Survival of the fittest: how is it even possible that humans kill themselves?

[aGoodDayToDie]

How it it that humans commit suicide? Shouldn't natural selection prevent it? Shouldn't suicidal tendencies get selected out of the population? Why havent they? Does suicide actually have an evolutionary benefit? Or are we still evolving out of it, it's just the consequence if suffering, plus newly found intelligence, and nature hasn't yet "fixed" this problem which is bad for gene propagation, but intelligence offered more benefit than the loss of life suicide creates, so intelligence has not been deselected, and other mechanisms are evolving to prevent suicide?

And if we are evolving still, towards reducing suicide, how is that going? Will it eliminate unbearable suffering? Or will it come in the form of more social impetus to prevent people killing themselves? Either by offerring support? Or by coldly making people suffer and removing options to kill oneself?

 

[restless.dreams]

Interesting question. As @sicksadmad points out, depressed/suicidal people can and do still procreate, so the genes will still persist in the population (thanks, Mom).

I wonder if there's also a mismatch between our evolutionary history and our current quality of life. Humans didn't evolve to work 40+ hours a week in concrete boxes and look at screens. Early humans were probably more active, spent more time outdoors, and had stronger community ties. We're living in conditions that our minds aren't really adapted to cope with, so we're displaying more maladaptive behaviors -- kind of like how some primates and dolphins will apparently beat their heads against walls or drown themselves in captivity. That might just be my anti-capitalism talking though ;)

 

[aGoodDayToDie]

Interesting question. As @sicksadmad points out, depressed/suicidal people can and do still procreate, so the genes will still persist in the population (thanks, Mom).

I wonder if there's also a mismatch between our evolutionary history and our current quality of life. Humans didn't evolve to work 40+ hours a week in concrete boxes and look at screens. Early humans were probably more active, spent more time outdoors, and had stronger community ties. We're living in conditions that our minds aren't really adapted to cope with, so we're displaying more maladaptive behaviors -- kind of like how some primates and dolphins will apparently beat their heads against walls or drown themselves in captivity. That might just be my anti-capitalism talking though ;)

No you're totally right I think. Humans have developed society and technology rapidly beyond anything resembling what we evolved to cope with. We developed anxiety to fear tigers, wooly mammoths and the occasional angry human. Not to fear competition of a global society or the possibility of annihilation from man made disasters and everything leading up to and resulting from that - which we're powerless to control

 

[Kit1]

I didn't choose to be born. I didn't choose to be abused or suffer at an age when I had no autonomy. I didn't design our health system and underfund it to the point that they cannot look after me when Inturned to them for help to keep me alive. At least, I have a choice to end my suffering.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

How it it that humans commit suicide? Shouldn't natural selection prevent it? Shouldn't suicidal tendencies get selected out of the population? Why havent they? Does suicide actually have an evolutionary benefit? Or are we still evolving out of it, it's just the consequence if suffering, plus newly found intelligence, and nature hasn't yet "fixed" this problem which is bad for gene propagation, but intelligence offered more benefit than the loss of life suicide creates, so intelligence has not been deselected, and other mechanisms are evolving to prevent suicide?

And if we are evolving still, towards reducing suicide, how is that going? Will it eliminate unbearable suffering? Or will it come in the form of more social impetus to prevent people killing themselves? Either by offerring support? Or by coldly making people suffer and removing options to kill oneself?

We were designed to die.

Evolution has actually made us even easier to kill in many respects, than our animal ancestors. (Harder in some respects, with science & medicine etc)

We have evolved to become physically soft and weak creatures, highly susceptible to many things. And even mentally weak too, in some respects.

We actually far outlive our basic biological purpose. We could debate the pros and cons of this, but self destruction is actually highly logical in many circumstances. (Although unpopular to acknowledge of course)

 

[Argo]

How it it that humans commit suicide? Shouldn't natural selection prevent it? Shouldn't suicidal tendencies get selected out of the population? Why havent they? Does suicide actually have an evolutionary benefit?

Well the one thing is that there will always be maladaptive and adaptive traits/behaviors(and both at the same time), because evolution and its consequences aren't some kind of like rational, or ethical, or stable, or even "true" thing-- they're just a kind of temporary strategy that "seems to work so far" with the only criteria being reproduction(a very low bar for "things working").

From the POV of evolution, the only problem with suicide is if everyone commits it. That's when it would be selected out. As long as only a few people commit it, it won't get selected out, because it's not occurring a one by one thing, it's occurring similar to murder in a bigger context than just one person's genes. Murderers never run out of murder victims due to natural selection right? It's just a constant feature of the world, as long as only a few people commit murder. It's kind of like that, rather than a "murder victim" gene that eventually goes away.

If you only look at genetic fitness, you can imagine just a really simplified game scenario where strong groups "win games". Let's put it that way. And if there's a group with a particular weak link, and that weak link that weighed down the group voluntarily dies turning it into a strong group of 9, that group will now be better off.

But then that begs the question, why don't governments just encourage suicide? Stuff changes at bigger scales. One it's a bad look, while suicide prevention is a good(enough, for most people) look. That's slowly changing in some EU countries who want to try the "compassionate dying" story.

Survival is about narratives that twist or obscure reality rather then depicting it as it is, because of how negative reality is, making reality bad for survival(reason why we are still a psychotic species after so long). But telling a story that's useful or sounds good, but isn't true, is generally good for survival.

Two it's bad for business(RTD countries struggle to make RTD profitable, it's so expensive to die there), because the sociological model is set up so that you benefit the species by existing(it's very hard for any 1 person to weigh the species down) but the species doesn't really benefit you because the structure of the species and world is pretty obviously dystopian. But it does benefit your genes, from the "genes-eye view". This is identical to how if you look at factory farms, you see a hellworld of animal torture, but the genes of these animals are (mindlessly) content with this.

 

[FutureHanger]

Well we have SI preventing really suicidal people from going through with it so we already have evolved a mechanism that stops suicide long before humans existed, but humans have the ability to overpower instincts, if we didn't then no one would survive our modern world forcing us to work 40 hours a week sleep deprived inside concrete boxes with little sunlight during day time hours

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I may be wrong but doesn't evolution only work as a way to select out those with worse genes and increase the frequency of the good genes over many generations? If so, then evolution wouldn't do anything against people killing themselves beyond SI as, firstly, people get suicidal due to the environment that life offers and that can't really be dealt with. Also, humans have artificially increased our chance of survival with medicine and technology so things that would normally select out those who are less fit to survive and reproduce won't work as well anymore

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd argue that we aren't all that natural anymore though. We've managed to circumvent natural selection to a greater degree...

IVF isn't natural, medicine isn't natural, social welfair and support isn't natural. When you think about it- we actively dissuade 'natural selection'. Breeding programmes that would favour 'favourable' genes and limit people with hereditary illness or low IQ from propogating would be seen as eugenics and we see that as an infringement of our rights and immoral. In fact- the whole concept of having rights and morality isn't exactly natural.

Do cockroaches try to sue jewel wasps for dragging their offspring into burrows and letting their own offspring devour the poor thing alive? There aren't really 'right or wrongs' in nature. It does what it does, regardless of anyone's feelings.

You could probably argue that, by being so keen on not offending people and infringing their rights- we have so much freedom that children are born into circumstances where they will almost undoubtably suffer. It's pretty much inevitable. Funny how hummanity doesn't always work in all directions.

I guess you could wonder if it is some 'natural' instinct that- there are already too many of us on this world for the planet to cope. What's more, we're prolonging our natural lifespans by decades. Maybe it is some 'natural' way of balancing things. Maybe antinatilism and homosexuality/ asexuality etc. where no children are created are other ways.

Some would argue that if we want to kill ourselves, our minds are ill and dysfunctional so- better not to pass those genes on. People with mental illness do sometimes have children before they die though.

Vaguely related, I find it curious that medications to treat mental illness often kill libido. The cynical part of me wonders if that is intentional... although, probably not. The big pharmaceuticals probably want those people to have children who also struggle with mental illness and become reliant on their products.

Overall though, I'd argue that we have different layers to our brain. The primal brain is where our natural instincts come from- survival instrinct, the desire to reproduce. I'd say our younger, thinking mind doesn't comply with natural law so much now. And ultimately, that part of our brain can take control of what we do.

I think we certainly came from the natural world but, we have become quite separate from it. I believe that has the potential to happen with a lot of animals though, under the right circumstances. I think it's only a fraction of animal species that evolve to have symbiotic, harmonious relationships to their surroundings. I reckon most creatures try to exploit what's around them with little thought to that thing's overall well being. That's the irony with our race. We ultimately know that we're dooming ourselves to extinction! Ultimately- pretty much every human being is contributing to killing itself and the rest of its race... and we're the 'superior' species supposedly... it's almost laughable.

 

[sserafim]

I may be wrong but doesn't evolution only work as a way to select out those with worse genes and increase the frequency of the good genes over many generations? If so, then evolution wouldn't do anything against people killing themselves beyond SI as, firstly, people get suicidal due to the environment that life offers and that can't really be dealt with. Also, humans have artificially increased our chance of survival with medicine and technology so things that would normally select out those who are less fit to survive and reproduce won't work as well anymore

It's not necessarily "worse" or "good" genes, only the genes that survive to the next generation. If you procreate, your genes will naturally be passed down to your offspring, and your genetics and traits will be inherited. For example, if people with Asperger's procreate, there's a high chance that their child will also have it.

I'd argue that we aren't all that natural anymore though. We've managed to circumvent natural selection to a greater degree...

IVF isn't natural, medicine isn't natural, social welfair and support isn't natural. When you think about it- we actively dissuade 'natural selection'. Breeding programmes that would favour 'favourable' genes and limit people with hereditary illness or low IQ from propogating would be seen as eugenics and we see that as an infringement of our rights and immoral. In fact- the whole concept of having rights and morality isn't exactly natural.

Do cockroaches try to sue jewel wasps for dragging their offspring into burrows and letting their own offspring devour the poor thing alive? There aren't really 'right or wrongs' in nature. It does what it does, regardless of anyone's feelings.

You could probably argue that, by being so keen on not offending people and infringing their rights- we have so much freedom that children are born into circumstances where they will almost undoubtably suffer. It's pretty much inevitable. Funny how hummanity doesn't always work in all directions.

I guess you could wonder if it is some 'natural' instinct that- there are already too many of us on this world for the planet to cope. What's more, we're prolonging our natural lifespans by decades. Maybe it is some 'natural' way of balancing things. Maybe antinatilism and homosexuality/ asexuality etc. where no children are created are other ways.

Some would argue that if we want to kill ourselves, our minds are ill and dysfunctional so- better not to pass those genes on. People with mental illness do sometimes have children before they die though.

Vaguely related, I find it curious that medications to treat mental illness often kill libido. The cynical part of me wonders if that is intentional... although, probably not. The big pharmaceuticals probably want those people to have children who also struggle with mental illness and become reliant on their products.

Overall though, I'd argue that we have different layers to our brain. The primal brain is where our natural instincts come from- survival instrinct, the desire to reproduce. I'd say our younger, thinking mind doesn't comply with natural law so much now. And ultimately, that part of our brain can take control of what we do.

I think we certainly came from the natural world but, we have become quite separate from it. I believe that has the potential to happen with a lot of animals though, under the right circumstances. I think it's only a fraction of animal species that evolve to have symbiotic, harmonious relationships to their surroundings. I reckon most creatures try to exploit what's around them with little thought to that thing's overall well being. That's the irony with our race. We ultimately know that we're dooming ourselves to extinction! Ultimately- pretty much every human being is contributing to killing itself and the rest of its race... and we're the 'superior' species supposedly... it's almost laughable.

I think it's funny that humans are doing so much to defy nature and death when death is inevitable for us all. Two things are certain in this world: birth and death. It's just entropy.

 

[mortuarymary]

We are created, born, live then die. Nothing going to change.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

It's not necessarily "worse" or "good" genes, only the genes that survive to the next generation. If you procreate, your genes will naturally be passed down to your offspring, and your genetics and traits will be inherited. For example, if people with Asperger's procreate, there's a high chance that their child will also have it.

This is true too though it used to be where those with "worse" genes would die before they could procreate but now, due to technology and knowledge of medical related stuff, the life expectancy of most people has increased which gives them enough time to procreate. I heard that the suicide rate for those with autism is higher than normal due to how life is best experienced for neurotypicals. Either way, I don't want to pass my genes on and I wish that I'm dead as early as possible

 

[mortuarymary]

Ive also known really fit people, mentally and physically who have succumbed to suicide.
it's definitely not always the survival of the fittest.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I use my consciousness and rational thinking to see that we all will die anyway, there's no objective purpose to life , there's nothing worth going through the horrors of old age or the most unbearable constant unending pain ...and many more rationalizations to realize that I should commit suicide asap. For example: Every human is under the threat of unbearable pain for no objective purpose.. and I will die anyway, non-existence is best etc

It's very difficult to overcome any previous programming be it by evolution, society, other people. it can be done but it takes a long time

Zapffe in the last messiah touches on this . So does ligotti In his conspiracy against the human race book.

I think with consciousness a human can realize the universality, inevitability, and permanence of Death , and that they can kill themselves to escape all their troubles. So I think the culture society programs the human with all kinds of lies so that they will never kill themselves ( references: ever deeper honesty book, conspiracy against the human race book, me , efil Blaise, sapiens book says). Lies such as that life is good a beautiful gift , and that Death , non-existence and suicide are the worst things.

Imo culture , religion , morality , beliefs are subjective fiction not objective fact

I touched on why life is bad here threat of unbearable pain , old age , diseases , etc :

Have you ever wished to be someone else?

I don't like my life. Not really my "life", the feeling of it. If you look at it from the outside you won't see anything really wrong with it, it would probably look quite normal: two parents that love each other and a younger sister. But then why does it feel so wrong? My mother is never there...

sanctioned-suicide.net

I don't think other animals like bears fish rats cats know that they will all die anyway. Only through language can these abstract concepts be grasped that death is inevitable, universal and permanent. Even most human children begin to grasp that death is inevitable, universal and permanent only by age 9.

 

[BlessedBeTheFlame]

Survival of the fittest in the mainstream sense is a myth. Pyotr Kropotkin and before him Charles Darwin himself pointed out, that survival of the fittest involves a shitton of cooperation within species'. The original meaning behind it is literally just "if you're better adapted to your enviroment, you will survive better" and not some "weaklings ought to die for failing at evolution". Human beings are supposed to help each other, so as to allow for evolution to further take place.

A favorite example of mine is the gay uncle hypothesis, which theorizes that homosexuality arises due to allowing more parental figures to care for a smaller amount of children (since being gay means you won't have any and can focus on caring for your siblings childrens instead). This idea is largely based on the fact that the more children you have had, the more likely it is your next one would be gay. To give a second example, in 1973 the Walpole prison revolted against the prison guards, who then simply up and left. When literally no one was there to maintain order, the prisoners self-organized and did everything by themselves. From one day to another it went from one of the most violent prisons in the U.S. to a virtually violence-free place. If you want more of these examples, Mutual Aid by Pyotr Kropotkin is well-regarded and Stephen Jay Gould maintained it is just as factual as all the other big works within evolutionairy theory.

The issue is not evolution somehow failing, but the capitalist system maintaining this faux idea people think of and forcing them through all of it. Suicides aren't a possible contradiction to evolutionairy theory, as you semi-imply, but a consequence of capitalism. It is a contradiction to human nature. This is why I maintain one of the crucial steps to allowing people to be free is not encouraging their suicide, but ending the thing pushing them towards it, that being capitalism as well as the bigoted and statist structures maintaining it.

 

[sserafim]

This is true too though it used to be where those with "worse" genes would die before they could procreate but now, due to technology and knowledge of medical related stuff, the life expectancy of most people has increased which gives them enough time to procreate. I heard that the suicide rate for those with autism is higher than normal due to how life is best experienced for neurotypicals. Either way, I don't want to pass my genes on and I wish that I'm dead as early as possible

Yeah same. Asperger's is literally a living hell for me. I don't like or want children so I won't be procreating, lol. My genes will end with me. Tbh I wish I were never born in the first place. Life is just not it. I also want to be dead asap.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Yeah same. Asperger's is literally a living hell for me. I don't like or want children so I won't be procreating, lol. My genes will end with me. Tbh I wish I were never born in the first place. Life is just not it. I also want to be dead asap.

I don't like or want children either though I also do wish that they won't suffer... which they will if they get birthed into this world. And then their suffering will continue through adulthood too. It would have been better to have never been born but, since I'm alive now, I will always wish that I die as early as possible so that my total cumulative suffering would decrease

 

[Linda]

I think a tendency to suicide is probably a by-product of intelligence. Intelligence allows people to reason about their situation, and the conclusions they reach are sometimes depressing. Intelligence itself obviously has big evolutionary advantages, easily enough to outweigh any evolutionary disadvantages of suicide..

 

[Homo erectus]

One answer to the above is that much of the history we are taught is false. World population was very low just a century or two ago. A couple commonly had half a dozen children. Homosexuality was forbidden. If the Greeks knew science, mathematics and politics many thousand years ago, it is shameful that a new Atlantis has not emerged. It seems the world just came out of some global cataclysm a century or two ago. People were relocated to far away places, maybe to speed up repopulation. It seems some kind of worldwide nation building was happening. Out of Africa human migration is probably just idealized artistic imagination backward. Human nature, races and nations we talk about, and mainstream moral thinking are really just that long. If a global disaster is not forthcoming, birth rate has to be much lower and peaceful death rate much higher.

 

[Aim]

Survival of the most healthy for sure

 

[Linda]

Survival of the most healthy for sure

It's not as simple as you might imagine. Gene combinations that lead to poor health now may be highly advantageous 10 or more generations from now, when our environment and the kinds of diseases we are exposed to have changed. I came across that insight in the collected works of the late W. D. Hamilton - who many consider the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin - and it was a revelation to me. It also follows that those gene combinations that promote health and prosperity now may be very undesirable in the moderately distant future. I am reminded of the words of Bob Dylan:

And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin

It changed competely my own attitude to many kinds of people who the conventional view regards as "failures" in one way or another.

 

[Aim]

It's not as simple as you might imagine. Gene combinations that lead to poor health now may be highly advantageous 10 or more generations from now, when our environment and the kinds of diseases we are exposed to have changed. I came across that insight in the collected works of the late W. D. Hamilton - who many consider the greatest evolutionary biologist since Darwin - and it was a revelation to me. It also follows that those gene combinations that promote health and prosperity now may be very undesirable in the moderately distant future. I am reminded of the words of Bob Dylan:

And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin

It changed competely my own attitude to many kinds of people who the conventional view regards as "failures" in one way or another.

Great that you choose to see it this way, hounestsly. But It is what it is! And you can't fuck with the law of nature. This perspective doesn't save the people today, and even in 10 years, the healthiest will still be more equipted to survive!

 

[Linda]

Great that you choose to see it this way, hounestsly. But It is what it is! And you can't fuck with the law of nature. This perspective doesn't save the people today, and even in 10 years, the healthiest will still be more equipted to survive!

Yes, on a shorter timescale you are absolutely right. But I think it's still something worth bearing in mind.