A Dystopian Vision of Psychiatry’s Future


A recent opinion piece in the Psychiatric Times by Joel Yager MD, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, envisions a potential future for psychiatry in the year 2500. You can find the article here.

As a psychiatric survivor, I was stunned to see a medical professional describe a dystopian nightmare as a vision of progress for psychiatric medicine. Here I offer a critique of that vision, and some hopeful thoughts towards an alternative future. I hope that my perspective as someone who was harmed by psychiatric treatment can provide something of value to the conversation regarding where psychiatry is headed.

photo of man in suit standing in front of a wall of TVs with distorted babies' faces on them

First, a summary of Dr. Yager’s futurist vision is due. The opening words are bleakly telling: “Assuming humans survive and continue doing competent science…” Yikes. Having brushed off how existential threats like climate change will impact our understanding of mental health, the article goes on to describe how psychiatry has evolved to regard its previous iterations as archaic, and one can safely assume that by the year 2500, future students of psychiatry will likewise look back on our current age as one defined by groping in the dark for answers to questions that were fundamentally misunderstood.

It’s striking to me how much of Dr. Yager’s article seems to imagine a future psychiatry that is very similar to what we already have today, but worse.  Allow me to summarize:

By 2500, Dr. Yager imagines that psychiatry will involve the following:

  • Universal Profiling: Everyone’s medical records will include a detailed and nuanced psychological profile of the individual that begins with “genomic and epigenomic analyses in utero.”
  • Data Mining: These profiles will “utilize massive data stores, integrating information about neurobiology, temperament, coping styles, personality, and life events derived from individual, family, school, social connection, AI usage, and other registry sources. To all this might be added information from responses to individualized, virtual reality–based scenario simulations and from high-definition, whole-brain, dynamic scans assessing connectivity among numerous interacting brain regions. Each fingerprint will be compared with those of billions of individuals going back for generations.”
  • AI-Based Assessment: These highly detailed profiles, combined with the use of sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) are hoped to somehow eliminate clinical bias in the assessment of mental illness, but how this is achieved remains unexamined.
  • A Diagnosis for Everyone: Diagnoses will become redefined according to what Dr. Yager calls “precision psychiatry, encompassing individuals’ cell-specific diagnoses, brain functional neuroanatomy and connectivity patterns, interpersonal interactions, life events, and appraisals of deviant behaviors, all contextualized within patients’ micro- and macro-cultural frameworks…”
  • Predictive Psychiatry: These precision diagnoses will be able to indicate “warning signs and risks, and predict the likelihood of … erupting in an episode of suicide or violence.”
  • Implants for Surveillance & Treatment: Current forms of medical intervention will be replaced by technological solutions, such as “a host of wearable and implantable devices that both monitor ongoing status and administer experiential … and direct biological interventions.”
  • Robots: Individuals will have access to personalized robots that provide companionship and constantly monitor for signs of mental distress, alerting medical authorities if they perceive a need “for triage to higher levels of care, including human clinicians.”
  • Virtual Care: Face-to-face care will be dramatically reduced thanks to widespread access to these AI-powered robots and high-quality virtual-reality simulations (think Star Trek hologram technology) “which could use holographic avatars to re-enact earlier life events.” Most care will be delivered remotely through hyper-realistic holographic video-call technology.
  • In-Person Care & “Sanctuaries”: Face-to-face care will still happen because “individuals who are highly disturbed will still be treated in specialized sanctuary-like medical treatment centers, usually for brief periods … For socialization, education, training, and rehabilitation purposes, actual live human gatherings are likely to endure, as they have for many centuries.”
  • Brain-Engineering Technology: Psychiatry will also be able to exploit other technologies to physically re-wire the neural connections in the brain. These technologies include “stereotactic membrane–like skullcaps, capable of focusing deep ultrasound and other noninvasive stimuli at precise targets to promote local neogenesis,” and “Optogenetic-guided retroviral interventions” which might “sculpt specific brain nuclei and connection pathways.” Yager also imagines a futuristic version of CRISPR gene-editing technology which “might reverse neuropathological processes associated with excessive pruning, dysregulated emotional and attentional centers, impulsivity, habit formation, and craving.” No consideration is given to the ethical implications of this neuro-engineering.
  • Virtual Training: The training and certification of psychiatrists will be done with the aid of virtual-reality simulators, and the administrative duties of psychiatrists’ offices will be handed over to sophisticated AI assistants.

In other words, Dr. Yager’s article is a technocratic vision in which AI and sophisticated advances in telecommunication and neuro-editing technologies allow for a dystopian personality profiling regime, the widespread delivery of virtual-reality and remote care, and a host of interventions that physically restructure the brain. This is a vision that remains dogmatically attached to a bio-reductive model of mental illness, and therefore pins all of its hopes for the future in an ever-more-precise scientific understanding of the biological causes of mental disease.

There is scant mention of how the social and environmental determinants of mental health may change and affect this future vision of psychiatry, except for this short comment on the evolution of psychiatric theories: “By 2500, scientists may have clarified the mechanisms and impacts of genetic, epigenetic, and … elusive physical and psychosocial environmental forces … As more nuanced mechanisms are delineated, old theories will drop and new ones will emerge.”

I take issue with Yager describing the psychosocial and environmental forces that contribute to mental distress as “elusive”. We know, for example, that wealth inequality is a primary driver of poor health, both mental and physical. So is social isolation. We also know that reliance on a mass-delivery education system designed for neurotypical learners plays a role in exacerbating and perpetuating mental health challenges for neurodivergent students who are not ill or deficient, but merely different. Social injustice also plays a major role in declining mental health, as evidenced by the disproportionately high rates of distress, illness, and avoidable deaths in marginalized communities.

It is also naïve at best to suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the mind and brain will lead to old theories being dropped. Today it is clear, as the U.N. and W.H.O. issue global calls to redefine mental health care in a way that guards the human rights, dignity, and agency of patients, that psychiatry as it is commonly practiced by physicians and psychiatrists in the “developed” world is no longer based in the most reliable and up-to-date evidence. Instead, it too often clings to a bio-reductive model of previous generations, at the expense of patients seeking care for mental suffering.

Major risks remain for patients seeking equitable mental health care. We are likely to find ourselves diagnosed and prescribed by a general physician, or a psychiatrist who remains dogmatically attached to a biomedical model that pathologizes traumatic and other experiences of altered states and emotional distress. Common interventions like antidepressants and benzodiazepines have been well documented as only moderately effective at best, often comparable to placebo, but carrying with them severe dependence and withdrawal risks. It is absolutely scandalous that antidepressant withdrawal syndromes like akathisia are not typically disclosed to patients prior to prescription. This is morally unacceptable, yet Dr. Yager makes no mention of these avoidable harms and how a future psychiatry will rectify its practices to prevent them from happening.

Other ethical dilemmas are conveniently ignored in Dr. Yager’s article. He envisions a future in which individuals have their genome sequenced in utero, deeply specific psychological profiling exists as part of every individual’s medical records, and every aspect of our lives and experience is somehow monitored and incorporated into that profile by AI algorithms. In other words, Yager’s vision for the future of psychiatry assumes the widespread adoption of medically-justified mass surveillance, and yet offers no thought to the ethical issues of personal privacy and autonomy. He suggests that by 2500, somehow AI technology will have become perfectly unbiased, and do most of the diagnostic work for clinicians before they even encounter a patient, even though we already know that today, AI and other forms of technology carry with them the prejudiced biases of their programmers, and the audiences for whom they are developed – primarily white and middle-class.

How will inherently biased human beings program a perfectly unbiased medical AI? To my thinking, proposing an assessment technology that is free from bias requires that we assume a cultural shift in the tech sector, or even throughout human civilization, which would somehow allow us to program a computer to be as perceptive as a perfectly ethical human could be in any cultural context, in any geographic location, in any set of circumstances. Such advances remain squarely in the domain of science-fiction and hifalutin philosophical thought experiments.

Do we need better assessment and diagnostic tools? Of course. But to put our faith in some cyberpunk psychiatric utopia is utterly naïve at best, and darkly cynical at worst.

It is astonishing to me that any psychiatrist could describe a dystopian surveillance state as the holy grail of psychiatry without even acknowledging that it would constitute a life-long invasion of privacy and autonomy. The absolute control in framing an individual’s experience and understanding of their world is a horrifying power that I hope psychiatry never discovers. This type of thinking speaks to modern psychiatry’s moral ambivalence: whatever harms might arise in the pursuit of some idealized and perfected medical treatment are inconsequential, so long as we can provide “better care” to our most desperate patients.

And who are the desperate patients? In the scenario described in Dr. Yager’s article, it’s unclear that these futuristic assessment tools wouldn’t pathologize every form of human distress. Is it really a sign of progress if the DSM becomes obsolete only to be replaced with an infinitely expandable catalogue of human conditions to be matched up with various forms of “precision” intervention? Is this more accurate assessment and diagnosis, or is this expanding the definition of mental illness to give a diagnosis to everyone? Is this better medicine, or the continued pathologizing of the human condition?

It was the section of Dr. Jager’s article subtitled “Looking at Treatments” that most boggled my mind. No mention of therapeutic communities like Soteria houses, no mention of ending income inequality, homelessness or unemployment as social treatment strategies, no mention of making education and employment accessible to mad, neurodivergent, and disabled people, no mention of addressing trauma as a cause of mental illness, and certainly no mention of addressing the harms that psychiatry has already created, i.e., over-prescription, incarceration, iatrogenic injuries, widespread social stigma, and the list goes on (and on).

This vision of psychiatry suggests that it is too much to ask that we eliminate poverty, provide safe housing for all, or create communities where people feel safe, but it is not too much to ask that everyone gets a personal robot therapist and a sensor implanted in their body that links up to their smartphone. Rather than working through trauma in therapy, CRISPR-like technology might re-wire our brains to reverse the effects of that trauma. Maybe that sounds convenient, but it is also deeply invasive and risky.

Re-wiring the brain through mechanical means might be an acceptable treatment in cases of extreme suffering. This is already the justification used in trials involving deep-brain stimulation as a treatment for severe treatment-resistant depression and other conditions, but to regard this kind of intervention as the gold-standard of the future is skipping over generations of important ethical questions that would first have to be addressed.

On top of all that, Yager suggests psychiatric wards and involuntary incarceration for “highly disturbed” individuals will continue to be a reality, but “usually” for brief periods. If there is one thing I want to see in a future vision of psychiatry, it is abolishing carceral forms of care. I can only assume that Dr. Yager is not as familiar with contemporary criticisms of psychiatry as a complicit arm of a white-supremacist carceral state, as he must be with developments in holographic telecommunications.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see a future that includes Star Trek-style holodecks in which we can access a variety of hyper-realistic therapeutic scenarios, but if we’re really going to embrace sci-fi visions of a future utopia, we have to also acknowledge that before any such technological advances can be enjoyed by all, we need to completely dismantle and re-imagine our economic, social, and political institutions.

The utopian vision of Star Trek’s creator Gene Roddenberry included no poverty, no working-for-a-living, a society united by a common goal of living in peace and exploring the cosmos. Without discussing socio-political-economic changes, what Yager’s article really proposes is a luxury technology for the rich, and widespread surveillance and control for the poor.

Even Dr. Yager’s comments on “The Promise of Prevention” reads like another take on a literary dystopia: “By 2500 (with hopefully few biases), public health programs might identify and conduct more intensive assessments of high-risk neighborhoods, individuals, and families, and better provide indicated social and individual-based treatments. Thanks to immediate diagnoses of new pregnancies … precision interventions could assist with repairs based on advanced gene- and epigene-manipulation techniques, while other individually tailored preventive interventions may be implemented.”

Towards the end of Dr. Yager’s article, it becomes clear why this dystopian vision may be so attractive to psychiatry: he doesn’t seem to have much faith in human nature. Regarding “What Will Endure” between now and the year 2500, Dr. Jager admits his own bias in attributing to human nature the bleak unavoidable reality that “some citizens will still be prone to intermittently go off the rails; psychiatric disorders are still likely to be stigmatized; and psychiatric gurus are still likely to believe that there are too many patients, too few clinicians, too little knowledge, too few resources, and too little money for what they do. And, given human nature, in 2500 a high value will still be placed on deep, confiding, empathic interpersonal relationships, including clinician-patient relationships.”

Curious then, that nowhere in this vision of a future psychiatry, is there an explanation of how empathic interpersonal relationships will be prioritized as part of psychiatric practice.


As a psychiatric survivor, I know that I come across as acerbic and bitter regarding the field. It is not my intention to be dismissively snide in my analysis, but to insert a voice of dissent, a voice that is too often ignored by psychiatry and its practitioners: the voice of someone who was harmed by its failures. The purpose of sharing my discontent is to constructively contribute to a conversation about how psychiatry and our general understanding of mental health can evolve into something better than it is now.

In closing, Dr. Jager writes “If any of these fanciful visions of future psychiatric practice seem worthwhile, they might provide aspirational goals, and motivation to realize these goals. And, if any of these fanciful visions seem dystopian, they might provoke us to develop better alternatives.”

My assessment of these fanciful visions is indeed that they are dystopian in the extreme. So what is the alternative? Here I offer a brief snapshot into my own vision of a utopian future for psychiatry:

By the year 2500, we have successfully responded to the existential threat of climate change. Having reversed its effects, we began a global process of healing, truth, and reconciliation that held the worst perpetrators of ecocide accountable for their actions, while providing reparations to the most heavily afflicted populations. Psychiatrists researched the relationship between ecological health and mental health, and lobbied for educational tools and government regulations that would prevent humanity from ever again exploiting the natural environment at the expense of our collective wellbeing.

In 2500, wealth inequality has been eliminated, along with homelessness, poverty, and unemployment. A universal basic income combined with accessible and sophisticated social programs ensures that everyone is included in an economy of care that puts people before profits.

Schools have been transformed into democratic institutions in which children, educators, and parents work together to establish learning communities that meet the individual needs of each member. Students are no longer coerced into a role that serves the demands of the market, but encouraged and supported into pursuing a vocational path that serves their interests, goals, and their community.

In the year 2500, research has advanced to the point that we have completely eliminated the unnecessary misdiagnosis of mental illness in what are ordinary experiences of mental distress. Society has accepted neurodivergence, madness and disability as natural and welcome parts of the human experience that enrich the human condition by adding to its diversity, and recognized the unique gifts of these non-conformists as valuable to everyone.

Arts and recreation are well funded across the globe. Our food systems follow the principles of sustainability and care for future generations, rather than being motivated by profit-hungry corporations, resulting in more nutritious foods and healthier ecosystems. A personal connection with nature, the plants and animals of the region in which a person lives, an understanding of oneself, a sense of belonging in society, the world and cosmos in which we exist, are all understood as essential to a healthy mind.

In 2500, psychiatrists understand that bio-reducible mental illness is in fact quite rare, and no longer conflate distressing social, moral, and political circumstances with deficiencies or pathologies in the distressed individuals they encounter. When it comes to those conditions that are confirmed to be strictly biologically based and debilitating, a wealth of non-invasive therapies and interventions are available, and riskier interventions are withheld for all but the most severe and intractable cases.

That is my psychiatric survivor vision for psychiatry. Granted, I am not a medical professional; I’m a philosopher and artist by training, and my vision is certainly naïve and idealistic in its own way. But I hope my particular flavour of naivety offers a counterbalance to the bleak future envisioned in Dr. Yager’s article. I want to believe in a future for psychiatry in which patients are not at risk of being harmed and marginalized when seeking care for mental/emotional distress, but with psychiatry producing visionaries like Dr. Yager, it’s a tall order.


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. As of the evening of 21 Oct, the Psychiatric Times website is coming up blank for me. I imagine it will reappear at some point…

    I am not surprised at the content of this “opinion piece.” I would tend to characterize it as a propaganda piece, and a forthright statement of what the psychiatric establishment plans to achieve, not over the next 30 years, but as soon as humanly possible.

    And while it should be spoken against, as so many freedom-loving writers have tried to do over and over for near-on a century now, it should also be confronted and fully understood.

    I know that when I state my own understanding of such matters, I often leave many behind, but I write here in the interest of including a full range of viewpoints, not to be popular.

    Dr. Yager failed to mention certain other aspects of future life on Earth, as they are not part of the current propaganda story. But I trust it will not be too much longer before we are openly dealing with extraterrestrial societies, and most of them, from what I gather, follow a similar social pattern to that outlined in Dr. Yager’s piece. In other words, this pattern is not new, but on the contrary is very very old. And it has been the hope of many Earth-bound visionaries that we, finally, could come up with something better.

    And in fact (in my opinion anyway) we have. It started when we really began to focus on human rights. And with that came the concept of free (rather than closely controlled) markets. These visions led, at least in the United States, to a period of widespread, if unstable, comfort. And in that period things got quiet enough for a while for some great strides forward in the field of mental health and spiritual repair to take place. These advances were, of course, fought against by those who felt threatened by them. That this opposition was based on very irrational ideas was obvious to some, and is only becoming more so. But it also had a lot of wealth, power and influence behind it, and on the surface it seems to be winning out.

    For example, the writer of this article seems totally unaware of the advances made into the spiritual aspects of life and mental health, including the development of many new and robust technologies for working with individuals and groups (even animals) in trouble. In my own vision of our future, these technologies are widely known and used. And psychiatry, as it exists today, is gone. They had their chance and they blew it.

    In my opinion, there are two main reasons why Dr. Yager’s vision of the future persists and in fact is being actively worked towards.

    First, it is the accepted pattern of every “modern” techno-space society that has ever existed. It is brutally dystopian, but is capable of great persistence. Most of us consider those avidly supporting such a vision to be psychopathic. Nothing like turning their own concepts against them!

    Second, accomplishing this vision would “let us in” to the wider space society. At least some of its proponents think so. I am not so sure of that. I don’t think that wider society ever plans to let us in on an equal footing with the older groups. They just need a carrot to dangle in front of Earth’s almost-oligarchs.

    Yes, please, do away with psychiatry! But don’t replace it with the pat-a-cake and maudlin ideas of the New Left psychologists! We can do better than that, and we deserve better than that. We are the people of Earth! We are the people who still believe in basic human freedoms and basic human rights. We may be the old rebels, but we can be the new leaders if we stay true to the principles that made us strong.

    Report comment

  2. I suggest that an implantable device be developed for psychiatrists. Every time they feel an urge to harm a patient, experience God-like grandiosity, they will get zapped. If that is not possible, psychiatric survivors will have access to a special self protection app. If, during a medication management ‘meeting’ and their concerns are dismissed or they are not listened to, the survivor can activate his/her app and an AI device will listen to the dialogue and detect any fraudulent or harmful medical model statements, offering instructions for how to protect oneself from iatrogenic harm.

    Report comment

  3. If I “predicted” a future where quacks, Munchausens, and ableist were controlled by a technocracy ruled by me and my cronies, I’d be caged until my bones turned to dust.

    Dr. Yager’s plan will never materialize unless it includes a way to survive a bomb or multiple gunshot wounds. I’m not the only person who would kill to protect myself from that much tyranny.

    Report comment

    • Hi J.

      I agree. If I laid down my vision for a hopeful future I would be sectioned for grandiosity yet psychiatrists can spout absolute nonsense willy nilly. Its hypocritical.

      Sure I happened to mention to a shrink one day that if this was medieval times I would know exactly how to deal with his like. I also mentioned about how some patients have been known to stalk and kill their shrinks after warning the ‘doctor’ to stop interfering in their life.

      He said “That could be construed as a threat.” I didn’t pick up immediately he thought I was threatening him as I was simply trying to illustrate another way of looking at things and replied “Where was the threat? If the patient warned the shrink to leave him alone or else and followed it through because of the shrinks ‘noncompliance’ that’s a warning not a threat. You don’t think you might be driving some people out of their reason and not into it?”

      Such things aren’t reported as being possibly in some cases in any way down to deficiencies in the mental health system and always laid squarely at the foot of the patient as the reports indicate whenever a patient/psychiatrist relationship makes headlines.

      I speculated to the shrink if it were at all possible that some of the threats to psychiatrists could be alleviated by simply leaving law abiding citizens alone if they don’t want your ‘help’.

      Just like the psychiatrist the blog refers to the shrink I spoke to was utterly incapable of thinking outside the box and seeing the bigger picture.

      IMO if ones liberty and rights are stripped from them and they are violated in intrusive ways such as labelling and forced medication is it outside of the realm of reason to think that some ‘rampaging mental patients’ are simply normal, average people driven to criminal acts by the utter helplessness they feel in the face of the mental health system?

      I’ve never read such a possibility mentioned here tbh.

      People may be taking up arms against mental health workers in tiny numbers already is my point J. Its simply being blamed on mental illness in some cases you know?

      Report comment

  4. sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) are hoped to somehow eliminate clinical bias in the assessment of mental illness, but how this is achieved remains unexamined”

    Isn’t it obvious?

    Clinical bias will be replaced with algorithmic bias. Not Facebook, but Mindbook. And naturally all these new technologies will be controlled and directed by the corporations that develop them. So ‘normal’ will be the ideal of passive worker-consumers regimented to think and behave in exactly the way corporations want them to.

    I’m sure it will be necessary to adopt this system well before 2500 so that corporate capitalist states in the West can continue to compete with the emerging corporate socialist powers of the East. Democracy can only survive if we all agree about everything all the time and the pathology of dissent is therapeutically regulated out of existence.

    There is no alternative!

    Report comment

  5. I must point out that income inequality itself is not the cause of poor mental and physical health outcomes, but rather that people without means disproportionately live in family and social environments that lead to extensive trauma, and have limited means to seek assistance for physiological ailments. It is the complex developmental trauma, typically intergenerational, that leads to the most serious adverse outcomes, and this will not be magically solved by redistributing financial resources.

    The psychiatric care community cannot stop mental illness with any of the invasive means they highlight. What will ameliorate many human ills is creating a societal environment where subsistence needs are met in all circumstances, education is preeminent, and connectedness with other caring humans available to all.

    Report comment

  6. As a family doc, G. J., I appreciate your noticing and ranting about this dystopian vision. To me the most scary part of this vision is that it expects technology to sharply divide human behavior and feelings into healthy (leave it alone) and illness (correct it with powerful tools). In fact, human expression and action flows along a continuum and is not black and white. Trying to make it so is a false and invalid goal and will only lead to oppression.

    Even more scary is the whole vision contemplates therapy without the human touch, without caring, compassion, and empathy.

    Report comment

    • Even more scary is the whole vision contemplates therapy without the human touch, without caring, compassion, and empathy.

      How’s that different to the psychiatry we already have?
      We just feed the DSM punch cards into the psyche-bot and it spits out a diagnosis and prescription.

      Report comment

  7. I read that piece and I realized Yager was saying everything psychiatrics cannot do today or it is doing it really poorly. By trying to show what tomorrow may look like, he revealed accidentally how bad shrinks are today!
    The irony!
    ps. let us hope he is writing a horror sci fi book.

    Report comment

  8. Thanks G.J.

    There is nothing progressive about psychiatry, absolutely nothing.
    In fact they hold society on a scientific and humanitarian level, in the dark days.
    Psychiatry is a powerful cult. All areas have been infected and I’m just happy if a few people
    are sharp enough to be careful with asking for so called help or discussing any aspect of themselves or others with ANYONE.

    Report comment

  9. I have just listened to three podcast episodes from Psychedlics Today. In the first two, Will Hall discusses psychiatry’s problems, and in the third, an anguished psychiatrist tries to rebut Will’s points, but is not convincing (at least to me).




    Report comment