Altruistic Suicide

[Count of Montesano]

I've recently been listening to news coverage of the so-called "99ers" in the US - people who have been out of work for over 2 years and who haven't been able to find jobs in that time. I've also heard that there are 6 candidates for every job in the US, and that things will not improve probably for several years.

This did get me thinking that the major problem is the current system simply doesn't support the population. Too many people are chasing too few resources, and many of the people who are out of work are in their late 50s with few prospects of being able to find new work.

Another big problem facing America and other Western countries is a huge aging population. This is absolutely busting governmental budgets, and as countries go further and further into debt whole economies are threatened. People with chronic illnesses are also severely straining the healthcare systems.

And there's a good chance that things will get far, far worse if we see the worst case scenarios come to pass in terms of climate change or dwindling natural resources (aka, peak oil). We may be facing one of the most tumultuous times in human history over the next 50-100 years.

Which brings me to a question: considering that we have too many people for the system to support, should society embrace altruistic suicide? Instead of seeing suicide as the ultimate selfish act, should we instead see it as a noble act if you can no longer contribute to society?

In hunter-gatherer societies, it's often considered socially acceptable to wander off into the wilderness when the tribe is facing famine. I know that in Polynesian culture in times of crisis volunteers would offer to sail off to "colonize" other islands. For the most part, these voyages were examples of altruistic suicide. And of course the Romans and feudal Japanese saw suicide as a noble act in the face of hopeless odds.

[Col. Tartleton]

This is just crazy enough to sound reasonable.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I've recently been listening to news coverage of the so-called "99ers" in the US - people who have been out of work for over 2 years and who haven't been able to find jobs in that time. I've also heard that there are 6 candidates for every job in the US, and that things will not improve probably for several years.

This did get me thinking that the major problem is the current system simply doesn't support the population. Too many people are chasing too few resources, and many of the people who are out of work are in their late 50s with few prospects of being able to find new work.

Another big problem facing America and other Western countries is a huge aging population. This is absolutely busting governmental budgets, and as countries go further and further into debt whole economies are threatened. People with chronic illnesses are also severely straining the healthcare systems.

And there's a good chance that things will get far, far worse if we see the worst case scenarios come to pass in terms of climate change or dwindling natural resources (aka, peak oil). We may be facing one of the most tumultuous times in human history over the next 50-100 years.

Which brings me to a question: considering that we have too many people for the system to support, should society embrace altruistic suicide? Instead of seeing suicide as the ultimate selfish act, should we instead see it as a noble act if you can no longer contribute to society?

In hunter-gatherer societies, it's often considered socially acceptable to wander off into the wilderness when the tribe is facing famine. I know that in Polynesian culture in times of crisis volunteers would offer to sail off to "colonize" other islands. For the most part, these voyages were examples of altruistic suicide. And of course the Romans and feudal Japanese saw suicide as a noble act in the face of hopeless odds.

It seems unethical to goad human beings into killing themselves just because there are too many candidates per job in an economic downturn when they could just wait a little while longer for an economic rally.

[Count of Montesano]

It seems unethical to goad human beings into killing themselves just because there are too many candidates per job in an economic downturn when they could just wait a little while longer for an economic rally.

The question though is whether there WILL be an economic recovery in America and other Western nations, at least for most of the middle class. From a high level the stock market has recovered. Corporate America is creating lots of jobs, just not in America. And the problem still remains that we have a lot of elderly that we can't support in terms of social security or medicare.

There is also the very distinct possibility that we could be looking at future economic depressions and massive environmental problems. So I'm talking about massive population problems not just today but in the future. For most species, these problems take care of themselves. But humanity needs some way to create checks and balances on its own.

BTW, I'm not saying that people should be forced into suicide (which in reality is Nazi style eugenics). I'm suggesting that perhaps society should embrace it as a choice rather than a stigma.

[Claudius Gothicus]

BTW, I'm not saying that people should be forced into suicide (which in reality is Nazi style eugenics). I'm suggesting that perhaps society should embrace it as a choice rather than a stigma.

Self preservation is a human instinct that has been augmented over the generations by cultural bondings and institutions. You can't just wipe it away, not even with brainwashing.

On the other hand having to resort to altruistic suicides would be an expression of total failure on the part of the State and Western Societies. Back in the 30's none thought that the world could ever recover yet it did the same is going to happen now.

[Phier]

Its really a brave new world.

[Count of Montesano]

Its really a brave new world.

Strange coming from you Phier, as I've seen in other posts how you think the unemployed are always at fault for their predicament and that we should cut back unemployment insurance.

Also, as I said in other posts, I've never advocated for murdering people or bullying people into suicide. Rather, I'm talking about whether we should respect people's decision to end their lives with dignity rather than live with all savings gone, homeless and relying on the Salvation Army for their next meal.

[CamilleBonparte]

Can the people who would support this idea please commit suicide, we don't need that type of mindset in a civilized society. Thanks.

[Viking Prince]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe you need to define some terms for us. I can understand diving in front of a moving vehicle to save a small child. I can understand falling on a grenade to save my buddies. I cannot even fathom Altruistic Suicide for lack of a job making any sense whatso ever. Who do I save with such a 'selfless' act? It seems more akin to simple suicide from depression or some other mental illness.

[justicar5]

I'm sorry, to me Altruistic Suicide = jumping on a grenade, or saving a child even tho you know you will die doing it, not what you have laid out.

[humvee2800]

Justicar, I would agree that the population is to high

However altruistic suicide would really not be saving lives, as it is the economy may slow down, and the burden on social security may make the standard of living drop far below what has been the norm for the last few decades. People will continue though, as there seems to be no sign whatsoever of a lack of food or shelter, beyond manageable levels.

Ultimately you seem to be argueing towards this notion of society being the ultimate goal. Society however is entirely based around people, and if you are saying a family having 2 cars instead of one is worth another families life, I think you have a pretty skewed set of ethics.

[justicar5]

Justicar, I would agree that the population is to high

However altruistic suicide would really not be saving lives, as it is the economy may slow down, and the burden on social security may make the standard of living drop far below what has been the norm for the last few decades. People will continue though, as there seems to be no sign whatsoever of a lack of food or shelter, beyond manageable levels.

Ultimately you seem to be argueing towards this notion of society being the ultimate goal. Society however is entirely based around people, and if you are saying a family having 2 cars instead of one is worth another families life, I think you have a pretty skewed set of ethics.

erm I didn't argue that,.....

[cfmonkey45]

Sounds a bit like this.


Imo, I don't think it would do all that much for us today. Death is a costly business for the family, especially of the unemployed. Money for a plot, embalming, casket, plot, etc., or for cremation. It can get up to well over $6,000. Furthermore, we're also living in an age where entrepreneurialship is commonplace regardless of age or education. It just takes willpower, motivation, and a good idea, so I'm not necessarily sure that your premise that removing potential workers (regardless of considering themselves retired, many of them still can work somehow) is preferable.

[Gromovnik]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've recently been listening to news coverage of the so-called "99ers" in the US - people who have been out of work for over 2 years and who haven't been able to find jobs in that time. I've also heard that there are 6 candidates for every job in the US, and that things will not improve probably for several years.

This did get me thinking that the major problem is the current system simply doesn't support the population. Too many people are chasing too few resources, and many of the people who are out of work are in their late 50s with few prospects of being able to find new work.

Another big problem facing America and other Western countries is a huge aging population. This is absolutely busting governmental budgets, and as countries go further and further into debt whole economies are threatened. People with chronic illnesses are also severely straining the healthcare systems.

And there's a good chance that things will get far, far worse if we see the worst case scenarios come to pass in terms of climate change or dwindling natural resources (aka, peak oil). We may be facing one of the most tumultuous times in human history over the next 50-100 years.

Which brings me to a question: considering that we have too many people for the system to support, should society embrace altruistic suicide? Instead of seeing suicide as the ultimate selfish act, should we instead see it as a noble act if you can no longer contribute to society?

In hunter-gatherer societies, it's often considered socially acceptable to wander off into the wilderness when the tribe is facing famine. I know that in Polynesian culture in times of crisis volunteers would offer to sail off to "colonize" other islands. For the most part, these voyages were examples of altruistic suicide. And of course the Romans and feudal Japanese saw suicide as a noble act in the face of hopeless odds.

An idea worthy of a true genius. +rep, I really admire you.
P.S. So when will you do it?

[LSJ]

Whenever people talk about things like killing homeless people to solve problems, they are never themselves homeless nor do they love anyone who is. These are very selfish ideas; to get rid of someone else to make your own life easier, ignoring the fact that these people still have hopes, dreams, potential, and family is just gross to me.

What I would like to see is someone who promotes such an idea actually volunteer.

No one should suffer in this way for the failure of an economic system. By encouraging a system of 'altruistic suicide' you give the power of life and death to employers. Knowing the ultimate effect of unemploymenet would be death, they would have to choose to hire either the best employee, or the best person, or else lose money to hire more people than they intended to. Screwing with business in this way could have severe negative impacts, making the economic situation even worse.

We have systems to help people who cannot support themselves at the time, and I think most people would prefer to lose some money to make other's lives bearable, rather than leave them to suffer or turn to something horrible like suicide.

[Denny Crane!]

How about just increasing freedom, increasing the economy, coming up with solutions for peak oil and not encouraging people to die?

Crazy right?

[Monarchist]

Committing a sort of "honourable", altruistic suicide is still a denial of the life which God provided you with. To presume to steal it away in the night and throw it into the abyss is to tell God that you don't respect Him at all. After all, do you open a present from a friend and, finding it boring, throw it out before your friend's very eyes? It's a form of injustice, strictly speaking.

Even if you don't believe in God, you could at least have a sense of justice to the Universe for having waited all these billions of years to give you 7 decades of opportunities. Anyway, look at your parents and family, who spent arseloads of money on you in bringing you up. To destroy your life is a form of impiety to them, and a negation of the debt you owe them. It's very selfish and silly, and not at all altruistic.

[Hilarion]

Would be better to promote abstinence than suicide, which is a very insane proposition, no matter the dangers of overpopulation.

[SoggyFrog]

cowen, this is an ethical question that the OP raised, not specifically a question about how to solve particular present-day resource issues, so please treat it as such. It's important to realize that this is about a choice, and not simply one where your options are, "Give up and off yourself" or "Take the initiative, work hard, and innovate solutions!" That's incredibly shallow.

And thank you CamilleBonaparte for the spectacularly original injection of wit that contributed not a whit to the debate except for informing everyone of your own stance.

Please let's consider what the options that the OP is proposing really are. When he talks about altruism, he's meaning the sacrifice of one for the better of all. You cannot exclude that second part when you analyze the question. An obvious example would be an ill person with no chance of recovery taking up medical resources that would extend the lives of more than one otherwise healthy, young persons for a greater number of years, ie a utilitarian formula. It's a much trickier debate then.

However, the question that the OP raised is not should we force people to kill themselves, but rather should we condone suicides done willingly for altruistic purposes as described above? I think people are having a hard time grasping this because we don't seem to be placed, presently, in such a dire situation where there would be a clear and substantial gain from the suicide of an individual. And it could be argued that, even if one person were a burden on society, the negative demoralizing effect on the whole of society would outweigh whatever gain there was.

But what if circumstances were that bad? Someone mentioned jumping on a grenade, and if we consider that as a praiseworthy act reserved for only the most desperate times then we should also support the above proposition with the stipulation that it must be the most desperate of times.

That said, I don't think it has been made clear what degree of social collapse we are talking about. So I'll raise this question and a half:
Would there be any circumstances where willing, "altruistic suicide" should be condoned? If so, how extreme would they have to be?

[Tuor]

cowen, this is an ethical question that the OP raised, not specifically a question about how to solve particular present-day resource issues, so please treat it as such. It's important to realize that this is about a choice, and not simply one where your options are, "Give up and off yourself" or "Take the initiative, work hard, and innovate solutions!" That's incredibly shallow.

And thank you CamilleBonaparte for the spectacularly original injection of wit that contributed not a whit to the debate except for informing everyone of your own stance.

Please let's consider what the options that the OP is proposing really are. When he talks about altruism, he's meaning the sacrifice of one for the better of all. You cannot exclude that second part when you analyze the question. An obvious example would be an ill person with no chance of recovery taking up medical resources that would extend the lives of more than one otherwise healthy, young persons for a greater number of years, ie a utilitarian formula. It's a much trickier debate then.

However, the question that the OP raised is not should we force people to kill themselves, but rather should we condone suicides done willingly for altruistic purposes as described above? I think people are having a hard time grasping this because we don't seem to be placed, presently, in such a dire situation where there would be a clear and substantial gain from the suicide of an individual. And it could be argued that, even if one person were a burden on society, the negative demoralizing effect on the whole of society would outweigh whatever gain there was.

But what if circumstances were that bad? Someone mentioned jumping on a grenade, and if we consider that as a praiseworthy act reserved for only the most desperate times then we should also support the above proposition with the stipulation that it must be the most desperate of times.

That said, I don't think it has been made clear what degree of social collapse we are talking about. So I'll raise this question and a half:
Would there be any circumstances where willing, "altruistic suicide" should be condoned? If so, how extreme would they have to be?

Very nice post, SoggyFrog. I think people in this thread need to pay more attention to the elaborations made by the thread-starter, as some of the more recent comments are useless in the discussion because the thread starter has clarified a little more about what he meant in the OP.

My thoughts on this are as follows. I think that suicide should be looked at differently when in a theoretical situation such as this. We glorify soldiers that fight and die for our countries, so why not give praise to the memory of a man that has ended his life early (let's say he knew he was going to die, regardless) for the sake of saving others? I'm not suggesting that "useless" people commit suicide in times of economic and social doubt, rather that we should remember them with honor if they so happen to. I think that is what the thread-starter was trying to address.