Discussion No, suicide prevention is not to keep you paying taxes

[_Gollum_]

I've seen this claim a lot on this site so I thought I'd address it.

Suicide prevention is not about the government wanting to keep you as a wage-slave so that they can get your tax dollars. It's much more simple than that. The main reason why 99% of people are against suicide is because 99% of people have an innate pro-life bias. This is true across cultures and time.* Now, we could discuss why they have a pro-life bias, and opinions can reasonably differ—my personal view is that it's evolutionarily useful—but most pro-lifers haven't even thought that far about it. They just know that death = bad (which necessarily means suicide = bad) and life = good.

Those who have thought about it a little more will often say that suicide should be prevented because of the possibility of having a good life in the future, and to them, having an enjoyable life is the highest good, so they don't want you to be deprived of that possibility, especially if you're young.

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Even when we look at the subset of cynical politicians in particular, they would want to prevent your suicide not so much to keep you as a wage-slave (as previously mentioned, suicidal people tend to make unproductive workers), but so that they don't have a bunch of angry family members making a stink about it in the media and then voting for the other guy come next election — or worse, starting costly lawsuits!

If you want to advocate for universal right-to-die, you need to understand why people are against it in the first place. We'll only make progress if we can convince people that life is not always good, and death is not always bad.

TLDR: suicide prevention at its most fundamental level arises from the belief that death is bad and life is good.


*Some cultures have sanctioned suicide (no pun intended) for collective reasons (ex. to preserve honour), but AFAIK there are no societies that have condoned suicide for purely personal reasons.

 

[brokenspirited]

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Their purpose is to punish people, to make an example of them. Their aim is deterrence.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to suicide prevention. I think that's to keep parents and voters from giving them a hard time. I also agree that- as you say- the majority of people are indeed pro-life. Meaning, they probably tend to 'side' with the bereaved families of those who have taken their own life. They don't want that to happen to them so, I imagine they are all for suicide prevention.

I also agree that a fair number of people who are suicidal likely aren't paying taxes. They seem more likely to be receiving benefits in fact.

However, you don't need to pay in yourself to generate money for your government or MP's personally. Think how much money big pharma generates for them. They probably even donate generously to political parties. Sick and depressed people generate the need for all those money making drugs so- maybe they'd prefer unwell people to stick around and play that role for them.

I also agree that it's publicly more acceptable that our governments (are supposed to) look after people who are struggling. Not kill them off! Whether they do or not is another matter.

Where I would cast suspicion on the tax payer argument would be in regards to assisted suicide. I'm what might be termed a 'high functioning' suicidal person. I work and pay my taxes. I don't have much of a history when it comes to health issues and (failed) treatment. Let's say they bring in assisted suicide and begin to make it available to more people. Is it likely they would ever make it available to someone like me? (In my current state.) I doubt it. Partly because all the pro-lifers would be up in arms that 'healthy' people shouldn't be killing themselves. I think part of it is because I'm able to contribute though. I doubt they would allow even a small proportion of the healthy and employed population to kill itself. I don't see how they could afford it.

 

[Pale_Rider]

Of course you are right about the bias. They have great lives, and couldn't fathom taking their own life's is the jist of it I suppose.

 

[NeverReallyHere]

I think you're correct when it comes to why ordinary members of the public are against suicide. I think it gets a little more complicated when we're talking about why the State and the apparatuses which serve it are so commited to suicide prevention. After all the State has no qualms about killing people, or allowing people to die, when it suits its purposes, so a natural pro-life bias is not a satisfactory explanation. We can see also that the tax/wage slave explanation is not satisfactory either since many suicidal people are unable to work for various reasons, and in fact these people are often viewed as a drain on society by the State. Personally I would put it down to two things: firstly, a need to be seen to reflect the desires of a populace which has that aforementioned "pro-life bias," and secondly, a need to exert a level of control over the populace. After all, how does one control a person who is willing and able to end their own life?

 

[Wolf Girl]

Of course you are right about the bias. They have great lives, and couldn't fathom taking their own life's is the jist of it I suppose.

You absolutely do not have to have a great life or be happy to be alive to be pro-life. I worked in suicide prevention for years and I would go home every night after my shift to cut myself and make suicide plans. I first found r/SanctionedSuicide during that time. I have been told by people I worked with during that time that I'm the only reason they're still alive (and no, they weren't upset with me for helping them survive, they were grateful).

 

[Dejected 55]

Pro-life bias is a bit of an illusion though. Consider...

All the older folks in "old people" homes not being taken care of by their families or even friends. Once you get past a point of usefulness to society, the "pro-life" crowd goes silent with regards to your quality of life or survival.

Born with a birth defect that makes life difficult for you? Or suffer some permanent crippling injury? You're less useful to society, and the "pro-life" crowd isn't super interested in going out of their way to help you live better.

Homeless? Fuck you! You're lazy and don't deserve help from the "pro-life" crowd either.

Children in poverty? The "pro-life" crowd will fight to make sure your mother carries you to term and births you, but they suddenly give fuck all when it comes to food, clothing, place to live, education, health care, etc. for you.

I call BS on the "pro-life" bias, frankly. IF they aren't directly benefiting from you in some way, the "pro-life" people don't give a shit about you.

 

[kopebaldy]

I'm sure the people on the ground are believing they're helping. But I doubt the machine will pump funds into something that doesn't benefit them financially.

Even if you can't pay taxes, you still have value as a show piece, the "look how much we care ab people, don't you want to do business with us" or something like that, marketing is important.

Also, raising a slave up to working age is expensive ya know, you can't just discard that investment without trying to fix it first aka psych ward.

Even the slave can't be "fixed", you can use it as a bad example, nothing unites people better than a common hatred.

Idk, maybe I'm too cynical and bitter to see the good in people who keep trying to prevent me from finding peace.

 

[klantedklaw]

Sounds like something the IRS would say ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[_Gollum_]

However, you don't need to pay in yourself to generate money for your government or MP's personally. Think how much money big pharma generates for them. They probably even donate generously to political parties. Sick and depressed people generate the need for all those money making drugs so- maybe they'd prefer unwell people to stick around and play that role for them.

Good point; a repeat customer is worth much more (bonus points if they can get you on multiple meds at once). I think the main way big pharma tries to generate profit though is just by expanding the definition of "mentally ill" to include pretty much everyone (ex. doctors will prescribe psychiatric medication for totally normal reactions to life events, like the death of a loved one or a breakup). The pool of people who fundamentally want to live but who are struggling is much bigger (and therefore more profitable) than the pool of people who just want to die.

Where I would cast suspicion on the tax payer argument would be in regards to assisted suicide. I'm what might be termed a 'high functioning' suicidal person. I work and pay my taxes. I don't have much of a history when it comes to health issues and (failed) treatment. Let's say they bring in assisted suicide and begin to make it available to more people. Is it likely they would ever make it available to someone like me? (In my current state.) I doubt it. Partly because all the pro-lifers would be up in arms that 'healthy' people shouldn't be killing themselves. I think part of it is because I'm able to contribute though. I doubt they would allow even a small proportion of the healthy and employed population to kill itself. I don't see how they could afford it.

Yeah, I'm very pessimistic about the possibility that they'll ever allow us "healthy, functional" people to access MAID when we still have something to "contribute." I guess there's an argument that since our societies kept us safe and educated and well-fed (well, at least mine did), we owe something back. Or that, as you alluded to, they need all hands on deck if they want to keep the country afloat -- especially with the aging population problem. And so in that sense your early death impoverishes everyone else. Of course, these arguments are hard to swallow, given that we never wanted to exist in the first place!

 

[TBONTB]

I've seen this claim a lot on this site so I thought I'd address it.

Suicide prevention is not about the government wanting to keep you as a wage-slave so that they can get your tax dollars. It's much more simple than that. The main reason why 99% of people are against suicide is because 99% of people have an innate pro-life bias. This is true across cultures and time.* Now, we could discuss why they have a pro-life bias, and opinions can reasonably differ—my personal view is that it's evolutionarily useful—but most pro-lifers haven't even thought that far about it. They just know that death = bad (which necessarily means suicide = bad) and life = good.

Those who have thought about it a little more will often say that suicide should be prevented because of the possibility of having a good life in the future, and to them, having an enjoyable life is the highest good, so they don't want you to be deprived of that possibility, especially if you're young.

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Even when we look at the subset of cynical politicians in particular, they would want to prevent your suicide not so much to keep you as a wage-slave (as previously mentioned, suicidal people tend to make unproductive workers), but so that they don't have a bunch of angry family members making a stink about it in the media and then voting for the other guy come next election — or worse, starting costly lawsuits!

If you want to advocate for universal right-to-die, you need to understand why people are against it in the first place. We'll only make progress if we can convince people that life is not always good, and death is not always bad.

TLDR: suicide prevention at its most fundamental level arises from the belief that death is bad and life is good.


*Some cultures have sanctioned suicide (no pun intended) for collective reasons (ex. to preserve honour), but AFAIK there are no societies that have condoned suicide for purely personal reasons.

Love this, agree with your thoughts.

You didn't mention religion..most religions endorse the fundamental value of life. Personally I believe that grows out of the evolutionary origin you mentioned.

As to taxes...as an older member, I've often thought that a great way to save money on social programs would be to offer those over 62 an assisted suicide option. So many savings in social security and in health care. Longevity is a serious budget drain on individuals and on governments. Letting us elders check out would be a win-win!

 

[Satori Komeiji]

Agreed. Too many people come up with these grand conspiracies when it reality it's more simple than that. Really, people don't want to see other people die usually. There isn't a shadowy cabal of evildoers sitting at their circular-table-for-discussing-evil-things saying "We can't let suicidal people die because we need slaves for the machine!"

 

[Pluto]

 

[Malfunction]

I can't fully agree.

I'm sure there are segments of government that truly believe that life is worth saving. I just think that its a small segment in departments that doesn't get the funding it needs to carry out their goals.

People are a commodity. There's much money to be made from the poor/sick, its a repeat business. Keeping them alive creates jobs, and revenue. This benefits those at the top of the chain.

Seeing how so many of our societies' issues lead to people wanting to end their lives, then why would those who can make change refuse to do so if life is so heavily valued?

Governments in first world countries could prevent landlords from owning ridiculous amounts of family housing, have regulations on rent controls. Have regulations on wage and food control. Collect due taxes from those who pay very little. Why is it that 40 years ago you could work a minimum wage job and survive, get education for pennies (education wasn't even required), own a home, two cars and support 10 kids on one income, yet today, you'd be homeless with crippling debt?

Doesn't sound like governments give two shits about life to me, unless its their own survival. Otherwise society would have continued to prosper instead of regress.

We live in a society that enriches the few at the expense of the many. A society that creates homelessness and then banishes these people to areas unseen. In no way does that lend credence to a caring mentality.

I do think your idea is a nice one, but I don't share it.

 

[heyismeman]

Yea I hear this line alot. It's for sure no done in malice. People genuinely think they're doing the right thing. I personally don't truly know if there intentions are right or wrong.

 

[Dejected 55]

Growing up experiencing horrible people, kids and adults, I was told it gets better. I grew up and it didn't get better. It may or may not get worse, but it definitely doesn't get better.

Every now and then you encounter a genuine person who is kind for kindness sake, but most are not.

I didn't even mention religious people earlier who want you to live because they grow their religion to be the bestest most popular religion ever as they convert you... and some religions have tithes (or equivalent) where they make money off you directly, while others get tax breaks by having a church. Ever notice how the people working at the church (not volunteers, actual church employees) seem to have it good?

I knew a man, with a wife and several kids, who did a lot of work for his church maintaining their computers and such... his house was destroyed in a storm. The church owned the house and he rented it from them. The church took the insurance settlement and decided not to rebuild the home and offered no help to the family that had been renting from them and helping in the church. "Act of God" and all that and the church couldn't give one fuck, much less two fucks for this man and his wife and kids.

People care more when they get something out of it. That might be money or reputation or who knows... but they get something, they are more apt to seem like they care.

There are good people. Unfortunately a lot of the good people are themselves weighed down and unable to help because they need help too. Others are just unable to significantly help because there aren't many of them, and they do help in small weighs but it doesn't add up. Most people on average are selfish, and not in the it-makes-sense-take-care-of-yourself way.

Like... on a plane they have the thing about securing your own oxygen mask first before helping others in an emergency. That makes sense. You're no good to help your neighbor if you die. So, you secure your mask then offer to help others. Except... a lot of times, once you secure your mask, you're done. Fuck everybody else because you've got yours! Maybe if they die you can get some of theirs too?

But the people at the top, the power brokers and the corporations... they have a vested interest in you as a taxpayer, as a worker bee, and as a consumer. They need all of those they can get... and if they can squeeze a bit more blood out of your turnip? They will do everything they can to keep you here.

 

[concession]

TLDR: suicide prevention at its most fundamental level arises from the belief that death is bad and life is good.

Agree 100%. Great post.

Obviously you can not say that this is true in 100% of cases, some people may deviate and have their own reasons, but overall true.

 

[UglyInk]

why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely?

If you don't work then you're making sure the docs, nurse, etc have job in the psych ward, and they pay taxes. No a single politican in the government gives a fuck about you or me.

 

[amerie]

I think it's a mixture of both SI bias and the need to continue the economy.

 

[R. A.]

I think the biggest argument in favor of this position would be whether with zero suicide "prevention" infrastructure, enough people would kill themselves to make any kind of relevant dent in a wealthy industrialized nation's GDP.
So let's look at some data (disclosure I'm shit at stats and maths, so open to corrections). The following two tables are from Wikipedia:
​

​

South Korea, with it's second-highest rate of suicide in the word, is a good and also unique example, as the first and third rankers are comparatively extremely impoverished African nations whose citizen not only face rampant horrendous conditions compelling them to suicide, but also - like Korea - have little to no established awareness of "mental health" issues and infrastructural support for it.

The suicide rate in Korea then makes it a choice barometer for how much a rich nation would stand to lose economically from suicide - and hey, they're doing alright with the rate as high it is (yes I know these aren't the same year):
​

​

How much might they stand to gain? This is the part where I try to do math! Second disclaimer that it's virtually impossbile to have a "real" idea of how much "value" any individual contributes to its nation, but gross domestic product (GDP, the total value of all goods and services) divided by the population is often used. This is GDP per capita.

In the same year that we have the most recent data for the suicide rate, Korea's GDP per capita was nominally equivalent to US$35,125.50:
​

​

That same year, the population was estimated by the census to be 51,740,000. With a suicide rate of 27.5 per 100,000 - or 0.000275% - that means about 15,879 people died of suicide in Korean in 2021.
Multiply that by the GDP per capita = US$557,740,252 (just over a half billion).

Not a small number. But actually not a big one at all, in this context:

First: in 2021 Korea's total GDP was estimated at $1.82 trillion. The amount lost to suicide in that year would even a measly 0.03% of that total.

Second: we can never talk of suicide without discussing demographics - that is: who commits suicide. We all know that generally, the more life sucks, the more likely it is one commits. And what makes life suck? Generally being poor, lonely, unhappy, and unhealthy are among major risk factors. Lack of stability in one's life, no support to get through challenged, and so on.

In South Korea there is a substantial amount of suicide among women and the elderly, in addition to those in socioeconomically precarious situations. Both of these are highly relevant to our investigation since working women there on average earn less than 70% of what men do, and almost 40% of people over age 65 live in "relative poverty" - employers are also free to slash wages by up to half leading up to the mandatory retirement age of 60.

Third: unlike the global average, the rate of Korean teen suicides - an age group that would not, for the most part, be economically contributing to society (at least not via taxes) - has increased over the most recent years.

Sadly this is the part where my lack of formal background in stats fails. The rate of suicide in men is much higher here than women, and being a still rather gendered society when men in families do most of the financial earning, I can't say to what extent the relatively elevated rate of female suicide offsets that number. The elderly and youth numbers though are not necessarily subject to this binary - older and younger men not contributing to the financial total of the nation would be included in men's high rate. And of course: suicide prevention infrastructure itself requires money - in 2021 its budget reached ₩39.5 billion., over US$28 million.

Thus, there seems a solid chance that the cost to the GDP from suicide might be far less than 0.03%. Of course, as we see in the most recent link, the rate has steadily decreased since the national implementation of an anti-suicide campaign - aside from the general human dislike of dying, especially "unnecessarily" (which is extra interesting in a nation like Korea, who had Christianity and its notions of the inherent sanctity of life forced on them only in the last century - but whose history like Japan's leads to suicide still at times being seen as honorable), there will always be a desire from the ruling elite to extract maximum profit from the working class...but is that the main factor?

Probably not.​

 

[locked*n*loaded]

From a governmental perspective, I have no doubt that money, in one form or another, ie taxes and sustaining economic activity, in general, plays a part in determining policy on this issue. It's always about money.

 

[EternalShore]

wow, that's very true! :) I'd extend it to be about people wanting to maintain good consciences and wanting to feel like they did something to help stop death but not really knowing how to help/not wanting to put in very much effort themselves~

 

[Dejected 55]

Here's the thing. If someone keeps cutting you so you bleed and you have to keep re-bandaging to stay alive but the powers-that-be will not stop the person from cutting you and they don't allow you to stop bandaging yourself... as in, if you don't re-bandage immediately and always, they will arrest you and keep you locked up while letting the cutter go free to hurt others... that's kind of where we are in society.

IF suicide was accepted and legal and they stopped trying to prevent it... here's an interesting thing that I think would happen. I would expect a spike in suicides because all the people afraid of getting caught wouldn't have that to stop them... increased acceptance would mean more availability for peaceful methods so more people would try and succeed.

IF this became a trend, and it might in some parts of the world... think how everyone else would have to respond. They would have to actually look around and listen to those of us who try and tell them why we are miserable... they would be motivated to consider trying to fix those things, or else it would just snowball. Imagine if enough people suicide that it does start to affect tax collection and labor shortages and lack of consumers... the world falls apart if enough people literally opt out of existence... and there's only two ways to stop before it all crashes:

1. Fix the damn problems. At least try damn it.

2. Say "fuck it" about the problems, force people to stay alive against their will, and bleed them dry as long as you can.

Right now we're living option #2... We've proven there aren't enough people who care enough to make option #1 a priority so the only way it happens is if suicides trend upwards until it makes a difference in the machine. The next "revolution" might not be a war at all... it might just be enough people opting out permanently.

 

[dcsanaifdfd]

That same year, the population was estimated by the census to be 51,740,000. With a suicide rate of 27.5 per 100,000 - or 0.0275% - that means about 1,422,850 died of suicide in Korean in 2021.​

With that calculation it's 0.000275%, not 0.0275%.

 

[R. A.]

With that calculation it's 0.000275%, not 0.0275%.

Good catch! Edited to reflect the proper calculation values. It did seem high; annoying that the raw number is never given in these data (typical obfuscation).
It's a far less significant amount now. Single Hollywood blockbusters rake in more money than suicide costs South Korea.

 

[derpyderpins]

I've seen this claim a lot on this site so I thought I'd address it.

Suicide prevention is not about the government wanting to keep you as a wage-slave so that they can get your tax dollars. It's much more simple than that. The main reason why 99% of people are against suicide is because 99% of people have an innate pro-life bias. This is true across cultures and time.* Now, we could discuss why they have a pro-life bias, and opinions can reasonably differ—my personal view is that it's evolutionarily useful—but most pro-lifers haven't even thought that far about it. They just know that death = bad (which necessarily means suicide = bad) and life = good.

Those who have thought about it a little more will often say that suicide should be prevented because of the possibility of having a good life in the future, and to them, having an enjoyable life is the highest good, so they don't want you to be deprived of that possibility, especially if you're young.

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Even when we look at the subset of cynical politicians in particular, they would want to prevent your suicide not so much to keep you as a wage-slave (as previously mentioned, suicidal people tend to make unproductive workers), but so that they don't have a bunch of angry family members making a stink about it in the media and then voting for the other guy come next election — or worse, starting costly lawsuits!

If you want to advocate for universal right-to-die, you need to understand why people are against it in the first place. We'll only make progress if we can convince people that life is not always good, and death is not always bad.

TLDR: suicide prevention at its most fundamental level arises from the belief that death is bad and life is good.


*Some cultures have sanctioned suicide (no pun intended) for collective reasons (ex. to preserve honour), but AFAIK there are no societies that have condoned suicide for purely personal reasons.

well, I agree generally and would usually make a similar argument when people make the claim that the demonic monoliths running the New World Order really NEED them to work a wage-slave job and that's why they're not allowed to kill themselves.

So I'll put on my devil's advocate hat.

Let's just call it the "System," whether it's actual shadow people controlling everything or that society acts as an entity that acts in "its" own self interest.

The System has a natural incentive to encourage and nurture the life=good belief. I agree it's natural, but the System benefits from it remaining strong rather than being overcome with logic.

It's not about your NEETs, mentally ill, bottom-earners. It's about the potential dam breaking.

We talk about survival instinct, and it's tied at least partially to the life=good belief. We do internal evaluations of our good v. bad, but people don't really kill themselves the second the bad outweighs the good by a tiny fraction. I'd pose that there's correlation between our tolerance of bad outweighing good and how strong the foundational life=good belief is.

I think we'd agree that the life=good belief is overcome through critical thinking and analysis, like any distorted thought. It's reinforced early and often by being universally accepted. More suicide = more thinking about it and less evidence of universal acceptance. It might start with the people in the worst positions, who the System sees as a drain, but as more and more beliefs start to dwindle, you'll see increases further and further up that bell curve.

Not only would you see more suicides, you'd have more high-risk behavior and lifestyles. I don't mean just skydiving, I mean something like rebellion, or Luigi moments. The thought of "well fuck it might as well then I can kill myself" becomes more practical without the belief that life is good and should be preserved; the belief that death has consequence.

So, the alternative theory I've pieced-together is that it's not about you paying your taxes, but it is about holding a system together so lots of other people can pay their taxes. (But not really because taxes don't matter the financial system is fake it's not tied to how much the government spends anyway.)

Edit: adding in here. There are these images of the "system" where the poorest people are at the bottom and they're really holding everything up. I'd say it's not quite that. The middle people probably keep it going. The poor people are there so that the middle people say "well, at least I have it better than that person." Can't have the poors all killing themselves so the middles are the poors, who might then kill themselves.

 

[-Link-]

There's an element here that's been strongly implied but not outright stated: Fear.

Suicide is one of those topics where, for some people, it's like staring into the proverbial abyss. The idea of life getting so bad. Questioning whether they could ever fall so low. Imagining the level of desperation or physical or emotional pain that leads someone to end their own life. The process of dying at all, let alone by one's own hand. Envisioning the horrific violence of certain methods. The idea of any loved ones potentially dying by suicide. The unbearable emotional pain of those left behind.

It ranks among the darkest aspects of human life.

I imagine for a lot of us here, we could talk about suicide as if we're talking about the weather. Casual conversation. Comforting, even, for some of us. But try bringing up the topic next time you're at the dinner table with your family, and watch their reactions. In some cases, you'd be rocking the very foundation of their world. Depending on context, it could forever change the way they look at you.

This fear, I would expect as an underlying factor in some of those cases where we see those ingrained beliefs of "suicide = bad". A projection of sorts. Too scary or unnerving to confront. Cue the automatic dismissal.

 

[Dejected 55]

The thing is... if people who are not suicidal find the idea of it to be so distasteful... one wonders why they wouldn't be interested in trying to make the world a better place. Life cannot be perfect. But there are so many things that could be so much better for so many people. There are a lot of common themes just on this forum alone that should be within modern society's grasp to address. So many things are ignored or done purposefully to improve one person while stepping on another. Life doesn't have to be that way.

The number of people in dire states physically who are living in pain or are terminal without hope for cure is rare. I'm not diminishing things for them, rather, I'm saying if they were the only people seeking suicide they could be treated like we treat our beloved pets and in the countries where euthanasia is supported by allowing them to pass peacefully as a kindness. Those are people more difficult to help otherwise unless we develop better medicine and cures at some point, which hopefully we are also doing.

But for most of the depression that leads to suicides in the world... I don't think I'm going out too far on a limb to say the vast majority of them are directly due to the state of the world that cuts a lot of people out from having a peaceful, stable life without sadness and frustration. The difference between a suicidal person and a content person isn't always day vs night. Simple things that a lot of people take for granted can be metaphorically killing someone else who doesn't have those things.

IF people in positions of power and wealth truly are "pro life" I wish they would act on that by endeavoring to make the world the better place that it could be for more people.

 

[_Gollum_]

Seeing how so many of our societies' issues lead to people wanting to end their lives, then why would those who can make change refuse to do so if life is so heavily valued?

Governments in first world countries could prevent landlords from owning ridiculous amounts of family housing, have regulations on rent controls. Have regulations on wage and food control. Collect due taxes from those who pay very little. Why is it that 40 years ago you could work a minimum wage job and survive, get education for pennies (education wasn't even required), own a home, two cars and support 10 kids on one income, yet today, you'd be homeless with crippling debt?

Doesn't sound like governments give two shits about life to me, unless its their own survival. Otherwise society would have continued to prosper instead of regress.

We live in a society that enriches the few at the expense of the many. A society that creates homelessness and then banishes these people to areas unseen. In no way does that lend credence to a caring mentality.

I do think your idea is a nice one, but I don't share it.

Just to clarify, I don't think that the people in power--or most people, including doctors/psychologists/therapists/etc.--care about you. Not wanting you to die and caring about you are two distinct things. You can care about someone and not be against them dying (like many of us pro-choicers), and you can equally be against someone dying and not care about them.

If you're trying to jump off a bridge and a stranger sees you, they are likely going to try to stop you, even though they don't give two hoots about you and as soon as your continued existence is assured, they won't ever think about you again; however, because of their pro-life bias, they still went through the effort of ""saving"" you.

I think the biggest argument in favor of this position would be whether with zero suicide "prevention" infrastructure, enough people would kill themselves to make any kind of relevant dent in a wealthy industrialized nation's GDP.
So let's look at some data (disclosure I'm shit at stats and maths, so open to corrections). The following two tables are from Wikipedia:
​

View attachment 175042​

South Korea, with it's second-highest rate of suicide in the word, is a good and also unique example, as the first and third rankers are comparatively extremely impoverished African nations whose citizen not only face rampant horrendous conditions compelling them to suicide, but also - like Korea - have little to no established awareness of "mental health" issues and infrastructural support for it.

The suicide rate in Korea then makes it a choice barometer for how much a rich nation would stand to lose economically from suicide - and hey, they're doing alright with the rate as high it is (yes I know these aren't the same year):
​

View attachment 175046​

How much might they stand to gain? This is the part where I try to do math! Second disclaimer that it's virtually impossbile to have a "real" idea of how much "value" any individual contributes to its nation, but gross domestic product (GDP, the total value of all goods and services) divided by the population is often used. This is GDP per capita.

In the same year that we have the most recent data for the suicide rate, Korea's GDP per capita was nominally equivalent to US$35,125.50:
​

View attachment 175047​

That same year, the population was estimated by the census to be 51,740,000. With a suicide rate of 27.5 per 100,000 - or 0.000275% - that means about 15,879 people died of suicide in Korean in 2021.
Multiply that by the GDP per capita = US$557,740,252 (just over a half billion).

Not a small number. But actually not a big one at all, in this context:

First: in 2021 Korea's total GDP was estimated at $1.82 trillion. The amount lost to suicide in that year would even a measly 0.03% of that total.

Second: we can never talk of suicide without discussing demographics - that is: who commits suicide. We all know that generally, the more life sucks, the more likely it is one commits. And what makes life suck? Generally being poor, lonely, unhappy, and unhealthy are among major risk factors. Lack of stability in one's life, no support to get through challenged, and so on.

In South Korea there is a substantial amount of suicide among women and the elderly, in addition to those in socioeconomically precarious situations. Both of these are highly relevant to our investigation since working women there on average earn less than 70% of what men do, and almost 40% of people over age 65 live in "relative poverty" - employers are also free to slash wages by up to half leading up to the mandatory retirement age of 60.

Third: unlike the global average, the rate of Korean teen suicides - an age group that would not, for the most part, be economically contributing to society (at least not via taxes) - has increased over the most recent years.

Sadly this is the part where my lack of formal background in stats fails. The rate of suicide in men is much higher here than women, and being a still rather gendered society when men in families do most of the financial earning, I can't say to what extent the relatively elevated rate of female suicide offsets that number. The elderly and youth numbers though are not necessarily subject to this binary - older and younger men not contributing to the financial total of the nation would be included in men's high rate. And of course: suicide prevention infrastructure itself requires money - in 2021 its budget reached ₩39.5 billion., over US$28 million.

Thus, there seems a solid chance that the cost to the GDP from suicide might be far less than 0.03%. Of course, as we see in the most recent link, the rate has steadily decreased since the national implementation of an anti-suicide campaign - aside from the general human dislike of dying, especially "unnecessarily" (which is extra interesting in a nation like Korea, who had Christianity and its notions of the inherent sanctity of life forced on them only in the last century - but whose history like Japan's leads to suicide still at times being seen as honorable), there will always be a desire from the ruling elite to extract maximum profit from the working class...but is that the main factor?

Probably not.​

Great write up! This could be a post of its own! I think people often forget just how few suicides there actually are. Of the people who have suicidal thoughts, it's a minority who attempt, and of those who attempt, it's a minority who succeed.

I do take @derpyderpins's point though about it not being so much about the individual's potential contributions, but about the society-wide perception; a lot of people who have ideation but never attempt presumably are held back by the stigma in society, ie. the fact that they think suicide is wrong. If death is no longer bad, then--to play on Dostoevsky's famous phrase--all is permitted. And I could understand why a self-preserving government would want to prevent even a minority of people from arriving at that conclusion. What happens when, even if people don't go as far as actually killing themselves, they just stop participating in life?

 

[Malfunction]

Just to clarify, I don't think that the people in power--or most people, including doctors/psychologists/therapists/etc.--care about you. Not wanting you to die and caring about you are two distinct things.

I agree.

They get paid to "care". Which is fine. I know they don't care personally about me. But they do have a job to do.

Point being, if keeping people alive is about "what if things get better" or other pro-life reasons, then why wouldn't people in charge put the support in place for the populace to achieve the possibility of actually getting better?

For me personally, I have a list of health issues. And some could be fixed (hernias for example), the services exist. The problem is my family doctor won't budge on it. Since he is my gate keeper to health care, I have no recourse so I must live with it. So it just gets added to the list with other issues he doesn't want to deal with. And some of my other issues are lethal if left unchecked. My gate keeper gets paid for simply having me on his roster.

But if I would mention the word suicide, I could very well go from his office to a psyche ward because then he has to save me. He doesn't have to save me from dying unless its self inflicted. There's something seriously wrong there.

So I don't get the impression that there's any interest in really "saving" me, only that I stay alive like a good little monkey to generate tax revenue. I just don't buy the pro-life argument being about saving lives, rather that it's about control.

A bystander would make an attempt to save someone in distress, most would likely. I could save you from jumping because its a natural reaction, but I'm ill equipped to fix your health issues. The reason you are jumping may be because those who could help you, won't.