Wu's 2010 book "The Master Switch" proposes a "Separations Principle" that would include forced breakups of monopolies, but only in information industries. When such arguments are made in realms other than our own, we tend to regard them as the special pleading of an interest group.

The Sherman Act is still the government's main weapon against bigness. It was the justification for breaking up Standard Oil, in 1911, and A.T. & T., in the early nineteen-eighties; for prosecuting Microsoft, in the nineteen-nineties, on the ground that it sought to monopolize the browser business; and for quashing the proposed merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast, last year. The act, as courts have interpreted it, does not prohibit bigness or even monopoly, per se. To trigger a government intervention, a megafirm has to try to extend its market dominance into a different market, or set prices in concert with other firms, or try to merge with another megafirm in the same business, or clearly harm consumers. Goldman Sachs and Google, to be subject to antitrust action by the government, would have to be shown to fail such tests, not merely to be so big as to be all-powerful in their markets.

Besides the Sherman Act, there is another long-standing weapon against bigness, unlovely and disorganized but probably more consequential. It might be called economic republicanism (with a small "r"), and it uses the distributed nature of power in the political system to force a distribution of power in the economic system, or a part of it, anyway.

The banking regime that emerged from the New Deal, and persisted until the late twentieth century, is a good example: investment banks, savings-and-loan associations, commercial banks, and stock brokerages all lived in legal safe harbors, protected from competition with one another; financial power was far less concentrated than it is today. Automobile dealers have prevailed on all fifty state legislatures to hinder automakers from selling cars to the public. (That's why Tesla can operate only three dealerships in Ohio and so far hasn't been permitted to open even one in Michigan.) The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 gave local stores some protection from chain-store competition. Milk subsidies have kept dairy farmers in business. Donald Trump-a businessman who operates in fields like real estate and casino gambling, where maintaining close ties to state and local officials is supremely important, and who may not be quite as big a tycoon as he'd like us to think-is an economic republican (though he'd never think of himself that way). Certainly, his No. 1 cause, erecting barriers to free trade, has been a constant feature of economic republicanism from the very beginning. Economic-republican measures usually pass when local business interests band together and lobby for them. When it happens, though, it almost never feels like a triumph for social justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Big Business and Big Government Haunt America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Clinton-the necktie-eschewing, more loosely hinged 2016 edition-went to New Hampshire last month to attack Bernie Sanders on behalf of his wife's Presidential campaign. At one stop, he derided Sanders as "the champion of all things small and enemy of all things big."

# data[].attributes.body
“Physically and mentally l, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interest of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man’s biological nature. “(Page12)

I chose this quote because Every single mankind is unique, there’s no human being the same and Nowadays this is happening a lot, specially when comes to religious, gorvenment, they think everyone should follow one thing when there’s a lot to discuss about it which brings people do things which is different than others and thats is the big problem when someone do different or think different

# data[].attributes.body
“The political merchandisers appeal only to the weaknesses of voters, never to their potential strength. They make no attempt to educate the masses into becoming fit for self-government; they are content merely to manipulate and exploit them. For this purpose, all the resources of psychology and the social sciences are mobilized and set”

this quote is what defines today's corporate media, how they treat their opposition, how they lie and manipulate information for sake of control. and how they monetize any strictly for their own benefit to anyone who the media deems a threat or an average citizen. The United States has one thing most countries around the world don't have and sometimes makes the United States Superior. And it's the Constitution, in the Constitution, there is the First Amendment which gives freedom of speech protection from the government and any who protect to anyone Proclaimers to be a journalist part of news media/paper, but that is the issue mainstream media they are not Just journalist their corporate entity that uses these protections as the shield.
this is how our media is dangerous and why over organizations is dangerous

# data[].attributes.body
"Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed." I chose this quote because it specifies that if it is a continuous eager to work, become above all neglecting to stabilize your mental health will be your downfall. We are not created to push without doubling back and slowing down, being always put together declines your freewill inside your mind.

# data[].attributes.body
Our "increasing mental sickness" may find expression in neurotic symptoms. These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But "let us beware," says Dr. Fromm,"of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms.Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend; where there are symptoms there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which strive for integration and happiness are still fighting." The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. "Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does." They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness.

In this paper I would like to discuss the declining mental state of the working people living in the over-organized and overcrowded urban settings of today's modern world. In the quote above, I feel this is a very important point that Huxley makes and that needs further exploration. Especially seeing as mental health-care in the United States is severely lacking accessibility for ordinary people, it is often seen as an affliction for the rich.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Urbanization, defined as the increase in the number of cities and urban population, is not only a demographic movement but also includes, social, economic and psychological changes that constitute the demographic movement. It is a process that leads to the growth of cities due to industrialization and economic development (M. Tayfun Turan, Aslı Besirl 2008). The rapid increase in urban population worldwide is one among the important global health issues of the 21 st century. According to the projections of the United Nations Population Division, by 2030, more people in the developing world will live in urban than rural areas; by 2050, two-thirds of its population is likely to be urban. The scenario in India is also affected by this trend. In India approximately 28% of the India's population lives in cities and this is expected to increase to 41% by the year 2020 (UN World Urbanization Prospects 2008).

Urbanization brings with it a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. This demographic transition is accompanied by economic growth and industrialization, and by profound changes in social organization and in the pattern of family life. Urbanization affects mental health through the influence of increased stressors and factors such as overcrowded and polluted environment, high levels of violence, and reduced social support.

Movement of population to urban areas has led to large number of older men and women left to look after themselves in the rural areas, while the young generation lives in the cities for livelihood. This also leads to less availability of caregivers for old people. It is worth mentioning here that by 1990, majority (58%) of the world's population aged 60 years and over was already found to be living in developing countries. By 2020, this proportion would have risen to 67%. Over this period of 30 years, this oldest sector of the population would have increased in number by 200% in developing countries as compared to 68% in the developed world (Anon 1994, Murray CJ, Lopez AD 1997).

Impact of urbanization is associated with an increase in mental disorders. The reason is that movement of people to urban area needs more facilities to be made available and infrastructure to grow. This does not happen in alignment with the increase of population Hence, lack of adequate infrastructure increases the risk of poverty and exposure to environmental adversities. Further this also decreases social support (Desjarlais et al., 1995) as the nuclear families increase in number. Poor people experience environmental and psychological adversity that increases their vulnerability to mental disorders (Patel, 2001).

A report by World Health Organization (WHO) (World Health Organization) has enumerated that mental disorders account for nearly 12% of the global burden of disease. By 2020, these will account for nearly 15% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost to illness. Incidentally, the burden of mental disorders is maximal in young adults, which is considered to be the most productive age of the population. Developing countries are likely to see a disproportionately large increase in the burden attributable to mental disorders in the coming decades (WHO Mental Health Context 2003).

The range of disorders and deviancies associated with urbanization is enormous. Some of the disorders are severe mental disorders, depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, crime, family disintegration, and alienation. Dementia and major depression are two, dementia and major depression are the two leading contributors, accounting, respectively, for one-quarter and one-sixth of all disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in this group. Most people with dementia live in developing countries: 60% in 2001 is projected to rise up to 71% by 2040. Rates of increase are not uniform: numbers are forecast to increase by 100% in developed countries between 2001 and 2040, but by more than 300% in India, China, and their South Asian and Western Pacific neighbors (Trivedi 2008).

When we refer to psychiatric disorders anxiety and depression are more prevalent among urban women than men and, are believed to be more prevalent in poor than in non-poor urban neighborhoods (Naomar Almeida-Filho et al 2004). The meta analysis by Reddy and Chandrashekhar(1998) revealed higher prevalence of mental disorders in urban area i.e., 80.6%, whereas it was 48.9% in rural area. Mental disorders primarily composed of depression and neurotic disorders.

Socioeconomic stress is considered to be affecting mental health of women. Results of randomized control trials involving individual or group counseling sessions led by community health workers or nurses, either as the principal intervention or in combination with inexpensive drug therapies have indicated the role of counseling intervention among women (Ricardo Araya et al., 2007,Vikram Patel et al., 2003). Increase of nuclear families in urban society has led to increase in cases of violence against women in general. Among them, intimate-partner violence links to alcohol abuse and women's mental health. Analysis of community-based data from eight urban areas in the developing world indicates that mental and physical abuse of women by their partners is distressingly common with negative consequences for women's physical and psychological well being (Lori L. Heise et al 1994). Poverty and mental health have a complex and multidimensional relationship. The urbanization leads to forming set of group as "fringe population" who earn on daily basis (Mursaleena Islam etal 2006). An Indian study in a slum community north of Mumbai indicates high incidence of alcoholism among men and verbal abuse of women by their husbands (Shubhangi R. Parkar, Johnson Fernandes, and Mitchell G. Weiss 2003). The WHO analysis also documented a close association between the experience of violence and women's mental health(2005). Women are particularly vulnerable and they often disproportionately bear the burden of changes associated with urbanization. Domestic violence is also highly prevalent in urban areas. In both developed and developing countries, women living in urban settings are at greatest risk to be assaulted by their intimates (Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB (1995).

The model of cultural transformation especially from rural to modern society, is considered to be one of the reasons of psychological disorder. However stress caused by transition from rural culture to urban culture cannot be denied as one of the factors leading to stress-related problems. Cultural factors interplay with urban dynamics in a unique manner. Understanding how cultural dynamics articulate with adaptation to urban life may facilitate proper management of mental disorders in cities. In the assessment and treatment of patients living in urban areas, contextual cultural factors also play an important role (Caracci G, Mezzich JE 2001).

There is a need to create awareness about mental illness across all sections of the society. Urbanization is thus seen as a natural corollary of growth. Awareness about its impact on health and more so on mental health will act as a facilitator of change in growing Indian economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Urbanization, defined as the increase in the number of cities and urban population, is not only a demographic movement but also includes, social, economic and psychological changes that constitute the demographic movement. It is a process that leads to the growth of cities due to industrialization and economic development (M.

# data[].attributes.body
" Our contemporary western society, in spite of its material, intellectual and political progress is increasingly less conducive to mental health and tends to undermine the inner security, happiness, reason and capacity for love in the individual; It tends to turn him into an automation who pays for his human failure with increasing mental sickness. "
This definitely shown in today's society as shown by this article https://mhanational.org/issues/state-mental-health-america that there is the increase of mental sickness as there is an emphasis put on working and producing instead of worrying about the individual health every year there is an 1.5 million increase plus more over the quarantine of people being mentally ill. I.T is literally looked down upon to take off work and people usually work themselves sick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mental Health America's annual State of Mental Health Report ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on several mental health and access measures.

# data[].attributes.body
"The wish to impose order upon confusion, to bring harmony out of dissonance, and unity out of multiplicity is a kind of intellectual instinct, a primary and fundamental urge of the mind."
"Though it sometimes happens that a bad philosophical may do harm indirectly, by being used as a justification for senseless and inhuman actions."
"The Will to Order can make tyrants out of those who merely aspire to clear up a mess.  The beauty of tidiness is used as a justification for despotism."

The area of interest here in relation to Huxley is the idea of conformity that turns into something similar to despotism and my aim is to see how this relates to the government health sector specifically when it comes to following/enforcing government orders etc. the push for vaccination during the Covid-19 pandemic

# data[].attributes.body
Anaisa Santiago

“In the course of evolution nature has gone to endless trouble to see that every individual is unlike every other individual. We reproduce our kind by bringing the father's genes into contact with the mother's. These hereditary factors may be combined in an almost infinite number of ways. Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature.”
I feel like this quote can be further explained by arguing with someone who is for technology. Many people do not see a real problem with the heavy use of technology, so by trying to explain evolution and how we are all supposed to be different. Us following everyone is going against biological nature.

# data[].attributes.body
"we see, then that modern technology has lead to the concentration of economic and political power, and to the development of a society controlled by ..... big business and big government" ( Pg 11 )
In todays world we our over run by technological development  and by the companies that thrive of the media. We often lack the awareness of the reality that big businesses and media although can be beneficial in today's society are often harmful or lack the concern for its consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
"As the little men disappear, more and more economic power comes to be wielded by fewer and fewer people"- Aldous Huxley

I chose this quote because I thought that this is an incredibly common sight in today's society. This quote gives me a lot of space for additional research and exploring into different companies, and even across industries.

Specifically, large conglomerates such as Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos profited especially during the COVID pandemic- "Bezo's wealth grew by $90.1 Billion during the pandemic." (USA Today)

I'm thinking of creating my thesis based on wealth disparity in relation to the pandemic to show how exactly the 'little men' get drowned especially during hard times, with historic levels of unemployment, while the rich continue to profit beyond comprehension.