Are you anti-natalist?

[Armoreska]

I have no real moral reservations about suicide, but that's some poor argumentation ...

I'm not surprised anymore, but care to elaborate?
What's your moral framework anyway?

[Onderhond]

I believe in broad personal freedom, as long as it doesn't trespass on other people's freedom.

The problem with suicide is that it does. It may require better structural solutions for people who want to commit suicide, but for now that's not a reality. People who commit suicide create a mess that a lot of other people need to clean up/deal with.

It's also weird to compare it to other ways people are "allowed" to harm themselves, as nothing is as final and impactful as suicide for a person and his immediate environment.

[Armoreska]

I imagine most people agree with your first statement, me included. (Except I would include an even broader community than simply other people)

I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.

Considering that death is inevitable (+ in a lot of cases uncalled for, unlike suicide), a suicide will not change the fact that others have to deal with your death.

Existence may also be a net burden on others, so removing it may end up increasing freedom for others. People cannot quantify this, so looking at how suicide in general affects others from a utilitarian perspective seems like a bad argument.

The only way I can see this argument working is if the immediate environment is given priority and has a particular configuration. For example, if a person who decides to commit suicide has biological or adopted children or animals in their care, and this person's ceasing to exist would put them in a tough situation with no backup option, or they will become a burden on someone else.

[Onderhond]

I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.

A person should not live for the sake of others ... but shouldn't cause inconvenience to others either. When faced with the choice, I think you should always shoulder your own burdens. That's also a part of individualism.

Considering that death is inevitable (+ in a lot of cases uncalled for, unlike suicide), a suicide will not change the fact that others have to deal with your death.

True, in the case of many suicides though, that means people who aren't trained for it/aren't expecting it. Often it means family members. There's a difference between someone dying in a retirement home and hanging yourself to be found by your kin.

Existence may also be a net burden on others, so removing it may end up increasing freedom for others. People cannot quantify this, so looking at how suicide in general affects others from a utilitarian perspective seems like a bad argument.

If you are a burden to someone alive, it is up to the other person to deal with that. Either he shoulders it or cuts you off, that is his decision. Also, I don't want to be burdened with other people's crap simply because their burden is net bigger than my inconvenience.

What I wouldn't mind is "facilities" for people who want to commit suicide, so it can be handled gracefully/respectfully. I'm not very versed in the psychological aspects of wanting to commit suicide, but I assume so psychological/physiological evaluation would be necessary.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.

True, but this is not the purpose of suicide prevention. Suicide prevention is about trying to get people to see options to live for themselves and be happy with their lives, not to guilt them into suffering for the sake of others. That video has a really myopic view of both what drives people to consider suicide and what drives suicide prevention strategies.

I'm not denying people with those views exist there are many of them, but they are not, for the most part, the people actually doing the hard work of counselling suicidal people.

I also want to add that weak and myopic arguments like those in that video are exactly those used by anti suicide freedom advocates. They love to paint those who want assisted suicide to be legal as bloodthirsty or indifferent to death and as fundamentally anti-life, as opposed to the reality that most people who support legal assisted suicide, like myself, are people who recognize the complexity of life situations and that while suicidal people need counseling to make sure they consider all their options and the gravity of the possible decision that they also have a right to determine, ultimately, what's best for them. For the vast majority of suicidal people suicide is not the best option for them, but to deny that for a small percentage of people it is, is as foolish as that video which pretends to argue edgily that actually suicide is good.

[Armoreska]

I don't believe that a person should live for the sake of others to an extent that he/she should suffer existence just because his/her death may be a temporary inconvenience to a few people.

True, but this is not the purpose of suicide prevention. Suicide prevention is about trying to get people to see options to live for themselves and be happy with their lives, not to guilt them into suffering for the sake of others. That video has a really myopic view of both what drives people to consider suicide and what drives suicide prevention strategies.

I'm not denying people with those views exist there are many of them, but they are not, for the most part, the people actually doing the hard work of counselling suicidal people.

I also want to add that weak and myopic arguments like those in that video are exactly those used by anti suicide freedom advocates. They love to paint those who want assisted suicide to be legal as bloodthirsty or indifferent to death and as fundamentally anti-life, as opposed to the reality that most people who support legal assisted suicide, like myself, are people who recognize the complexity of life situations and that while suicidal people need counseling to make sure they consider all their options and the gravity of the possible decision that they also have a right to determine, ultimately, what's best for them. For the vast majority of suicidal people suicide is not the best option for them, but to deny that for a small percentage of people it is, is as foolish as that video which pretends to argue edgily that actually suicide is good.

I don't see it as "edgy" or "myopic". It's from the position of pessimism/negative utilitarianism/consequentialism.
Most people who may consider those arguments have an optimism bias or are simply too well off, so those will usually not work. As someone said, we live in a pro-suffering world.
Do people who are against abortions care to the same extent if those "saved" humans will have a good life? Do people who are against suicide care to the same extent if those "saved" humans will have a good life?
In individualist USA, I very much doubt it. Most people are happy with the system.

(The most downvoted comment thread on that video touches on the same points you brought up.)
In what way can suicide be the worst option? Are there credible statistics that show what % of people who got to live longer were eventually thankful for it/got a good outcome/regretted their suicide attempt? In other words, what share of suicides is due to disease and not desire? Doubt I'll find some.

The one way I can see suicide prevention be useful is if the method of suicide can leave the person injured and alive, therefore even worse off.

In the end, I'm probably in the critical minority, but I personally wouldn't want anyone to consult or save me, so I can only be against it. On the other hand, I'd feel more comfortable if there was a legal, affordable option to get assistance/assist others in quitting.

A few more myopic, negative videos on the topic

Spoiler

[Armoreska]

I dug up a ton of Kialo discussions ncase someone has a day free to dive into rabbit holes.
https://www.kialo.com/tags/Antinatalism/popular
https://www.kialo.com/should-humans-procreate-3143
https://www.kialo.com/is-having-children-selfish-9284
https://www.kialo.com/is-having-childre ... imes-13236
https://www.kialo.com/is-having-childre ... ible-35612
https://www.kialo.com/is-it-best-to-nev ... ldren-6420
https://www.kialo.com/should-i-have-children-8118
https://www.kialo.com/should-a-license- ... reate-2368
pro-mortalism:
https://www.kialo.com/there-is-no-meaning-of-life-8776
https://www.kialo.com/should-people-hav ... -lives-985
https://www.kialo.com/life-is-not-worth-living-22406
https://www.kialo.com/is-it-wrong-to-kill-yourself-7619

[Kublai Khan]

Man.. Not really a fan of the Kialo format after checking it out. Feels like weak arguments are given equal weight with good arguments.

[Armoreska]

Man.. Not really a fan of the Kialo format after checking it out. Feels like weak arguments are given equal weight with good arguments.

But who decides which are weak? Another person will think otherwise. You can discuss any argument or provide cons.
Of course it's not perfect but I wouldn't say I dislike it at all.

It's a bit...anarchist

Discuss Kialo here:
https://www.kialo.com/tags/Kialo

[Onderhond]

I like the platform in principle, but never really got into it.

[Kublai Khan]

Man.. Not really a fan of the Kialo format after checking it out. Feels like weak arguments are given equal weight with good arguments.

But who decides which are weak? Another person will think otherwise. You can discuss any argument or provide cons.
Of course it's not perfect but I wouldn't say I dislike it at all.

It's a bit...anarchist

Yeah, but anarchism isn't necessarily a good thing for debate. It means the opinions of fools are equal to the opinions of experts.

[Armoreska]

Man.. Not really a fan of the Kialo format after checking it out. Feels like weak arguments are given equal weight with good arguments.

But who decides which are weak? Another person will think otherwise. You can discuss any argument or provide cons.
Of course it's not perfect but I wouldn't say I dislike it at all.

It's a bit...anarchist

Yeah, but anarchism isn't necessarily a good thing for debate. It means the opinions of fools are equal to the opinions of experts.

This must be where the rating system and the discussion on each thesis comes in.

[xianjiro]

Ran across this interesting tidbit on the BBC this morning:

Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

- source

While I find this 'interesting', I'm also inclined to remember all the population predictions in the late 70s and early 80s that said Mexico DF would be the largest city in the world long before now. Not disputing the general trend and it's pretty clear that some countries have stopped growing, but halving population by 2100? I'll believe it when I see it ... wait, I'll most likely have moved on to whatever comes next long before then. But hey, good luck to any of you still around!

I'm also wondering if we'll have a post-coronavirus mini baby-boom

[Armoreska]

But hey, good luck to any of you still around!

They'll need it
Interesting times we live in

[Armoreska]

Not! I am pro natalist. Big families are better!

Thanks for voicing your opinion. Will make sure to steer clear.

[Armoreska]

conversation btwn 2 of my favorite folks _{(which doesnt mean I agree with them on all points)}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS2n7MgiFGE

[peeptoad]

...
Way too many people on this rock though; we need a plague or something objective to wipe half of us away.

Egads. I cursed us all.

[maxwelldeux]

...
Way too many people on this rock though; we need a plague or something objective to wipe half of us away.

Egads. I cursed us all.

That's.... hilarious?

[Armoreska]

interview with a milder philosopher

btw almost done catching up with the whole podcast