Discussion What would happen if society was more/less neutral about CTB (neither encouraging nor discouraging it)?

[TAW122]

As we know in our current reality and present day, society and this world is also becoming more paternalistic when it comes to CTB prevention measures and policies. It is no surprise with the ever-growing surveillance of people as well as the continued curtailing of peaceful, let alone reliable methods to CTB. Nevertheless, this thread and topic came from a common idea that I had in mind and throughout my adolescence and into adulthood, where how most people during their adolescent years or so would often rebel, go for the forbidden fruit, or do things that were normally considered 'taboo' by society or any authority figure. It is just the nature of adolescents. So this thread takes that concept and applies it into a hypothetical situation, where if society was not as paternalistic on CTB prevention and were not as hellbent on stopping CTB at almost all costs, what would happen instead?

Personally, my thoughts is that there may be less people feeling trapped in such a society, especially knowing that they have a way out (CTB) and was not actively or even passively being obstructed or intervened against. They would certainly be less "impulsive" CTBs and more likely people who only act when they know they will succeed, especially after having exhausted more options. Of course, for those who may already be impulsive, they will always exist, regardless of society's attitudes, policies, and stances. However, the amount of people that attempt would likely go down in numbers because they aren't being actively impeded or having their civil liberties impinged upon under the guise of 'help'.

Now I will present two Scenarios and give my brief thoughts on what I think people may respond or behave accordingly.

Scenario A – Where society is more or less laissez-faire (hands off and not paternalistic) with regards to CTB:
People who would likely attempt impulsively may stop and reconsider, and perhaps some may decide to postpone their CTBs altogether because they know they wouldn't be pushed into living (staying alive for others against their will – they would only stay around if or when they choose to). While there may still be people who go and CTB, it would certainly be less than what we have in our current reality.

Scenario B – Where society is not only uninvolved, but may even be more favorable towards CTB:
In such a society, given the hypothetical scenario, while there may be a few that may opt to CTB, especially with society going in such a direction, perhaps there may even be (ironically) a will to live because the reverse of preservation of life happens; society (even if mildly) pushing/nudging in the direction of death may also encourage those who may otherwise wish to die to instead resist dying and CTB and holding out a bit 'longer', again, referring to the rebellious nature of humanity, seeking the 'forbidden fruit' (where the forbidden fruit in this scenario is continued 'sentience'.).

So in conclusion, I would believe that based on human nature, it's desire and some penchant for forbidden fruit or even taboos (partly due to curiosity or even just for the sake of sticking out, or any reason, etc.), I would believe that if the reverse scenario happened (which is different from our reality that we face), then it is likely there may be less people who would go for CTB. Furthermore, due to not feeling as 'trapped' especially the way our reality and present day society (with the ever-growing paternalistic policies in place in many areas around the world), people are less inclined to act impulsively out of desperation. This goes back to a quote by George Sterling, "A prison becomes a home when you have the key." and this means that once CTB methods and availability without impingement and interference from the State or any other actor, sentience itself no longer feels like a prison for those who don't enjoy sentience because they have the key (could be reliable and peaceful CTB methods or even freedom from impingement from the State and their fellow peers). What are your thoughts on this, do you think that if society was more or less neutral and less aggressive with paternalistic CTB prevention measures and policies, that there will be less (impulsive) CTB attempts by desperate people who are suffering or do you think there will be more people who attempt CTB? Let me know your thoughts.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

In a neutral society?
I think more would attempt, as neutrality in the face of evil means you kind of stand by evil. So if people attempt right now because of moral issues, psychological, gender dysphoria, lack of support, etc. I don't find it changing in a neutral society, in fact I think more would attempt.

If it were legalized and understood, you could die with people around you, holding your hand without risking them going to prison. But also if people would view suicide in this way, it would be a reverse double whammy, society would be much much better in general and many who'd wish for death, wouldn't in that society. If they'd view suicide favorable, understandable and even help in assisting, standing by? It would mean that critical thinking prevailed, people would be more accepting, they would be empathetic.

It's hard to isolate this as suicide getting better only, suicide is only a branch of a sick society. But for suicide to be attempted less, the world would need to be empathetic and understanding, neutrality only works when evil meets evil, not calling the average person evil but most are at a point in their life, where they are not bothered by the way each other are.

Someone who killed someone would co-operate with a selfish business man to survive. I, as a suicidal person because I see the flaws of humanity, wouldn't co-operate with either. They can find neutrality between eachother, just like countries can, I can never find neutrality this way because I don't look for opportunities to hurt or exploit, most humans have this for eachother, they are like predators, if you don't go into their territory, they won't go into yours. I'd be more eager to commit.

But if it's as you say and it's neutrality with a slight nudge? I'm definitely living out of spite as long as I can

 

[Dr.Duck]

I really like this thought. What I think would be an important question is, would there be a waiting period of like 1 day or 1 week? Is there no waiting period? Just thinking about this as the world is moving in this direction. Would there be protest like there is for abortion? Groups of pro-live people, would they block the entrance? Think they're doing good but just degrading those who seek it? There's so much that would happen if this became a growing movement for a key out.

 

[Forever Sleep]

If it were a neutral society regarding attitudes towards suicide then presumably, access to reliable and peaceful methods wouldn't be so restricted. So say- nembutal would be freely available to all. And, we'd all be aware of its existence from a young age.

If the world stayed as it is in terms of its shittiness- I imagine there would in fact be an increase in suicides amongst all age groups. Think of the people just on this forum where the main thing holding them back is the lack of access to a peaceful or reliable method? Without that barrier and with more acceptance of suicide worldwide, I think many would feel more free to go.

I do know what you mean in a way. Removing the stigma and prohibition would remove the taboo aspect but, I'm not so sure so many people suicide to be rebellious. That could be a part of it- in as much as- they don't want to comply with the things expected of them in life- wage slavery forever for example. But, that will still exist- whether suicide is taboo or not. So- they kind of still would be being rebellious by dying and refusing to comply.

A consequence I would welcome would- I imagine, be an upsurge in antinatilism. Once parents and prospective parents realised their children had the free choice to opt out of the lives they conscripted them into- they may think twice about reproducing. If they had friends who made that financial, time and emotional commitment- only for the child to choose to die, they may not want to risk the same thing happening to them.

I think would- be parents would be taking more time to consider whether they could actually provide a stable and happy life for their child. The focus would kind of have to be on- is what we will give the child going to be good enough for it to want to stay? Whereas I expect most would- be parents now just assume they won't have to experience their child dying before them. So- they're kind of safe believing that their child is trapped here- no matter what it ends up going through. Obviously, few likely view it like that but, it is kind of the reality for some.

Maybe everywhere, people's quality of life would be more closely examined. If we could choose to die because we were treated badly by others, would they in fact feel more pressured to be fair? Because, while society may allow suicide freely, families would still likely mourn and want to lay blame.