[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/dep/ - Depression

Depression
Email
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1593288373062.gif (2.52 MB, 276x240, 23:20, comfyykk1.gif) ImgOps iqdb

 No.223125

I know there’s already a suicide thread, but this is more of a philosophical thread. I don’t want to ask, “How should you kill yourself?” or “Should you kill yourself?” but rather, “When should one kill oneself?” or really more of a “Shouldn’t EVERYONE consider eventually committing suicide?” And I also wanted to bounce these thoughts around because it’s not exactly like you can have a straightforward conversation with your mom about suicide.

Let’s say I have a desktop computer that I really, really like. I have the games and all the files on it that I want. As time marches on, I’ll have to do repairs on the computer. A power cord might fray, a power supply might go out. A floppy drive will need to be cleaned up. A hard drive will slowly pick up bad sectors. At some point, the net present value of expected repairs exceeds the cost of a new computer. However, say I’m really attached to this thing, and I march on. Eventually, as components become more and more difficult to find, the cost of singular components become more than a brand new computer. And, at some point in age, maintaining a truly authentic, original computer to the one I like begins to exponentially increase in cost. Into the far future, the infrastructure supporting development of old motherboards in an age of quantum computing, would require me to develop an old-school chip processing fabrication shop just to maintain this old computer. At some point, and although that may be far, FAR into the future, the cost simply becomes too much to be justified.

If I perform the same actuarial analysis on the human body, there likewise appears to be an exponential degradation. For the vast majority of people between their 20s to 30s, medical procedures are relatively benign. But, as time marches on, eventually someone gets a bad knees. They stop exercising, the medical problems begin piling on, then they get a heart attack that sets back their mental function to that of an 8th grader for a few years, then they get cancer, and so on. There’s a similar exponential takeoff in cost to keeping our human bodies running.

One strategy is that you could save as much resources as possible, or move somewhere where medical procedures are much more plentiful and cheaper, but even then the same principle applies. There’s an ultimate limit on the available resources available to you, and medical problems grow at an accelerating rate as one ages(*), no matter where one lives or how incredibly fit a lifestyle you might have. In either case you will run out of resources to maintain simply living. Moreover, as you whittle down these last available resources, life will become exponentially more difficult to live through, stressful, and painful. As a wizard, I know I’m not going to have a family, but assume for the sake of argument that I did. Wouldn’t it make more sense for me to choose a second strategy where I preemptively ‘’’plan’’’ to die BEFORE the statistically inevitable exponential takeoff, so that way I could leave a LOT more resources to my kin than blowing through it all just to live a few more days or weeks at most? Given this exponential takeoff in resources to maintain living, doesn’t it logically make sense that ‘’everyone should plan to eventually commit suicide at some point’’?

There’s plenty to argue about in what I’ve written so far, but in the case that you are the few that is still reading, I also wanted to bounce some thoughts around about estimating ‘’when’’ would be the most ideal time to die. Obviously, you could simply go until you run dry, but given the exponential takeoff when most people seem to get cancer or a heart attack, wouldn’t it make more sense to go ‘’before’’ these incredibly painful moments that just make the rest of one’s life a depressing shitshow? Why not take the age where given your cohort effects you have a cumulative percent chance of getting cancer or a heart attack up to that point of >50%, and off yourself right then and there?

The main benefit is this: if you’re able to plan ahead and save for it, you get to live a significantly larger portion of your worry-free and completely healthy life in luxury. In other words, say I save money until I’m 65, and then I retire. I have the end of my life with an incredibly feeble body that given the life expectancy of the U.S., I would maybe have 13 years, but more significantly is the fact that I don’t know how much longer my funds are really supposed to last me, or really have a good idea of what my costs through retirement were going to be, and especially how the hell do I save when I know that my medical costs are going to increase exponentially as I age. Now, if I ‘’plan’’ to die, when, just to choose a number, say 60. Then I can work backwards to figure out how much I need to maximize the amount I can live in complete comfort without the risk of some event completely bankrupting me (and if such an event does happen, then I know that I’m one of the statistically unlucky that has a higher rate on my exponential curve and can morbidly adjust my date accordingly), which also means that I don’t have to save enough to live off of interest either. I can save enough with the further expectation that I will burn through those savings as well, which means I can ‘retire’ earlier.

Finally, there’s the added bonus that—you know—I don’t die incredibly painfully from pancreatic cancer or an unexpected heart attack as my brain slowly chokes to death for hours while I wreath on the floor for hours. I can leave honorably and peacefully and on my own terms with plenty of time to create a whole “I’ve lived through my allotted time” kind of eschatology.

(*) P.S. I would like to find better data on this. So far, everything I’ve found lumps everyone older than 65 together. Just looking at 10 to 65, there seems to be an exponential curve fit, but it’d be nice to see if it really continues. At some point, I would expect it to stop, not because costs don’t keep going exponential, but because people simply run out of funds and you’re left with only the super-rich able to afford living with 37 cancer treatments in a hospital suite under a ventilator the week before they ultimately die.

 No.223126

Death is a cleansing function of reality. If your current being is completely incapable of achieving actualization, you should kill yourself and start over.

 No.223134

You'll know when the time comes.

 No.223251

It's always too late.

 No.223257

File: 1593451002458.jpg (206.71 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, Yokohama_Kaidashi_Kikou_02.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>>223125
Many variables. The progression of technology and science being one, many terminally ill people often cling on to this one, maybe the next year that revolutionary cure for x disease will exist so that they'll be fit for fight again. As I guess with mechanical things, today the average Joe can create things a low cost in their homes that took previous generations enormous effort and resources.
Some countries have govt subsidized healthcare, certainly we'd save… and now I suddenly lost interest and will go watch anime instead, pls kill me, that's a nice Alpha

 No.223283

File: 1593470878676.jpg (110.42 KB, 686x685, 686:685, shut the fuck up technophi….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>>223257
>It is an index of the techies' self-deception that they habitually assume that anything they consider desirable will actually be done when it becomes technically feasible. Of course, there are lots of wonderful things that already are and for a long time have been technically feasible, but don't get done. Intelligent people have said again and again: "How easily men could make things much better than they are-if they only all tried together!" But people never do "all try together," because the principle of natural selection guarantees that self-prop systems will act mainly for their own survival and propagation in competition with other self-prop systems, and will not sacrifice competitive advantages for the achievement of philanthropic goals.

 No.223289

>>223283
What does that even mean? It's not even necessary for everyone to gattai.

 No.223297

File: 1593486282149.jpg (27.2 KB, 230x350, 23:35, logansRun.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>>223125
>really more of a “Shouldn’t EVERYONE consider eventually committing suicide?”

Meanwhile…
>>223257
>>223251
>>223134


Really should have titled your post that, and maybe tried to be a little less long-winded. Everyone is missing the point here.

 No.223310

>>223289
It means you're delusional if you think there being some treatment for your disease automatically means you will get it. YOu will still have to pay for it, at least if you live in the US.

 No.223327

>>223310
eh, even in countries wehre there's socialized medicine, it still costs money so they will often let you die or not give you treatment if they deem it too expensive since it's still based on keeping costs low

 No.223328

>>223310
>>223327
Though a great many people have insurances for these occasions. A lot of the free healthcare countries have lots of rules and special exception rules for these things, but they generally won't let someone die if there's a cure available.

 No.223352

>>223125
>sets back their mental function to that of an 8th grader

from my observation, mental abilities are gradually slow down, even without heart attack. so random 8th grade student is smarter than random 20+

 No.223353

>>223328
haha, insurance is for insurance companies getting profit, not for curing people.
it's like casino

 No.223358

>>223353
Ok so it doesn't cover medical expenses because roulette wheels and shit. Damn, I wonder why so many still choose to have one.

 No.223361

>>223352
t. 9th grader.
Academic knowledge isn't intelligence.

 No.223402

>>223352
>so random 8th grade student is smarter than random 20+

No I think you're either mentally retarded or a zoomer that vastly overestimates his intelligence.

 No.223429

>>223126
>If your current being is completely incapable of achieving actualization, you should kill yourself and start over.
Honestly, I just wish I knew I could start over. I feel it is true in my gut, I think a lot of people do. Somehow a lot of people, even Christians or religious people seem to have this conviction that there is a "start over", and they express that without even noticing it. But in reality there is no rational justification for a starting over. Rationally it's hard to count on it.

I've been pondering on this in the past couple months in particular. I really wish I can die so I can start over. My life is just hopeless, but I don't necessarily hate it, I just don't see any point to it. I want to die for love of the prospect of a real life I could have by starting over, not for hatred of the hopeless life I currently have. I'm not sure if that makes a whole lot of sense.

At this point it just seems hard to do it, because it would ruin my mother's life and I don't think she would ever recover. I wish I could get her to live a realized life independent of my presence, but I'm not sure that's possible. I might have to wait until the day she dies so that I can go as well, but I'm not entirely sure I can take it for so long.

 No.223459

File: 1593731530071.png (261.03 KB, 500x907, 500:907, obeseimmunitydog.png) ImgOps iqdb

>When should you die?
Well, ideally, you'd want to skip being diagnosed with cancer entirely, given how much suffering cancer entails. I'll only be considering cancer here because that's the number 1 killer. If you want a >95% of never having to deal with a cancer diagnosis that would kill you in at least 10 years time, that means you'd have to kill yourself by 50 years old. However, given that even if you assumed you were diagnosed with cancer, you'd probably still be able to live for some time before it became unbearable, so, given the 10 years figure above, that means the ideal time to kill yourself would be 55 ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4544764/ ).

 No.223509

>>223429
Rationally there is no reason to believe that there is any sort of reincarnation. All evidence points to the fact that this is the only life you are ever going to get. If you die and a baby is born at the same second, you do not become that baby, that baby is a totally different person. Only the life you lived here on Earth is what makes you, you. If you change the conditions you change the person.

 No.223513

>>223126
Based. Why don't people realise this?
Death is the reset button

 No.223514

>>223513
Nah it isn't reset, rather it is moving on to a different state of being while carrying your consciousness.
Whether memory comes along is undecided so far.

 No.223515

>>223509
Wrong again, your conscious experience is uploaded to the hyper-dimensional database, so whenever someone loads up your stored file, you are essentially living again

 No.223526

>>223509
We don't really have enough information to come to any conclusions. It just seems that way from our very limited perspective.

 No.223532

>>223526
>we don’t have enough information
>except that everything our perception tells us leads to said conclusion
I know you’re arguing that our perception is misleading, but our perception is all we have. We can’t just start perceiving what we can’t perceive. We must work with what we’re given.

 No.223533

>>223358
Insurance? For peace of mind. If you're fucked, you're fucked, but you hope that they won't ruin you financially at least.

 No.223534

>>223352
You may lose to a 8th grader in a 8th grader quiz because they recite those useless informations everyday, but your experiences and your strategies should btfo any 8th grader. Like in a duel of wits.

 No.223535

>>223515
Okay, but that won't happen until the entire universe gets restarted, because the chasis for your conciousness in this world is currently rotting in the earth, or in case of someone who wasn't born yet - isn't prepared yet.
(You) can only fill one person's role, and that person is you, born to a specific lineage in a specific time.
If there is any sort of reincarnation then life is just cyclical hell, if you suicide in this life, you'll suicide in the next.

 No.223536

>>223532
You're missing the point. When it comes to that specifically, there is just way so much more that we don't know compared to just about any other subject. Yes, you can take any conclusions you want based on what you perceive, they're ultimately pointless either way. This is just like our knowledge about some specific matters pertaining to the Universe are just rebuked and changed all the time, because we're not even close to getting to the big picture and we probably never will. You can spend forever clinging to a microscopic perspective of something we don't understand, it barely makes that any more likely to be reality than just about anything else. We simply don't have the tools to understand it. This is like a little ant postulating on what the little finger of a human foot could be.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]