Mental Health: Our Forgotten Civil Right

Why does treating mental health as a civil rights cause matter? 

In this episode of Beyond GDP: The Social Progress Podcast, host Michael Green explores with guest Jono Wilde the urgent need to rethink how society treats mental health, sharing how decades of neglect and stigma have cost us millions of lives and constant suffering. 

Jono, Executive Director at The Good Life Movement, talks about how treating mental health as a civil rights movement is the solution. Imagine if mental health isn't just treated medically but protected as fundamental human rights. Jono shares a bold framework that could revolutionize mental health policy in the U.S. and beyond. It covers everything from anti-discrimination protections to youth education, community funding, innovative research and more. 

This episode also offers clear solutions and ideas on how we can all support this movement. Advocating for systemic change isn’t easy, but each one of us can make a difference if we address the issue at the root. Tune in to learn how talking openly, investing wisely, and enacting civil rights legislation can transform mental health care and save lives. 

Explore the full Mental Health Civil Rights Bill as part of The Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness Act led by the Good Life Movement: https://goodlifemovement.org/

C-Suite Perspectives
Elevate how you lead with insight from today’s most influential executives.

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Please follow and rate our show! 

Explore our work at https://www.socialprogress.org/

Interested in the Social Progress Index? Learn more. 

Help us advance social progress across the world! Your donation makes a huge difference to us. Donate now! 

Want the full story? Subscribe to our newsletter! 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Hello and welcome to Beyond GDP, the social progress podcast, where we talk about the issues about the real things that matter to real people, and also talking about real solutions to the problems the world faces. And today we're going to talk about a really important problem that I think gets neglected, and that is the issue of mental health. I mean the data is very clear is that mental health is probably the biggest emerging global public health crisis in terms of its impact on mortality, but also on morbidity. More and more people are going to be living with disability as a result of mental health. And that's a huge issue for us to deal with. And one the world is not really getting to grips with. I live in the United Kingdom, and recently there was a shock drop in disability-adjusted life expectancy in our country. Everyone said, Well, what's wrong? What's wrong with the cancer treatment? What's wrong with the heart disease treatment? And what the real cause was was a drop in mental health for young people. And that was what was driving this top-level decline in disability-adjusted life expectancy. So that gives us a sign of the scale of the problem. But we know that it's hard to get our heads around. It's hard to understand what's going on, partly because the data is so bad. In the Social Progress Index, we're actually relying a lot on survey data to try and pick up mental health issues because other data doesn't really exist. And as we know, what gets measured gets managed. And I think that paucity of measurement is one of the reasons why we're struggling with mental health as an issue. Now that's the problem. We will talk about solutions. And I'm really delighted today that I've got John O'Wilde uh joining us today from the Good Life movement. And I think John O' is doing some really exciting stuff in the United States, thinking about how do we find a solution to this mental health crisis. And I think the the scale of his ambition is really, really exciting. And I'm delighted to have you with us, John Ode. Thank you so much for joining us.

SPEAKER_02 2:10

Thank you for having me, Michael. I'm really excited to be here. And I know we have a lot to talk about, but um what you had just kind of uh summarized for everybody, I think I think is really important. And I want to just mention one stat right off the top here, if I could, as it relates to Americans with serious mental illness in in the U.S. here. And uh, as you were talking about, what is it about our care system that is causing um the life expectancy for folks with serious mental illness to be so much lower than those of other also life-threatening diseases? And so in the context of the US, we know that Americans who have cancer die on average about 15 years earlier than the general population. Heart disease is anywhere from five to 15 years earlier than the general population. Somebody with a serious mental illness in America, on average, dies 25 years earlier than the general population. And the life expectancy in the U.S. is only about 77 years to begin with. So we're talking about one-third of the lifespan of the expected American is getting cut short because we just don't take mental illness as seriously as we should in this country.

SPEAKER_01 3:19

I think that's a great fact. I think it really emphasized the fact it's not just about the the sort of the disability aspect of it, but there's a real direct impact on life expectancy through the wider effects that's so important on this. But look, mental health is an issue that just hasn't had the attention. It hasn't got the some of the fundraising appeal, the political appeal of things like cancer. What brought you into the the world of addressing mental health as a key issue?

SPEAKER_02 3:48

Yeah, so it's um it's interesting because my my family history is actually right with mental uh health issues. And so you think I would have been um a longtime supporter of mental health advocacy, but um nonetheless, it it actually took the passing of my father in 2024. He died by suicide after having dealt with bipolar disorder. And I watched, not only was his suicide traumatic, but the the way in which the system and society writ large had been treating him leading up to his death really kind of opened my eyes to the discrimination disparities between um had he had cancer or had he had heart disease, what would the care system have looked like? What would the insurance companies have done in that instance? How would his family and friends felt about his diagnosis and been able to talk to him, and how drastically all of that imagined reality was from his actual reality with bipolar disorder and all of the issues and the headwinds that he faced in addition to having a life-threatening illness. And so watching him go through that and then ultimately dying due to complications of his mental illness, it really inspired me to kind of take action on this, but then also see it, I think, a lot clearer than I had ever seen it before, which is that it's not just a mental health issue, but um it's a civil rights issue in the sense that we have a segment of the American population, those who suffer from a mental illness, who are being treated fundamentally different than the rest of the American population. And that is a basic civil rights issue when you break it down in those terms, because this is not a life that they are choosing for themselves, right? This is an ascribed status, much like your gender or or your race. And so we can't discriminate on those platforms, we can't discriminate on this either, is how we're looking at it at the Good Life Movement. And that's really what inspired the work here, which is to try to frame all of this as a mental health civil rights issue.

SPEAKER_01 5:50

We're certainly on you know a journey, I think, with mental health. And there is something has been changing in a way. I mean, you talked about bipolar disorder. I think 10 years ago people wouldn't really have talked about bipolar disorder. I mean, I think now we talk about neurodiversity. So there is progress, but I think it's what's fascinating about your approach, Giotto, is you're talking about mental health as a civil rights issue. Frame that up first. Why is mental health best attacked as a civil rights issue?

SPEAKER_02 6:18

Well, it I I think the the best argument for it is to look at the things that haven't worked so far here in the States, because mental health reform is actually something that has been worked on sort of in fits and starts for the last 70, 75 years, I'd say. The National Institute of Mental Health, which is our nation's sort of mental health government-funded bureaucracy to try to address the issue, that was founded all the way back in 1949, after World War II, when folks started to realize some of the veterans coming home were experiencing what they called the time shell shock due to the war. And what do we do for those veterans in that time? And so even as far back as 1949, we've been trying to address this issue and figure out how to better treat it, but it has always gotten caught up in a question of how do we reform the system? Health insurance becomes a major focus of it in terms of how do we get mental health covered the same as physical health, which is important, but I think it fails to recognize the larger issue at hand here, which is that our society across the board does not treat mental health with the same reverence we do physical health. So even if we were to achieve mental health parity on the insurance front, you would still have stigma, you would still have discrimination in housing and jobs and school with folks who have a mental illness. You would still face issues with our criminal justice system because we treat someone who is having a manic episode as someone who is a possibly a threat, and we respond to that call with a uh police car rather than an ambulance, like we would somebody who's having a heart attack when both are medical emergencies at the end of the day. So we're taking this civil rights approach because we want to address all the parts of our society that we think are failing people on the mental health front, and we want to make sure that we're also looking at, well, what is the common denominator with all of these issues? Because even if you take the health insurance piece and you isolate that, the reason that mental health services aren't covered the same way as physical health services is because we have never really talked about mental health in the public forum and with the same earnestness and honesty that we do cancer or heart disease. So if we can address the underlying issue, this is our thesis at least, if we can address the underlying issue, then all of these other verticals where we see discrimination and mistreatment of people with mental illness, those will start to work themselves out in the sense that you will have addressed the problem at its at its core rather than the symptoms of the problem, which is all the ways the systems have manifested potential solutions that have failed over the years.

[Ad] C-Suite Perspectives

SPEAKER_01 9:35

And I mean, in a way, this is sort of very similar to all other health issues, a way that the the way the conversation is changing, thinking about social determinants of health, for example.

(Cont.) Mental Health: Our Forgotten Civil Right

SPEAKER_01 9:45

So, you know, we can't talk about cancer just in terms of cancer treatments. We've got to talk about what we're eating, what's the quality of our environment, etc. There's more and more of that sense that health isn't just about doctors and medication, which perhaps I think it used to be, and into that wider sort of social determinants of uh health framework. Now, you've in in the The Workers of Rights, you've got these sort of these eight titles that you talk about uh that I think give a sense of this you've got a nice phrase, unify the mental health ecosystem. Uh talk talk about that network and the different aspects of that.

SPEAKER_02 10:22

Yeah, so um it's interesting in this work because I I was not in again, I was not in the nonprofit space prior to my my father's um passing. So I have been on a uh a learning curve this entire process. So I had to figure out sort of who are the players within at least the US mental health space um in terms of reform. And then also um how would a civil rights framework sort of make sense to the larger work? And then also we want to make sure that it's only reinforcing and amplifying those efforts. We don't want to be a redundancy and we don't want to be a distraction, obviously, because our goal is the same as a lot of the other nonprofits in the space. We're just taking a different angle. Um, so what we're advocating for, largely speaking, is what we're calling a mental health civil rights framework. And we're calling it a framework so that it can be understood sort of loosely so that state uh state legislative bodies, um, and I don't know how familiar all your listeners are with how the US system works, but the way our federal government is set up is identical to how our state governments are set up in the sense that we have the three branches as well. So we want to go to the states and present them this framework of here are all the different parts of our society, and we split it up into the eight titles that need to have a mental health civil rights framework underlying them in order to address the larger issues. And then if the states can adopt them, we ultimately hope to have the framework adopted by the federal government at a later date. And so the eight titles specifically, I'll try to rattle them off quickly here. Um the first one deals with equal treatment under the law, and that is basically referring to anti-discrimination protection. So the same way someone in America cannot be denied a job or housing because they're in a wheelchair, we want to make sure that people aren't denied those same opportunities because they disclose a mental illness. And to be fair, mental illness is part of the ADA Act that was passed in 1992, meaning that technically on the books, someone cannot discriminate someone based on a mental illness at the moment because it's categorized as a disability. The problem, though, is that in a lot of instances it has to be deemed severe enough to then be considered a disability that would fall under that purview. So we are wanting to expand on that and have very explicit language. So, like someone like my father, he had good days and bad days with his bipolar disorder. And he still did not feel comfortable telling his employer because he was worried that they would extrapolate on that and think, okay, he's not a reliable employee when in fact he is very good at what he was doing, provided he had the right social support and the right medication, et cetera, and so forth. So um, those are the anti-discrimination protections that would apply nationwide, again, for anybody who is experiencing a mental uh health issue. The second title has to do with fair access to care, and this, broadly speaking, has to do with health insurance. And our health insurance system in the US is already awful. Um, it's bollocks, as you might say, and it's really terrible. Um, but nonetheless, the the mental health sort of carve out is even worse than the standard, if you can believe that. So taking my father as an example again, he was trying to seek a lot of mental health services that were not covered by his insurance that would have covered other physical illnesses and services. And so he was facing a financial burden in addition to the challenges he was already seeing. So we're trying to implement a parity structure here that has been worked on in the states for a long, long time. But I think this is a really good example of how a civil rights framework would cut through because what it would do is it would change the conversation from what is the system able to provide in terms of resources and services, which is how the argument is framed currently. It would change the conversation from that to, well, what are people categorically owed? And if you deny them that, are you then denying them their basic civil rights? And uh are you prepared to do that, basically? So it would fundamentally change the power dynamic. So instead of us as the patients trying to fit the system, the system would have to accommodate us or face the consequences, essentially. Um, the third title is solving the mental health and crime crisis. And this basically uh refers to the fact that we do not have a standard in place in the States to deal with someone who's experiencing a mental health crisis. So, for example, if I have a heart attack and you call 911, an ambulance comes, and the paramedics that show up are equipped with the training and the medication and the know-how to perform life-saving support in the moment, and then to take me to a hospital where again they have all the doctors and the medicine and the know-how to keep me alive and hopefully save my life. And then I would be leaving with a six-month uh standard of care in place on the follow-ups and the medications and everything that comes with that. Now, take the same person, but instead of having a heart attack, I have a manic episode due to bipolar disorder, and you call 911, same person again calling 911, same area. It's not an ambulance that shows up, it's a police car. And I don't get taken to a hospital, I get taken to jail until I just kind of walk it off. And then I'm not released with a standard of care, I'm released with an arrest record, which then makes it harder for me to get a job down the road. So we want to make sure that there is enough funding in the states for what's being called mobile crisis response teams, so that every state can have a therapist who would be able to show up if and when is necessary for someone having something like a manic episode. And then obviously there are instances in which someone can be a threat to themselves or others, in which case law enforcement would need to be involved, but that would no longer be the default, right? And that's the idea is that we're trying to just change the math on this in terms of what the standards are. Um, the fourth title has to do with dignity and care and a patient's bill of rights, which was actually something that President Carter tried to do in 1980. So again, a lot of these are not necessarily new ideas, but just a new framework to try to kind of bolster the argument that's already been there. Um, Title V has to do with strong families, communities, and veterans. And what this is wanting to do is to fund the programs that we have seen already to be effective for different cohorts of Americans because not everyone is dealing with the same kind of mental illnesses or the same kind of challenges around it. Take veterans, for instance, that is a very unique group of folks who are dealing with a very unique kind of, let's say, PTSD, and the counseling and the services and the support network they need are going to be different than the 16-year-olds in high school who have anxiety because of social media. So we want to make sure that there is funding out there so that people who are experiencing all different kinds of, you could say they're the same issues, right? Mental health across the board writ large, but the treatments and the especially the support systems are going to be unique to those segments. So we want to make sure that they're getting what they need. Um, Title VI has to do with youth education and employment protections. And a lot of this has to do with upstream. So instead of waiting for something to get to a point where it needs treatment, how can we implement preventative measures when people are even just in our education system so they can have a better understanding of how their own mind works? And an example here, again, um, the discriminations and the differences become very clear when you start looking for them. We all have a phys ed class, a PE class that we all had to take in K through 12 here in the States. But there's no mental education class. So people aren't even equipped with the basic knowledge of, well, here are what my emotions are, here's what anxiety feels like, here's how I can respond to it, the same way we're all taught how to do sit-ups and push-ups for whatever reason. We're not going to be Olympians. I don't know why they had us do that, but nonetheless, we felt it was important enough that we had a baseline understanding of our physical bodies. We need to do the same with our with our brains. Um, Title VII is accountability and smart investment. And so that is setting up different oversight committees to make sure that some of these standards are in place. Uh, the health insurance industry is a great example of where certain parity laws have been passed but not enforced. So we want to make sure that they have oversight committees so they can be enforced and that we're putting money into them so they can do their job. And that obviously is where a lot of this comes down to is is there enough funding in place for these things to work? Because it can work on paper, but in execution, it actually needs the money to do it. And then the eighth and final title, and I appreciate you bearing with me, um, is innovation and research for the future, because we recognize that there needs to be new medications, there need to be breakthrough therapies. Um, I don't know about over there, but there are all sorts of psychedelic drugs here that are showing some really promising results, but they're still stuck behind a ton or a ton of federal regulation. And so we want to be able to sort of open up what we hope to be a renaissance in uh science and medicine here in the States, specifically for mental health, because the problem is so large that we really need to um take all of our, most of our focus here if we can, and focus it on um allowing sort of these, especially these drugs that are still um arbitrarily uh schedule one, we need to open it up to more research and more funding so that we can um get our heads around this uh a little bit better than we do at the moment.

SPEAKER_01 20:13

Well, thanks for that. I think it's really important to have got that kind of overview rather than looking at the individual pieces.

SPEAKER_02 20:19

Sure.

SPEAKER_01 20:19

And and as you say, I mean, I mean the the US does have particular issues about health insurance. Yeah. But the but what struck me as you describe that landscape is how generic it is and how it actually really pushes into two big problems we have generally in public policy. Number one is how do you actually invest in prevention? Uh we this it's everywhere. This is a problem that we spend so much money dealing with the core the consequences of problems where we could have fixed them for so much less. Right. Right. And and the second one is interagency collaboration and the fact that if you you need a holistic sense of how that involves family support, education, employment, housing, all those things come together, are the system the person experiences, but often they experience them as this fragmented system that's often doing different things. So it's it's a hella for ambition. And uh and I think also, I mean, as you pointed out in the US, you know, it is, you know, the US is a super tanker with a very spongy rudder. I mean, because of the federal system. Is this chasing your windmills? Have you got a chance to success on this? What's the strategy? How are you going to get this done?

SPEAKER_02 21:34

Yeah, um, it's interesting because it it feels, and again, you know, I got into it because of my own personal experience, um, uh, my family's uh history, mental health issues, but then also my father's, I've always been very comfortable talking about these things. But I've always noticed that um, at least the American culture largely doesn't. And that's obviously because of stigma and shame, and then just we lack the vocabulary and the education to feel comfortable enough to talk about it openly in a lot of instances. But what the polling shows when you get people who feel comfortable because it's an anonymous survey, they don't have to divulge who they are or how they really feel about um the issue publicly. What we see is that the majority of Americans want to be talking about mental health more. They want it to be a political priority, and it does not matter if they're red or blue. I mean, the numbers I can look here 95. Of Democrats, 87% of Republicans, and 87% of independents here in the state states want mental health to be a political priority, meaning one, two, or three on the platform of a candidate who is running. And you do not get that kind of uniform opinion about something in America ever. And I think the reason for that is because when people are being honest about it, we know that mental health is just part of the human condition, meaning that we all experience it. Whether you have had an acute mental illness or not, you understand what it's like to, let's say, um, not feel like you are just your best self on any given day. And you wish that there were a culture that allowed you to talk about that more openly and as benign and as matter-of-factly as, well, okay, I wasn't able to come out last week because I had the flu, no big deal. I should be able to say I wasn't able to come out last week because I had a panic attack with the same kind of just again, sort of benignness around it, and not feel like I have to hide that part of me from the rest of our society. And I think everybody can resonate with that, but then getting folks to come out and actually advocate for it, that's really the challenge that we're seeing. Because we know that one in five Americans suffers from a serious mental illness, and that's only counting the reported cases, right? Most of this goes underreported. But even if it's just one in five Americans experiencing a mental illness, that means that five in five Americans have a friend or a family member who is experiencing a mental illness. So you don't have to go far to find the connections here. Um, and every time I talk to somebody, they'll either admit to their own struggles or they'll say, I had a cousin or I had a wife or a friend from college, whatever. And it's one of those like best kept secrets, it feels like, at least here in the States. So um it is it is wildly ambitious and it is a new way to approach the problem in terms of civil rights. And that definitely is something that we also have to have a conversation about. But the reason that I think it's actually possible, not only are we at a time here in our country where we are starting to ask one another more and more what is the purpose of government? Um, because Donald Trump has sort of redefined it to the extent that he has. Um, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you're on here in the States, people are starting to ask that question. Well, okay, who is government supposed to actually serve? Um, I look at sort of the other civil rights movements and social movements of the past in the States as a lesson in how this can actually get done, because you had women's suffrage in the 1920s in the U.S. So prior to 1920, women did not have the right to vote. And it probably was a very unpopular opinion before that to express that that should be what it is. But now we kind of laugh at the thought that women would have ever been um not allowed to vote because it seems ridiculous. And then same thing with the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Why was there ever a time where a black person had to drink from a different water fountain than a white person in the U.S.? It just doesn't make sense today. But of course, prior to that, I mean, we fought a civil war over it essentially, just before. So um, and then you can look at something more recently like marriage equality, where um we passed that in 2015, where folks um of any kind of sexual orientation can now get married in the States. And again, that shift, you know, even in the early 2000s, you might have not thought possible as as early as 2015. But these things do happen, and it and it happens when you sort of have this emerging norm of something that people do feel that they connect personally to. One, and two, it's something that is um commonplace enough that it really does not matter what your political leanings are, what your socioeconomic standing is, it doesn't matter um what your history is, even if you have no family history of mental illness, you can still um get stricken by a mental health episode. So um I feel like it is the right challenge for the time. And it's and it's again sort of the best kept secret. And if we can just serve, and by we, I mean the good life movement as one of the organizations that can just go out there, have these conversations and show people that it's okay, I think it would actually happen a hell of a lot faster um than we might otherwise think, just because it feels like people are just waiting for it in a way.

SPEAKER_01 27:05

Because when you talked about people talking about mental health, you use the phrase coming out, which I think actually I think actually is really, really telling. And I think there is there is an analogy there with the gay rights movement, because I think what you have with mental health, as it was the case with the gay rights movement, was you could conceal it, uh, or you could try and conceal it. And there were pressures in society, there was discrimination and stigma in society that encouraged you to conceal it. And it's about that thing about you've got to, it is why it is a civil rights issue, that it isn't something you've got to take the stigma away from. And we've got to talk about. And so I think there is an inspiration also in the way, if you think of the speed of the attitude change around equal marriage, that that those changes actually are quite possible. Right. Right. Especially, as you say, it's part of every family story. Yes. And there's nothing to be stigmatized about, it's nothing we shouldn't be, it's something we should be talking about. And you and I just really struggled, you know, you said about someone saying, Oh, I can't I couldn't come out on Saturday because I was having a panic attack. Right. Yeah, no one ever says that to me. Yeah, I had a cold, I had I had a summer cup set, blah, blah, blah. Why can't we say that? Right. Yeah, right. Well, we know from the the private lives that we have that these are such ubi ubiquitous issues. Why can't we say that in our public life? And that is about changing the frame uh of the whole conversation.

SPEAKER_02 28:33

Right. And and it's it's it's almost funny to me in a way, for lack of a better term, funny, because it is something that is mental health is universal to all of us. So it would be like if for whatever reason none of us spoke about getting stomach aches, it was just something that we didn't talk about, even though we all experienced it. It would just like why not? It doesn't make any sense. So why don't we talk about? Oh, I had some anxiety the other day, so I felt like I wanted to stay in and watch a comfort show. We've all done that, so why don't we talk about it? And um, I think it's an awareness issue too for people, um, and it's just an education issue, and it's and it's about showing people that it is okay to to talk about it to the extent um that then folks can can feel like they can express a feeling that frankly I think has always been there.

SPEAKER_01 29:23

Yeah, yeah. Choro, uh we've uh we've spoken before, and there's uh some interesting stuff that you're doing around data, and we are gonna be in touch about that. Uh, I want to let our listeners know, how can people help? How can people support this campaign?

SPEAKER_02 29:36

Um, yeah, so we are trying to we're trying to do a number of things, and the crux of what we're doing really is again this framework and getting people to understand that um one, there is an organization out there that is talking about mental health in terms of civil rights, and we want to get this framework in the hands of different legislatures and government bodies so that they can start looking at it to see how it would apply. Um, the biggest thing folks could do though is just start having these conversations with their friends and family and be brave enough to be the first one at the at the dinner table. And I promise you it will be reciprocated and will be responded to. Um, folks can also visit our website, goodlifemovement.org, where they can see what we're doing. We're trying to stand up some programs and some uh public education campaigns again, just to kind of get the conversation going. Our goal in in uh the first couple years here is just to get um mental health civil rights sort of into the vocabulary and into the ether so that people can start getting more comfortable with it and more casual about it, so that when there is a bill presented, it isn't totally out of left field for folks. So um you can find a lot of information on our website in terms of uh like the framework itself is there. You can get a link to it if you're curious to really dig into the weeds. Um, we have a handful of different uh statistics that show just how prevalent the problem is. So if you do feel like you need to have those at the ready for any kind of conversation, we have those for you. Um and sign up for our newsletter and just stay tuned to what it is that that we're doing. Um and yeah, just try to spread the word that that mental health is a civil right and that's something that we should all um be more comfortable talking about. And um, I know that this is beyond the GDP podcast, but even if you wanted to talk about it just in terms of dollars and cents, there's also an economic argument to be made for investing in mental health. Um and you know, that is also part of our strategy is to explain to folks that this would actually serve every industry, every profession, um, everybody who has ever had uh you know a good day or a bad day in terms of their mood can attest. They were more productive on the good days, less productive on the bad days. And, you know, you don't need a PhD in this stuff to understand how that could have a compounding effect if folks who are experiencing mental illness were able to get the treatment that they needed and the support that they needed, how much productive would they be? And then what does that do to our social infrastructure overall?

SPEAKER_01 32:13

John, that argument is very welcome on the Beyond GDP podcast. One of the things we are always talking about is how these are these acts acting on these kind of issues is always treated as a cost when actually it's the investment, and these investments will pay for themselves, especially through early intervention, etc. Um, all the links uh to what you said will be in the description and do follow up and find out more about what Jollo's been doing. And I think most of all, I think for all of us is uh is that action call to action for all of us to talk, to talk honestly about how we're feeling. I can talk about my my sore ankle, my grumbling guts. Why can't I talk about my growling head or whatever I want to talk about? It's something we should be part of that conversation. John Owell, thank you so much for joining us. It's been a fantastic conversation. It's a really exciting piece of work, and I think the framing you've got is so exciting. So thank you so much for joining us. Thank you everyone for listening. Do you know, like and subscribe and uh talk about your mental health? Thank you very much. Goodbye.

SPEAKER_00 33:15

If you want to learn more about going beyond GDP, Social Progress Imperative has a tool to help you. Our flagship, the Global Social Progress Index, covers 170 countries with the data going back to 2011. Through 57 different indicators, the Global Social Progress Index gives you a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of how countries are performing on real quality of life. For information on all of these tools, go to our website at social progress.org.