http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_re_us/mall_shooting
Freaking. I have often thought that a terrorist could go to walmart, but a couple of rifles, shoot up the place, and then try to return the guns in the Walmart in the next town.
SuAside said:
welsh said:
Research findings like these indicate that suicide càn be prevented.
but you think availability of guns changes anything?
It might. Granted in Belgium you have more poisoning, in other countreis you have use of guns. Either way the problem is one of depression and the mechanism for doing the act is merely a means to an end. SO if you are saying we should do nore to stop suicides, yes I agree. If you are saying people have a right to suicide, I would say no, not really. If you are asking do guns matter- yes, they make suicide easier. A person who poisons themselves might still make it to a phone and call for emergency service. I have also heard that suicide by poison victims often end up with the heads in the toilet because they are trying to puke up the poison- a natural reaction.
or are you still arguing about my Soilent Green-esk suicide center?
because as said, at the center people would get a few sessions to evaluate their state of mind and if they still qualify, they'd be euthanised if they still wish to die.
No actually I am not. I don't think we are at a point where such centers would be created. That's a rather nightmarish world. Which is why the film is a cautionary tale of the dangers of overpopulation and not a precriptive solution for population problems.
welsh said:
1000 lemmings decide to jump in a river and drown. One lemming stops and thinks, "what the fuck are we doing? I'm not doing that!" Are you telling me that lemming isn't the smart one?
lemmings dont seem to have an valid reason to suicide (even more so since they dont know they're killing off themself). humans arguably do.
Having learned of the Lemming mass suicide myth, I will that issue die although the idea was related to your "overpopulated world" idea.
welsh said:
In the case of Bangledesh, it seems that the people moved there to take advantage of the soil. That also seems quite rational.
you're not reading what i said...
I really don't get what you are trying to say.
they didnt move to the even more dangerous areas because it was more furtile (spoiler: it isnt) but simply because all other soil was already owned by other people and the population grew too much...
Fertile it is-
Most Bangladeshis earn their living from agriculture. Although rice and jute are the primary crops, wheat is assuming greater importance. Tea is grown in the northeast. Because of Bangladesh's fertile soil and normally ample water supply, rice can be grown and harvested three times a year in many areas.
People have been moving into and settling in Bangledesh for four thousand years. That you have empires and kingdoms fight over such land is something you also find in Europe. In some regions land scarce in others it isn't. People would fight over land in Africa despite the fact that generally Africa is underpopulated given the landmass.
That doesn't really prove your scarce earth justifies mass suicide idea. What I am wondering is how you think it would be rational to institute such a program, who are going to be the losers in this, and whatever happened to that right to life. In a way this connects back to the lemming. If 50% of the population were to commit suicide because they fear that 1000 years from now the world will be overpopulated, wouldn't the rational one be the fellow who doesn't commit suicide and lives to enjoy the benefits? We might condemn such a person as "normatively bad"- especially among those who killed themselves. But then, its too late for them to pass judgment.
Collective action problem here- how to get lots of people to kill themselves. WHat kind of incentive would you offer? Not more time or a better life? What kind of punishment- pain and torture over life.
welsh said:
You can argue that the right to life also includes the right to do with that life what you will, including of ending it. Fine. Its not really rational, but you could argue that it is the ultimate right to do with one's life what you will. The only problem is that I can think of few modern societies that justify it.
that simply moves us back to the subject of what is rational & what is not.
also, if your measure for morals is what 'modern societies' allow, well, you're off to a pretty bad start as far as i'm concerned.
Dude, that might crux of the problem. You are making arguments based on your values and your faith in those values. That's a fine, normative argument, but its not really cost-benefit rational calculation.
welsh said:
Of course we could argue that the one person ("The world is going to end if we keep populating it") could be the straw that broke the camel's back. But likewise the one person could also be the one who says, "Oh my god, the world's going to end. Here is a way to create a more sustainable future and thus avoid calamity." Is it rational for society or the individual to "off" themselves? Probably not given an uncertain future.
if that person doesnt like his life and wouldnt mind ending it for the greater good, why not?
it's as good a reason as any.
Because there is no future. Individual rational action assumes that the individual will do something for some benefit. There is benefit to that individual in death. One might commit sucide in the faith that they are going to heaven, or that what they might do saves the world. But they won't see it and they won't live to enjoy it.
That a person doesn't like- is a question of value. That a person can improve and create a more beneficial life- is generally a key motivation in human behavior.
That the person doesn't like something should be motivation for a change. But the choice can be death (and thus no hope for a better life) or change their life to create a better life. In those rare cases were suicide might be accepted the person is usually suffereing and has no hope. But those are exceptional cases. Generally speaking a person who doesn't like his life can also change. The benefit of that over death is that life might actually get better. That's the rational choice.
welsh said:
The only place you might get some rational idea is when the person
is thinking that they will never achieve benefit- for themselves or society, from their life and in fact they can only cause more pain/cost. But even than you have to consider the person's predisposition- essentially their choice of choices- and their circumstances that lead to that outcome.
you're saying that's not true?
i'd beg to differ. there are plenty of times when a person cant make a difference, regardless of what all the holywoodian feelgood movies tell you.
Hey, maybe Hollywood is lieing. But maybe it isn't. You won't know till you try and in that case, you've opted for a chance vs no chance.
There is a notion of bounded rationality, that an individual is rational given his limited knowledge. But there is also a question of constraints. The more constrained a person's choices, the more limited their choice set. This helps allow what are the more rational choices. Generally speaking a person will choose that which benefits vs that which doesn't. With death, generally speaking, there is no benefit. Oblivion might be "a benefit" to someone who sees a future of only pain. But again, that's a rare case.
welsh said:
I think the proof against "rational suicide" is far greater than one promoting rational suicide. What proof do you have that suicide is socially rational?
what proof? neither of us gave anything remotely similar to proof. much rather ideas and general information...
Actually I did. I mentioned the overwhelming amount law that makes suicide unlawful. You have said the cause of such laws might be normally. Perhaps, but that such laws exist despite variation in norms and values indicates that societies generally don't like sucide or think its a good thing. Logically that makes sense as socieities rely on members for societies to grow, prosper and achieve security.
Furthermore I have provided evidence of cases of mass suicide and suggested that such suicides were often determined by very narrowly defined circumstances or irrationality. Even the "Eskimo pushes grandpa on an iceflows to be eaten by polar bears" as a form of informal institutional acceptance of suicide- relates to the rather severe circumstances of such indigenous peoples. Other societies have developed institutions that venerate the old because of their wisdom and experience.
in the end this is a moral thing, and morals cannot be proven in any way. you can only take a bigger picture and the majority will decide what is moral for a given society.
this however does not make any morals absolute, nor 'right', nor proven.
But that's wehre things get confusing. We define rationality as an instrumental calculation by preferences shaped by moral choices. Life, honor, autonomy- are values. The preferences may be based on irrational values, but the pattern of getting there is rational.
The problem with death is that it doesn't get you anywhere except maybe a box buried six feet underground. If there is a benefit, its unknown although some might believe in a better after life. Embracing death is merely nihilism.
simply because you argue that modern society would not abide by it, doesn't mean that it has been proven in any way.
welsh said:
Sorry SuAside, but the idea of rational if collective or social sucide doesn't seem to hold up, even in the animal kingdom.
what? did you actually believe that lemming suicide was rational? :p
you're a looney!
Well, having been corrected about the lemming mass suicide myth, it did seem the closest thing to your rational mass suicide test. And to be fair, rational choice theoriests do use laboratory rats to test response to stimulus and punishment. Skinner's behaviorialism still builds on work done on lab rats and the application of rewards and punishments. Get an electric zap each time to press a lever, and you stop pressing the lever- a rational response to pain.
