Discussion What would happen if we accelerate towards a right to die society?

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: I do not advocate for people to take rash or harmful actions against others, nor do I encourage nor incite anyone to do so. This is mainly a discussion for philosophical and educational purposes only.

This was an idea that I had in mind regarding 'change' in policies and creating the future that we are hoping for. So as we know, many societal changes occurred because enough of a critical mass is affected and partly because the truth can no longer be suppressed or even twisted. Then people are waking up and those who set the status quo can no longer lie to the people or control the masses, then eventually the 'change' that was purported many years ago becomes reality, even if it takes a long time (decades later). This is evident when it comes to many societal issues and political issues as well, not just limited to the US but around the world.

Take minority civil rights for instance. During most of the 20th century until the late 70's or even 80's, many minorities did not enjoy the same civil rights and are treated poorly in many areas and didn't enjoy this change until the late 70's or 80's even. It wasn't until many changes, societal events, and even a lot of pressure until the status quo broke and then eventually institutions decided that it was wrong to discriminate against minorities and thus there are policies and regulations that push for anti-discrimination, thus giving minorities the civil rights that they enjoy in present day.

Another example is about LGBT rights during the 70's and 80's, back then it used to be considered mentally defective to have been that, but because societal changes happened, the perception changed of how one's sexuality has no bearing on one's mental capacity, it was deemed unpopular and unacceptable to pathologize one's sexuality. Then fast forward some decades later, where one's sexuality is then considered a protected trait, status, attribute that cannot be discriminated nor used against said person. Not only that, but it was also socially unacceptable to discriminate, bully, harass, or otherwise mistreat people's whose sexuality was different (LGBT and such).

So with all that said, the main question of this thread is: Would taking action towards pushing change towards the RTD by causing as much distress, inconvenience, and/or other troubles towards pro-lifers and anti-choicers eventually result in FORCING their hand to accept reality and eventually change policy and perhaps at the minimum, have the State (the gov't) to back off on infringement of one's civil liberties? By that question, what I mean is the changes that cause society to change it's laws with regards to people not being a threat to others, but only themselves and curtailing the government's legal authority to intervene against someone deemed a threat ONLY to themselves. Of course, if one's action is a threat to others, then the government would still intervene as that would be considered a threat towards other people instead of just the individual themselves.

 

[acephale]

I don't think we should think about it like this but how beneficial would be the right to die for economy and capitalism, LGBTQ and minority right get used up to expand capitalism exploitation range.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I think that, short term, people will raise a lot of issues about the right to die and they'd try to make people live to the best of their ability. Maybe there would be more investment in suicide prevention schemes to try and get people to live. As for the people who want to die, there will be an initial spike of those who take euthanasia due to us being coerced into existence but, as time passes on, the number of people who die would decrease. This decrease would be caused by how people would have a safety net behind them that's actually... safe and therefore they could perhaps go all out in living.

I think maybe more families would get paranoid at how their loved ones would leave them but, as time passes on, they'll have to accept that euthanasia is just culture. As for any changes to society and the economic system, I can't comprehend society changing that much. Even despite how awful work is, many people still aren't suicidal and would rather work miserably than be dead

 

[sserafim]

This decrease would be caused by how people would have a safety net behind them that's actually... safe and therefore they could perhaps go all out in living.

Wdym

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

People will only come to generally accept the right to die if society gets even worse to a point where even the average person can't ignore how awful it is. "But it's already like that!" Not necessarily. It can still get so so so much worse. In Futurama, suicide booths are only a thing because the global population is at over 40 billion…at least in 3013.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Wdym?

As in, if euthanasia was legalised and available for us, we would have a safety net to go to if all else fails (that safety net being a peaceful, guaranteed death instead of a risky suicide attempt). A lot of suicidal people, even on here, get told to go all out on life and try everything. If the only methods available to the average person are risky ones, why would one bother try to try everything.. that energy would rather be spent on the suicide attempt itself to try and minimise the chances of failure. If, however, a peaceful method is available, you can perhaps use the energy you'd use on a risky suicide attempt to try and live life instead.

Of course this only really applies to people who want to live or who are suicidal due to an issue that can be fixed. It doesn't apply to suicidal people like me and you who have issues with the way the world is as we have no influence on that. However, the people who want to ctb due to wage slavery would do so the moment euthanasia gets legalised which would therefore reduce the amount of people who are suicidal and alive due to wanting to avoid work

 

[Orange Cat]

I don't think that harassing pro -lifers and trying to annoy them or cause them trouble (whatever that means) is going to help the RTD movement. There is already a stigma that most suicidal people are mentally ill and incapable of making a rational decision to end their life. If people who support the RTD started harassing people and started causing trouble or disrupting other people's lives on a large scale, it would only reinforce their belief that most people who want to end their lives are mentally ill and unable to make a rational decision. I think that kind of behavior would have the opposite effect and set the progress of the movement back years.

 

[TAW122]

I think that, short term, people will raise a lot of issues about the right to die and they'd try to make people live to the best of their ability. Maybe there would be more investment in suicide prevention schemes to try and get people to live. As for the people who want to die, there will be an initial spike of those who take euthanasia due to us being coerced into existence but, as time passes on, the number of people who die would decrease. This decrease would be caused by how people would have a safety net behind them that's actually... safe and therefore they could perhaps go all out in living.

I think maybe more families would get paranoid at how their loved ones would leave them but, as time passes on, they'll have to accept that euthanasia is just culture. As for any changes to society and the economic system, I can't comprehend society changing that much. Even despite how awful work is, many people still aren't suicidal and would rather work miserably than be dead

That would be a positive scenario because this means that there is that "safety net" even if the initial spike of those who are desperately long ready to exit this horrible existence. While some critics would argue that due to the decrease of demand for the right to die program and services, the fact that a safety net (one is NOT obligated to stay alive for the sake of others or for the sake of society) exists serves as a fallback in case life becomes to arduous or untenable for them. In our current world, we not only have neither, but we also have the ever growing paternalistic government and moral busybodies (under the guise of benevolence and help) that interfere with those who wish to exit life that is full of suffering.

I agree that many families would be upset and even paranoid how their loved ones could exit on a whim (though with some concessions, there could be checks and balances, like waiting periods, screenings, and maybe even mandatory counseling for other options before being granted the final option).

With regards to people enduring the grind and also suffering, I could see those who are alive (as they probably have no concept of what it is like to not exist and that very thought scares them as well as challenges their world view) decide to fight on for the sliver of chance of fleeting pleasure and comfort.

People will only come to generally accept the right to die if society gets even worse to a point where even the average person can't ignore how awful it is. "But it's already like that!" Not necessarily. It can still get so so so much worse. In Futurama, suicide booths are only a thing because the global population is at over 40 billion…at least in 3013.

While this would suck for the general populace, I would say that the long term would still outweigh the short term losses. If the society gets so much worse that people are FORCED to face reality and make those decisions, yes it would suck for the people who are currently coping, but ultimately, the 'change' that we are hoping for would become reality. Whether there are CTB booths around each corner or not, I think even if they had a guaranteed, inalienable right to die, then they would not be able to be compelled to live against their will.

I don't think that harassing pro -lifers and trying to annoy them or cause them trouble (whatever that means) is going to help the RTD movement. There is already a stigma that most suicidal people are mentally ill and incapable of making a rational decision to end their life. If people who support the RTD started harassing people and started causing trouble or disrupting other people's lives on a large scale, it would only reinforce their belief that most people who want to end their lives are mentally ill and unable to make a rational decision. I think that kind of behavior would have the opposite effect and set the progress of the movement back years.

Yes, overall that may be correct, however, I want to give an example to elaborate on what I mean by resisting them. Suppose all the people who were put into psych holds whether voluntarily or not (voluntarily as in they were given a choice to go or be forced to go, so de facto it isn't really a truly free choice- but not going too deep into the semantics here), decided not to pay for the bills that they did were sent with. Before people say, but wage garnishment or even asset forfeiture and other financial, economical consequences could happen, yes that could happen if these patients did have assets or other things that could be seized, however, consider the fact that there are homeless and/or others who don't have the assets or financial means. At some point, the cost of incarceration, detainment, and (involuntary) treatment may outweigh the ability to repay them and it would be a net negative towards the healthcare industry.

So in my example, suppose there are maybe 100k people who are incarcerated, and even suppose that 20-30k of those people stood up for their rights, refused to pay for the involuntary treatment that was imposed upon them and the unjustifiable bills sent to them for said treatment against their will (not withstanding insurance and all that), do you think that there would be some change in policy? Perhaps instead of aggressively or paternalistically cracking down on would be suicidal people, the bar would be even higher, perhaps they might even write off the costs? What about change in laws or even enforcement changing (turning a blind eye)? I know people could say but the State would foot the bill, the medical industry and psychiatric industry have billions, etc. I'm referring to a large enough scale of dissidence and opposition to the treatment levied against said people. I brought this example up because I know money is one of the most (if not the most) important factor in whether institutions, those in power react. Surely at some point, even if there wasn't an inalienable right to die, there may perhaps be enough backlash that those in power will be forced to "change" how things are?

 

[unabletocope]

Overall things would improve, a lot of these issues are being held back by instinctive intolerance and breaking through that would improve society drastically.

 

[Jorms_McGander]

Disclaimer: I do not advocate for people to take rash or harmful actions against others, nor do I encourage nor incite anyone to do so. This is mainly a discussion for philosophical and educational purposes only.

This was an idea that I had in mind regarding 'change' in policies and creating the future that we are hoping for. So as we know, many societal changes occurred because enough of a critical mass is affected and partly because the truth can no longer be suppressed or even twisted. Then people are waking up and those who set the status quo can no longer lie to the people or control the masses, then eventually the 'change' that was purported many years ago becomes reality, even if it takes a long time (decades later). This is evident when it comes to many societal issues and political issues as well, not just limited to the US but around the world.

Take minority civil rights for instance. During most of the 20th century until the late 70's or even 80's, many minorities did not enjoy the same civil rights and are treated poorly in many areas and didn't enjoy this change until the late 70's or 80's even. It wasn't until many changes, societal events, and even a lot of pressure until the status quo broke and then eventually institutions decided that it was wrong to discriminate against minorities and thus there are policies and regulations that push for anti-discrimination, thus giving minorities the civil rights that they enjoy in present day.

Another example is about LGBT rights during the 70's and 80's, back then it used to be considered mentally defective to have been that, but because societal changes happened, the perception changed of how one's sexuality has no bearing on one's mental capacity, it was deemed unpopular and unacceptable to pathologize one's sexuality. Then fast forward some decades later, where one's sexuality is then considered a protected trait, status, attribute that cannot be discriminated nor used against said person. Not only that, but it was also socially unacceptable to discriminate, bully, harass, or otherwise mistreat people's whose sexuality was different (LGBT and such).

So with all that said, the main question of this thread is: Would taking action towards pushing change towards the RTD by causing as much distress, inconvenience, and/or other troubles towards pro-lifers and anti-choicers eventually result in FORCING their hand to accept reality and eventually change policy and perhaps at the minimum, have the State (the gov't) to back off on infringement of one's civil liberties? By that question, what I mean is the changes that cause society to change it's laws with regards to people not being a threat to others, but only themselves and curtailing the government's legal authority to intervene against someone deemed a threat ONLY to themselves. Of course, if one's action is a threat to others, then the government would still intervene as that would be considered a threat towards other people instead of just the individual themselves.

LOL

So your idea is to create so much havoc that the normies all want to kill themselves

Gotta respect the originality but no. I will directly oppose that at every step. Perhaps it's my brand of divergence but ethics are the primary rule in life and the only rule in ethics is to minimise harm. Everything else points to that in one way or another.

If a person can't elevate themselves to the level of ethical behaviour and wants to propagate their suffering on others, well that sounds like a very normie thing to do. Why not just go get a job cuz it'll accomplish the same thing.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

While this would suck for the general populace, I would say that the long term would still outweigh the short term losses. If the society gets so much worse that people are FORCED to face reality and make those decisions, yes it would suck for the people who are currently coping, but ultimately, the 'change' that we are hoping for would become reality. Whether there are CTB booths around each corner or not, I think even if they had a guaranteed, inalienable right to die, then they would not be able to be compelled to live against their will.

Well if a population of 40 billion is something you'd want to see, better start breeding.

 

[willitpass]

Personally I think becoming a nuisance and wreaking havoc for this cause would not have the same effect as people fighting to have the right to vote or get married or use public facilities equally. Civil rights are not considered a mental illness. The LGBTQ community were and unfortunately sometimes still are considered mentally defective, however not in the same way as suicidal people. Ruffling feathers and making people uncomfortable and angry towards and issue that people are already plenty angry about and can use that anger to put us in the psych ward because this is and probably always will be considered an illness is not the right move. If you have a picket outside of courthouses with signs saying "let me die in peace" you are going to end up in places you do not want. You cannot get angry and convince people you are of sound mind. And the entire argument against us is that we are not of sound mind or capable of making our own decisions. This is an argument that has to be done civilly and very slowly and gently. Say one wrong thing and suddenly you are irrational and your rights are taken from you until they can fix you right back up in the looney bin. Anger will not foster growth here. They already think we're crazy enough as is. And just as we would have to be calm and collected, you'd have to have the conversation with a pro-lifer who is able to maintain their cool as well. No use having a conversation with a pro-lifer who has already decided that you're crazy or god forbid a murderer for being on this site.

 

[Meteora]

Much more people would suicide. Actually, this step is necessairy for society to understand how much some individuals suffer. Only then things would eventually change. Only then society would start to think or feel. Only then suicides would have a direct impact on a bigger mass.

 

[TAW122]

I just wanted to reiterate that this is just a hypothetical scenario of what would happen if we took certain drastic actions towards advancing our cause and our goals. Again, I do not encourage, incite, nor condone actual harmful action against others. With that said, there was a reply to @Orange Cat that I clarified more in detail since I was a bit vague about what I meant about rebelling against the system or resisting the things that are imposed onto pro-choicers and those who want to die.

Additionally, to address some of the most recent replies, I would say that the bringing about acceleration doesn't necessarily entail breeding or putting more people in the world, but even civil disobedience and/or civil resistance towards unfair and unethical practices (in addition to raising awareness of them) on a larger scale than what we see in present day may result in some 'change' at the societal level. Basically, I would think that even if it didn't not immediately lead to a inalienable right to die, it may lead to the curtailment of more aggressive, invasive forms of benevolent paternalism.

@willitpass brought up some good points and I do agree, we would get more done if we are calm and collected (which is what I would encourage, in fact) in our cause. Then of course, if the audience (the pro-life/anti-choicer/opposition) is someone that is also calm and collected, willing to be open to opposing views, then it is possible to have a constructive, meaningful dialogue. As for the hardened pro-lifers/anti-choicers out there who will ABSOLUTELY never change their mind, not open to change and already made up their minds, sadly, they just won't change their minds and there would be little purpose in trying to change their minds. I also agree that it isn't a good idea for one to openly hold up signs in public of "let me die in peace" or things of that nature without social repercussions. I would think that pushing in the direction of expanding current death with dignity laws and stuff would go much further overall, more people seem to be in line with those whose conditions are terminal. Therefore, expanding that criteria to cover those who are non-terminal but severely ill and with poor prognosis of getting better is a major step in the right direction.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I just wanted to reiterate that this is just a hypothetical scenario of what would happen if we took certain drastic actions towards advancing our cause and our goals. Again, I do not encourage, incite, nor condone actual harmful action against others. With that said, there was a reply to @Orange Cat that I clarified more in detail since I was a bit vague about what I meant about rebelling against the system or resisting the things that are imposed onto pro-choicers and those who want to die.

Additionally, to address some of the most recent replies, I would say that the bringing about acceleration doesn't necessarily entail breeding or putting more people in the world, but even civil disobedience and/or civil resistance towards unfair and unethical practices (in addition to raising awareness of them) on a larger scale than what we see in present day may result in some 'change' at the societal level. Basically, I would think that even if it didn't not immediately lead to a inalienable right to die, it may lead to the curtailment of more aggressive, invasive forms of benevolent paternalism.

@willitpass brought up some good points and I do agree, we would get more done if we are calm and collected (which is what I would encourage, in fact) in our cause. Then of course, if the audience (the pro-life/anti-choicer/opposition) is someone that is also calm and collected, willing to be open to opposing views, then it is possible to have a constructive, meaningful dialogue. As for the hardened pro-lifers/anti-choicers out there who will ABSOLUTELY never change their mind, not open to change and already made up their minds, sadly, they just won't change their minds and there would be little purpose in trying to change their minds. I also agree that it isn't a good idea for one to openly hold up signs in public of "let me die in peace" or things of that nature without social repercussions. I would think that pushing in the direction of expanding current death with dignity laws and stuff would go much further overall, more people seem to be in line with those whose conditions are terminal. Therefore, expanding that criteria to cover those who are non-terminal but severely ill and with poor prognosis of getting better is a major step in the right direction.

It sounds idyllic but I truly think the only way to get more open-minded people to help make them understand how miserable the suicidal truly are is to directly influence the state of society by contributing to making the world a worse place for everyone else whether that's by procreating and ensuring future generations will suffer or by doing anything else that will make more people wish they were never born. No amount of rational calm voices will ever be enough to drown out the loud noise of fear and anger. We might as well turn the loudest voices into voices of despair as well if we're ever to succeed in a large enough scale.