suicide = nature selection

[suicidesheep31]

I do not get the point why people are against suicide.
If you want to kill yourself, it means that on an evolutionary point of view you are not made for living. It means that your genes or environment are not the best to adapt to society.
So, what is the point? You wish that these genes perpetuate?
For what?
It just makes me feel shitty and makes people around me not feel well.
On an evolutionary point of view, suicide is quite appropriate. For the sake of everybody.

I am unhealthy. It costs me money, it costs you money and time, and a lack of happiness for people around.
Maybe that suicide is just normal.
It is just natural selection. Isn't it?

I am writing this after have been gently kick out of my job. I had to give my access card. But I am still working at home because my value is to finih whatI started no matter what.

I am a burden for my colleagues. And I do not wish to have new colleagues because I do not waant to hurt them.
I don't wish to make new connection because I now that at some point, I will hurt them.
It was not always like that. And some people are not hurt by me because I keep them far from me.

 

[Red Scare]

If you want to kill yourself, it means that on an evolutionary point of view you are not made for living. It means that your genes or environment are not the best to adapt to society.

On an evolutionary point of view, suicide is quite appropriate. For the sake of everybody.

It is just natural selection. Isn't it?

This is a load of horse shit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection. What you are suggesting is eugenics and it is gross, and not far from what the nazis thought.

Suicide is a choice, and people from all walks of life have made that choice. Rich people, poor people, influential people, inconsequential people. It doesn't matter. It should remain a choice, and not ever be imposed by society trying to perpetuate "the right genes". This is just so disgusting to even think about.

One of the main objections to legal euthanasia is that it is a slippery slope and could be used to carry out a eugenics program that targets socially vulnerable people. Euthanasia should never be imposed, and should always be a choice. If a severely disabled person chooses NOT to be euthanized, they should have every resource available to them to keep them comfortable and provide as much a quality of life as we can, same for mental illness, we should have nice hospitals and facilities. But for people who want to, the choice should be available to be euthanized too, and no one should ever coerce another to make that choice.

 

[Pain In The Ass]

This is a load of horse shit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection. What you are suggesting is eugenics and it is gross, and not far from what the nazis thought.

Suicide is a choice, and people from all walks of life have made that choice. Rich people, poor people, influential people, inconsequential people. It doesn't matter. It should remain a choice, and not ever be imposed by society trying to perpetuate "the right genes". This is just so disgusting to even think about.

One of the main objections to legal euthanasia is that it is a slippery slope and could be used to carry out a eugenics program that targets socially vulnerable people. Euthanasia should never be imposed, and should always be a choice. If a severely disabled person chooses NOT to be euthanized, they should have every resource available to them to keep them comfortable and provide as much a quality of life as we can, same for mental illness, we should have nice hospitals and facilities. But for people who want to, the choice should be available to be euthanized too, and no one should ever coerce another to make that choice.

That's the contradiction that makes the two approaches seem incompatible to some I suppose - if you decide to live your life as a quadriplegic, we'll do everything we can to help you live your life to the fullest, and this will cost the state £4,000,000 across your entire lifetime, but if you want to die now, we'll help you to do that, and that will cost us only £2000 - it's difficult to see how the state, or society, could be impartial to whichever decision you choose.

 

[suicidesheep31]

and not far from what the nazis thought.

I know for the nazis part. I am not proud of that. But for my defense, it just apply to myself. I am not talkig about blond hair and blue eyes.

the right genes

I am just saying that I have some vulnerabilities and the environement I lived in did not made me able to make connection with people. If you assume that one of the purpose of life is to pass your DNA, my lack of capacity to connect with people is finally a good thing for the planet.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think.

I am a physicist. So sorry. Evolution for me is a matter of what genes is the best for survival mechanism.

Yes, suicide is a choice. I am not saying that euthanasia is something that you can impose to someone. No way!! I am saying that if someone wants to end his life, well, do not make it hard for him to do it.

same for mental illness, we should have nice hospitals and facilities.

This is an utopia

That's the contradiction that makes the two approaches seem incompatible to some I suppose - if you decide to live your life as a quadriplegic, we'll do everything we can to help you live your life to the fullest, and this will cost the state £4,000,000 across your entire lifetime, but if you want to die now, we'll help you to do that, and that will cost us only £2000 - it's difficult to see how the state, or society, could be impartial to whichever decision you choose.

I completely agree with this. It is a choice. Let me make the choice I think is the best for me and the society
I just wanted to say that keeping me alive cost you more money than killing me

 

[NorseHel]

This is a load of horse shit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection. What you are suggesting is eugenics and it is gross, and not far from what the nazis thought.

Suicide is a choice, and people from all walks of life have made that choice. Rich people, poor people, influential people, inconsequential people. It doesn't matter.

I see what you're saying, and if the argument is that those who are by whatever arbitrary metric considered a "burden" to society should CTB, or worse, straight up killed, then yes, you're absolutely right.

However, purely from the perspective of "those who are more naturally inclined towards suicide are less likely to reproduce", that's exactly what natural selection is.

On second read, I think I came into this thread with my own bias, which made me blind to what the OP was saying. I've left my original thoughts intact because... not sure. As proof of my mistake, I guess. I agree with you.

However, I don't entirely agree we're completely removed from natural selection. If someone is born with a genetic inability to reproduce for whatever reason, that's still natural selection. However you're right that many of the more indirect factors that come into play in the evolution of other species no longer really apply to us.




To get back to what @suicidesheep31 was saying, there's many valid reasons for CTB, and few places understand that better than this forum. However, requiring support from society for whatever reason is not by itself a good reason. If we as a society have the means to help the "weaker" among us, and they want that help, I believe we should.

 

[suicidesheep31]

If we as a society have the means to help the "weaker" among us, and they want that help, I believe we should.

You are taliking for good about you and this forum. The reality is that out of this forum, and therapist, little people are ready to help.

 

[Gsvko]

Agreed. If I was born in a different age, I would have been dead long time ago. It is a choice I make because I'm too weak to live, I had better chances in this time, but it I'm still not fit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection.

Lol, selection never stops, we just have different conditions now. Check your biology.

Euthanasia should never be imposed, and should always be a choice...choice.

100%

 

[suicidesheep31]

Agreed. If I was born in a different age, I would have been dead long time ago. It is a choice I make because I'm too weak to live, I had better chances in this time, but it I'm still not fit.

Lol, selection never stops, we just have different conditions now. Check your biology.

100%

Also, not to be too harch, covid is also a selection somehow

 

[Red Scare]

That's the contradiction that makes the two approaches seem incompatible to some I suppose - if you decide to live your life as a quadriplegic, we'll do everything we can to help you live your life to the fullest, and this will cost the state £4,000,000 across your entire lifetime, but if you want to die now, we'll help you to do that, and that will cost us only £2000 - it's difficult to see how the state, or society, could be impartial to whichever decision you choose.

Scarcity is a lie. You have a nationalized health system, but are still forced to buy drugs, and spend money acquiring the goods to run such a system from within a capitalist framework, which makes it absurdly expensive. It's even worse in the USA where there is no nationalized healthcare system.

But the fact is, whether it's a drug company or a company that produces insulin pumps, there is no need for that shit to cost so much. Governments could revoke patents and produce that stuff themselves for very little cost, no more than it takes to produce the initial goods. It will probably never happen, but I'd like to see those companies run out of business, or at the very least strictly regulated by fixing prices and dictating what they are allowed to charge for their services, or what they pay their board members, heavily tax and collect the rest. There is no reason a pill that costs pennies to make should cost the end consumer 2000 dollars, which is what it would be without health insurance.

Paying healthcare staff, and producing drugs and other things you need to run a healthcare system should just be seen as the cost of what it takes to run an efficient public healthcare system. Whether they are caring for a patient long term, or short term, I don't think one person occupying a bed for longer time would make much difference in cost. You still have to pay the healthcare staff regardless, and if it wasn't them occupying a bed, it would be someone else.

I am just saying that I have some vulnerabilities and the environement I lived in did not made me able to make connection with people. If you assume that one of the purpose of life is to pass your DNA, my lack of capacity to connect with people is finally a good thing for the planet.

This makes no logical sense, whatsoever.

I am a physicist. So sorry. Evolution for me is a matter of what genes is the best for survival mechanism.

If you have a test that says you have a genetic predisposition to lymphoma, or als, or Parkinson's, then maybe you could consider whether or not you would want to have children. But what you are saying here seems absurdly simplistic and born more out of self loathing than based on any empirical data.

Yes, suicide is a choice. I am not saying that euthanasia is something that you can impose to someone. No way!! I am saying that if someone wants to end his life, well, do not make it hard for him to do it.

This is the only thing you have said that seems to make any sense.

I completely agree with this. It is a choice. Let me make the choice I think is the best for me and the society

I don't think you can say what is better or worse for society. Physicists are a net positive to the world.

I just wanted to say that keeping me alive cost you more money than killing me

Not necessarily. If you are actively participating and contributing to the economy, I would say that offsets any potential resources are expended on your existence. What could those costs possibly be, are you on food stamps? Medicare? If you contributed and paid taxes your whole life, that's kind of the point.

 

[suicidesheep31]

There is no reason a pill that costs pennies to make should cost the end consumer 2000 dollars, which is what it would be without health insurance.

I completly agree with this. That's why I do not like big pharma.

I don't think one person occupying a bed for longer time would make much difference in cost.

I do not know. Beds are more and more rare to get. Cuts in budgets

you are saying here seems absurdly simplistic and born more out of self loathing than based on any empirical data.

I have BPD which is a biosocial disease (= genetics /vulnerabilities + environment). But anyway. Everything is a metter of vulnerabilities and expression of genes. One specific protein will not be expressed in some cases, but with the same piece of DNA, this protein will be expressed. And this is due to environmental conditions. This is epigenetics.

Not necessarily. If you are actively participating and contributing to the economy, I would say that offsets any potential resources are expended in your existence. What could those costs possibly be, are you on food stamps? Medicare? If you contributed and paid taxes your whole life, that's kind of the point.

I am jobless now. And I do not think I will find a new job. And FYI, I already spend the money of society during 5 years while I was jobless and having compensation

 

[Gsvko]

I am just saying that I have some vulnerabilities and the environement I lived in did not made me able to make connection with people. If you assume that one of the purpose of life is to pass your DNA, my lack of capacity to connect with people is finally a good thing for the planet.

Anything that disables you to reproduce puts your genes out of the game. Be it death, some reproductive issue or not being able to find a mate. Makes sense to me.

 

[whatevs]

This is a load of horse shit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection. What you are suggesting is eugenics and it is gross, and not far from what the nazis thought.

Suicide is a choice, and people from all walks of life have made that choice. Rich people, poor people, influential people, inconsequential people. It doesn't matter. It should remain a choice, and not ever be imposed by society trying to perpetuate "the right genes". This is just so disgusting to even think about.

One of the main objections to legal euthanasia is that it is a slippery slope and could be used to carry out a eugenics program that targets socially vulnerable people. Euthanasia should never be imposed, and should always be a choice. If a severely disabled person chooses NOT to be euthanized, they should have every resource available to them to keep them comfortable and provide as much a quality of life as we can, same for mental illness, we should have nice hospitals and facilities. But for people who want to, the choice should be available to be euthanized too, and no one should ever coerce another to make that choice.

>Invokes evolutionary biology as something to behold, an appeal to scientific authority
>Thinks that eugenics is abhorrent and can't fathom that eugenics is the same thing than muh evolution but guided by people

 

[Red Scare]

>Invokes evolutionary biology as something to behold, an appeal to scientific authority
>Thinks that eugenics is abhorrent and can't fathom that eugenics is the same thing than muh evolution but guided by people

""EvOlUtIoN bUt GuIdEd By PeOpLe""

GTFO with that shit.

 

[whatevs]

""EvOlUtIoN bUt GuIdEd By PeOpLe""

GTFO with that shit.

The Chad eugenics vs the virgin socialism. Can't stand a chance. In ten generations Linux Torvalds would seem technologically challenged.

 

[Red Scare]

The Chad eugenics vs the virgin socialism. Can't stand a chance. In ten generations Linux Torvalds would seem technologically challenged.

What the fuck are you even talking about you shit for brains.

Not a virgin here, sorry to disappoint.

 

[whatevs]

What the fuck are you even talking about you shit for brains.

Not a virgin here, sorry to disappoint.

No knowledge of basic memes, resorts to crude insults that soon? What a disappointment.

 

[symphony]

This is a load of horse shit.

I don't think you understand evolutionary biology if this is what you think. Humans have long removed themselves from the forces of natural selection. What you are suggesting is eugenics and it is gross, and not far from what the nazis thought.

Suicide is a choice, and people from all walks of life have made that choice. Rich people, poor people, influential people, inconsequential people. It doesn't matter. It should remain a choice, and not ever be imposed by society trying to perpetuate "the right genes". This is just so disgusting to even think about.

One of the main objections to legal euthanasia is that it is a slippery slope and could be used to carry out a eugenics program that targets socially vulnerable people. Euthanasia should never be imposed, and should always be a choice. If a severely disabled person chooses NOT to be euthanized, they should have every resource available to them to keep them comfortable and provide as much a quality of life as we can, same for mental illness, we should have nice hospitals and facilities. But for people who want to, the choice should be available to be euthanized too, and no one should ever coerce another to make that choice.

Came here to largely say this. An appeal to "evolution" should not dictate our moral choices.

This is an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature

You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

 

[suicidesheep31]

I just want to say that if someone feels it is best for him and people around to commit suicide, society should not go against and makes it hard.
For my case, my parents were sick emotionally which made me sick. I also have a SPA which is a genetics nd environmental condition.
Why is the purpose to make children having these vulnerabilities?
This is why I was taking about genes.
Not more.
I do not think that genes should affect the decision of life or death.
I am just making clear that for me, the best is to not have children and to stop hurting people by my behavior. And the most reliable way to do this is by commiting suicide

 

[Red Scare]

No knowledge of basic memes, resorts to crude insults that soon? What a disappointment.

Sorry I'm not a terminally online loser.

What is it people say? Touch grass.

 

[Superdeterminist]

I despise natural selection and hope that we can overcome it at some point. But yes, you're right. Right now we're stuck with natural selection and have been for millennia. It may even be unavoiable, an inescapable consequence of physics. The same idiots who condemn suicide often also glorify evolved things in nature like "look at how perfectly adapted this animal is" or saying such things like "it's the natural order, life needs death". But they don't want to actually acknowledge the millions of deaths that evolution necessitates. And when it comes to ACTUAL people taking it into their own hands, they get stroppy about it. Really contradictory and irritating.

 

[ThePaleWhiteLight]

""EvOlUtIoN bUt GuIdEd By PeOpLe""

GTFO with that shit.

There is a strong argument to be made that modern society is dysgenic anyway.

 

[Gsvko]

Woahh, eugenics SUCK. Please let's agree on this. Eugenics is artificial selection. And we are idiots, let's not do that. Makes me sick.
As long as there is life, there is evolution. Mutations and natural selection are what drives it. Whether we live in skyscrapers or caves. Not trying to make anyone feel bad, it's just how it is for every species.

 

[Al Cappella]

We don't ever get to dictate what others think or feel. Period. Having a sympathetic viewpoint when it comes to suicide makes you unpopular. Well, no, I should say the point of view is unpopular, no you, etc. So of course people are against. Question is, why does this bother you? Personally, I consider the source. 99% of all opinions are worthless.

But ya, the natural selection angle just doesn't work for me either. Sorry.

 

[Superdeterminist]

Woahh, eugenics SUCK. Please let's agree on this. Eugenics is artificial selection. And we are idiots, let's not do that. Makes me sick.
As long as there is life, there is evolution. Mutations and natural selection are what drives it. Whether we live in skyscrapers or caves. Not trying to make anyone feel bad, it's just how it is for every species.

I don't know if I can agree. Eugenics has connotations to the Nazis which has given the word a bad reputation. But what about trying to rid something like Down's syndrome through gene manipulation? Or any other condition considered a disorder? I can't see that as a bad thing. There is something problematic about the condition of Down's syndrome, at least in my opinion. Trying to eliminate Down's syndrome births through artificial means seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. By eugenics do you mean the killing of people already alive? If so then I agree that's not reasonable.

 

[Ligottian]

I don't know if I can agree. Eugenics has connotations to the Nazis which has given the word a bad reputation. But what about trying to rid something like Down's syndrome through gene manipulation? Or any other condition considered a disorder? I can't see that as a bad thing. There is something problematic about the condition of Down's syndrome, at least in my opinion. Trying to eliminate Down's syndrome births through artificial means seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. By eugenics do you mean the killing of people already alive? If so then I agree that's not reasonable.

The trash of human society are the most fecund.

 

[Gsvko]

I don't know if I can agree. Eugenics has connotations to the Nazis which has given the word a bad reputation. But what about trying to rid something like Down's syndrome through gene manipulation? Or any other condition considered a disorder? I can't see that as a bad thing. There is something problematic about the condition of Down's syndrome, at least in my opinion. Trying to eliminate Down's syndrome births through artificial means seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. By eugenics do you mean the killing of people already alive? If so then I agree that's not reasonable.

Yeah, my bad, that's exactly what crossed my mind. Gene editing sounds like a slippery slope. Getting rid of cystic fibrosis sounds sweet though. Idk
I went OT again

 

[HappyForever?]

Victim of natural selection here, can confirm. People don't want to see ugly people like me, so I will be doing them a favor if I kill myself.

 

[deathbydragon]

Eh, medicines and pills and such mean that so many people that would be dead are kept alive - including if they're on an antidepressant that they feel works.
Breaking out of that and having the strength and will to decide life isn't worth living - feels like the opposite of natural selection.

'Survival of the fittest' is wrong. It's survival of what survives. Over time that it does average out as 'fittest', but don't think you're a failure and it's natural selection for thinking of opting out.