Suicide-proof future!!!

[Pathetic and Sad]

If only they let us suicidal bastards die young and not procreate, our suicidal genes won't pass on and the humanity within next couple thousand years will all be happy go lucky.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Yeah, no. That wouldn't do shit. The cause of suicidal ideation is complex and differs from person to person. It might depend on a mixture of environmental and genetic factors and the degree to which each plays a role in someone's suicidality might also probably differ quite a bit. This won't do shit to prevent suicides. Actually preventing suicides would mean creating actual changes to how our society is structured (e.g., more equality, better access to mental health resources, creating stronger bonds within communities, changing how we view and parent children, etc) rather than just allowing all the suicidal people to die. I'm saying this as somebody who is for RTD. RTD is in no way a good solution in preventing suicidal ideation in future generations.

 

[Pathetic and Sad]

Yeah, no. That wouldn't do shit. The cause of suicidal ideation is complex and differs from person to person. It might depend on a mixture of environmental and genetic factors and the degree to which each plays a role in someone's suicidality might also probably differ quite a bit. This won't do shit to prevent suicides. Actually preventing suicides would mean creating actual changes to how our society is structured (e.g., more equality, better access to mental health resources, creating stronger bonds within communities, changing how we view and parent children, etc) rather than just allowing all the suicidal people to die. I'm saying this as somebody who is for RTD. RTD is in no way a good solution in preventing suicidal ideation in future generations.

My statement was mostly sarcasm, but I do hate the fact that you just dismissed it by stating, "that wouldn't do shit." So, let me tell you what shit it really does. And I don't know what RTD is or why you would expect me to know what it is, but here are some things I disagree with you on:


You said suicide is complex and depends on the person, then made the claim that it's only preventable if we change our societal structure to make it more livable.
By dismissing my statement, you dismissed the hypothesis that evolution and natural selection play any role in making people more or less suicidal, as "it doesn't do shit."


Here are some counterexamples to your logic:


Compared to humans, the suicide rate among animals is exceptionally low, especially considering that their living conditions—by any standard—are horrible compared to ours. This clearly indicates that human rationality is a major cause of suicidal ideation and self-destructive behavior. Rationality, as you may recall, is a byproduct of evolution. From this, we can infer that a higher degree of rationality corresponds with a higher suicide rate among a species. Thus, suicide clearly has strong evolutionary ties.
So, if we let people who are suicidal die as soon as they're, we essentially get rid of the mostly rational minds from our world, leaving us with only those who are a mostly a "perfect" mix of rational and emotional (i.e., emotional enough to never really contemplate life's meaninglessness), and they would remain "happy-go-lucky" no matter what. This would be an absurd thought experiment, but hey, it would definitely do some shit.


And I'm not disagreeing with you, sure, making society more livable will decrease suicide rates. Clearly, the higher suicide rates among Africans, Eastern Europeans, and South Koreans show us that. But I'm just disagreeing with you disagreeing with me based on literally nothing.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

My statement was mostly sarcasm, but I do hate the fact that you just dismissed it by stating, "that wouldn't do shit." So, let me tell you what shit it really does. And I don't know what RTD is or why you would expect me to know what it is, but here are some things I disagree with you on:


You said suicide is complex and depends on the person, then made the claim that it's only preventable if we change our societal structure to make it more livable.
By dismissing my statement, you dismissed the hypothesis that evolution and natural selection play any role in making people more or less suicidal, as "it doesn't do shit."


Here are some counterexamples to your logic:


Compared to humans, the suicide rate among animals is exceptionally low, especially considering that their living conditions—by any standard—are horrible compared to ours. This clearly indicates that human rationality is a major cause of suicidal ideation and self-destructive behavior. Rationality, as you may recall, is a byproduct of evolution. From this, we can infer that a higher degree of rationality corresponds with a higher suicide rate among a species. Thus, suicide clearly has strong evolutionary ties.
So, if we let people who are suicidal die as soon as they're, we essentially get rid of the mostly rational minds from our world, leaving us with only those who are a mostly a "perfect" mix of rational and emotional (i.e., emotional enough to never really contemplate life's meaninglessness), and they would remain "happy-go-lucky" no matter what. This would be an absurd thought experiment, but hey, it would definitely do some shit.


And I'm not disagreeing with you, sure, making society more livable will decrease suicide rates. Clearly, the higher suicide rates among Africans, Eastern Europeans, and South Koreans show us that. But I'm just disagreeing with you disagreeing with me based on literally nothing.

RTD = right to die

First off, the environment in itself does have an impact on genetics. Most things generally come down to gene-environment interactions, so fixing certain environmental factors would likely have a significant impact on rates of suicide. While there could potentially be certain genetic factors that may increase the risk of suicidal ideation amongst some, the degree to which those risks increase or decrease would likely have, to some extent, to do with environmental factors, such as exposure to trauma. We can go even deeper here and discuss the fact that suicidal ideation could potentially be impacted by epigenetics. I might be wrong here, but if this is the case then I do not think that natural selection will do much here since the issue comes down more to changes in gene expression rather than changes to the genome itself. These alterations in the expression of genes would be the result of the environment, so changes to the environment would likely still play an important role in preventing suicides.

Natural selection refers to the fact that those better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus they are more lilely to pass on their genes. Considering the fact that many suicidal people still go on to survive long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes kind of goes against this. To add onto this, most people don't attempt to ctb until later in life (if I remember correctly, rates of suicide peak at around for women around their 40s-60s and around the age of 75 for men). To add onto this, most people who are suicidal don't even go on to attempt at all, with some not even truly wanting to die despite suffering from suicidal ideation.

Thirdly, your animal vs human argument isn't great. I'm not saying this to be rude, rather I saying this because, one, where are you getting "non-human suicide rates" from? Two, you are projecting your human ideals onto non-human animals. "Their living conditions are horrible compared to ours" is a subjective opinion based on your views of living conditions as a human. It's not like those animals are the ones complaining about how awful their living conditions are and about how "they wish they could sleep in a big bed and only have to worry about their 9-5", or whatever. You are projecting your views onto them.

Suicide is more complex than just "it's our rationality causing it". You are simplifying what is something that is caused by a multitude of factors beyond just "rationality". Also, plenty of people who ctb aren't necessarily that rational. You are making a bunch of extreme assumptions and treating them like facts.

Edit: Quick correction, natural selection can act on epigenetics. I think I incorrectly remembered what my evo-bio professor said about epigenetics.

 

[Pathetic and Sad]

RTD = right to die

First off, the environment in itself does have an impact on genetics. Most things generally come down to gene-environment interactions, so fixing certain environmental factors would likely have a significant impact on rates of suicide. While there could potentially be certain genetic factors that may increase the risk of suicidal ideation amongst some, the degree to which those risks increase or decrease would likely have, to some extent, to do with environmental factors, such as exposure to trauma. We can go even deeper here and discuss the fact that suicidal ideation could potentially be impacted by epigenetics. I might be wrong here, but if this is the case then I do not think that natural selection will do much here since the issue comes down more to changes in gene expression rather than changes to the genome itself. These alterations in the expression of genes would be the result of the environment, so changes to the environment would likely still play an important role in preventing suicides.

Natural selection refers to the fact that those better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus they are more lilely to pass on their genes. Considering the fact that many suicidal people still go on to survive long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes kind of goes against this. To add onto this, most people don't attempt to ctb until later in life (if I remember correctly, rates of suicide peak at around for women around their 40s-60s and around the age of 75 for men). To add onto this, most people who are suicidal don't even go on to attempt at all, with some not even truly wanting to die despite suffering from suicidal ideation.

Thirdly, your animal vs human argument isn't great. I'm not saying this to be rude, rather I saying this because, one, where are you getting "non-human suicide rates" from? Two, you are projecting your human ideals onto non-human animals. "Their living conditions are horrible compared to ours" is a subjective opinion based on your views of living conditions as a human. It's not like those animals are the ones complaining about how awful their living conditions are and about how "they wish they could sleep in a big bed and only have to worry about their 9-5", or whatever. You are projecting your views onto them.

Suicide is more complex than just "it's our rationality causing it". You are simplifying what is something that is caused by a multitude of factors beyond just "rationality". Also, plenty of people who ctb aren't necessarily that rational. You are making a bunch of extreme assumptions and treating them like facts.

I tried responding but I'm too depressed to do that rn sorry.
I concede.
Let's just be friends
Life's too short for this shit, even shorter for ppl like us

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I tried responding but I'm too depressed to do that rn sorry.
I concede.
Let's just be friends
Life's too short for this shit, even shorter for ppl like us

It's fine. I know this may not much much, but I hope that you get better. Being depressed sucks.

 

[EmptyBottle]

If only they let us suicidal bastards die young and not procreate, our suicidal genes won't pass on and the humanity within next couple thousand years will all be happy go lucky.

While some genes may increase the risk of depression and suicidality, the 'life' environment has a big impact. For example, people who have been cheated on, lonely, and feel trapped are more likely to die at their own hand.

 

[HouseofMortok]

If you just came out for the sake of it, in the UK as an example.

Government - "Here, have RTD, we concede"

Not including terminal patients with family around them with hard, emotionally wrought decisions, but mental health patients. Ignoring the "being persuaded" rhetoric, no ones convincing me, I want it of my own volition. Plus, in this hypothetical, we're past that, we have RTD..

Anyways, enough would be Assisted and enough lives affected.. Would it not force societal issues that have been gaslit, invalidated, etc to be brought to light for discussion?

--

A woman asked "my son stood infront of a train, is there a way to find out if he was on this website, I don't think he acted alone"

I asked her "Why couldn't he confide in you?" Doubt she'll respond.

To me that question will show you as they trip up in response "err.. errr.. ugh.. how dare you"..

Bingpot! Her half truth is her failure at some point that she's lost the trust of her son.

Or she as many others by having the RTD, will be forced to bring to the surface a huge problem in society that needs communal effort, and it will most definitely pointed toward Parliament in this RTD hypothetical. Probably cause civil war. Rightly so. The powers that be could make life fairer and SAFER, but they'll actively throw money at the status quo narrative control against such ideas. Socialism evil, waaaa... NHS is socialist..

Thus as the decades pass, societies equalities will improve, pressure will decrease, if people feel safer they will not seek RTD despite it being there, in those decades it'll end up for end of life terminal patients on the whole. The scales and balance will come back round, given the RTD forces free open discussion.

That's my reasoning anyways. ✌