^ Is suicide an irrational thought? Interesting question.

Suicide may be a rational decision in some, highly select scenarios (just for the sake of argument).

For example:

1. You are an astronaut stuck in space and are about to run out of oxygen
2. You are a soldier about to be captured by an enemy that is planning to torture you for information

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely,
The pangs of dispised Love, the Law’s delay,
The insolence of Office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, [F: these Fardels]
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?

In this context, it's obviously not rational. Yes, there are rational scenarios for suicide, but none of them include being temporarily inconvenienced due to a public health emergency.

What about financial ruin?

Holy shit! Did you just write that? Here on SSP? That's awesome! :haha:

Erm, that is Hamlet's soliloquy. All but the last few lines, of which these latter lines are taken from a modern translation thereof.
https://www.litcharts.com/blog/shake...letssoliloquy/

Yeah, I know. I had to memorize it in high school.

I was an Ontario Scholar back in the day (referenced in another thread recently), and as a result got 100 bucks for my first year of university.

That's not a temporary inconvenience, but yes, suicide in response to financial ruin is probably irrational. Poor is not a permanent condition. Dead is.

Life insurance policies are written to disincentivize suicide as a rational solution to financial strain. So if the suicide does not directly solve the financial problem, what's the point? The suicide has probably created additional strain on the people left behind to clean up the mess, so at best it is irrational and at worst it is selfish (but maybe rational in that case).

100 bucks...not quite enough to get that luxury sports car to drive onto campus with. :youmad:

Nice catch! :)

Obviously we dont all have the same situation. I'm just saying you CAN find something good. It's not entirely bad if you look for it.

I miss traveling and going to the movies/bars/seeing friends like crazy but I use that same time for fitness and other important projects.

Financial ruin is terrible but worth taking your own life over? I'm thinking no. Plenty of examples of people who lost everything and pushed forward. Some rebuilt, others accepted their new humbler reality.

I had read from someone in Stockholm on another message board that I like to visit that Sweden had its R0 under 1 in October. I do not know where it is now.

I'd agree in most instances. I'm just playing devil's advocate to the point that the only thing people are complaining about is being bored and uncomfortable. People's life work is being lost, opportunities possibly forever out of reach. These are serious concerns to balance with our current strategies. There's probably a lot of children or young people out there who's lives are forever altered due to years of economic damage. Kids who won't go to college because of parent's lost earnings, families torn apart, etc.

I don't care (well I care but it's an easy sacrifice) to not go to an indoor bar or a concert for a couple years. I do care about how we've so quickly and decisively decided that millions of people on a lower economic rung shouldn't really have any control over their ability to make a living and support their families.

Losing "everything" financially often entails losing a lot more than just the material. Many people definitely lose their spouse, their friends and even their kids (in terms of having them as a sustained presence in their lives).

I hope I don't sound like I'm not sympathetic to people who are experiencing financial stress. Those grievances are real, even if the academic discussion about what qualifies as irrational doesn't cover it. But certain people in this thread are not complaining about loss of livelihoods. They're complaining about having to temporarily adjust their social lives in response to a public health emergency.

In a nutshell, the problem is that when people are bringing up this concern:

They are often met derisively with this same response:

Thus the resentment grows, and people refuse to follow guidelines. And no amount of shaming is going to change their minds...

They're two sides of the same coin though, those seeking out "fun" and the millions of people who make a living supplying it. Can't have one without the other.

I guess the litmus test for where a person's actual priorities lie is if you could propose a theoretical situation where bars and social events were closed down, but all the employees were provided safe, isolated work in some sort of "new deal" type situation. I'd be pretty happy not worrying that my friends who serve or bartend are on their way to economic catastrophe, and could live without my preferred social activities for another year.

Right now, 10023's grievances seem trivial but if we're still having this conversation a year or two from now, I don't think they will come across as so frivolous. So far, we've been inconvenienced and have had to make adjustments for the last 7-8 months which isn't fun but in the grand scheme of things, not that much of a disruption. The 'temporary' nature is what's the biggest unknown. This could last a few more months or linger on for years. A vaccine won't be 100% effective and not everyone is going to rush out and get it so early on. The social and economic implications of this dragging on are not good.

do endless video meetings from Portugal, Spain or Morocco. it's only a 2.5-3 hour flight to London.