We may have not experienced prolonged pain, but we all have experienced suffering. Life itself is synonymous with suffering, for all but those few master sages who have been successful in conquering all of their cravings and reaching the utmost of equanimity.
Suicide itself is virtually always a highly disordered act, that only demonstrates how deeply the person resorting to it is mired in her cravings. While some kinds of physical or spiritual pain might in fact be a real obstacle to attaining inner growth, this is quite rare and not what most people are dealing with.
What about someone who has conquered their craving to continue living and decides they are prepared to embrace the end? Have you seen "The Good Place"? It's really quite an interesting show in that it combines a (sometimes very funny) sitcom with a pretty thoughtful exploration into the subject of ethics.
What? No it isn't. Just because some guy wearing orange robes told you it is, doesn't mean it's true. I have been through a lot of depression and I would never accept such a statement alone: life is no more synonymous with suffering than it is with peace and joy
You are in fact agreeing with what I said, in that we do experience peace and joy whenever we manage to lessen some of our cravings (and overcoming a state of depression is an especially clear example of this). But very few people hold freeing themselves of their spiritual fetters as their fundamental goal in life, and even fewer manage to achieve this. Thus, there is clearly a way in which life is synonymous with suffering, at least as a default state that we are all mired in from birth.
> Why then say "life is synonymous with suffering", and not "life is synonymous with all the manifold experiences that comprise it"?
Because it's important to fully empathize with those who have not yet learned to view pain as merely one of "all the manifold experiences that comprise" life. It's good that you understand this more spiritually sound perspective but to most people, suffering (meaning the innumerable cravings and spiritual addictions that we are all subject to as part of living) is kind of a Big Deal. Sometimes it's so big of a deal that they make irreversible and very poorly considered decisions over it, as OP discusses.
The Buddhist point of view on this is closer to “the default state of life is unsatisfactoriness”. The word “suffering” tends to elicit thoughts about pain and distracts from the myriad of other ways humans “suffer” daily.
> life is no more synonymous with suffering than it is with peace and joy
I’d argue that by default, life is closer to “unsatisfactoriness” than peace and joy, due largely to the evolutionary drives that make us strive for more. While you may be fortunate enough to experience the latter, it comes only through deliberate effort and a successful navigation of life’s basic survival requirements. Living in a modern society shields most people from the more persistent existential suffering of our ancestors.
Hunger, thirst and bodily breakdown are guaranteed. Peace and joy are optional, but what make life worth living. But it is seeing “suffering” for what it is - a mental state that we have the power to change - that makes living a peaceful and joyous life possible.
> We may have not experienced prolonged pain, but we all have experienced suffering
Sure, but people rarely consider suicide due to momentary suffering, or even suffering for a few weeks or month. People typically consider suicide when they can't see an end to their suffering, and while this is sometimes irrational there are also many cases where it isn't.
I've already pointed out that suffering is inherent to life for most of us, so it encompasses far more than "a few weeks or month[s]". You seem to be focusing on the aversion of physical or spiritual pain, but that's merely one sort of suffering which is not different in nature from the far subtler and less obvious suffering we all experience throughout our lives.
There is suffering and there is suffering. Even Buddha differentiated between the physical needs and the spiritual pain. We now know there is also mental pain and it is disingenuous to categorize all of them into a single category.
What if I told you that you don't have to care about any kind of suffering, other than perhaps some very rare extremes of physical pain. That's the point!
I'm sure that holds for most people. However I'm not exactly attached to the idea of being alive. If I'm dead I naturally wouldn't have any thoughts on the matter. Dying however does scare me.
"...what is it we need but more life? What does the infant need but more life? What does the bosom of his mother give him but life in abundance? What does the old man need, whose limbs are weak and whose pulse is low, but more of the life which seems ebbing from him? Weary with feebleness, he calls upon death, but in reality it is life he wants. It is but the encroaching death in him that desires death. He longs for rest, but death cannot rest; death would be as much an end to rest as to weariness: even weakness cannot rest; it takes strength as well as weariness to rest. How different is the weariness of the strong man after labour unduly prolonged, from the weariness of the sick man who in the morning cries out, 'Would God it were evening!' and in the evening, 'Would God it were morning!' Low-sunk life imagines itself weary of life, but it is death, not life, it is weary of. Never a cry went out after the opposite of life from any soul that knew what life is. Why does the poor, worn, out-worn suicide seek death? Is it not in reality to escape from death?--from the death of homelessness and hunger and cold; the death of failure, disappointment, and distraction; the death of the exhaustion of passion; the death of madness--of a household he cannot rule; the death of crime and fear of discovery? He seeks the darkness because it seems a refuge from the death which possesses him. He is a creature possessed by death; what he calls his life is but a dream full of horrible phantasms." -- George Macdonald, "Unspoken Sermons: Life"
The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.
Should people quote DFW as an authority given his suicide?
Using metaphors of physical reality for psychological states can make it falsely appear more immutable that it is. It is possible to escape the burning buildings of the mind and knowing that you have agency over your ideas can be an essential part of the reframing/rethinking/challenging that can free you from suffering.
Letting people believe they are in a situation like floor 100 of the WTC and their flesh is literally burning with no escape could be outright harmful and irresponsible for those experiencing suicidal ideation.
> Should people quote DFW as an authority given his suicide?
A very good writer who committed suicide is probably a great person from whose experience we might learn, especially since they expressed what might be their internal anguish so eloquently.
He may be advocating for highly dysfunctional irrational thinking patterns that leads to suicide. They might be convincing, seductive and dangerous and should only be responsibly presented with clear context and challenge.
He's trying to share what the experience is like to promote empathy, so that suicide can be better understood by those with less personal experience with it. He's not advocating for people to commit suicide, just for ways to engage with the problem that doesn't further isolate and other those who are suffering.
I don’t think he was advocating anything. I think that misses the point. He was just trying to state the matter in a form that would allow people to understand the suffering better and have empathy for those who are in that type of suffering. Personally, I think he nailed it, and for that I am thankful.
I think to portray it otherwise would be to lose the message, and the fact that Wallace commited suicide should give credibility that the thoughts he wrote beforehand were those of an eventually suicidal man.
In my opinion, without the immutability of the situation the metaphor loses its meaning. People don't kill themselves because they feel they're in a situation they can get out of. I think it does more harm for those with suicidal ideation to ignore their feelings rather than validate them.
Sorry, I never read the quote as supporting suicide as a decision. But it's possible that a person contemplating suicide might see it that way.
I always read it as being about empathy. Explaining that sometimes a person's action probably have subjectively valid reasons that we should try to understand, or at least try to accept.
I read the gp comment's quote the same way that's why I shared this one.
It isn’t seen an condoning suicide. GPs point is more that his eventual suicide makes him less of an authority here. Bit like a relapsing addict trying to justify his drug use
> The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’
Yes, they do. Out of personal experience, when things are very bad and you have lost all hope of thing being able to get better ever, that is a strong incentive for suicide. Having any hope vs. none makes a crucial difference in whether life is bearable.
i think this opinion is simply wrong. a lot of people do kill themselves out of a feeling of hopelessness. and yes, for some death seems very appealing at some point especially given a painless method. every time i read something by dfw i get the impression that he was just a little bit too infatuated with his eloquence and putting style over substance.
You are overindexing on the word "hopelessness", which isn't even defined.
Are you claiming that a lot of people are attracted to their death more than repulsed from their life, or (as DFW wrote) that they recognize death as the best option?
Outside of a religious death cult with ideas of heaven, I don't see people with painless lives attracted to death.
"Adults aged 75 and older have one of the highest suicide rates (20.3 per 100,000). Men aged 75 and older have the highest rate (42.2 per 100,000) compared to other age groups." [1]
I think you missed Macdonald's point. He's saying that "real life" is not simply the continuance of conscious existence, but "human thriving". If the man could achieve human thriving without health and without friends, then he'd be fine; it's precisely because he cannot achieve "human thriving" without health and without friends that that he says "I'm tired of life". Health problems, pain, and loneliness aren't life, but a form of death. So, MacDonald says, he's not tired of life -- he's tired of the continuance of conscious existence without life; he is, in fact, tired of death.
This is dark, but it’s interesting to me that the people who jump from a burning building and the people who end themselves on their own time are performing the same calculus.
Nobody wants to die, but when your life starts to look like a burning building, sometimes the window doesn’t seem so bad.
No, the window still seems awful but it’s the choice you make.
From David Foster Wallace:
“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”
Yeah, I mean bad by comparison. The point is that no human wants to jump out a window, ever.
It’s also worth pointing out that depression can warp your sense of reality and make you believe you’re in a burning building when you’re not, so to speak.
I love your quote and it likely inspired my comment subconsciously
It could be considered a natural instinct to do this?
I once encountered a guy who was thinking of jumping off a bridge and I said a lot of stupid but well meaning things in an attempt to dissuade him.
It got to the point where I realized everything I was saying was just making him more determined to do it. Luckily, I managed to flag down a passing ambulance and the paramedics onboard turned out to be a lot more skilled in the art of persuasion than I was.
I have generalized anxiety disorder along with the lifelong depression. My life has felt like a permanent "emergency mode" from the inside, and with how my body processes things. The funny consequence is that I've been at multiple points a helpful anchor for healthier people in actual emergency situations, from panic attacks to much scarier things. When the house is on fire I'm feeling most at peace as the world and my brain align (and I have a mental "muscle memory" to use), and I guide people fairly well right back to the gates of "being OK", but I let them pass through and stay behind.
This has helped in life or death situations a few times (including an actual building fire), as well as in professional work. Then the situation gets fixed and the world goes on as I return to illness. I'm glad there's at least some upsides to this whole thing.
Yeah sounds like you are in constant hypervigilance mode which is part of the limbic system for fight or flight. It is exhausting. It can be very hard to identify the root cause especially if it is a state that developed from childhood but its a coping mechanism to stress. It was likely adaptive for something in your past but that you likely don't need anymore... and as you say some events you've experienced so you might even have PTSD. But you can train your brain as they say...
I probably have a few things that contribute to a case of CPTSD. Some things can help me (parts of CBT/DBT, zen koans, meds..). But it's also difficult to change a thing that is a feature of you, in that it has been there for so long that everything else was built around it.
Just like maths problems, getting to the core of things often requires making your life harder for a while before coming back to the surface - and I can't always afford to do that unfortunately. The brain really is a weird and fascinating thing..
What strikes me now after reading that is how boring (my) depression really is. I'm in no way saying the author's depression is more exciting at all. He self-describes it as a total waste -- not to be confused with the fact that I find his article interesting in that it reveals how boring depression is, it is a boring life course. That is illustrative and perhaps preventative and curative for others? So in that sense he made something out of it which is great!
My depression is routed in anxiety which is based on fear of being judged. That's pretty boring in the scheme of things and being judged is something we can't control anyway unless we don't want to do anything and be boring.
That’s not the same calculus at all. The burning building is “I’m gonna be dead in 5 minutes no matter what I do. Might as well make it quick instead of excruciating.”
Your calculus is death by suicide vs worse than suicide. It is the same.
The difference is actually the opposite. Someone jumping off a window from a burning building has some small chance to survive so they pick uncertain death over certain death.
Sun exposure is indeed harmful when it's excessive. 15 minutes of sun exposure is not considered excessive but is actually a recommended amount (of course, this amount could vary depending on the season, your skin complexion, and location).
Here are some benefits of moderate sun exposure:
1. Our bodies naturally synthesize vitamin D when our skin is exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D is essential for calcium absorption, bone health, and supporting our immune system. Getting a small amount of sun exposure, particularly during the early morning or late afternoon when the sun's rays are less intense, can help maintain adequate vitamin D levels.
2. Sunlight also has a positive impact on our mental well-being. Sun exposure stimulates the production of serotonin, a hormone that contributes to feelings of happiness and relaxation. This is why many people experience improved mood and overall well-being when they spend time outdoors in the sunlight.
3. Natural exposure to sunlight during the day helps regulate our internal body clock, known as the circadian rhythm. This promotes healthy sleep patterns, making it easier to fall asleep at night and wake up refreshed in the morning.
Honestly, I just find it hard to care about skin cancer all that much. I gotta die from something at some point, and I feel like covering my skin in nasty oils and stuff on every nice summer day is too much a price for me just to die from "not skin cancer". Because now every nice day is a little bit less nice.
Ofc I'm a bit lucky because I can at least tan somewhat, so if I just taper up my sun exposure in the spring I don't really get burned.
There are better and worse ways of dying though. Getting cancer while you're still young enough to have fun and enjoy life and spending a lot of time in pain and going from one doctor to another isn't really how I want to go.
You say that as if there's a choice when really there isn't. It's fundamentally out of my control what kills me. Hell, the cancer could be growing already, or the clot or aneurism. And the amount of crap you get exposed to just drinking the water and breathing the air these days, not to mention the food you eat. You could try to minimise carcinogens but in the end it's basically a lost battle unless you completely isolate yourself from society and the outside world.
Also, if I do get terminal cancer I'm not doing those cycles of pointless chemo and radiation. I'll simply live on until the cancer becomes too unbearable, at which point I'll accept my fate and die.
Not a particularly high risk so long as you get suspicious skin changes checked out. Melanoma has an incredibly good prognosis so long as it's caught early, and unlike most cancers you have a very good chance of catching it early with adequate vigilance.
The first noble truth posits that dukkha (suffering) is a characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth. The second, third and fourth noble truths posit that escape from dukkha (and therefore escape from the cycle of death and rebirth) is possible. "Life is suffering" is a shallow misinterpretation of Buddhist theology; Buddhists believe that all suffering has an identifiable cause and a known remedy.
All the big religions offer up some sort of escape plan as part of the sales pitch.
I don't believe one can avoid suffering. You can however choose your suffering. You can suffer in the service of something greater. Or you can suffer meaninglessly, but you'll suffer one way or the other.
Just because the Buddha said it, doesn't mean it's right. My life is many things as well as suffering. It is no more suffering than it is joy or peace. Why emphasise suffering specifically?
That is a misreading of what was said. Others have commented on it before. Life is unsatisfactory is closer to what Buddha said. He took great pains to separate physical needs from spiritual suffering. His eight fold path as a way to achieve nirvana is a solution for one of those problems. It does not put food on the table.
Wow, they completely left out one reason/demographic. For some people it's not about the suffering, but about their impact. The people who I know who committed suicide were diagnosed with alzhiemers or other dementia. They specifically wrote that they did not want to be a burden on their family. There's relatively little suffering due to the altered mental state (you don't really see people who want to commit suicide with these diseases once they progress, except in brief moments of clarity).
Related, is it difficult all over the US to find mental health resources? Wait times for counselors and therapists are months+. Additionally, insurance seems to not cover mental health stuff well if at all, if you're lucky to get an appointment it seems you're paying out of pocket.
I mean, your experience in the US is exactly like mine in European public care system looking for a psychiatrist or other more niche doctor: Multi month long waiting lists, doctors who are full and don't take any new patients, needing to go private out of pocket. Even the good private ones are booked weeks into the future.
But it is the private health care in US. There is no other option unlike you who can choose to go private. And I would guess that your out of pocket payment will not cause you to go to bankruptcy.
Yes, many (if not most?) providers stopped taking insurance for various reasons. The rates provided by insurers are a fraction of the rates they can get charging out of pocket. And insurers try to shorten therapy sessions, or ask why a patient still needs therapy, etc.
I don’t know why mental health specifically has these issues out of all the medical professions though.
This is something that I have had some personal experience with. I've known quite a few suicides, and survivors of the suicides of others.
Very much a "walk a mile in a man's shoes" kind of thing. Everyone has opinions on the matter, until it hits them. Then, they have personal experience (not just an opinion).
It sucks. In some cases, I can see why someone would want to end it all. In others, like this one[0], I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions (I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well).
When we are in a singularity of pain, it seems like the suffering will never stop, and we can convince ourselves there's no escape. In some cases, we're right, but other times, not so much.
It's a permanent "solution" to what is often a temporary problem.
And often there is no other solution and I’m very happy that people in my country have a choice about this. I would not want to see others suffer so that I won’t suffer their loss.
>I would not want to see others suffer so that I won’t suffer their loss.
The world being what it is, it's increasingly the opposite: others left or encouraged even to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) so people dont have to help and support them.
In Canada it's increasingly becoming a trend for poor people to commit assisted suicide, not because they have some incurable disease and pain, but because they can't get by and are depressed by it.
The Canada example is not about suicide at all but about the impact of a society without a safety net. The issue isn’t the suicides, it’s almost a logical response to a situation that is objectively terrible without a possibility or getting better.
It's connected though, when assisted suicide there, is not just legal, but increasingly accepted, nornalized, or even encouraged as an invididual solution to not having a safety net.
So, the cause of the problem isn't the suicides - but they are offered (and used) as a way-out of it. This eases the burden on the state to do something to solve the root problem (why improve their condition, when they just off themselves and they wont be bothering us with their need for help anymore?).
> a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.
> And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment (emphasis theirs)
> So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”
While this case is indeed controversial and worthy of examining... I'm sceptical of "liveaction.org" as a source because it describes itself thusly: "Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective."
Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.
This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.
Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).
Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization.
>This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.
Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one.
More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
This particular issue is difficult to discuss from a scientific perspective, because basically the only non-opinion (i.e. ideological) questions that can be asked are: whether making assisted suicide legal increases or decreases total suicides, and what are the economic impacts of assisted suicide legalization. Everything else about assisted suicide is ideological or ideological driven (at minimum, the balance between antipathies of death compared to pain).
Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.
For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
> For people without that view, why would they be biased?
- Fear of pain
- Fear of old age, or aging in general
- Fear of debility
- Fear of loss of autonomy
- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions
Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).
I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.
Bias does not necessitate dogmatism. I've read at least one non-dogmatic Catholic priest on suicide.
There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.
Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.
I agree that bias is unavoidable. But what we're talking about here is an organization who's entire purpose for existing is to spread conservative views. Furthermore, they blatantly misrepresented the very question asked in the poll. The poll is not about "euthanasia" or "murder", yet the piece implies otherwise.
Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.
Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.
The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.
Just take the "L" :-). You're not going to convince me that it was a worthwhile source, or that the motivations of a speaker don't deserve consideration. Thats plainly absurd. Especially when there's money AND (religious) ideology involved. Sorry.
It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.
Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
I was thinking of this as a discussion, not something people can win or lose. You having an opposite opinion isn't a loss to me, because we had a good discussion about it.
I enjoyed the discussion. If you gave some semblance of acknowledgment that the opinion piece wasn't so great, and those same sentiments could be expressed in a more constructive manner we could have moved on. No worries, though. Cheers.
>Upon closer inspection, it's an exact reprint of from an article from "National Review" which is a famously conservative organization.
Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!
> More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
"At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in
dying because of the following reasons?"
>found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%?
(Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).
>Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!
That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent.
I hope you can see why that is important context to know.
>Dishomest "interpretation", eh?
As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder.
Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.
From my perspective the poll itself is somewhat biased in wording. Personally I'm in favor of not using these terms at all, but explicitly writing out the process in the question: "Are you in favor of allowing people to have medical practitioners inject or provide them with lethal drugs in order to die for reasons of..."
In 2021 there were 10,064 deaths by MAiD in Canada, fewer than 7 were self-administered[1]. Making greater than 99.9% of MAiD deaths euthanasia, or at least consented-to mercy killings. I personally think calling them "assistance in dying" implies an autonomy in the actual act that does not exist. The autonomy is theoretically[2] in the decision (until the exact moment of administration), but this is the case for all suicides.
"Assisted dying" also, to me, implies inevitability. That the person is already dying, and that this process is just made easier. 219 of the 10,064 MAiD deaths (2.18%) in 2021 were of people whose deaths were "not reasonably foreseeable" (not in progress)[1]. "Assisted dying" is a disingenuous term for these deaths, "assisted suicide" is better. I don't know whether the change in terms would have altered the polling results. I'd presume that most people realize that poverty is not a lethal condition, but I don't know what's going through their heads as they answer the question.
To be frank, I don’t buy those stories about people being nudged to commit suicide. In NL we have euthanasia for decades and the system works well. I think those scare stories originate from politically / religiously tainted sources.
I've always found it interesting that addictive behaviour is often seen as a virtue by our society if it's about the 'right sort of thing' (as far as society is concerned).
We end up considering people as 'dedicated' or 'committed' to some cause or other. If they are a workaholic, or pious, or a sports superstar, or a concert pianist, chances are there is an addictive personality that just happens to have gotten attached to a socially acceptable pursuit.
Meanwhile, the same people with a slight twist of fate end up in rehab.
Worth pointing out. I know of a person who was a workaholic and then died pretty young from also having been a secret alcoholic for much of their life.
There's a bunch of things where the morality of what you're doing will change depending on a small detail, with the main action being essentially the same.
Eg, if you dedicate yourself to exterminating rats with dedication and professionalism you'll be a hero, do the same thing using the same tools and attitude to cats and dogs and you'll be a monster.
Which is exactly how it should be IMO. We build the world we live in by enacting change in it. Praising actions in a context devoid of its consequences is a good way to end up in a world where everyone basically hacks the reward algorithm without any concerns about the results of that.
No such thing as an addictive personality- it was invented by the pharmaceutical companies (the term) to play down the addictive effects of their drugs, doctors were told only people with addictive personalities will get hooked on the opioids
I can't say much about 'personalities' but it has been quite consistently demonstrated that some people are genetically predisposed and more likely to become addicted to certain substances than others regardless of social factors or even (pre-addiction) consumption patterns.
I also think there's something to it: each person is different.
I've smoked and quit a couple of times, and still get urges to go back sometimes. Meanwhile, I know people who casually smoke once in a while and don't get the habit.
There's a constructive/destructive dimension to all behaviours, even addiction. Constructive addictions have probably created a lot of great art, innovations and achievements, where destructive addictions ruin the lives of a person and those around them. Not that addiction in any form is necessarily healthy, but it seems obvious that constructive ones are more healthy than destructive ones, for all involved.
I don't want to be arrogant or looks like moron, but how can you know that people that you know "went through worse"? How can you measure it? I`m really curious, because all my life I live with understanding that there no way to measure other people feeling, emotions, suffering.
I think the point is that the critical differences are on the inside, not on the outside.
People can go through worse experiences on the outside and recover and overcome.
This points to the somewhat obvious reality that how people handle and respond to their environmental conditions is a critical factor in outcomes.
Sometimes you have to fix the internal root of feelings, emotions, and suffering. You can believe the difference IS the person, without being overly judgmental. In fact, realizing that person themselves needs to be changed is often a key part of recovery.
I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I think substance abuse is often treated as the underlying root problem when its just a symptom of a much deeper trauma or mental health problem. The lifestyle changes (often) required to deal with the underlying problem can't be forced on the person once the stint in rehab ends. They are usually right back to their old situation with their old friends in their old routines, or they stop taking their medicines or any number of things that lead to relapse.
Sure, it's possible for someone who went to war and ended up killing a family of civilians to recover, overcome and lead happy and fulfilled lives henceforth. Does it mean that another soldier struggling with constant guilt and nightmares is defective and in the need of fixing? Our justice system imposes death penalty for murder. What if someone is truly convinced, on rational bases, that they have committed a murder, but in the circumstances where justice doesn't act? Are they acting insane by taking a matter in their own hands?
Now let's take another person who NEEDS to be surrounded by love and belonging and ends up estranged from family and devoid of friends, living alone in an apartment at the age of 50? Are you suggesting that this person needs to be fixed to not intensely crave those things? Or that efforts to build these up at their age are likely to be successful in today's society? Just what physical, emotional and financial resources is anyone else willing to contribute towards this person's well-being, other than pumping them full of numbing drugs?
> Or that efforts to build these up at their age are likely to be successful in today's society?
I've seen that happen -literally- hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
It's usually difficult. Like, really difficult, but sometimes, it's well worth the effort. We can often help each other through the rough bits.
I've known a few folks that have done pretty awful things (not getting into detail), and have recovered. Many, work hard to help others to recover.
Love, charity, empathy, and generosity are very powerful.
There was a book written by Richard Adams (Watership Down), called Shardik[0]. It's about redemption. Sort of like the Ashoka myth[1]. Not a unique trope.
It's never too late to recover. In many cases, we may not climb "as high" as we once were, but are much happier. In other cases, it's the opposite.
I know a chap that wanted to put the park bench he slept on, in the garden of his mansion. He couldn't find it, though, as the city had replaced them, by that time.
Oh sure, I know people have rebuilt their lives in 50s. But there is luck and anecdotes and there is prevailing reality. When something is difficult, it requires physical and emotional stamina to overcome. At some point, one may be unable to handle hundreds of rejections after trying to make a single casual friend in a space of years. Not lazy, or insufficiently motivated, just not able to, period. And that assumes, for example, enough financial independence and free time from work to try in the first place. I am not ready to declare people who give up defective or put all the responsibility at their feet, rather than society in general or plain bad luck.
My point is pretty simple. It is that the critical differences are on the inside, not on the outside.
I wasn't taking a position on what people should do with this information, but I think that understanding the fact is important if you want to change anything, or simply understand how the world works.
In the context of depression, I think it is up to the individual if they want to change. In your example, the relevant question is if the lonely 50 year old wants to change. As long as they aren't hurting me, I am fine with them choosing either option. What, if anything, I am willing to do the help, would depend on if or how much I care for the individual.
What do you think about your questions? It seems like you have on opinion you aren't stating.
My opinion is that in the end I don't think really wanting a change is enough for most people in sad social circumstances. They simply do not have the stamina, the skills or the opportunities to get out of the rut.
For example, I have a much more modest desire to have a shared hobby with is common and not expensive or difficult to pursue and a group of friends (casual to start with) to go and do that in free time. I have been at it for a year, taking classes, asking classmates and coworkers to join me. Not. A. Single. Luck.
Now, I have family, successful career, financial freedom, enough health to be active, no serious character flaws that would tax friendships. Are you telling me a fat and bitter guy who have been living alone long enough to be rusty in social graces is going to suddenly have willing friend material, let alone romantic prospects?
Personally I am not going to judge him or say he should have just tried harder. You?
>My opinion is that in the end I don't think really wanting a change is enough for most people in sad social circumstances. They simply do not have the stamina, the skills or the opportunities to get out of the rut.
I would agree that it often isn't enough by itself. My thinking is more along the the lines that it is a necessary prerequisite, but not always sufficient by itself. Nothing in this life is guaranteed.
Im not interested in judging some random stranger. Maybe they should have tried harder, maybe they should have tried something else. Maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn't. However, I know if they dont try, then they have no chance.
My advice to a friend or someone I cared for would be different. You can't let your happiness be contingent of factors outside your control. If you can't make yourself happy, you are extremely unlikely to find someone or something else to do it for you. If you don't like who you are, then you need to start there because you cant run from yourself. The bad news is that it is your problem to fix, and the good news is that it is your problem to fix. Success is not guaranteed, but these are baseline facts you need to accept if you want to have a chance at change.
You cant force someone to be your friend, let alone a romantic partner.
Oh well, my advice to someone I cared about is tell me what I can do to help. And of course at this point, other commitments in my life as well as general ideas of what is healthy come into play. The other person will have to respect my boundaries and put in a substantial effort to be helped effectively. But, that is very different from being left on your own.
Since I obviously can't care about everyone, I would like to see a society that encourages virtuous cycles rather than downward spirals. Let there be regular public holidays with festivities that single individuals can enjoy without being awkward and that provide opportunities to reconnect with neighbors and meet strangers. Let there be a culture where if one is missing a cooking ingredient or needs to borrow a stepladder, the first impulse is to ask a neighbor for help rather than going to Instacart. This will give these neighbors a license to stop by and chat later without losing their dignity.
Collectively, majority that is doing Ok mentally is in a better position to boost someone who is not, without any single person getting overwhelmed, as opposed to someone who is down figuring it out on their own.
AKA the "man up" argument. You know people who survived worse, thereby somehow invalidating the people who didn't make it when they were suffering less. Because you have experience with it and can therefore judge others.
ChrisMarshallNY is sitting in judgment of the fellow in Holland who made use of the euthanasia laws there.
Specifically:
"I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions" (judgment)
"I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well" (justification that invalidates the man's suffering)
"Lots of folks have opinions on it, but I have experience with it." (Pushing his opinion above others, to hammer the judgment home)
He doesn't know Mark Langedijk's mind and soul, and yet he feels comfortable desecrating the man's legacy.
Note that I said overly judgmental. Judgment itself is part of the human condition. You can judge an action or choice without demeaning or dehumanizing the person. You can even do it from a place of empathy understanding and compassion.
The idea of that people shouldn't or can't judge any choice or action another makes is absurd at face value.
Except you very rarely have enough information to make informed judgements. It’s inherently dehumanizing to assume the limited information you get from say a news article is all that’s relevant because it treats them as cardboard cutouts of actual people.
It’s easy to see a pregnant teen and think poor thoughts about them without considering if perhaps they are older than you assume and married or they got rapped etc. Read about a convict and perhaps they did something horrible or perhaps they’re wrongly convicted, you simply didn’t know.
Hacker News civility makes it more acceptable to use an over the top phrase like that, where normally I suspect he would have jumped to straightforward ones like “being a dick”.
From what I've seen, I have no doubt Chris means well.
People everywhere have all different things worth living for, and of course there are ups & downs that vary across time and relationships.
Regardless whether someone has the capacity to be helpful or harmful, almost always some judgement needs to be made or absolutely neither one will be forthcoming.
And there is always going to be someone else to disagree.
Whether either one is correct I wonder who is supposed to be the judge of that?
I see not a word of desecration.
Looking at the story of this particular dying Dutchman, seems to me the only thing within reach beforehand were quite temporary solutions not capable of overcoming relatively longer term problems.
The good thing about interesting vs dull is that you can just filter it on the spot. No need to dismiss people before actually hearing what has been said.
I personally know people who have been dirty for decades. A friend of mine "inherited" the stewardship of one such person and he was a miserable bastard until he died of cancer and the only people who knew him regretted that it didn't progress faster. He was a drag on the few people willing to associate with him (neither his mother or daughter among them) both emotionally and financially. I myself helped clean up the disgusting mass of cigarette tar filled beer cans he left in my friend's house after he passed.
So your mileage may vary I suppose. And that's about all I'll say on the matter.
This is a typical overly cynical and overly online take. I think it would be dispelled by talking to or being friends with a single person that works in rehab
there are certain places where a lot of dubious, predatory drug rehab facilities have popped up in the last decade, since health insurance now has to pay for it, yet it's not quite regulated like other healthcare. if you see a lot of these it can make you very cynical.
Rehab helps about a quarter of the people it treats - provided you accept that they'll probably need multiple rounds of treatment. It's wicked to encourage the belief that a single round of rehab, followed by lots of willpower, is likely to solve problems.
Single rounds of rehab do sometimes work, and longer sessions have better changes. Willpower is part of it, but often completely changing one’s social circle is critical.
AA and other twelve-steps programs are not inherently "religious-based". They only ask you to believe in some power higher than yourself that you can tap into as a source of inner sternness and restraint. You can call that a spiritual outlook if you like, but it's a very mild one and quite far from any organized or established religion. And it actually works quite well as far as helping people to stop drinking and stay off alcohol for the long term.
There have been many that linked it to being cultist (e.g. [1]).
> And it actually works quite well as far as helping people to stop drinking and stay off alcohol for the long term.
In any case, that is my biggest issue with AA and a lot of other "abstinence" programs (particularly those mandated by courts): they all but mandate that complete and utter sobriety is the only acceptable way instead of helping people to moderate their consumption or to find out and fix why they are consuming substances. Someone who's in hurt because their partner died or cheated upon them or they lost their job or home (these four causes are behind a lot of addiction careers) doesn't need a sobriety program run by questionably or barely qualified random joes, they need professional counseling.
I spent decades of my life trying to pursue moderation. It doesn't work (for me). The Sinclair Method worked. I tried AA but the white knuckle approach wasn't right for me. I know people who have absolutely gotten sober using AA, others who use both, and others still who use different medications.
In my experience, moderation was the worst possible solution. It was like perpetually kicking the problem down the road to be dealt with on another day. Relapse was frequent and always right around the corner, and with relapse came shame, guilt, and other feelings of failure.
I just wrote a long reply detailing why moderation isnt an option for people like me, but as usual the best explanation of my relationship with alcohol comes from the Westwing:
> I'm an alcoholic. I don't have one drink. [pauses] I don't understand people who have one drink. I don't understand people who leave half a glass of wine on the table. I don't understand people who say they've had enough. How can you have enough of feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer? [pauses, sighs] My brain works differently.
> sobriety is the only acceptable way instead of helping people to moderate their consumption
That only works for some people and not others (likely due to genetic factors amongst other reasons). Which can be quite hard to grasp for people who are actually able (or believe that they are...) to 'moderate their consumption'.
It's about a chap in Holland that was a recidivist alcoholic, who took advantage of the Dutch Euthanasia laws, to end his life.
There's really no way to put a positive spin on it. It sucks, no matter what opinions we hold on the matter.
The laws aren't the issue. If someone really wants to end things; they will. I have seen it many times, and alternative means can be absolutely devastating to the survivors.
> who took advantage of the Dutch Euthanasia laws, to end his life ... it sucks, no matter what opinions we hold on the matter
His brother disagrees with you, explicitly answering an anti-euthanasia protester with: "I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse"
He could have ODed on opium from the dark web. He could have networked with other suicidal people to find a humane way to kill himself (or be killed).
I hate that people steelman governmental oversight and approval of suicide by strawmanning the other options.
In countries which legalize euthanasia it becomes easier to do it for more reasons.
Just keep it illegal, but don't prosecute people who try to do it. When a person reaches a point where they really want to die, they can figure out a way.
Sure. But just as you don't have a right to material support from the state in order to live, you don't have a right to material support from the state in order to die. Unless you happen to live in a country in which you do have such a right. Regardless, these rights are limited. I'm in favor of increasing the first right such that suicides are minimized, and reducing the second right to not prosecuting you for attempting suicide.
When considering rights conferred by authorities or society, there is often litte relationship between what's available at any one time, to what is beneficial to any one individual, who most often has no significant input about ways their particular needs may be better addressed.
My right means the government can't hinder me. Making it illegal, regardless of whether it's prosecuted or not is stamping on my rights. The government has no ability to make it illegal
In the article, the family of the patient cited that his alcoholism was secondary to his depression - a symptom of the bigger thing he was suffering from. The article goes to lengths though (see: title) to put the focus on “an alcoholic was euthanized.”
The brother’s relevant quote:
> "My brother suffered from depression and anxiety and tried to 'cure' it with alcohol. He's from a normal family, he did not want this to happen. He did not take an easy way out. Just a humane one.
> "If that's troubling for Mrs Bruce that's a pity. I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse.
I can’t tell you for sure what is fact, but I’m inclined to take the more rational explanation of the family over the irrational “this was an alcoholic choosing death over rehab.”
people seek alcohol in pathological amounts to numb a pain they carry around. you don't know what pain that was for him and what caused it. not everybody stumbles into alcoholism out of habit, partying too much or work related stress.
I'm no doctor but I know they seldom have actual pharmaceutical cures, however they can often provide worthwhile treatments which are very effective and truly make life more worth living.
Not always through medication.
Sometimes things work out for the best without doctors involved, also with medication or not.
I just have a lifetime of working (as carefully as possible to minimize harmful exposure) with very toxic materials.
Beverage Grade alcohol is just one of them.
People widely accept that alcohol is truly a substance that can be abused, but it has never been scientifically sound to classify it as a "drug".
It is simply a toxic solvent like many others, it's primary effect is not to kill pain, more so just to kill, usually germs but depending on the amount applied, all life forms eventually.
Most will agree that one of the additional characteristics of a solvent is to accomplish dilution of some kind or another. Maybe not unlike weakening a strong pigment with paint thinner, solvents in the bloodstream seem to weaken an otherwise strong mental state. Sometimes also not so strong to begin with. I think it's also well known people like it anyway, some choose alcohol, others paint thinner, sometimes depending on availability sometimes not. Ideally whether painting or not the solvent dissipates and things end up as intended.
Toxic materials will always have dangers which sometimes accumulate more than others, and need to be carefully balanced against non-toxic approaches.
As we have seen, the overwhelming number of toxic choices can seem so encompassing and exclusive to alternatives.
How are you defining “drug”? Or, I guess maybe I should be asking “how is ‘drug’ defined in the field which is the context that your statement that it doesn’t make sense to classify alcohol as a ‘drug’?” if you are using a standard definition like that?
I think I’ve heard that the word pharmakon can be translated as any of [poison, medicine, drug, paint]? That’s I guess not really relevant, but I wanted to mention it because all 4 of those translations seem relevant to your comment, and this amused me.
I say "pharma" of any kind today implies overwhelming benefit compared to risk in making a disorder measurably better, and I expect doctors and pharmacists to know this better than me.
When it comes to solvents though, and materials much more toxic than appear in the pharmacopeia, I do have an unfair advantage in direct experience and decades of intense study for the most part.
Substance abuse or addiction is possible whether or not the substance is really a drug or even very toxic or responsible for physical dependence.
I guess my point is that people can use things, and develop a dependence of many different kinds, like they were a drug even if they are something as simple as a common solvent.
Availability may mean more than "drug seeking behavior" a lot of the time.
Sometimes it's straightforward toxicity-seeking.
Chemically, solvents are usually very simple industrial chemicals compared to the vast majority of true drugs, especially the drugs in the PDR which are mostly carefully crafted for particular patients, rather than general consuption (like beer or liquor) or non-consumption which is how I scientifically categorize the solvents overall.
When I see people treat drugs no differently than alcohol, or alcohol no differently than drugs, I just don't think that is the most realistic treatment.
Once again, I'm not the expert on metabolism but I do think the metabolic effects are far too dissimilar also.
Disclaimer: my first job was with a drug manufacturer, I got there after paying my way at the university giving chemistry lessons to pre-med students, but that's as far as I went in that field. Solvents OTOH, I've been handling and directly observing their effects for decades since.
> I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well
This sounds extremely callous unless you were the dead man’s therapist or close personal friend. Surely you’re not going to infer you understand the situation from news articles.
> proven alternate solutions
Plenty of people seek help and yet still die of alcoholism despite trying to fix the addiction. There is no 100% guaranteed solution, and unless you are intimately familiar with the dead man’s life I really don’t understand how you can assume he didn’t try to get clean.
> Surely you’re not going to infer you understand the situation from news articles.
Surely you're not presuming you understand the horrors that the OP has himself witnessed or been privy to? For all you know the OP could have been working with addicts for 50 years and literally seen it all. Maybe be a bit more charitable.
Trying not to judge this guy but to put your parents through that seems unimaginable to me. Could not comprehend gathering my family around to watch me kill myself.
I fully intend to kill myself eventually. The idea that I should prolong my life past the point where I get dementia, a degenerative disease, or just plain old age where I can't stand up or whipe my ass is repugnant enough that I can't understand people who want me to suffer until doctors finally stop being able to put me back together. Much better to die cheaply with a wonderful cocktail of opiates while watching a sunset some on some tropical island.
Much easier said than done. I doubt you'll feel the same way when that old age approaches, just like teenagers who think life is practically over by 40.
The people I know that are really old or the people I have known rather generally weren't too thrilled with living at that point. When your quality of life is really poor, living seems like more trouble than it's worth. I wonder if some of those people have a lot of agency over just letting their body stop working.
>just like teenagers who think life is practically over by 40
Sorry but... it kind of is, no? You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore. You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures. You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family. You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices. You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.
That's what I keep telling my boy when he wants to cuddle up and read a bedtime story: "stop weighing me down, daddy has more important things to do, like vapid parties and brunch"...
Nobody forces you to live like that. I'm 39 and not one point hits the mark for me. :D
While true that it's harder to get social connections it's far from impossible; in the end you just need to go out and meet new people doing things alone sometimes. On the other hand I have much more money, thus can actually travel when/how I want, compared to my 20s, and could probably quit my job in the next decade, if I want to.
Overall it's different to some degree, but in sum I'd say I enjoy life much more than in my 20s nowadays. Doubt that changes until I start to get sick(er) in my 50s/60s.
my mom is 48 years old, she loves her job, no one depends on her, has a different boyfriend every month, goes to the same parties I go to (which end at 6am) and we even share some friends (im 29). definitely not over
That is a depressing view on aging. At some point kids becomes adults and can support themselves and if they were taught any form of responsibility, they will support their parents. These days my parents hang out with their friends or go once in a while on vacation which they pay or my sibling and I. To me it sounds like someone enduring a life style they dislike but accepted because they believe this is how life should be.
Maybe it is a culturally thing but as a kid I had to complain to my parents to get home and by then it was 1 am.
This sounds exactly what a 13 year old would say about life being over at 20. Or a 22 saying life is over a 40. Or a 40 saying life is over at 50. Or a 50 saying life is over at 60. See a pattern?
If you've done it right, by 40 you have children. If you've raised them right, they're fun to be with. Even if you haven't, they require enough out of you that you want to go to bed by 9. Social gatherings are about spending time with other families and letting your children play. Your partner is a collaborative team member in a complex dance, and while the passion for that person is not as fiery as the lust-fueled early days before you realized they were a real person with flaws, it's no less significant in magnitude.
Travel with a family takes more planning, but millions take significant road/flight/cruise trips every year. Budgeting (of money and, if applicable, vacation time) is key.
Changing jobs or starting ventures is similar. It's easier to get a job if you already have one, it's easier to survive a job change if you have savings. Planning remains key. It's not as low-risk as it would be for a bachelor(ette), but you have the time, stability, and mindset to start slow and minimize that risk as you go.
As your kids grow you have more time to pursue your interests. Eventually, if all goes well, you get the joy of grandchildren (all the fun of having children, but you can give them back). Retirement, if you've planned well and have your health, is a return to childhood (less money, more fun, most of your playmates are children [at least relative to your age]).
There are another 40 years after 40. Plan accordingly.
It's a valid life choice, of course, and you're free to make it. I'd not call it "perfect", though (and neither is choosing to have kids). It's all a matter of which trade-offs you prefer.
I like children, desire to pass my genes to the future, value the ability to raise my children to have an impact on the world somewhat in line with my perception of it (commensurate on their natural predilection to agree with me and act on that agreement), and want somebody to look after me and my affairs in my old age. I'm willing to accept the cost (in time, money, stress, reduced flexibility...) and responsibility in return. If you make the decision not to have kids, I hope you can say the same for your trade-offs.
I'm sorry, maybe other people said the same thing. I didn't read the whole thread yet. I'm gonna pick you and the line "desire to pass my genes to the future". I'm gonna ask you some genuine questions about it, so please if you can I would appreciate your point of view.
What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.
Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).
Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?
How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?
Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?
I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationalize my peeing in: I have to pee, because that ensure my survival hence the succession of me gene. I feel the same of orgasm. It feels that thought process is forced and conditioned by society.
We made the choice not to have children, but I do feel that desire to pass on my genes. What's it like?
sexual desire is like taking a piss
I would say it's less of a basic biological desire like peeing or sneezing, and more like... esoteric/abstract concepts like "the desire to do good" or "the desire to achieve."
I realize it's not really a logical desire, and even though I do feel it, it's far from my highest priority and I've also chosen not to have kids for a variety of other reasons.
I see, thank you for your point of view. There are times I feel lonely, even though I like to be alone most of the time, and when that happens I wonder if having a child would've changed anything.
It really must be an "abstract" feeling, because I cannot get to that feeling in any way.
i guess, in addition to that, there's also the practical aspect of your children taking care of you when you are older. that can be a significant motivator.
in many (most?) parts of the world that is the norm.
however, that is of course a... highly unreliable way of making sure you are taken care of when you are older!
No apology needed! I've not previously considered this in the depth needed to answer your question. I've tried my best to think seriously about your question and represent my true opinion faithfully, which has been a valuable exercise. I regret I haven't made it shorter, but 4 hours is about all I can afford to spend.
> What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.
> Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).
I know I can't live forever (and I wouldn't want to - mortality gives us purpose), but I feel I (along with everyone else) am an important part of solving a set of problems (meaning of life, best state of humanity, etc.) that may take infinite (or all we have) time. My impact on the world can be extended (perhaps indefinitely, certainly for as long as I will be aware of it) through my offspring.
I'm not a religious man, but it's what I would consider a religious feeling. It's a feeling clearer to me, having had children, than it was before them. I'm not sure I would have appreciated it in my early 20's, but a had an inkling of it by my late 20's.
I am (half of) the link between my and my wife's ancestors and our descendants. I'm the only one who can fill that role. Acknowledging this gives me a place in a grand narrative and drives my responsibility to my children to prepare them to take their place in the chain (even if that place is a dead end), with all that entails. Ignoring it prunes my branch of the tree.
I do think sexual desire is a base-level, noisy (in the same way that not all stomach pangs are hunger), subconscious drive to reproduce. We (like all living organisms) are a tool DNA uses to reproduce, and it's good at getting us to do stuff. I'd like to think my rationalization based on ancestry isn't a post-hoc result of that drive, but I can't be sure.
> Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?
I'm usually a fairly unemotional guy, so I tend not to feel (or, at least, not to notice) such things. Considering the death of my children can evoke a physical response, but that's more concrete. I do feel joy that I have the opportunity to fulfill my desire, so it may also be my optimistic nature masking the potential of tragedy. Ultimately, if my children fail to carry on the line (due to death or lack of desire), I will have done my part as a link in the chain to the best of my ability. I can be happy with that.
> How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?
My father died when I was a teen, leaving 4 children. It may not matter to him now, but to us and the lives we touch daily it matters a great deal that he passed his genes first.
Ultimately, I'm not passing my genes on for my benefit. I'm doing it for my progeny's benefit and for the benefit of the impact they can have on the world in my stead.
> Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?
Of course! I know who my great-great grandparents were, roughly what their lives were like and some of the hardships they had to overcome, and I'm glad they lived and procreated so I could too. I'm the product of an unbroken line of millions (billions, if you want to consider the full history of DNA) of years of ancestors. It's a privilege to be a link in that chain for my descendants as well, even if I never meet the vast majority of them.
> I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationa...
Thank you very much for taking the time. You've done more than enough.
I will take my time to think about the things you wrote. There are a lot of interesting bits you wrote.
> You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore.
Well...
1: Having a family is a choice people make, not everyone over the age of 40 has a family.
2: Just because someone can't travel doesn't mean per life is over.
3: It is (in many cases) entirely possible for someone over 40 to travel with per family.
4: People making the choice to have a family probably wouldn't call it "weighing down".
> You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures.
Define "exciting ventures" and explain why it isn't possible. There are many things that can be done as a person over the age of 40, even WITH a family.
> You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family.
Not everyone over the age of 40 has a "sucky" job and if one has a job which is unpleasant there may very well still be the possibility of changing careers.
> You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices.
Speaking from experience? It's entirely possible to engage the services of a babysitter and go spend time with friends until the night is well past the point of being young. Also "traffic and grocery prices"? Where do you even get that? People over the age of 40 can be (and usually are) interested in other things like, say, sports, cinema, even the dreaded "celebrity gossip".
> You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.
If a couple can't quite manage to Take Hold of the Flame, there is always the possibility of ending the marriage, which may once again open the door to those "new exciting ventures" you mentioned. And regardless even if the relationship isn't what it once was that doesn't mean life is over.
Sorry for how my comment may have come off. I genuinely don't know what happy 40 year olds live like because I had a dysfunctional household. My impressions are based on what I hear from people around me like colleagues as well as social media. And it's usually miserable stuff.
i'm 40 and i live like a rich 16 year old with no adult supervision. peter pan syndrome is always an option.
anyway, here's your real problem. you might want to figure out which older people in your life are poisoning your mind with their bullshit. having a family, or not, can be great and is always your choice. miserable people end up that way because they're living someone else's dream, not their own.
You will get a ton of denial about this but you aren't wrong.
On the other hand it is really easy to not get married and not have kids. Then the equation is quite different. 40s and 50s isn't all that different than 22. I would even say better in most ways.
Your vision of marriage is even kind of romantic still. The married guys I know it is more like depression because of separation and knowing the wife is fucking a Tinder guy while your kid is sleeping in the next room. They even know her date outfit because she posts the picture on social media.
I have two friends right now that this is their exact life. One of them I thought was the absolute perfect couple at 30. Women know their value and aren't going to waste their life with the flame having gone out.
This reads comically incel-ish. “Women know their value”, like a self-respecting man doesn’t? Why aren’t your male friends doing the same thing, then? Life doesn’t end at 40, for either sex. With/without a family, married/divorced, the choice to develop and grow as a human is always your own.
The average man on HN has had far less sex than the average man. This is simply the fate of nerdy computer touchers and is why we get "incel content" here. In coding, you trade your sexual market value for actual money. It's a sad dynamic, and I think a little bit of "life imitating art" given that the "nerd jock" dynamics seem to be uniquely an American thing.
Believe it or not, traveling and partying gets old. Most of us have an evolutionary desire to have kids. You may not, but it can take time to manifest. Look out for feelings of hollowness, boredom or depression. Parenting may be hard, but I've never felt hollow or bored or that life has no meaning.
You probably didn’t mean it this way, but that reasoning emphasizes bringing beings into this world to avoid your own bad emotions, and not so they can experience their own good ones.
Giving kids a happy childhood and setting them up for happiness and contentment is of course implied. Either way, I think the vast majority of people who are alive want to remain alive, so I never understood the sentiment that it's selfish to bring someone into the world. It's only selfish if you benefit while someone else suffers. Bringing kids into the world is a win-win, at least in the developed world where birthrates are plummeting way below replacement rate. In this case it's a win-win-win (third being society).
What might be considered selfish is to not have kids when we are way below replacement rate, while expecting to be taken care of by other's kids in old age. Unless we reach AGI and humanoid robots soon, the food, housing, services and healthcare has to be provided by younger people.
> Either way, I think the vast majority of people who are alive want to remain alive, so I never understood the sentiment that it's selfish to bring someone into the world.
It's not "remaining". If you had decided to not have kids, the kids wouldn't be there in the first place, so they wouldn't (couldn't) feel any regret about.
This is possibly one of the worst sentiments to look for if you intend on having kids. I've seen families before where they had children solely to fill in that feeling of boredom or hollowness and when children don't fix it, they abandon them or become nasty parents.
I'm in my 40s and felt the same way as you (more or less) at 22.
Many people do wind up as you describe. On the other hand you write as if it is inevitable rather than a specific choice.
You've probably got a family weighing you down so
you can't travel anymore. You don't have the freedom
to start new exciting ventures.
Yes, you probably do have to choose between "family" and the other stuff unless you have some unusually favorable circumstances. Either lots of money, or extended family members (grandparents) with whom you can leave the kids while you travel, etc.
Depends on your definition of "travel" though. Flying to another country on a whim? Probably not. Packing the kids and tents up and going camping? Heck yes.
You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings
consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices.
Oh hell no. I'm over 40 and still making great friends. Friends with whom I share interests, not just banal conversations. It's different than when you're young, it takes a little more work. You're not just dumped into a school with hundreds of people your age. But it's better. You can choose your social circles and meet other enthusiasts relevant to your interests.
You're probably married to someone you love and respect,
but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.
It's certainly true: those giddy early months of a relationship change into something else eventually. Can be better or worse depending on your perspective.
Again, you can just not get married! Or do some kind of poly/open/whatever relationship if that's your thing. Or be asexual. Or be so undesirable that nobody wants to nestle down with you and saddle you with a family. Or just find some sort of ethical way of getting what you need from sex workers. (That last one may be tricky)
> Again, you can just not get married! Or do some kind of poly/open/whatever relationship if that's your thing. Or be asexual. Or be so undesirable that nobody wants to nestle down with you and saddle you with a family. Or just find some sort of ethical way of getting what you need from sex workers. (That last one may be tricky)
IMO any of those can be tricky. Relationships in general are, at any part of the spectrum, including a lack of them.
Poly/open/casual/whatever isn't easy unless your partner (or potential partners) also wants to be in one of those. Leaving an existing relationship for one of those probably isn't easy (unless it's meaningless), and can be anything but if one is already married with kids. Non-exclusive relationships may also need to deal with potential feelings of jealousy etc. in a different way than exclusive ones, and again, it's not down to just oneself.
One probably doesn't really choose to be asexual either, and I'd wager that trying to make such a choice is generally unhealthy. And if you actually are asexual but want an otherwise romantic relationship, finding one (where both are satisfied) is probably harder than it would be more conventionally.
Most people (or all of us?) have mutually conflicting desires and needs for their relationships. That makes relationships tricky in general. It's probably even more so for someone who's less comfortable socially or with themselves than you would seem to be.
I don't think it's always even possible, psychologically or emotionally, for everyone to solve those conflicting needs and desires in a satisfying way.
It sounds quite cynical to see marriage or long-term relationships largely as a burden, and seeing the possibilities can be an antidote for that for some people. But trying to make it out as everything being possible and choices that you can just make feels a bit like it can trivialize the difficulty of actually doing it.
But trying to make it out as everything being
possible and choices that you can just make
feels a bit like it can trivialize the difficulty
of actually doing it.
Well, you're certainly right: no relationship options are easy.
When I listed those options I was specifically referring to the parent poster, who equated middle age with automatically being in a stifling marriage.... as if marriage is just some inevitable thing that happens to you, rather than something you choose.
Which was certainly not to imply that the alternatives to marriage are easy. I mean yeah, relationships can be hard. And the lack of one can be hard too.
> You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family.
My jobs have gotten less suckier as I've gotten older. And with experience (and, rarely, more savings) I have more options. Yes, I could quit if I want.
Hehe, for fun you should bookmark your comment and refer back to it every 5 years.
If you're open to it, here are a few ideas to noodle on:
- A lot of what you find fun/interesting changes over time. The partying of the 20s was fun, in its way, but now seems mostly pretty silly, superficial, and (sorry for saying this) childish and dumb. I'm not saying it is, just that your notion of fun changes, and if now I had the power to do absolutely anything I wanted, "partying" would not be even in my top 100 list because there are so many things that are more fun and fulfilling. Ask a 3 year old how they'd love to spend their time.
- Many details of life are outside your control, but you still have a huge influence on things. If you end up in your 40s in a marriage where the flame has gone out, that's mostly on you and your partner - it definitely doesn't need to be that way. Just because it seems common for people to get married and stop courting/dating each other doesn't mean you have to. Ditto for things like a job. In both cases, there's an element of settling in and coasting that's easy to do but doesn't necessarily produce the long term results you really want. Gotta begin with the end in mind and course correct over time, but also have to avoid obsessing over the imperfections and less-than-ideals of life, because there will always be plenty of those.
- The number of kids you have is a pretty private choice, but if approach it with either cynicism or idealism then you'll likely be disappointed. It's a roller coaster, it's hard, kids will absolutely drive you crazy sometimes. But it can also be a source of joy and purpose to a degree that might be incomprehensible to you right now. I'm trying to be careful here because it is a sensitive topic, but compared to being single, it's hard to really explain how much depth and substance having a family has added to my life. In retrospect it feels like life didn't really begin until then. Lots of cool stuff and adventures before then, of course, but... yeah.
- Your kids eventually go away. I mean, it's obvious, right, and yet I didn't really appreciate it until it happened. That stage of life where kids are at home is actually relatively short. It's so temporary. You'll always be a parent, but suddenly you find yourself on the other side of it with a whole lot more time for hobbies and travel and whatever else and yet you don't really feel all that old yet.
I think your perspectives on things and your priorities can change as you get older in ways that are very difficult to imagine as a young person. I might once have agreed with this comment, but now I live a lot of that life and it’s fantastic and I’m happier than I’ve ever been.
Also parties that end at 9 are incredible. I fought this one hard for a _long_ time, but life is honestly just better when you go to bed earlier and wake up earlier. More daylight is a great thing.
Your implied list of priorities -- travel, interesting parties, etc -- are about as interesting to me now that I'm in my early 40s with a family as an afternoon at a toddler's daycare center probably would be to you. What you're failing to appreciate is that, just as you no longer have toddler interests, I no longer have 22-year-old interests. I am as different from you as you are from that toddler.
And it works the other direction, too. My life probably sounds boring to you in the same way that a day in your life would be boring to a toddler. Now that you're 22, you aren't just a taller version of that toddler with all the same interests. You have new interests. (That will keep happening.)
As I'm getting older (mid 40s), I have a different view now than before. I've seen people die in real life, and it was horrific. Even in hospital beds with morphine drips.
I don't want to die in agony, or slowly suffocating as many do. I'll end it before it goes too far.
I think more people should actually go to hospitals and see how real people die, instead of the comforting movie version where the family is gathered around while the old person slowly falls to sleep. That's unfortunately not that common.
If I get cancer, I'll hang on for a while until there's not much hope left, and then go to a place with assisted suicide.
And even in the "comforting" movie version, it's still different in real life where they start gasping for breath. I at least thought the person was in pain or suffering somehow. (I did ask the Dr. that came to give us the death certificate and apparently it's because either the brain has shut down or and the body is still trying to perform it's duty or vice-versa and there's no pain or suffering just a part of passing away).
As helpful as it can be in some respects to project oneself into a future time and circumstance, humans are often bad a predicting how they would decide on serious matters until they actually find themselves in that situation. This is particularly true in cases where quality of life is at issue.
Usually it's the family that makes decisions at that point in a hospital for a patient, and they often make horrendous, selfish decisions and prolong the patient's enormous suffering before death.
Give people comfort care asap if they have a terminal illness, at the very least.
My mother told me over and over to pull the plug should she ever end up on life support. When I found out she was on life support after a heart attack I immediately assumed that it would be her brother's choice to pull the plug or not. Nope, that horrendous decision belongs to the kids, namely me. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do but I understood and respected her wishes.
I'm a similar age to you, and I've had up close experience of a few deaths too. One of my grandmothers literally went to sleep one evening and never woke up. (She'd been getting weaker over time so had been living with us, with my parents staying in the same room as her so we know she didn't suffer anything). My other grandmother had cancer in her 90s and opted against having chemo. She died peacefully, in hospital, with family around her - pretty close to the "movie version". She didn't need euthanasia, just a medical team who cared enough about her wishes to have a good death not to browbeat her or the family into having treatment she didn't want.
I for one would like to enter that mystery with clear eyes and calm heart. No soul-grinding suffering for me, thanks. I've seen it. Crawling on the floor in your own filth, hissing and snapping at the nurses.
> I answer that, It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live."
~ St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae Partis. Q. 64 Art. 5
i obviously haven't experienced what you described, since i'm breathing and typing right now, but weeks of going with no food were really pretty calming. The only downside was the weakness and mental fog that affects productivity but if you don't have to work at that point... Of course, all of this is super-individual.
This is something I have thought about, but recently have paid attention to stories that seem to be along these lines, such as Gordon Kaye in Great Smokies National Park.
While this may seem like a simple way, it seems like it wastes hundreds of people's time that could be spent helping people who are actually wanting help.
I don't know the Gordon Kaye story, but "those people" that get involved for search and rescue operations are usually professionals who would, in fact, spend that time working to help other people instead.
In some cases I believe you're right, tradeoffs do happen. In other cases they are just on call. This is why private rescues are so expensive. You aren't just paying for the professionals and the equipment, you're paying for them to sit around until called.
Yes. You might say that even if they are just sitting around, their presence doing so is considered to be a valuable part of their job, and it is being wasted.
Not to mention the feeling of sucking resources away from those who need it to stop the inevitable. I hope I can be brave enough to say no to treatments when I am near, but it’s cheap talk.
I’ve often thought the same thing, but I also wonder if my future-suicide is just a line of mental gymnastics I put myself through to pretend that I have complete control over my mortality.
> or just plain old age where I can't stand up or whipe my ass
I hope you fully intend to continue exercising, and taking precautions against accidents, as the first line of defense against such a possibility.
> I can't understand people who want me to suffer until doctors finally stop being able to put me back together.
I just don't want the state being the entity that approves or disapproves of your suicide. If you're going to have an assisted suicide I want it to be, at most, through a clandestine network of people who want to kill themselves. Not through a government process.
> … "making a bold choice to complete life on their own terms."
Or making the only choice they feel they have left to them when faced with unsurmountable obstacles to ending their pain in any other way… This "fuck everyone else but me" society we currently live in isn't real conducive to even noticing or caring about the pain of another human (except maybe to blame, ridicule, or add to said pain), let alone helping them end that pain in a positive manner.
This lumps all the people who die by suicide into a single category. People commit suicide for various reasons.
Some of them do it to stop suffering, as the article says. Some do it out of sheer vengeance. Some do it as part of a pact. Some do it in such a way so that the cause is not proven to be suicide, and thus their near-and-dear get the insurance money. Some do it so that they have control over their lives till the very end. Some others like Mitchell Heisman, do it just because they can.
At the same time, some of these causes are preventable. Good faith attempts to address those causes are, of course, always laudable.
"Why hasn’t the number of deaths by suicide decreased?"
That housing and groceries is getting more and more expensive certainly doesn't help with that...
Of course, not so many people in this world suffer anymore from hunger but in the last years additional problems came up.
I know some older people who think that Depression is just a excuse for not wanting to work but these older people had it easier to build or buy a house than my generation - so I think more that the rising Depression in many is a symptom for an live which gets more and more difficult and them not being able to deal with it.
> these older people had it easier to build or buy a house than my generation
Also easier in finding a job with an employer that would invest in your training and invest in the community and a stable economy where your wages, purchasing power and savings weren't obliterated overnight through the stroke of a pen that also pushed housing prices up by the same amount.
The fabric of society and community has degraded in the last couple of decades since the 2008 bust and it hasn't gotten any better. It's now "grab everything you can while you can, screw everyone else, or be poor".
You truly think housing and food have anything to do with it? We live in the richest society in history, and also the most suicidal. Why don't people living in true poverty around the world feel depressed and kill themselves like we do?
Why do we kill ourselves? It's because we have no communities anymore. Many of us are alone. Some call it a loneliness epidemic. And we've replaced community with social media. Our society is sick, and it has nothing to do with needing more housing or whatever your pet political issue is.
I think it is more than just loss of communities, although that is a big part of it.
It is also a hallowing out of the human experience and the inability to enjoy simple pleasures available to anyone alive.
Consumerism is so deeply entrenched in the minds of people that they usually blame their unhappiness on a lack of material goods and external factors.
Meanwhile, There are millions or billions of people who can find pleasure and satisfaction with with practically nothing. Enjoying a quiet cup of tea in hovels, reading books for pleasure, or taking in everyday beauty.
To me, this indicates that a large part of dissatisfaction on depression are about mindset, which should be obvious.
yeah, I think that is a big part of it. Or people who have friends, social groups, ect.
It can also have to do with what you focus your attention and spend your time on. Maybe watching the 40+ hours of TV a week that average Americans do doesn't actually make people happier, and sitting around a coffee shop and playing games (a cheap and common past time in some poor countries), is better for mental health.
maybe. I tried to play board games with my boys many times, but even something as simple and potentially enjoyable as Monopoly or cards quickly turns our warm relationship into a nasty pissing match. We actually turned to movies and shows for that reason (or more collaborative types of games but that's harder to come by)
Mental illness and mental issues are systemically underdiagnoaed in the third world. I do not believe for a single second that third worlders have better mental health than first worlders. The average third worlders has seen ultra traumatic experiences that simply do not happen to the average first worlder.
I do think that third worlders have better mental health than first worlders with respect to depression.
Different people respond in wildly different ways to hardship and trauma. The difference in outcome between two people is internal, not circumstance. It is impossible that it could be otherwise when you some people have experienced the worst the world has to offer and are relatively happy, while some others have experienced the best and are suicidal.
Furthermore, know that the same people can be depressed or happy despite the same material external circumstances, depending on their outlook.
Depression especially hinges on mental perspective, perspective, and conditioning. It stands to reason that this could vary culturally and geographically for many reasons.
It would be absolutely unethical, but I think you could raise two sets of children to be more depressed or happy with the same material quality of life. Raise one group telling them they are helpless, worthless, and that the world is a terrible place. Tell them that you will give them riches and always disappoint them. Take the other and teach them to have low expectations but enjoy simple pleasures. Equip them with cognitive tools to deal with the challenges of life and disappointment in healthy ways. Do you think you would see a difference between the two groups?
Well the first group you mentioned is borderline abused so of course they would be miserable. The second group is interesting.
> enjoy simple pleasures. Equip them with cognitive tools to deal with the challenges of life and disappointment in healthy ways
is this really fully teachable? Is it something that truly can be trained or it depends on a very complicated number of external and internal factors, including genetics?
as far as this part:
> teach them to have low expectations
Sounds kind of simplistic to say that, but there is always this worry that having low expectations leads to McDonald's, where you may realize that no you actually expected much more out of life, but by that point it's kind of too late and pretty hard to dig yourself out.
I would agree that the first case could be construed as abuse, but this type of abuse is relatively common to some degree.
My point was more to illustrate the fact that cognitive development and personality impact how people experience the world, and is probably the biggest factor in what we consider depression.
The point is to show how trivial it would be to bias humans towards depression and thereby illustrate the importance of the psychological component.
I don't think that you can teach kids in a way that's 100% successful, but I still think it is a huge Factor, probably then the biggest. There's vast amount of data that backs this up.
When it comes to my statement about expectations, it is obviously more nuanced. What I meant is low expectations for how easy life will be in that they will have to overcome challenge and that a happy and successful life requires work. Also low expectations for the material necessity is to have a happy life. I look around today and see lots of peers who think they can't be happy without owning a home. Owning a home is admittedly more difficult now than in the past, but even then something like 40% of people would never be homeowners in their life. If that's a prerequisite for happiness, you have doomed 40% of the population to be unhappy
> Why don't people living in true poverty around the world feel depressed and kill themselves like we do?
That actually happens. There are just not enough statistics about that because nobody cares.
I remember a documentary about a part in China with a very high suicide rate - mostly because people couldn't find a job. Another example would be the Irish Travellers - a community which has it hard to find a job and has a way higher suicide rate than the rest of the UK.
> We live in the richest society in history, and also the most suicidal.
Actually, the US is not even in top 30 of countries with most suicides per capita. And of course, it's probably better than most at actually keeping records, which means that it should be even lower down the list.
I can’t speak for everyone, but for whatever reason those things cause me (a very middle-class person) a lot of stress.
Maybe because of what I was taught or how I grew up or my experiences, which are not the same for everyone, but it’s still there. I’ve been food insecure, been temporarily homeless, had to bounce around from place to place without much money to my name when younger.
Not being able to put down roots stresses me out. Will rent go up? Will landlord sell my place (has happened before), will I need to move to the middle of nowhere in my late 40’s and start all over building a community?
I’m not looking for a nice SFH as a need, just a mediocre condo, but in a very expensive place. It’s where the jobs are, unfortunately. Relying on other people’s income (roommate/spouse) does not solve this issue for me.
While there are many different issues for many different people, not being able to carve out a space for yourself is very stressful for many people.
I’ve talked about this in therapy. Get married or look at all the poor people worse off is what I am told. Not helpful.
The suicides are mostly caused by financial obligations, most commonly by farmers who borrowed money to buy proprietary seeds. People who practice subsistence agriculture have no financial obligations.
at lowest for me it was normal to be in bed for 16-20 hours a day in agonizing pain and horrific migraines. Dozens of doctor appointments had mostly been a waste. They all claimed it was anxiety.
Realized one morning that I had spent hours thinking how wonderful it would be to never wake up again. Have kids, and the would end up in state care without me. (No family capable of caring for them)
Started trying every suggestion I could find on the internet. Lots of wasted effort and backfires. 6 months later I was Kayaking with kids each weekend. Took about 3 years to get mostly back to normal.
Hardest part was giving up all normal food and switching to a strict plain chicken, sweet potatoes and green veggies diet.
Supplements, massages, avoiding all scents, special eye glasses, etc. eventually finding the right medications that didn’t have insane side effects.
Underlying causes. Autoimmune Sjogrens, clotting disorder that was in over drive (factor 5) high cranial pressure(IIH)
Nerve damage(probably from Sjogrens) lot Vit D
Did an elimination diet. That calmed the body down. AIP diet to maintain.
Started high doses of Vit D, E, Omega 3. Started watching bob and Brad and spent a couple hours a day on stretching and massages.
Discovered and treated TMJ. Removing smells and lights. That got migraines under control. (Slow reduction over the months)
LDN got nerve pain under control.
Diamox to get head pressure under control.
The big one was I kept having stroke symptoms, but MRIs were clean. Started blood thinners and symptoms went away.
My wife seems to have broadly the same symptoms you are mentioning.
Sharp migraines, anxiety attacks (as per doctors), rapid heartbeats, disturbed sleep, bodyache, random mood swings etc.
Her MRI is clean too. Doctors just started her with blood thinners which might be alleviating some pain but no, she is not feeling good at all. Had done multiple tests, visited bunch of doctors but still yet to figure what's exactly wrong with her body?
As someone that has attempted suicide in the past (some with a lot of motivation to get right, obviously failed since I am not a ghost-writer <pun intended>) it kinda shocked me that this wasn't a more commonly held 'water is wet' as the reason for people to try to end their suffering.
Sure, there are some who feign their attempts for various reasons but there are those that find a way of acheiving the (at the time) welcoming bliss of quiet and silent oblivion, whatever that helds or may not hold.
To this day, I reserve the right to decide when, how or even if I ever again attempt suicide. That is my right.
I have also seen the impact that suicides have on the ones that knew and perhaps cared about the dead person so I am aware of the suffering that would echo out from my decision.
As a parent, I am also aware that the chances of a child attempting suicide following a parent doing it sky-rocket so - ouch.
But ask yourself this before judging.... just how bad would the pain in your life have to be that despite all of the above things it can still be an actual option because the suffering is so unbearable... Walk a mile in a mans Shoes as they say, YMMV.
Please note: I am not currently suicidal and am doing really well as per last shrink so High-Five etc. Just wanted to add my 0.02c to the thread.
>> Sure, there are some who feign their attempts for various reasons but there are those that find a way of acheiving the (at the time) welcoming bliss of quiet and silent oblivion, whatever that helds or may not hold.
It makes me profoundly sad that more people aren't aware of 5-MeO-DMT and the symbolic death (and the total bliss) you have during the experience.
Wish I could say this headline didn't hit home. Not gonna commit suicide, but I sure do fantasize about dying every waking moment. Living in constant pain for over a decade'll do that to ya… Rather be non-existent than exist in a state of such misery as to make living genuinely impossible.
Hey, fellow chronic pain guy here, though "only" 8 years and counting so far! I have CFS and Small Fibre Neuropathy, which pain-wise means I have constant neuropathic and muscular pain in my limbs.
Unless someone has lived with chronic pain, they won't be able to understand what it does to your mental health. Living in constant pain is hard - fucking hard. I've really struggled, and if I didn't have a family, without a doubt I'd be dead by now. Even with my family, I spent a lot of time fantasising about suicide, and one time I almost did it without l even thinking about it. It also turned me into a pretty horrible person, who slowly pushed away many friends, and made life difficult for my family.
Thankfully, I'm finally coming to terms with it, and I now have meds that actually help. I use an opioid and ketamine. The opioid helps a little with the pain, as does the ketamine - but really, the ketamine improves my mood, a lot.
For the past couple of years I've also been using cannabis - this has made a huge difference to my mental health, general well-being, and family life! Having the ability to be essentially pain free every evening after hitting a nice heavy indica is... amazing, in a way that only someone who'd been in constant pain for years could understand.
If you have access to legalised cannabis wherever you are, I can't recommend it highly enough. Christ, even if it's not legal, it's worth thinking about.
> Unless someone has lived with chronic pain, they won't be able to understand what it does to your mental health. Living in constant pain is hard - fucking hard.
And specifically chronic pain that will never get better and can only get worse. A lot of the platitudes and reasoning we use to get people to not commit suicide don't apply. It can get better? Bitch, I have Multiple Sclerosis. Yes, hopefully science can do something about it, but right now it's an incurable, progressive illness.
I primarily stay alive from a combination of spite and the ability to be a living cautionary/memento mori tale: I did everything 'right' and this still happened. It can happen to you. Work as hard as you like, make all the right choices... you can still fail. Have some grace or be eaten alive when you fall.
As someone who attempted more than one time, I found interesting that's not a common knowledge. Maybe that's why in my country, Brazil, it's a "common excuses" from "average people" that a person died by suicide is a "coward".
PS: This is anecdotal experience I had talking with people about this matter.
I do this 'existential calculus' quite often. I also sometimes wonder what the point is when it just gets worse every year.
My therapist told me it's because I'm a survivor, it's what I do. But what's the point of surviving? At what point do I get to live, much less be happy?
She pointed out it would be throwing away all my battle scars, all the effort I'd put in to get this far. Just think about how much better I'd feel when it did get better and I came out the other side.
I pointed out it sounded like sunk cost fallacy to me.
He next question was whether I was an organ donor. I've not spoken to anyone since.
I was thinking about Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington yesterday. If they couldn't get past their pain, what hope have I?
It's a day to day struggle, but also one I know I'm going to lose one day. I completely see why people turn to hard drugs, I consider opioids daily almost. The only reason I don't try them is I feel I'd rather skip the addiction and even worse pain and just fast-forward to the end. Again, the existential calculus.
> He next question was whether I was an organ donor.
That's dark. I've been homeless for 5 years (including working full time and having never been an addict). I'm very healthy so for a while I felt like I could be targeted by black marketeers like organ harvesters.
> I completely see why people turn to hard drugs, I consider opioids daily almost.
I joke that if I were to give up and become an addict at least someone would help me because it'd be their job. I've always been a hard worker and hate being unemployed, I'm obviously not waiting around for handouts. The situation is just that impossible to solve, "no man is an island" except the homeless and similarly beat down people I guess including the ones who turn to suicide. It was humbling to ask for help for the first time in my life and be preyed upon or abandoned at best.
Never imagined myself here. Will never consider suicide, but the math and pressure to get rid of myself from my relatives and former friends is obvious. I always thought I had a support system but indeed what "they" say is true: everyone is in it for themselves. I constantly look for ways to be valuable to others, but on a desert island and sometimes literally starving there are few opportunities.
Helping others is the key, while not being exploited by predators.
I'm glad you're still chugging along. Until you need real help you've no idea who your real friends are, I've found. Which is why I feel like I've no true friends left.
From experience I know how hard it is being down and out and without a support system, so I really hope you're able to find a solution.
I know every single homeless resource I ever tried didn't work. They just passed my name from non-profit to non-profit, set up interviews only to be passed again. Literally not one of them was ever of any help.
Wish I could offer a hand, but I've nothing anymore.
Really hope you make it out, it's something I'd wish on no one.
My apologies if this is an inappropriate question (if you feel this is the case, please feel free to tell me so and to bugger off etc).
Mind if I ask the "how" question? Was there a particular 'event' or chain of events that led to your being homeless?
For context, I am researching / hoping to research "hospital admissions" as a precipitating event of (first) homelessness, so I am interested in people's lived experience with that topic (as well as practical pointers on how I could materialize this research in more practical terms).
> I joke that if I were to give up and become an addict at least someone would help me because it'd be their job. I've always been a hard worker and hate being unemployed.
I could totally see how that might be the case. This has "Shirky Principle" written all over it, doesn't it? It's weird how the system is wired like that... In fact, that's partly my motivation for this research, actually; the idea is that, if a first (and otherwise avoidable) episode of homelessness could be detected and avoided prior to discharge, that would be much more beneficial than allowing people into that mess in the first place and then having to prioritise who "deserves" the most help after the fact.
Not sure. I attempted it once as a young man, but my roommate found me passed out with a foamy mouth and got me to the hospital.
I will say I think a lot about that, and how much pain I'd have saved myself had I simply locked my door.
As I mentioned it's a struggle I know I will lose one day, it's just a question of when.
Days like today it's hard to breathe. Like my chest/body feel weighty. I try not to think about things but the moment my mind wanders I find myself back in the mire, doing my calculations, thinking of ways, and looking forward to not feeling anymore. But I smoke a blunt and try to make it to the next 10 minutes, hour, day.
It sounds like you're further along the path than me. I can find few reasons to continue existing, but that doesn't translate into a desire to end it all. Just a lack of motivation etc.
I guess I just assumed there was more a gap between where I am now and suicide. And this article and various comments here suggest that gap isn't as big as I'd like.
Anyway stay safe, and if it's nice out, have a good long walk.
I've heard someone describe suicidal ideation as like being halfway through a multiplayer game where you are getting stomped: It's not that you want to rage quit, it's just that the outcome feels inevitable so you wish you could skip to the end. Or like turning off a ball game early when your team is down by an insurmountable points at the end of the third quarter.
For at least some people, it may not be that they want to die, rather it may be that they predict 30+ more years of an unsatisfying life and wish that they could just skip to the end.
> For at least some people, it may not be that they want to die, rather it may be that they predict 30+ more years of an unsatisfying life and wish that they could just skip to the end.
This is exactly it. It's surprising that people can't see this as obvious.
Sometimes you play a game, and you realize, shit I invested points in these attributes but upon reading strategy guides, I realize I fucked up the distribution and there's no way to reset my character. What is the solution? Abandon the character.
My religious sister is anxious to move on to Heaven. She's not suicidal but at 60 tired/bored of her dull life. Since Heaven is the end goal she doesn't have much motivation in enhancing her life.
I don't really buy that it is like... strictly that desire. I think something is different in their physiology or psychology. I know people who were so sick they're barely staying alive and their lives are absolute miserable nonsense and they even verbally express not wanting to deal with it but they still just have self-care habits that keep themselves stable. Maybe it is something like that's a precursor to losing those habits but I don't know I've seen the behavior for multiple years.
438 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 297 ms ] threadIs it not obvious?
Suicide itself is virtually always a highly disordered act, that only demonstrates how deeply the person resorting to it is mired in her cravings. While some kinds of physical or spiritual pain might in fact be a real obstacle to attaining inner growth, this is quite rare and not what most people are dealing with.
What? No it isn't. Just because some guy wearing orange robes told you it is, doesn't mean it's true. I have been through a lot of depression and I would never accept such a statement alone: life is no more synonymous with suffering than it is with peace and joy
A vast majority of humans experience peace and joy.
A vast majority of humans also experience suffering.
Why then say "life is synonymous with suffering", and not "life is synonymous with all the manifold experiences that comprise it"?
Because it's important to fully empathize with those who have not yet learned to view pain as merely one of "all the manifold experiences that comprise" life. It's good that you understand this more spiritually sound perspective but to most people, suffering (meaning the innumerable cravings and spiritual addictions that we are all subject to as part of living) is kind of a Big Deal. Sometimes it's so big of a deal that they make irreversible and very poorly considered decisions over it, as OP discusses.
> life is no more synonymous with suffering than it is with peace and joy
I’d argue that by default, life is closer to “unsatisfactoriness” than peace and joy, due largely to the evolutionary drives that make us strive for more. While you may be fortunate enough to experience the latter, it comes only through deliberate effort and a successful navigation of life’s basic survival requirements. Living in a modern society shields most people from the more persistent existential suffering of our ancestors.
Hunger, thirst and bodily breakdown are guaranteed. Peace and joy are optional, but what make life worth living. But it is seeing “suffering” for what it is - a mental state that we have the power to change - that makes living a peaceful and joyous life possible.
Sure, but people rarely consider suicide due to momentary suffering, or even suffering for a few weeks or month. People typically consider suicide when they can't see an end to their suffering, and while this is sometimes irrational there are also many cases where it isn't.
The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.
Using metaphors of physical reality for psychological states can make it falsely appear more immutable that it is. It is possible to escape the burning buildings of the mind and knowing that you have agency over your ideas can be an essential part of the reframing/rethinking/challenging that can free you from suffering.
Letting people believe they are in a situation like floor 100 of the WTC and their flesh is literally burning with no escape could be outright harmful and irresponsible for those experiencing suicidal ideation.
A very good writer who committed suicide is probably a great person from whose experience we might learn, especially since they expressed what might be their internal anguish so eloquently.
He may be advocating for highly dysfunctional irrational thinking patterns that leads to suicide. They might be convincing, seductive and dangerous and should only be responsibly presented with clear context and challenge.
In my opinion, without the immutability of the situation the metaphor loses its meaning. People don't kill themselves because they feel they're in a situation they can get out of. I think it does more harm for those with suicidal ideation to ignore their feelings rather than validate them.
Why not?
It sounds as if you presuppose that it's always wrong to take your own life, and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be "cancelled".
I always read it as being about empathy. Explaining that sometimes a person's action probably have subjectively valid reasons that we should try to understand, or at least try to accept.
I read the gp comment's quote the same way that's why I shared this one.
Yes, they do. Out of personal experience, when things are very bad and you have lost all hope of thing being able to get better ever, that is a strong incentive for suicide. Having any hope vs. none makes a crucial difference in whether life is bearable.
Are you claiming that a lot of people are attracted to their death more than repulsed from their life, or (as DFW wrote) that they recognize death as the best option?
Outside of a religious death cult with ideas of heaven, I don't see people with painless lives attracted to death.
I don't buy it. From personal experience I know that certain mental states can reduce or exacerbate fears.
The old man needs health and life. Without health, life would just be a tortured existence and at some point "enough is enough".*
* It doesn't help that for many old people, all their friends are also gone. Without their social circle, it's one less reason to hang around.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/disparities-in-suicide.htm...
Nobody wants to die, but when your life starts to look like a burning building, sometimes the window doesn’t seem so bad.
No, the window still seems awful but it’s the choice you make.
From David Foster Wallace:
“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”
It’s also worth pointing out that depression can warp your sense of reality and make you believe you’re in a burning building when you’re not, so to speak.
I love your quote and it likely inspired my comment subconsciously
Are there people who actually yell this? It seems pretty obvious why they're jumping.
I once encountered a guy who was thinking of jumping off a bridge and I said a lot of stupid but well meaning things in an attempt to dissuade him.
It got to the point where I realized everything I was saying was just making him more determined to do it. Luckily, I managed to flag down a passing ambulance and the paramedics onboard turned out to be a lot more skilled in the art of persuasion than I was.
This has helped in life or death situations a few times (including an actual building fire), as well as in professional work. Then the situation gets fixed and the world goes on as I return to illness. I'm glad there's at least some upsides to this whole thing.
Just like maths problems, getting to the core of things often requires making your life harder for a while before coming back to the surface - and I can't always afford to do that unfortunately. The brain really is a weird and fascinating thing..
Anyway I read this article once while depressed and a second time recently.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/endlessly-examined-life
What strikes me now after reading that is how boring (my) depression really is. I'm in no way saying the author's depression is more exciting at all. He self-describes it as a total waste -- not to be confused with the fact that I find his article interesting in that it reveals how boring depression is, it is a boring life course. That is illustrative and perhaps preventative and curative for others? So in that sense he made something out of it which is great!
My depression is routed in anxiety which is based on fear of being judged. That's pretty boring in the scheme of things and being judged is something we can't control anyway unless we don't want to do anything and be boring.
The difference is actually the opposite. Someone jumping off a window from a burning building has some small chance to survive so they pick uncertain death over certain death.
Here are some benefits of moderate sun exposure:
1. Our bodies naturally synthesize vitamin D when our skin is exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D is essential for calcium absorption, bone health, and supporting our immune system. Getting a small amount of sun exposure, particularly during the early morning or late afternoon when the sun's rays are less intense, can help maintain adequate vitamin D levels.
2. Sunlight also has a positive impact on our mental well-being. Sun exposure stimulates the production of serotonin, a hormone that contributes to feelings of happiness and relaxation. This is why many people experience improved mood and overall well-being when they spend time outdoors in the sunlight.
3. Natural exposure to sunlight during the day helps regulate our internal body clock, known as the circadian rhythm. This promotes healthy sleep patterns, making it easier to fall asleep at night and wake up refreshed in the morning.
Ofc I'm a bit lucky because I can at least tan somewhat, so if I just taper up my sun exposure in the spring I don't really get burned.
Recognizable descriptions of malignant melanoma date back to at least Hippocrates.
Also, if I do get terminal cancer I'm not doing those cycles of pointless chemo and radiation. I'll simply live on until the cancer becomes too unbearable, at which point I'll accept my fate and die.
I don't believe one can avoid suffering. You can however choose your suffering. You can suffer in the service of something greater. Or you can suffer meaninglessly, but you'll suffer one way or the other.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
The problems pile up until the person feels they are insurmountable, permanent. It consumes their entire existence.
In their eyes it’s a fair trade: permanent solution to a permanent problem.
The trick is convincing them the issue is temporary, which basically amounts to solving the underlying problems.
There is no online sign up. It’s all by phone. Most of the time , you call and it goes to voice mail. You leave a message and never get called back.
The few times I have gotten a person, most of them said they weren’t taking new patients.
If you miss more than one appointment without calling the day before, some places drop you.
Living in the US, sometimes it feels like I’m not worth keeping around unless someone else can profit from my existence.
I don’t know why mental health specifically has these issues out of all the medical professions though.
Very much a "walk a mile in a man's shoes" kind of thing. Everyone has opinions on the matter, until it hits them. Then, they have personal experience (not just an opinion).
It sucks. In some cases, I can see why someone would want to end it all. In others, like this one[0], I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions (I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well).
When we are in a singularity of pain, it seems like the suffering will never stop, and we can convince ourselves there's no escape. In some cases, we're right, but other times, not so much.
It's a permanent "solution" to what is often a temporary problem.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/man-holland-...
The world being what it is, it's increasingly the opposite: others left or encouraged even to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) so people dont have to help and support them.
In Canada it's increasingly becoming a trend for poor people to commit assisted suicide, not because they have some incurable disease and pain, but because they can't get by and are depressed by it.
So, the cause of the problem isn't the suicides - but they are offered (and used) as a way-out of it. This eases the burden on the state to do something to solve the root problem (why improve their condition, when they just off themselves and they wont be bothering us with their need for help anymore?).
> Woman with chemical sensitivities chose medically-assisted death after failed bid to get better housing
https://www.liveaction.org/news/euthanasia-unjust-social-con...
> a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness.
> And in the context of medical issues, the authors claim that this includes killing patients who would not want to die if they could access proper treatment (emphasis theirs)
> So, socialized medicine fails, and a splendid answer to the problem for patients in need is euthanasia. Do you see now why I call euthanasia/assisted suicide “abandonment?”
Nothing wrong with that of course, but I'd hardly consider it an authoritative source.
Almost everyone talking about this topic is at least biased, and generally (what's-the-word for "motivated to convince others as to their point-of-view"?).
>This was a commentary piece which quoted (to comment on) other sources.
Understood. I just thought I'd point out the potential for bias because it isn't obvious at a quick read. One of the great things about HN (IMHO) is that people tend to discuss things from a more scientific perspective than a religious or ideological one.
More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Sorry, but this is a terrible source for HN.
Everyone talking about this is biased. Some lie or exaggerate, and this is important to point out, but every source of information cherry-picks what they choose to highlight.
Some people are opposed to suicide under any circumstances because it is proscribed by their religion. They have been told by an authority that it’s wrong. They hold a strong bias against it.
For people without that view, why would they be biased? Are they not free to come to their own conclusion? Having an opinion does not preclude a good faith argument. And holding an opinion contrary to someone’s dogma does not make an opinion dogmatic.
- Fear of pain
- Fear of old age, or aging in general
- Fear of debility
- Fear of loss of autonomy
- Desire for liberty to do what they want without input from others who may be affected by their decisions
Most people don't opine on issues unless they feel strongly about them. A strong feeling is a bias. There are few scientific parameters on the issues of suicide/euthanasia/MAiD, but it's fraught with ideological parameters, and basically all of the discussion about it comes down to ideology-based claims (with the few fact-based claims used as singular arguments to support a position).
I'm an atheist who values life in large part because I don't believe in an afterlife. I find pain unpleasant, but don't particularly fear it (at this point in my life). I fear the social pressures that government sanctioning and assistance with suicide brings. I fear the decisions that would be made about me, if I'm incapacitated, by people with different moral standards, in a societal framework that encourages them to make those calls for me. I fear the repercussions of "me"-centric (egocentric) social policies, given the power differentials between various individuals. These are my biases.
There's just nothing "scientific" about these sorts of opinions, though, from either side.
Edit to add: I was taking the term "dogmatic" as the colloquial usage. There are ideas about freedom, suffering, and the role of government or physicians that are effectively secular dogmas pertinent to assisted suicide. And many Catholics have personal (non-dogmatic) reasons for their beliefs. Even strong believers pick and choose which parts of religious dogma they find authoritative.
Since it's emotionally charged and intentionally misleading, it's not really the best source to quote.
Sure. I presumed people could parse out the emotion from such an obviously biased source and focus on the claims. But yes, cherry-picked quotes have a higher likelihood from such a source.
The purpose of a source doesn't matter. Whether or not they are misrepresenting (and what they are misrepresenting) does. ProPublica exists solely "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." Yet it does it right, earning a very highly-placed spot on the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart.
It's true that no source is perfect - but some sources are much less perfect than others.
Anyways, thanks for the respectful dialogue. Cheers.
Conservative? It must be wrong then! Everybody knows that only liberal sources can have correct viewpoints!
> More to the point, there is no link to this study cited in the very first paragraph. As a Canadian I've never heard of this study so was interested to take a look. Googling a bit found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Here is the study:
https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD...
The relevant question:
"At this point, only an adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can seek medical assistance in dying in Canada. Do you agree or disagree with allowing adults in Canada to seek medical assistance in dying because of the following reasons?"
(a) Poverty Agreeing 27% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 16%)
(b) Homelessness Agreeing 28% (Strongly agree 11% + Moderately agree 17%)
>found the results and further discussion on why the National Review interpretation of it is pretty dishonest.
Dishomest "interpretation", eh? Let's focus on the shocking raw results then, with the number agreeing with those two cases being above 1%?
(Sure, one might expect a 1% of hardcore scum being OK with the poor getting assistance to off themselves to solve their poverty/homelessness in any society. Maybe 2%. But not even Thacher would expect an above 5% agreement on that).
That's not what I said. There's a vast difference between quoting X public figure might have a conservative viewpoint and quoting an opinion piece from an organization who's entire reason for existing is to spread conservative opinions. Spreading those opinions is literally their job. It's what pays the rent.
I hope you can see why that is important context to know.
>Dishomest "interpretation", eh?
As mentioned, I did see the question and the results already but I'm still glad you posted it. As you can see the question is about "assistance in dying". It says it twice. But that opinion piece discussing the results however never even mentions the phrase. It does use the much scarier words "euthanasia" and <gasp> "murder" repeatedly. (Just in case the distinction is unclear - assisted dying implies personal autonomy, while euthanasia and murder do not). So what we have here is not just a conservative opinion, it's literally false information. Euthanasia is not what the poll is about. Nor murder.
Note: I'm not interested in advocating for or against assisted dying or discussing the poll results. That's tangential to my point; this is terrible source to post on HN.
In 2021 there were 10,064 deaths by MAiD in Canada, fewer than 7 were self-administered[1]. Making greater than 99.9% of MAiD deaths euthanasia, or at least consented-to mercy killings. I personally think calling them "assistance in dying" implies an autonomy in the actual act that does not exist. The autonomy is theoretically[2] in the decision (until the exact moment of administration), but this is the case for all suicides.
"Assisted dying" also, to me, implies inevitability. That the person is already dying, and that this process is just made easier. 219 of the 10,064 MAiD deaths (2.18%) in 2021 were of people whose deaths were "not reasonably foreseeable" (not in progress)[1]. "Assisted dying" is a disingenuous term for these deaths, "assisted suicide" is better. I don't know whether the change in terms would have altered the polling results. I'd presume that most people realize that poverty is not a lethal condition, but I don't know what's going through their heads as they answer the question.
[1] - https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
[2] - Except for those who feel pressured into it for social or economic reasons.
"eight years of help and 21 stints in rehab" sounds like they tried pretty hard to find a better solution. Not everyone can be cured.
Addiction is a very strange problem. Lots of folks have opinions on it, but I have experience with it.
And that’s about all I’ll say on the matter.
We end up considering people as 'dedicated' or 'committed' to some cause or other. If they are a workaholic, or pious, or a sports superstar, or a concert pianist, chances are there is an addictive personality that just happens to have gotten attached to a socially acceptable pursuit.
Meanwhile, the same people with a slight twist of fate end up in rehab.
There's a bunch of things where the morality of what you're doing will change depending on a small detail, with the main action being essentially the same.
Eg, if you dedicate yourself to exterminating rats with dedication and professionalism you'll be a hero, do the same thing using the same tools and attitude to cats and dogs and you'll be a monster.
Which is exactly how it should be IMO. We build the world we live in by enacting change in it. Praising actions in a context devoid of its consequences is a good way to end up in a world where everyone basically hacks the reward algorithm without any concerns about the results of that.
It is a semantics game. Drive, Focus, and motivation are just that unless they are maladaptive and detrimental to the individual.
These behaviors only become addiction when they run counter to the goals and desires of the individual.
I've smoked and quit a couple of times, and still get urges to go back sometimes. Meanwhile, I know people who casually smoke once in a while and don't get the habit.
People can go through worse experiences on the outside and recover and overcome.
This points to the somewhat obvious reality that how people handle and respond to their environmental conditions is a critical factor in outcomes.
Sometimes you have to fix the internal root of feelings, emotions, and suffering. You can believe the difference IS the person, without being overly judgmental. In fact, realizing that person themselves needs to be changed is often a key part of recovery.
Now let's take another person who NEEDS to be surrounded by love and belonging and ends up estranged from family and devoid of friends, living alone in an apartment at the age of 50? Are you suggesting that this person needs to be fixed to not intensely crave those things? Or that efforts to build these up at their age are likely to be successful in today's society? Just what physical, emotional and financial resources is anyone else willing to contribute towards this person's well-being, other than pumping them full of numbing drugs?
I've seen that happen -literally- hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
It's usually difficult. Like, really difficult, but sometimes, it's well worth the effort. We can often help each other through the rough bits.
I've known a few folks that have done pretty awful things (not getting into detail), and have recovered. Many, work hard to help others to recover.
Love, charity, empathy, and generosity are very powerful.
There was a book written by Richard Adams (Watership Down), called Shardik[0]. It's about redemption. Sort of like the Ashoka myth[1]. Not a unique trope.
It's never too late to recover. In many cases, we may not climb "as high" as we once were, but are much happier. In other cases, it's the opposite.
I know a chap that wanted to put the park bench he slept on, in the garden of his mansion. He couldn't find it, though, as the city had replaced them, by that time.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shardik
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
It takes a community. It's not usually something we can do, on our own.
Long story, and not one for press, radio, and film.
I wasn't taking a position on what people should do with this information, but I think that understanding the fact is important if you want to change anything, or simply understand how the world works.
In the context of depression, I think it is up to the individual if they want to change. In your example, the relevant question is if the lonely 50 year old wants to change. As long as they aren't hurting me, I am fine with them choosing either option. What, if anything, I am willing to do the help, would depend on if or how much I care for the individual.
What do you think about your questions? It seems like you have on opinion you aren't stating.
For example, I have a much more modest desire to have a shared hobby with is common and not expensive or difficult to pursue and a group of friends (casual to start with) to go and do that in free time. I have been at it for a year, taking classes, asking classmates and coworkers to join me. Not. A. Single. Luck.
Now, I have family, successful career, financial freedom, enough health to be active, no serious character flaws that would tax friendships. Are you telling me a fat and bitter guy who have been living alone long enough to be rusty in social graces is going to suddenly have willing friend material, let alone romantic prospects?
Personally I am not going to judge him or say he should have just tried harder. You?
I would agree that it often isn't enough by itself. My thinking is more along the the lines that it is a necessary prerequisite, but not always sufficient by itself. Nothing in this life is guaranteed.
Im not interested in judging some random stranger. Maybe they should have tried harder, maybe they should have tried something else. Maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn't. However, I know if they dont try, then they have no chance.
My advice to a friend or someone I cared for would be different. You can't let your happiness be contingent of factors outside your control. If you can't make yourself happy, you are extremely unlikely to find someone or something else to do it for you. If you don't like who you are, then you need to start there because you cant run from yourself. The bad news is that it is your problem to fix, and the good news is that it is your problem to fix. Success is not guaranteed, but these are baseline facts you need to accept if you want to have a chance at change.
You cant force someone to be your friend, let alone a romantic partner.
Since I obviously can't care about everyone, I would like to see a society that encourages virtuous cycles rather than downward spirals. Let there be regular public holidays with festivities that single individuals can enjoy without being awkward and that provide opportunities to reconnect with neighbors and meet strangers. Let there be a culture where if one is missing a cooking ingredient or needs to borrow a stepladder, the first impulse is to ask a neighbor for help rather than going to Instacart. This will give these neighbors a license to stop by and chat later without losing their dignity.
Collectively, majority that is doing Ok mentally is in a better position to boost someone who is not, without any single person getting overwhelmed, as opposed to someone who is down figuring it out on their own.
Specifically:
"I find it doubly tragic, as there are proven alternative solutions" (judgment)
"I personally know many people that were once far worse off than that gentleman, and are now doing quite well" (justification that invalidates the man's suffering)
"Lots of folks have opinions on it, but I have experience with it." (Pushing his opinion above others, to hammer the judgment home)
He doesn't know Mark Langedijk's mind and soul, and yet he feels comfortable desecrating the man's legacy.
There is a difference between saying you think someone is/was wrong, and denying their humanity.
The idea of that people shouldn't or can't judge any choice or action another makes is absurd at face value.
It’s easy to see a pregnant teen and think poor thoughts about them without considering if perhaps they are older than you assume and married or they got rapped etc. Read about a convict and perhaps they did something horrible or perhaps they’re wrongly convicted, you simply didn’t know.
I assume that you have known many, many folks like him (and like me), and are comfortable being extremely and overtly judgmental.
Too bad. I looked at your GH profile, and I suspect that we'd find a lot in common.
Not exactly sure the advantages it brings, but never a dull moment, eh?
Anyway, what's wrong with judgement? Despite some people's insistence on it being taboo, there's nothing wrong with judging other people's behavior.
People everywhere have all different things worth living for, and of course there are ups & downs that vary across time and relationships.
Regardless whether someone has the capacity to be helpful or harmful, almost always some judgement needs to be made or absolutely neither one will be forthcoming.
And there is always going to be someone else to disagree.
Whether either one is correct I wonder who is supposed to be the judge of that?
I see not a word of desecration.
Looking at the story of this particular dying Dutchman, seems to me the only thing within reach beforehand were quite temporary solutions not capable of overcoming relatively longer term problems.
- Mark Twain
So your mileage may vary I suppose. And that's about all I'll say on the matter.
Rehab is about making a lot of money, not healing people, they benefit from relapsing, they have zero incentive to help people.
It is pathological in it's own right to paint the world with such broad and biased brushstrokes.
Plumbing is about making a lot of money, they benefit from you pipes leaking again.
We just have to hope that human beings actually care about their work.
First step towards that would be to ditch Anonymous Alcoholics and other religious cult-based "rehabs".
> And it actually works quite well as far as helping people to stop drinking and stay off alcohol for the long term.
In any case, that is my biggest issue with AA and a lot of other "abstinence" programs (particularly those mandated by courts): they all but mandate that complete and utter sobriety is the only acceptable way instead of helping people to moderate their consumption or to find out and fix why they are consuming substances. Someone who's in hurt because their partner died or cheated upon them or they lost their job or home (these four causes are behind a lot of addiction careers) doesn't need a sobriety program run by questionably or barely qualified random joes, they need professional counseling.
[1] https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/03/from-the-archives-exposin...
In my experience, moderation was the worst possible solution. It was like perpetually kicking the problem down the road to be dealt with on another day. Relapse was frequent and always right around the corner, and with relapse came shame, guilt, and other feelings of failure.
> I'm an alcoholic. I don't have one drink. [pauses] I don't understand people who have one drink. I don't understand people who leave half a glass of wine on the table. I don't understand people who say they've had enough. How can you have enough of feeling like this? How can you not want to feel like this longer? [pauses, sighs] My brain works differently.
That only works for some people and not others (likely due to genetic factors amongst other reasons). Which can be quite hard to grasp for people who are actually able (or believe that they are...) to 'moderate their consumption'.
The intensity of the religious aspect probably varies depending on where you live but what I observed was pretty minor and wasn't at all offensive.
The two people I know who have been helped by AA are happy and healthy now.
There's really no way to put a positive spin on it. It sucks, no matter what opinions we hold on the matter.
The laws aren't the issue. If someone really wants to end things; they will. I have seen it many times, and alternative means can be absolutely devastating to the survivors.
His brother disagrees with you, explicitly answering an anti-euthanasia protester with: "I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse"
I hate that people steelman governmental oversight and approval of suicide by strawmanning the other options.
In countries which legalize euthanasia it becomes easier to do it for more reasons.
Just keep it illegal, but don't prosecute people who try to do it. When a person reaches a point where they really want to die, they can figure out a way.
When considering rights conferred by authorities or society, there is often litte relationship between what's available at any one time, to what is beneficial to any one individual, who most often has no significant input about ways their particular needs may be better addressed.
The brother’s relevant quote:
> "My brother suffered from depression and anxiety and tried to 'cure' it with alcohol. He's from a normal family, he did not want this to happen. He did not take an easy way out. Just a humane one.
> "If that's troubling for Mrs Bruce that's a pity. I am just glad my brother did not have to jump in front of a train or live a few more years in agony before dying of his abuse.
I can’t tell you for sure what is fact, but I’m inclined to take the more rational explanation of the family over the irrational “this was an alcoholic choosing death over rehab.”
Not always through medication.
Sometimes things work out for the best without doctors involved, also with medication or not.
I just have a lifetime of working (as carefully as possible to minimize harmful exposure) with very toxic materials.
Beverage Grade alcohol is just one of them.
People widely accept that alcohol is truly a substance that can be abused, but it has never been scientifically sound to classify it as a "drug".
It is simply a toxic solvent like many others, it's primary effect is not to kill pain, more so just to kill, usually germs but depending on the amount applied, all life forms eventually.
Most will agree that one of the additional characteristics of a solvent is to accomplish dilution of some kind or another. Maybe not unlike weakening a strong pigment with paint thinner, solvents in the bloodstream seem to weaken an otherwise strong mental state. Sometimes also not so strong to begin with. I think it's also well known people like it anyway, some choose alcohol, others paint thinner, sometimes depending on availability sometimes not. Ideally whether painting or not the solvent dissipates and things end up as intended.
Toxic materials will always have dangers which sometimes accumulate more than others, and need to be carefully balanced against non-toxic approaches.
As we have seen, the overwhelming number of toxic choices can seem so encompassing and exclusive to alternatives.
I think I’ve heard that the word pharmakon can be translated as any of [poison, medicine, drug, paint]? That’s I guess not really relevant, but I wanted to mention it because all 4 of those translations seem relevant to your comment, and this amused me.
I am the first to admit being a terminology geek.
I say "pharma" of any kind today implies overwhelming benefit compared to risk in making a disorder measurably better, and I expect doctors and pharmacists to know this better than me.
When it comes to solvents though, and materials much more toxic than appear in the pharmacopeia, I do have an unfair advantage in direct experience and decades of intense study for the most part.
Substance abuse or addiction is possible whether or not the substance is really a drug or even very toxic or responsible for physical dependence.
I guess my point is that people can use things, and develop a dependence of many different kinds, like they were a drug even if they are something as simple as a common solvent.
Availability may mean more than "drug seeking behavior" a lot of the time.
Sometimes it's straightforward toxicity-seeking.
Chemically, solvents are usually very simple industrial chemicals compared to the vast majority of true drugs, especially the drugs in the PDR which are mostly carefully crafted for particular patients, rather than general consuption (like beer or liquor) or non-consumption which is how I scientifically categorize the solvents overall.
When I see people treat drugs no differently than alcohol, or alcohol no differently than drugs, I just don't think that is the most realistic treatment.
Once again, I'm not the expert on metabolism but I do think the metabolic effects are far too dissimilar also.
Disclaimer: my first job was with a drug manufacturer, I got there after paying my way at the university giving chemistry lessons to pre-med students, but that's as far as I went in that field. Solvents OTOH, I've been handling and directly observing their effects for decades since.
This sounds extremely callous unless you were the dead man’s therapist or close personal friend. Surely you’re not going to infer you understand the situation from news articles.
> proven alternate solutions
Plenty of people seek help and yet still die of alcoholism despite trying to fix the addiction. There is no 100% guaranteed solution, and unless you are intimately familiar with the dead man’s life I really don’t understand how you can assume he didn’t try to get clean.
Surely you're not presuming you understand the horrors that the OP has himself witnessed or been privy to? For all you know the OP could have been working with addicts for 50 years and literally seen it all. Maybe be a bit more charitable.
42, actually.
True. There are videos of Russian soldiers being bombed by Ukrainian drones until they decide to end it with your own gun/grenade.
Sorry but... it kind of is, no? You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore. You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures. You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family. You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices. You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.
Just my perspective as a 22 year old.
While true that it's harder to get social connections it's far from impossible; in the end you just need to go out and meet new people doing things alone sometimes. On the other hand I have much more money, thus can actually travel when/how I want, compared to my 20s, and could probably quit my job in the next decade, if I want to.
Overall it's different to some degree, but in sum I'd say I enjoy life much more than in my 20s nowadays. Doubt that changes until I start to get sick(er) in my 50s/60s.
Maybe it is a culturally thing but as a kid I had to complain to my parents to get home and by then it was 1 am.
Life is what you make it. I’m happier than I was at 22, no question.
Travel with a family takes more planning, but millions take significant road/flight/cruise trips every year. Budgeting (of money and, if applicable, vacation time) is key.
Changing jobs or starting ventures is similar. It's easier to get a job if you already have one, it's easier to survive a job change if you have savings. Planning remains key. It's not as low-risk as it would be for a bachelor(ette), but you have the time, stability, and mindset to start slow and minimize that risk as you go.
As your kids grow you have more time to pursue your interests. Eventually, if all goes well, you get the joy of grandchildren (all the fun of having children, but you can give them back). Retirement, if you've planned well and have your health, is a return to childhood (less money, more fun, most of your playmates are children [at least relative to your age]).
There are another 40 years after 40. Plan accordingly.
It’s also perfectly okay to not have children.
I like children, desire to pass my genes to the future, value the ability to raise my children to have an impact on the world somewhat in line with my perception of it (commensurate on their natural predilection to agree with me and act on that agreement), and want somebody to look after me and my affairs in my old age. I'm willing to accept the cost (in time, money, stress, reduced flexibility...) and responsibility in return. If you make the decision not to have kids, I hope you can say the same for your trade-offs.
What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.
Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).
Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?
How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?
Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?
I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationalize my peeing in: I have to pee, because that ensure my survival hence the succession of me gene. I feel the same of orgasm. It feels that thought process is forced and conditioned by society.
I realize it's not really a logical desire, and even though I do feel it, it's far from my highest priority and I've also chosen not to have kids for a variety of other reasons.
It really must be an "abstract" feeling, because I cannot get to that feeling in any way.
in many (most?) parts of the world that is the norm.
however, that is of course a... highly unreliable way of making sure you are taken care of when you are older!
> What is this desire, how does it feel? I've never felt it.
> Is it a thought process or do you feel it in your body? (like hunger, sexual attraction...).
I know I can't live forever (and I wouldn't want to - mortality gives us purpose), but I feel I (along with everyone else) am an important part of solving a set of problems (meaning of life, best state of humanity, etc.) that may take infinite (or all we have) time. My impact on the world can be extended (perhaps indefinitely, certainly for as long as I will be aware of it) through my offspring.
I'm not a religious man, but it's what I would consider a religious feeling. It's a feeling clearer to me, having had children, than it was before them. I'm not sure I would have appreciated it in my early 20's, but a had an inkling of it by my late 20's.
I am (half of) the link between my and my wife's ancestors and our descendants. I'm the only one who can fill that role. Acknowledging this gives me a place in a grand narrative and drives my responsibility to my children to prepare them to take their place in the chain (even if that place is a dead end), with all that entails. Ignoring it prunes my branch of the tree.
I do think sexual desire is a base-level, noisy (in the same way that not all stomach pangs are hunger), subconscious drive to reproduce. We (like all living organisms) are a tool DNA uses to reproduce, and it's good at getting us to do stuff. I'd like to think my rationalization based on ancestry isn't a post-hoc result of that drive, but I can't be sure.
> Do you feel pain in your body (chest pain, knot in the throat..) if you think you cannot fulfill that desire?
I'm usually a fairly unemotional guy, so I tend not to feel (or, at least, not to notice) such things. Considering the death of my children can evoke a physical response, but that's more concrete. I do feel joy that I have the opportunity to fulfill my desire, so it may also be my optimistic nature masking the potential of tragedy. Ultimately, if my children fail to carry on the line (due to death or lack of desire), I will have done my part as a link in the chain to the best of my ability. I can be happy with that.
> How do you feel if you think about the fact that when you are dead, it just doesn't matter if you passed your gene or not? Isn't that desire just a rationalization/mental process vanishing in oblivion?
My father died when I was a teen, leaving 4 children. It may not matter to him now, but to us and the lives we touch daily it matters a great deal that he passed his genes first.
Ultimately, I'm not passing my genes on for my benefit. I'm doing it for my progeny's benefit and for the benefit of the impact they can have on the world in my stead.
> Where does that desire goes if you scale-up the total human species life-span? Would you feel happy that you will have grand-grand-grand children that you will never meet?
Of course! I know who my great-great grandparents were, roughly what their lives were like and some of the hardships they had to overcome, and I'm glad they lived and procreated so I could too. I'm the product of an unbroken line of millions (billions, if you want to consider the full history of DNA) of years of ancestors. It's a privilege to be a link in that chain for my descendants as well, even if I never meet the vast majority of them.
> I've never felt the desire to pass my genes to anybody. I have sexual desire, does that mean I want to pass my genes? But I feel like, sexual desire is like taking a piss: I just release some build-up in my body. I cannot rationa...
Thank you again!
No.
> You've probably got a family weighing you down so you can't travel anymore.
Well...
1: Having a family is a choice people make, not everyone over the age of 40 has a family.
2: Just because someone can't travel doesn't mean per life is over.
3: It is (in many cases) entirely possible for someone over 40 to travel with per family.
4: People making the choice to have a family probably wouldn't call it "weighing down".
> You don't have the freedom to start new exciting ventures.
Define "exciting ventures" and explain why it isn't possible. There are many things that can be done as a person over the age of 40, even WITH a family.
> You can't quit your sucky job because it supports your family.
Not everyone over the age of 40 has a "sucky" job and if one has a job which is unpleasant there may very well still be the possibility of changing careers.
> You go to parties that end at 9pm and your social gatherings consist of talking about traffic and grocery prices.
Speaking from experience? It's entirely possible to engage the services of a babysitter and go spend time with friends until the night is well past the point of being young. Also "traffic and grocery prices"? Where do you even get that? People over the age of 40 can be (and usually are) interested in other things like, say, sports, cinema, even the dreaded "celebrity gossip".
> You're probably married to someone you love and respect, but the flame isn't the same as what you once had.
If a couple can't quite manage to Take Hold of the Flame, there is always the possibility of ending the marriage, which may once again open the door to those "new exciting ventures" you mentioned. And regardless even if the relationship isn't what it once was that doesn't mean life is over.
Just my perspective as a 33 year old.
anyway, here's your real problem. you might want to figure out which older people in your life are poisoning your mind with their bullshit. having a family, or not, can be great and is always your choice. miserable people end up that way because they're living someone else's dream, not their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection is a defence mechanism of alterity concerning "inside" content mistaken to be coming from the "outside"
In any case: most new startup founders are over the age of forty. Assuming that's what a 22yo on hn considers an "exciting new venture".
On the other hand it is really easy to not get married and not have kids. Then the equation is quite different. 40s and 50s isn't all that different than 22. I would even say better in most ways.
Your vision of marriage is even kind of romantic still. The married guys I know it is more like depression because of separation and knowing the wife is fucking a Tinder guy while your kid is sleeping in the next room. They even know her date outfit because she posts the picture on social media.
I have two friends right now that this is their exact life. One of them I thought was the absolute perfect couple at 30. Women know their value and aren't going to waste their life with the flame having gone out.
What might be considered selfish is to not have kids when we are way below replacement rate, while expecting to be taken care of by other's kids in old age. Unless we reach AGI and humanoid robots soon, the food, housing, services and healthcare has to be provided by younger people.
It's not "remaining". If you had decided to not have kids, the kids wouldn't be there in the first place, so they wouldn't (couldn't) feel any regret about.
I don't want to die because it's scary and likely painful, but I definitely would have preferred I wasn't here to begin with.
Many people do wind up as you describe. On the other hand you write as if it is inevitable rather than a specific choice.
Yes, you probably do have to choose between "family" and the other stuff unless you have some unusually favorable circumstances. Either lots of money, or extended family members (grandparents) with whom you can leave the kids while you travel, etc.Depends on your definition of "travel" though. Flying to another country on a whim? Probably not. Packing the kids and tents up and going camping? Heck yes.
Oh hell no. I'm over 40 and still making great friends. Friends with whom I share interests, not just banal conversations. It's different than when you're young, it takes a little more work. You're not just dumped into a school with hundreds of people your age. But it's better. You can choose your social circles and meet other enthusiasts relevant to your interests. It's certainly true: those giddy early months of a relationship change into something else eventually. Can be better or worse depending on your perspective.Again, you can just not get married! Or do some kind of poly/open/whatever relationship if that's your thing. Or be asexual. Or be so undesirable that nobody wants to nestle down with you and saddle you with a family. Or just find some sort of ethical way of getting what you need from sex workers. (That last one may be tricky)
IMO any of those can be tricky. Relationships in general are, at any part of the spectrum, including a lack of them.
Poly/open/casual/whatever isn't easy unless your partner (or potential partners) also wants to be in one of those. Leaving an existing relationship for one of those probably isn't easy (unless it's meaningless), and can be anything but if one is already married with kids. Non-exclusive relationships may also need to deal with potential feelings of jealousy etc. in a different way than exclusive ones, and again, it's not down to just oneself.
One probably doesn't really choose to be asexual either, and I'd wager that trying to make such a choice is generally unhealthy. And if you actually are asexual but want an otherwise romantic relationship, finding one (where both are satisfied) is probably harder than it would be more conventionally.
Most people (or all of us?) have mutually conflicting desires and needs for their relationships. That makes relationships tricky in general. It's probably even more so for someone who's less comfortable socially or with themselves than you would seem to be.
I don't think it's always even possible, psychologically or emotionally, for everyone to solve those conflicting needs and desires in a satisfying way.
It sounds quite cynical to see marriage or long-term relationships largely as a burden, and seeing the possibilities can be an antidote for that for some people. But trying to make it out as everything being possible and choices that you can just make feels a bit like it can trivialize the difficulty of actually doing it.
When I listed those options I was specifically referring to the parent poster, who equated middle age with automatically being in a stifling marriage.... as if marriage is just some inevitable thing that happens to you, rather than something you choose.
Which was certainly not to imply that the alternatives to marriage are easy. I mean yeah, relationships can be hard. And the lack of one can be hard too.
My jobs have gotten less suckier as I've gotten older. And with experience (and, rarely, more savings) I have more options. Yes, I could quit if I want.
If you're open to it, here are a few ideas to noodle on:
- A lot of what you find fun/interesting changes over time. The partying of the 20s was fun, in its way, but now seems mostly pretty silly, superficial, and (sorry for saying this) childish and dumb. I'm not saying it is, just that your notion of fun changes, and if now I had the power to do absolutely anything I wanted, "partying" would not be even in my top 100 list because there are so many things that are more fun and fulfilling. Ask a 3 year old how they'd love to spend their time.
- Many details of life are outside your control, but you still have a huge influence on things. If you end up in your 40s in a marriage where the flame has gone out, that's mostly on you and your partner - it definitely doesn't need to be that way. Just because it seems common for people to get married and stop courting/dating each other doesn't mean you have to. Ditto for things like a job. In both cases, there's an element of settling in and coasting that's easy to do but doesn't necessarily produce the long term results you really want. Gotta begin with the end in mind and course correct over time, but also have to avoid obsessing over the imperfections and less-than-ideals of life, because there will always be plenty of those.
- The number of kids you have is a pretty private choice, but if approach it with either cynicism or idealism then you'll likely be disappointed. It's a roller coaster, it's hard, kids will absolutely drive you crazy sometimes. But it can also be a source of joy and purpose to a degree that might be incomprehensible to you right now. I'm trying to be careful here because it is a sensitive topic, but compared to being single, it's hard to really explain how much depth and substance having a family has added to my life. In retrospect it feels like life didn't really begin until then. Lots of cool stuff and adventures before then, of course, but... yeah.
- Your kids eventually go away. I mean, it's obvious, right, and yet I didn't really appreciate it until it happened. That stage of life where kids are at home is actually relatively short. It's so temporary. You'll always be a parent, but suddenly you find yourself on the other side of it with a whole lot more time for hobbies and travel and whatever else and yet you don't really feel all that old yet.
Also parties that end at 9 are incredible. I fought this one hard for a _long_ time, but life is honestly just better when you go to bed earlier and wake up earlier. More daylight is a great thing.
And it works the other direction, too. My life probably sounds boring to you in the same way that a day in your life would be boring to a toddler. Now that you're 22, you aren't just a taller version of that toddler with all the same interests. You have new interests. (That will keep happening.)
I don't want to die in agony, or slowly suffocating as many do. I'll end it before it goes too far.
I think more people should actually go to hospitals and see how real people die, instead of the comforting movie version where the family is gathered around while the old person slowly falls to sleep. That's unfortunately not that common.
If I get cancer, I'll hang on for a while until there's not much hope left, and then go to a place with assisted suicide.
Give people comfort care asap if they have a terminal illness, at the very least.
I’m pretty sure it’s possible in every single country in the world, perhaps except North Korea, but I doubt it. It might just be more difficult.
I hear that starvation is good.
> I answer that, It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity. Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11). Thirdly, because life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, Who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live."
~ St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae Secunda Secundae Partis. Q. 64 Art. 5
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article5
My ideal is almost to take enough water into the woods to starve in the woods. To really stare my death in the face and experience it slowly.
Clinging to life in a nursing home is a fate worse than death to me.
I am sure this all depends on having kids or not. Being child free gives many more options.
While this may seem like a simple way, it seems like it wastes hundreds of people's time that could be spent helping people who are actually wanting help.
You could just leave a note or email.
> that could be spent helping people who are actually wanting help.
How many of those people were going to help others otherwise?
I hope you fully intend to continue exercising, and taking precautions against accidents, as the first line of defense against such a possibility.
> I can't understand people who want me to suffer until doctors finally stop being able to put me back together.
I just don't want the state being the entity that approves or disapproves of your suicide. If you're going to have an assisted suicide I want it to be, at most, through a clandestine network of people who want to kill themselves. Not through a government process.
I think they're making a bold choice to complete life on their own terms.
Or making the only choice they feel they have left to them when faced with unsurmountable obstacles to ending their pain in any other way… This "fuck everyone else but me" society we currently live in isn't real conducive to even noticing or caring about the pain of another human (except maybe to blame, ridicule, or add to said pain), let alone helping them end that pain in a positive manner.
Some of them do it to stop suffering, as the article says. Some do it out of sheer vengeance. Some do it as part of a pact. Some do it in such a way so that the cause is not proven to be suicide, and thus their near-and-dear get the insurance money. Some do it so that they have control over their lives till the very end. Some others like Mitchell Heisman, do it just because they can.
At the same time, some of these causes are preventable. Good faith attempts to address those causes are, of course, always laudable.
That housing and groceries is getting more and more expensive certainly doesn't help with that...
Of course, not so many people in this world suffer anymore from hunger but in the last years additional problems came up.
I know some older people who think that Depression is just a excuse for not wanting to work but these older people had it easier to build or buy a house than my generation - so I think more that the rising Depression in many is a symptom for an live which gets more and more difficult and them not being able to deal with it.
Also easier in finding a job with an employer that would invest in your training and invest in the community and a stable economy where your wages, purchasing power and savings weren't obliterated overnight through the stroke of a pen that also pushed housing prices up by the same amount.
The fabric of society and community has degraded in the last couple of decades since the 2008 bust and it hasn't gotten any better. It's now "grab everything you can while you can, screw everyone else, or be poor".
Why do we kill ourselves? It's because we have no communities anymore. Many of us are alone. Some call it a loneliness epidemic. And we've replaced community with social media. Our society is sick, and it has nothing to do with needing more housing or whatever your pet political issue is.
It is also a hallowing out of the human experience and the inability to enjoy simple pleasures available to anyone alive.
Consumerism is so deeply entrenched in the minds of people that they usually blame their unhappiness on a lack of material goods and external factors.
Meanwhile, There are millions or billions of people who can find pleasure and satisfaction with with practically nothing. Enjoying a quiet cup of tea in hovels, reading books for pleasure, or taking in everyday beauty.
To me, this indicates that a large part of dissatisfaction on depression are about mindset, which should be obvious.
It can also have to do with what you focus your attention and spend your time on. Maybe watching the 40+ hours of TV a week that average Americans do doesn't actually make people happier, and sitting around a coffee shop and playing games (a cheap and common past time in some poor countries), is better for mental health.
My point was more General in that people can make poor choices for themselves that leave them unfulfilled and worse off.
Different people respond in wildly different ways to hardship and trauma. The difference in outcome between two people is internal, not circumstance. It is impossible that it could be otherwise when you some people have experienced the worst the world has to offer and are relatively happy, while some others have experienced the best and are suicidal.
Furthermore, know that the same people can be depressed or happy despite the same material external circumstances, depending on their outlook.
Depression especially hinges on mental perspective, perspective, and conditioning. It stands to reason that this could vary culturally and geographically for many reasons.
It would be absolutely unethical, but I think you could raise two sets of children to be more depressed or happy with the same material quality of life. Raise one group telling them they are helpless, worthless, and that the world is a terrible place. Tell them that you will give them riches and always disappoint them. Take the other and teach them to have low expectations but enjoy simple pleasures. Equip them with cognitive tools to deal with the challenges of life and disappointment in healthy ways. Do you think you would see a difference between the two groups?
> enjoy simple pleasures. Equip them with cognitive tools to deal with the challenges of life and disappointment in healthy ways
is this really fully teachable? Is it something that truly can be trained or it depends on a very complicated number of external and internal factors, including genetics?
as far as this part: > teach them to have low expectations
Sounds kind of simplistic to say that, but there is always this worry that having low expectations leads to McDonald's, where you may realize that no you actually expected much more out of life, but by that point it's kind of too late and pretty hard to dig yourself out.
My point was more to illustrate the fact that cognitive development and personality impact how people experience the world, and is probably the biggest factor in what we consider depression.
The point is to show how trivial it would be to bias humans towards depression and thereby illustrate the importance of the psychological component.
I don't think that you can teach kids in a way that's 100% successful, but I still think it is a huge Factor, probably then the biggest. There's vast amount of data that backs this up.
When it comes to my statement about expectations, it is obviously more nuanced. What I meant is low expectations for how easy life will be in that they will have to overcome challenge and that a happy and successful life requires work. Also low expectations for the material necessity is to have a happy life. I look around today and see lots of peers who think they can't be happy without owning a home. Owning a home is admittedly more difficult now than in the past, but even then something like 40% of people would never be homeowners in their life. If that's a prerequisite for happiness, you have doomed 40% of the population to be unhappy
That actually happens. There are just not enough statistics about that because nobody cares.
I remember a documentary about a part in China with a very high suicide rate - mostly because people couldn't find a job. Another example would be the Irish Travellers - a community which has it hard to find a job and has a way higher suicide rate than the rest of the UK.
Actually, the US is not even in top 30 of countries with most suicides per capita. And of course, it's probably better than most at actually keeping records, which means that it should be even lower down the list.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
I can’t speak for everyone, but for whatever reason those things cause me (a very middle-class person) a lot of stress.
Maybe because of what I was taught or how I grew up or my experiences, which are not the same for everyone, but it’s still there. I’ve been food insecure, been temporarily homeless, had to bounce around from place to place without much money to my name when younger.
Not being able to put down roots stresses me out. Will rent go up? Will landlord sell my place (has happened before), will I need to move to the middle of nowhere in my late 40’s and start all over building a community?
I’m not looking for a nice SFH as a need, just a mediocre condo, but in a very expensive place. It’s where the jobs are, unfortunately. Relying on other people’s income (roommate/spouse) does not solve this issue for me.
While there are many different issues for many different people, not being able to carve out a space for yourself is very stressful for many people.
I’ve talked about this in therapy. Get married or look at all the poor people worse off is what I am told. Not helpful.
It is what it is, I guess.
The suicides are mostly caused by financial obligations, most commonly by farmers who borrowed money to buy proprietary seeds. People who practice subsistence agriculture have no financial obligations.
Realized one morning that I had spent hours thinking how wonderful it would be to never wake up again. Have kids, and the would end up in state care without me. (No family capable of caring for them)
Started trying every suggestion I could find on the internet. Lots of wasted effort and backfires. 6 months later I was Kayaking with kids each weekend. Took about 3 years to get mostly back to normal.
Hardest part was giving up all normal food and switching to a strict plain chicken, sweet potatoes and green veggies diet. Supplements, massages, avoiding all scents, special eye glasses, etc. eventually finding the right medications that didn’t have insane side effects.
Did an elimination diet. That calmed the body down. AIP diet to maintain.
Started high doses of Vit D, E, Omega 3. Started watching bob and Brad and spent a couple hours a day on stretching and massages. Discovered and treated TMJ. Removing smells and lights. That got migraines under control. (Slow reduction over the months)
LDN got nerve pain under control.
Diamox to get head pressure under control.
The big one was I kept having stroke symptoms, but MRIs were clean. Started blood thinners and symptoms went away.
Sharp migraines, anxiety attacks (as per doctors), rapid heartbeats, disturbed sleep, bodyache, random mood swings etc.
Her MRI is clean too. Doctors just started her with blood thinners which might be alleviating some pain but no, she is not feeling good at all. Had done multiple tests, visited bunch of doctors but still yet to figure what's exactly wrong with her body?
As someone that has attempted suicide in the past (some with a lot of motivation to get right, obviously failed since I am not a ghost-writer <pun intended>) it kinda shocked me that this wasn't a more commonly held 'water is wet' as the reason for people to try to end their suffering.
Sure, there are some who feign their attempts for various reasons but there are those that find a way of acheiving the (at the time) welcoming bliss of quiet and silent oblivion, whatever that helds or may not hold.
To this day, I reserve the right to decide when, how or even if I ever again attempt suicide. That is my right.
I have also seen the impact that suicides have on the ones that knew and perhaps cared about the dead person so I am aware of the suffering that would echo out from my decision.
As a parent, I am also aware that the chances of a child attempting suicide following a parent doing it sky-rocket so - ouch.
But ask yourself this before judging.... just how bad would the pain in your life have to be that despite all of the above things it can still be an actual option because the suffering is so unbearable... Walk a mile in a mans Shoes as they say, YMMV.
Please note: I am not currently suicidal and am doing really well as per last shrink so High-Five etc. Just wanted to add my 0.02c to the thread.
It makes me profoundly sad that more people aren't aware of 5-MeO-DMT and the symbolic death (and the total bliss) you have during the experience.
Unless someone has lived with chronic pain, they won't be able to understand what it does to your mental health. Living in constant pain is hard - fucking hard. I've really struggled, and if I didn't have a family, without a doubt I'd be dead by now. Even with my family, I spent a lot of time fantasising about suicide, and one time I almost did it without l even thinking about it. It also turned me into a pretty horrible person, who slowly pushed away many friends, and made life difficult for my family.
Thankfully, I'm finally coming to terms with it, and I now have meds that actually help. I use an opioid and ketamine. The opioid helps a little with the pain, as does the ketamine - but really, the ketamine improves my mood, a lot.
For the past couple of years I've also been using cannabis - this has made a huge difference to my mental health, general well-being, and family life! Having the ability to be essentially pain free every evening after hitting a nice heavy indica is... amazing, in a way that only someone who'd been in constant pain for years could understand.
If you have access to legalised cannabis wherever you are, I can't recommend it highly enough. Christ, even if it's not legal, it's worth thinking about.
And specifically chronic pain that will never get better and can only get worse. A lot of the platitudes and reasoning we use to get people to not commit suicide don't apply. It can get better? Bitch, I have Multiple Sclerosis. Yes, hopefully science can do something about it, but right now it's an incurable, progressive illness.
I primarily stay alive from a combination of spite and the ability to be a living cautionary/memento mori tale: I did everything 'right' and this still happened. It can happen to you. Work as hard as you like, make all the right choices... you can still fail. Have some grace or be eaten alive when you fall.
PS: This is anecdotal experience I had talking with people about this matter.
I do this 'existential calculus' quite often. I also sometimes wonder what the point is when it just gets worse every year.
My therapist told me it's because I'm a survivor, it's what I do. But what's the point of surviving? At what point do I get to live, much less be happy?
She pointed out it would be throwing away all my battle scars, all the effort I'd put in to get this far. Just think about how much better I'd feel when it did get better and I came out the other side.
I pointed out it sounded like sunk cost fallacy to me.
He next question was whether I was an organ donor. I've not spoken to anyone since.
I was thinking about Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington yesterday. If they couldn't get past their pain, what hope have I?
It's a day to day struggle, but also one I know I'm going to lose one day. I completely see why people turn to hard drugs, I consider opioids daily almost. The only reason I don't try them is I feel I'd rather skip the addiction and even worse pain and just fast-forward to the end. Again, the existential calculus.
That's dark. I've been homeless for 5 years (including working full time and having never been an addict). I'm very healthy so for a while I felt like I could be targeted by black marketeers like organ harvesters.
> I completely see why people turn to hard drugs, I consider opioids daily almost.
I joke that if I were to give up and become an addict at least someone would help me because it'd be their job. I've always been a hard worker and hate being unemployed, I'm obviously not waiting around for handouts. The situation is just that impossible to solve, "no man is an island" except the homeless and similarly beat down people I guess including the ones who turn to suicide. It was humbling to ask for help for the first time in my life and be preyed upon or abandoned at best.
Never imagined myself here. Will never consider suicide, but the math and pressure to get rid of myself from my relatives and former friends is obvious. I always thought I had a support system but indeed what "they" say is true: everyone is in it for themselves. I constantly look for ways to be valuable to others, but on a desert island and sometimes literally starving there are few opportunities.
Helping others is the key, while not being exploited by predators.
From experience I know how hard it is being down and out and without a support system, so I really hope you're able to find a solution.
I know every single homeless resource I ever tried didn't work. They just passed my name from non-profit to non-profit, set up interviews only to be passed again. Literally not one of them was ever of any help.
Wish I could offer a hand, but I've nothing anymore.
Really hope you make it out, it's something I'd wish on no one.
Even sadder when those “friends” are the type who opine about mental health all the time.
Mind if I ask the "how" question? Was there a particular 'event' or chain of events that led to your being homeless?
For context, I am researching / hoping to research "hospital admissions" as a precipitating event of (first) homelessness, so I am interested in people's lived experience with that topic (as well as practical pointers on how I could materialize this research in more practical terms).
> I joke that if I were to give up and become an addict at least someone would help me because it'd be their job. I've always been a hard worker and hate being unemployed.
I could totally see how that might be the case. This has "Shirky Principle" written all over it, doesn't it? It's weird how the system is wired like that... In fact, that's partly my motivation for this research, actually; the idea is that, if a first (and otherwise avoidable) episode of homelessness could be detected and avoided prior to discharge, that would be much more beneficial than allowing people into that mess in the first place and then having to prioritise who "deserves" the most help after the fact.
I will say I think a lot about that, and how much pain I'd have saved myself had I simply locked my door.
As I mentioned it's a struggle I know I will lose one day, it's just a question of when.
Days like today it's hard to breathe. Like my chest/body feel weighty. I try not to think about things but the moment my mind wanders I find myself back in the mire, doing my calculations, thinking of ways, and looking forward to not feeling anymore. But I smoke a blunt and try to make it to the next 10 minutes, hour, day.
Is that suicidal? I don't know.
Well it's up to you how you describe yourself.
It sounds like you're further along the path than me. I can find few reasons to continue existing, but that doesn't translate into a desire to end it all. Just a lack of motivation etc.
I guess I just assumed there was more a gap between where I am now and suicide. And this article and various comments here suggest that gap isn't as big as I'd like.
Anyway stay safe, and if it's nice out, have a good long walk.
For at least some people, it may not be that they want to die, rather it may be that they predict 30+ more years of an unsatisfying life and wish that they could just skip to the end.
This is exactly it. It's surprising that people can't see this as obvious.
Sometimes you play a game, and you realize, shit I invested points in these attributes but upon reading strategy guides, I realize I fucked up the distribution and there's no way to reset my character. What is the solution? Abandon the character.