Something I think about a lot is unavoidable suffering, what you might call “existentially necessary suffering”. There’s the suffering that’s caused by our own minds, or inflicted on us by other people, which we can imagine might easily by relieved by a change in fortunes. But then there’s the suffering that’s “built-in” to the fabric of reality. The children born with agonizing degenerative illnesses. The animals doomed to be slowly torn to pieces in a competition for survival. The suffering that was in some senses required for this world, with all it’s beauty and wonder, to exist. You can think of it as “natural evil” if you’re theologically inclined. Because the laws of the universe are as they are, it necessarily followed.
It’s very hard to truly acknowledge that kind of suffering, that it exists, and there’s nothing you can do about it. That there are people who can’t be helped, who can’t be made whole. Who are simply very unlucky. And if you do acknowledge it, it’s very hard to accept or value the reality in which we live. Even if it were vastly improved by technology and social progress, and the number of beings left in that kind of suffering was vanishingly tiny, weighed against the overwhelming majority of joyous humanity. It’s very hard to really look at the hopeless suffering of those few left behind, and declare “worth it”.
It’s hard for me, anyway. I’m a depressive, with my own private miseries, and unusually sensitive to suffering. I try to balance my own feelings with the perspectives of those who may be more sane. To acknowledge the potential value in existence. But it’s tricky. I’m not sure it’s possible to truly acknowledge the reality of hopeless misery, while remaining sane. A healthy mind has defences against such recognition. There is always something that can be done. Some way out.
My attempt at a balanced assessment is that existence, as a whole, at present, is probably not “worth it”. Too many people living disappointingly sub-par lives, punctuated by moments of quiet personal hell. While a few manage to escape the worst of it, and find meaning amid the wreckage. But I do believe that technological and social development could do much to improve things. The question is, would it ever be enough?
Those trapped in that kind of hopeless suffering are obviously more likely to be drawn to suicide, and thus this website. And it’s very hard to recognise that kind of suffering, and that there’s nothing you can do to help. There’s nothing to say, because the reality is just that they’re unlucky. There’s no way to comfort them, and all that results from engaging with them is to be confronted once more with the unacceptable reality: that some people are just doomed to suffer, hopelessly.
I don’t know if my own suffering is truly hopeless. I often feel that it is, but as I said, I’m a depressive, so my perspective is unlikely to be entirely accurate. I’m trying to resolve myself to test it: to do all that’s reasonably possible to change it, with the understanding that if it is truly hopeless, I will allow myself to end it. But if I do somehow find that it’s not so hopeless, and this existence can be meaningful for me again, I’m not sure it will justify all the years I’ve spent in the wilderness. Let alone the suffering of all those left in worse misfortune. The only way I can tolerate that thought is to hope for the birth of some AI deity, who will bring all natural suffering to an end. This world is broken. It may not always be so, but right now it is. And there is nothing you can say to those broken by it. And that is so hard to accept.
4 comments
You’re right about suffering being baked into the natural system. The golden rule of nature, survival of the fittest, implies mandatory cruelty if you wish to survive. So, like you said, it comes down to surviving at the expense of others, being able to look at our victims–the animals we’ve eaten, the forests we’ve deforested, and even the people we’ve eploited, and say “worth it”.
Most people duck the question, or chalk it up as “it is what it is”, but what about those of us who can’t ignore it? What about those who say “NOT worth it”? This is where I think nature, in all her cruelty, devised a scheme to deal with us. Basically nature tells us: don’t let the doorknob hit ya. And thus suicide is invented.
What I can’t wrap my head around is the fact that it doesn’t make evolutionary sense. Dropping my curtain of cynicism for a minute, I really do think the point of evolution is to create a perfect lifeform. And when I say “perfect” I mean it has evolved above the savagery of survivalism, evolved in intelligence and awareness that it has figured out a way to exist without playing the vulgar game. But then why are we punished for wanting to be this way? Why are we punished for holding ourselves to a higher standard than the common cutthroat? Why are we squeezed out of existence as if nature thinks we’re a weakness?
idk. Being sensitive sure feels like a liability in this world. And yet I know it’s a trait of people I admire and respect. Whom do we respect more, Nikola Tesla who loved animals, or Thomas Edison who electrocuted dogs & cats to death in public (and stole Tesla’s ideas)? With that description, I’d much sooner pick Tesla as my role model. But the problem is, look who ended up being so much more successful, famous and happy? Edison. Meanwhile Tesla died alone with his pet pigeon. The lesson to be learned is that nature loves an a-hole?
The evolutionary psychology behind suicide seems extremely complicated. I think I remember reading something implying it could function as a way of removing depressed/sick members from the group, thereby preventing them from becoming a drain on the groups’ resources. Which I guess might make sense in terms of selection pressures. One less useless mouth for a family to feed. So it aids the genetic survival of the family, even as it eliminates the individual.
I really wish I could believe there was some benevolent purpose behind evolution. My assumption is that it’s essentially a blind process, with no ultimate goal. But if I were to infer a purpose, I would guess that the savagery, the competition, is part of that purpose.
Anything better that we want to exist in reality has to be built “against the grain”. Which is why I put my hope in technology, and the possibility of intelligences free from the visceral drive to survive. If we can somehow preserve what we value in this world, while detaching from the natural struggle.
That makes sense about suicide being a way of paring the herd. Yeah suicide seems to be an evolutionary weakness, if we define evolutionary weakness as the inability to survive. In that sense we are genetic defects. But the funny thing is that it fills an important role in nature.
There are many suicidal organisms in nature, especially if we include animals that sacrifice their lives for the herd/hive, like exploding beetles or stinging insects that sting once and die. And higher up on the mammalian ladder there are whales that beach themselves as well as dolphins who, after giving birth, often starve themselves to death. In the dolphin case, biologists have theorized that the mother starving herself ensures more food for her young while protecting them, and I think a lot of animals do that. So, at least according to the biologists, suicide serves a logical purpose. And if you accept that, then you have to accept that nature itself has programmed suicide into the system. In other words, we are NOT a flaw, we are part of the plan.
But the dolphin example implies that the suicidal mother dolphin is still protecting her young and actively participating in the necessary function. Same could be said about suicidal stinging insects who do kamikaze runs to protect the hive. The problem with human suicide is that depressed people often withdraw from society, or even become sociopathic, so they’re not in the same class as the dolphins and stinging insects. Suicidal depression in humans doesn’t seem to serve any purpose by any stretch of the imagination. And yet… here we are. Just as it’s been since humans began.
If suicide were a genetic weakness then we should’ve bred it out of ourselves long ago, like hemophilia and such. It just doesn’t make sense that suicidal depression exists, unless its purpose is as commonplace as population control. That seems like a waste.
So…I think the implication from what I read was that suicide could be an evolved response to depression, to prevent it from becoming a drag on group survival. But I don’t think depression itself is selected for – it’s just an unfortunate genetic by-product, like numerous other conditions.
I’m sure there are some evolutionary advantages to sensitivity (heightened threat detection, for example), but in certain conditions that also triggers drawbacks. I think there are numerous genetic traits that provide certain benefits in some circumstances, while exposing people to fatal conditions in others. Examples are things like Tay-Sachs disease, where carrying one copy of the mutation provides some protection against tuberculosis, but getting it from both parents results in a condition that destroys the nerves in your brain and spine.
There’s no “plan”, as such. It’s all just trial and error. Different mutations arising in specific circumstances and providing just enough of an advantage to get passed on. Before finding themselves in very different circumstances a few generations down the line, and producing conditions that can cripple those that carry them.