0 P.G., Suicide, and Logans Run.

I was just looking in on an old GQ thread regarding suicide and noticed it had been closed as well as called “tasteless” among other things.

Now I can respect people’s beliefs regarding suicide and I’m certain that I would not want someone I loved to do this tom themselves, but then I don’t want anyone I love to die of old age either. It’s called being greedy.

what is so moral about staying alive when you don’t want to live? What is so bad about self termination? Obviously it can be called contra-survival, but then again lets suppose a few things here for the sake or argument:

Person “A” had abusive parents who were themselves abused as well as being third generation druggies and/or alchoholics. Person “A” has a combination of psychological problems that come from his abusive background and genetic damage done by Fetal Alchohol Syndrome (quite a bit more common among depressives than you may thing). Person “A” has periods of happiness but is, in general, having to expend more and more effort to keep from sliding into a downward spiral. Person “A” does not believe in your god, but rather believes in reincarnation. Person “A” is determined to self terminate and while he may be depressed he is most certainly not stupid and therefore he seeks out information on the most certain and pain free method of doing so.

In comes person “B”. Person “B” thinks of him or herself as an intelligent and enlightened person. Person “B” for whatever reason cannot understand self termination as a concept of proactive response and therefore chooses to interfere because to leave someone to themselves is to them “wrong”. Person “B” sees nothing wrong in interfering in the self determined destiny of person “A” or in making judgements on person “A” and thereby assigning guilt to person “A” that person “A” does not need. Person “B” says things like “It is a cowards way out.” or “You are only doing this to hurth others.” or “Think of the damage you are doing to those that care about you.”. Person “B” never once takes into consideration that by doing this they not only make person “A” miserable (thus making person “B” an ass), but that if those people who care so much for person “A” had any empathy for person “A” rather than self-interest and greed they would possibly encourage this act of self determination or at the least gently state that they were there for person “A” but that they understood that person “A” must make his or her own choices and for his or her own reasons.

Finally there are the “C” people who are often A and B people. They are the folks that have the 0 (that’s zero) P.G. (thats population growth) bumper stickers or at least understand and agree with the concept and who also can watch Logan’s Run and while not agreeing with it, they are intelliegent enough to understand why, in a limited biosphere, such a system was enacted and respect the intent. Yet Group “C” often divides itself into A and B types. Those opposed to and those supportive of the right to self terminate in a safe and non-traumatic manner (after all, if you outlaw suicide you do not stop it. You simply make it horrible for those determined to do so.).

I find it disturbing that in a group of people who are here under the guise of seeking and or spreading enlightenment that when a subject that comes up that is uncomfortable or even unpleasant it is referred to as being “in bad taste” and dismissed and locked out rather than moved. Certainly this board is for fun, but I had thought that it served the dual role of providing data to those who sought it. GQ isn’t a debate or opinion arena by nature or by name. It is a Q and A forum.

How many of you would impose your morals on others and yet resist violently the imposition of other’s morals upon you?

I would have to say that everyone, or nearly so, if you take this to extreme. I would violently impose my moral belief that rape is wrong if I came upon someone in the act. I would violently resist anyone who thinks that he has a right to assault me and mine. We all have limits. The question is where one draws the boundaries. To my mind, if someone’s actions are not harmful to another, then they have a right to do them… which of course gets us into a definition of “harm.”

Is suicide harmful to others? In some ways it sure is. It can cause enormous emotional distress, feelings of loss, guilt, and even the stress of coping with a loved one’s commission of an “unforgivable sin” if one is of a particular religious bent. Nobody but nobody wants to contemplate a loved one being in eternal hell after all. Does this rise to the level of harm that would justify my intervention? Maybe. It depends on the circumstances, and as wishy-washy as that may sound, I cannot make any blanket statements condemning or supporting one’s right to self-termination.

zen101 wrote:

The BOOK Logan’s Run had an entirely different premise than the MOVIE Logan’s Run. In the book, people were forced to turn themselves in for “deep sleep” (painless suicide) at age 21, because of an event that had occurred at the beginning of the 21st century called the “little war”, in which youth took control of the planet.

[cheap plug]
Read all about it in my Highly Unofficial Logan’s Run FAQ.
[/cheap plug]

Yeah, but the movie had Jennie Agutter in the amazing shrinking skirt of the future.

Now that’s a back story.

The author (or one of the authors?) of “Logan’s Run” would always hang out at local L.A. Science Fiction conventions. He had a long beard.

Yep, I have really added a great deal to this thread!