G

gospel4sale

Member
Jul 4, 2018
6
Hello everyone!

I've been working on a right to die theory and a few weeks ago I finally put it to the test in /r/TMBR - let's just say I got a a wide diversity of viewpoints which I think I fielded to the best of my ability but now need to condense everything as much as possible to see what state I'm in - the issue (as it was before and ever will be) is I need other people to find the holes that I'm overlooking. I have remembered this community back during the shutdown of /r/SS and wonder maybe you guys have any insights. I have reproduced my argument here:

Hey TMBR! I've been ruminating on this idea for a while and want this belief poked at a little. I'm not ready for CMV yet, I just want to see if there are any glaring holes first (and if I can patch them).

With the recent reports in the rise of suicides [1] [2] [3], if some agent is to do something drastic about it, that agent would be the government because they have the most power.

The government doing nothing is unlikely to lower the rate of suicides. If the government won't treat mental health on the same level as the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism (where there is a will, there is a way), then they should give everyone the right to die. Paradoxically, granting this right also has a possibility of simultaneously lowering our ecological footprint/resource depletion rate.

People commit suicide all the time, so it's more humane to give them the most peaceful way out that we know. This doesn't involve any top-down government-sponsored eugenics program to eliminate "undesirables"/"outliers" either. If the right to die is granted to everyone, how I think the scenario will play out is:

  • The old and the sick will be "encouraged" by market forces to "voluntarily" self-euthanize
  • The "degenerates" of society won't need any (further) encouragement
  • Future parents will be faced with the question, "what kind of world will I be selling to my children?"

If a critical-enough mass of suicides happen, this might trigger society as a whole to look in a mirror and self-reflect on itself, hopefully leading to the realization that it can't live beyond its means and finally curb its global consumption average. And recently, there is new research [4] that suggests 25% as the critical mass.

But I have used a lot of weasel words, so there is always the nagging question: what if the right to die is not enough? Nevertheless, it has not yet been tried en masse and might get us pretty far.

I fully realize the devil is in the details, so if you are able and willing to flesh him out, please do so that I can do battle with him.

Thanks! :)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4fzmim/us_suicide_rate_surges_particularly_among_white/

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit...des_on_the_rise_in_the_us_the_middleaged_are/

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1dkdz1/suicide_rates_rise_sharply_in_us_from_1999_to/

[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/8ppot0/a_new_study_finds_that_when_25_percent_of_people/

from https://www.reddit.com/r/TMBR/comments/8repwd/the_right_to_die_is_the_best_shot_we_have_at/

A few points from that thread:

  • I am not encouraging, or am ideologically committed, to anyone committing suicide. I'm just wondering what will happen after the right to die is unilaterally granted.

I've broken down the categories of "desiring" suicide:

  • I want to and will do whatever it takes
  • I don't want to but will
  • I want to but can't

Current statistics are comprised of category 1, but after the unilateral right to die, categories 2 and 3 come into play.

People commit suicide all the time, so it's more humane to give them the most peaceful way out that we know.

Does not mean that I want people to commit suicide at all costs, and my claim:

If the government won't treat mental health on the same level as the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism (where there is a will, there is a way), then they should give everyone the right to die.

Does not mean that I want the government to prioritize mental health at all costs.

I have boiled down the (super?) wicked problem down to this:

Fair, you and the other guys have given me a glimmer of hope on a possible third and fourth solution, but the issue here is time. There are at least four ways to tackle overpopulation (i.e. have people consider the viewpoint 'don't have unnecessary children, preferably have none'):

  • The right to die
  • Encourage economic development in nations with very high birth rates
  • Develop technologies towards a techno-utopia
  • Wait for Gaia to enact her 'correction'

The existential threat we have here is Gaia (not including cosmic threats like solar flares, asteroids, etc), and we don't know her timeline. The techno-optimists put their timeline later this century, and I'm not sure we have that much time, or want to risk it even. Economic affluence is sooner, but what is the timeline for the best-case scenario for the worst offender, and will it be before Gaia does her thing and cause us to engage in food/water wars in these worst offending nations? Will Donald Trump, the figurehead for the leader of the free world, support such a move with his 'America First' strategy? We do have historical developments of the rise of affluent nations to draw on so we can find out pretty easily.

What I am waiting on is further thinking on my question:

Consider point 3 coming from the POV of the unilateral right to die:

  • Future parents will be faced with the question, "what kind of world will I be selling to my children?"

If at least one nation gives its citizens the right to die, will future parents ever ask this question or no? My intuition is yes, but you (seem to be) saying no, and I want to know why so that I can think it through.

My goal so far is to "build the foundations of a fort" and enter the battlegrounds of /r/CMV, so I need to prepare as many defenses as I can. How can I best present this argument so that it'll shine through /r/CMV with as little replies from my part as possible?

Thanks. :)
 
G

gospel4sale

Member
Jul 4, 2018
6
Any thoughts?

I get that right now we are seeking safe and reliable methods outside the law, but ideally the law should support the right to die, and I'm trying to argue for it. The battle is on multiple fronts but I'm trying to build a solid foundation, one that is difficult to argue against.
 
MrNobody

MrNobody

Member
May 26, 2018
27
First of all, you do not address why exactly people commit suicide. You vaguely mention "old, sick and degenerate people", but this is a very bold and discriminating classification. What exactly are these people? Are their problems truly unsolvable?

Let's be honest - the majority of the people who commit suicide have solvable problems. These include, but are not limited to - lack of high-quality healthcare, unstable financial position and emotional pressure from the surrounding people. And what about teenagers who would want to kill themselves because they have trouble coping with bullies? In most cases, suicidal thoughts are not something one is born with. Usually, suicides arise from very specific events or health problems.

The society has enough resources to solve all the problems I mentioned above, but the question here is - does the capitalist system approve of it, and does society have the will to work together? As for today, no.

In my opinion, the problem with your thinking is this - instead of investing in the creation of a legal suicide system, why not invest in solving the very root cause of the suicides instead?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GloryGloryGlory
I

I want to end it

Arcanist
Apr 29, 2018
423
The right to die should be granted to everyone. However, it would make a negligible difference to the world's over-population and over-consumption problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiburcio
G

gospel4sale

Member
Jul 4, 2018
6
First of all, you do not address why exactly people commit suicide. You vaguely mention "old, sick and degenerate people", but this is a very bold and discriminating classification. What exactly are these people? Are their problems truly unsolvable?

Let's be honest - the majority of the people who commit suicide have solvable problems. These include, but are not limited to - lack of high-quality healthcare, unstable financial position and emotional pressure from the surrounding people. And what about teenagers who would want to kill themselves because they have trouble coping with bullies? In most cases, suicidal thoughts are not something one is born with. Usually, suicides arise from very specific events or health problems.

Right, they do have reasons, but I'm focused on your point:

MrNobody said:
does the capitalist system approve of it, and does society have the will to work together? As for today, no.

Like someone said, why change anything when you know we can't? What we can do, though, is let the full consequences of "our" (by our, I mean society at large) actions reach their full expression, rather than plateau at their current level of artificiality.

MrNobody said:
In my opinion, the problem with your thinking is this - instead of investing in the creation of a legal suicide system, why not invest in solving the very root cause of the suicides instead?

I argue that once societal self-reflection starts to happen, then we can address why exactly people commit suicide. It's like a paradox.

The right to die should be granted to everyone. However, it would make a negligible difference to the world's over-population and over-consumption problems.

Then I throw back my original question that I'm waiting further thinking on:

Consider point 3 coming from the POV of the unilateral right to die:

  • Future parents will be faced with the question, "what kind of world will I be selling to my children?"

If at least one nation gives its citizens the right to die, will future parents ever ask this question or no? My intuition is yes, but you (seem to be) saying no, and I want to know why so that I can think it through.
 
Imaginos

Imaginos

Full-time layabout
Apr 7, 2018
633
I'm not sure if anyone here has ever seen the show Utopia, but, at this point, something akin Janus is the only chance humans have left at curbing overpopulation. Either that or the usual suspects will do it for us (war, famine, disease, natural calamities etc.) Ultimately, however, it's probably already too late. We could've done it the humane way, but sadly we as a species were too lazy and mired in delusional dogma for that, so we've now opted for the hard way. Needless billions have been born who will now die excruciating deaths because abortion, family planning, and women's rights were/are seen as the devil's work because "muh sky god". The infinite growth paradigm of capitalism is also equally to blame, if not more so in many ways. All conservatives should have the Georgia guide-stones tenants seared on their head with a branding iron. They're listed below for anyone who's curious.

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
As an aside, all the main characters in Utopia deserve to die horribly and I hate them with all my heart. Only exceptions being Wilson Wilson, Milner, Philip Carvel, & Arby. Ian & Becky especially were just fucking insufferable. "We've got to stop Janus! Because preventing people from having children is wrong, even though we're dooming the planet in the process! Oh well, LOL!" My blood boils just thinking about it. And to think we're supposed to root for them as they gleefully try to sabotage the prevention of mass of death & suffering through Janus while then having the god damn unmitigated GAWL to turn to the camera and state emphatically that it's a good thing. "HHHHHNNNNGGGGGG! FUCKING KILL ME NOW!", being my main response to such painfully offensive crap.



 
Last edited:
G

gospel4sale

Member
Jul 4, 2018
6
MrNobody said:
In my opinion, the problem with your thinking is this - instead of investing in the creation of a legal suicide system, why not invest in solving the very root cause of the suicides instead?

I argue that once societal self-reflection starts to happen, then we can address why exactly people commit suicide. It's like a paradox.

So it seems this idea needs some expanding, since maybe it's not clear what I mean here.

I am quite interested in solving the root cause, but the issue is that everyone has different ideas of the reasons: you have your belief of environmental/external factors, and someone may have the opposite belief of suicidal people having an internal fight in their head treatable with medicine. How does this get resolved? We are already in this situation and people still elect to commit suicide. Hence, my statement:

People commit suicide all the time, so it's more humane to give them the most peaceful way out that we know.

You are proposing to change laws, but how? How long until the laws will change? What will trigger people to vote? Will the masses be educated enough to know what laws they want to repeal and replace?

One of the many things I'm trying to argue for is that truth is somewhere in the middle, and it will arise faster with the right to die than the other three methods of solving overpopulation.

But how does this help? I thought this was clear, but apparently not. Someone in the thread helped me outline the argument:

Right to die -> Increase in suicides -> Looking for the root cause -> General societal self-reflection -> Radical change in consumption habits

My original argument is that people won't consider root causes until they self-reflect, and they won't self-reflect until suicide is a bigger issue: basically, people won't consider and agree on root causes before societal self-reflection occurs, only after, and I've already outlined a way to cause self-reflection: the right to die. So, while we are debating between external and internal reasons, people will be committing suicide, and the middle will bubble to the surface.

Also don't forget that my main goals are addressing the wicked problem of overpopulation and overconsumption, and adding the right to die twist seems to be the solution I think...

How clear is this argument now?

@Imaginos Wow I've never heard of this TV series but I'm liking it so far! I don't mind hating characters; it's the archetypes that I'm after. But again, the same issue applies: we have a manifesto of beliefs, and they have theirs - the difference is they have the power, so what do we do?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads