I'm not sure I entirely agree with the idea that death can be preferable as opposed to living life in horrible conditions. Perhaps I am a bit biased since I recently read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.

Frankl is a Holocaust survivor and one of the central points of his book is people need to find a why. Something personal to them, something that they can give to the world that nobody else can. People today, at least in America, worry too much about what the world is or is not giving to them.

In this book, Frankl, a psychiatrist, finds that time and time again those who find something to hold onto went on living. They persisted through sickness, cruel and inhumane treatment, and the threat of death around every corner. He found that there were those who just gave up all hope, and they usually ended up dying soon after. He even keeps a few inmates from going through with suicide with this type of thinking, by giving them something to live for. I don't know if anyone would disagree, but I think living in a concentration camp would be worse than growing up almost anywhere in America.

In the end, Frank's conclusion echoes Nietzsche when he says, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how."

Perhaps I am just a lofty idealist, but these thoughts seem to make sense to me. Feel free to discuss.

Thom, I'm going to go ahead and defend Matt's assertion - except I'm going to bump-up the percentage to 100%. The largest factors in determining your standard of living are the time and place in which you were born and the state of your family's wealth and education at the time. I'm not cheapening the hard work that people do - I'm saying that there are many things that must have fallen into place in order for them to even had access to the opportunity to work towards a career.

Born outside the first world? Tough.

Born outside the era of enlightenment? Tough.

Born into an impoverished and uneducated family? Tough.

The thing I find most vexxing is that often, when the 3rd example is brought-up, the average rational person will suddenly turn to a textbook irrational argument in order to defend the system;

'Well, there are stories of people born into hard times on the wrong side of town that work their way out of it and become successful!'

...Pointing-out a handful of examples that support their argument while ignoring the overwhelming number of examples that counter it.

Luck certainly exists. There was even an experiment done a few years ago where they took people who considered themselves "lucky" and "unluucky" guess which of 2 lights would randomly turn on - the "lucky" ones guessed higher than chance and the "unlcuky" ones lower. We also all see or know people who everything seems to go right for no matter what they do and those who everything goes wrong for. I don't consider it a magical force or anything, it simply is an explanation some some people get the random chances that gives them everything while others get nothing. Hard work has almost nothing to do with it - look how many succesful people do next to nothing and get everything and how many work their asses off for minimum wage. You could even consider besides the environment of what family someone is born into the genes they receive. Of course there's also the fact that (at least in the US) a large portion of society is geared toward keeping the rich rich and the poor poor.

LUCK

Please please please explain to me how 99% of a persons success is due to luck. Unless we are changing the definition of luck (see above) the idea that a persons success is influenced by chance why should any of us have to work hard to get anywhere in life? I mean, wtf, lets all just stop trying to succeed or in some cases barely make ends meet, lets see what happens!

Actually, maybe we should try to pinpoint what we define as success.

That is not by chance, that is due to someone NETWORKING actually working towards a goal and utilizing who they know.

Try again.

Bullshit. People have very little control over what happens in their life other than they can kill themself once they can't take it anymore if things are too bad. If they never met that person they wouldn't be able to utlize them.

Well Matt I am going on the record as being pro-choice when it comes to suicide.   If you actually reached a point where your life was too much of a burden ( either emotionally or physically ) I support the right of anyone to exercise the right to terminate their own existence.   I am not encouraging you to resort to that option but I certainly support the right to choose.

  I don't know whether you were referring to me but my life has been anything but successful.   I've been seeing shrinks since I was 19, I celebrated my 25'th birthday inside a mental hospital, I've been arrested and thrown in jail, I have a hard time keeping a job, and I have to depend upon my own efforts to remain fed and keep a roof over my head.  Can you say mental illness ? 

PS, I didn't choose my user name by accident.

And wouldn't you agree it was due to bad luck that you've had that situation - rather than you didn't work hard enough?

I would define success as a comfortable income without having to work an excessive ammount (more than 40 hrs a week is definitely excessive. )

Maybe it would be better if I put it in terms of locus of control rather than "luck. " At least in my own life, I'd put locus of control at at least 99% external.

So it comes down to personality?

*EDIT* This was directed to Matts post, not prozac

I don't know if I'd include personality, though actual mental disorders I would (or physical. ) Of course, in a way EVERYTHING can boil down to luck, in the sense that everything about you is determined by a combination of genetics and environment.

You had mentioned Locus of control, that is why I mentioned personality. You are saying you are more 'external' when it comes to this specific term?

What are your thoughts on 'learned helplessness'?

Unfortunately I can't order anything now. My credit card gets denied.

I wouldn't call it personality - it just happens to be a fact of my life that what I do has very little to do with how it goes - it's all about what happens in terms of things I have absolutely no control over.

I might check the library too. I got a card last week since the week before I finally got a photo ID after 8 years. Not likely to be in the tiny town library, but there is a chance.

Hey matt,

Why don't we just kill all the jobless people like you don't sit at home all day. Seems more productive. I mean, the rich provide jobs, you just provide lulz.

Hi Matt,

I just wanted to comment on your several posts suggesting that if you had to work in McDonald's you'd kill yourself.  As someone who was raised in a poor household, with a father constantly bouncing between jobs to make ends meet, I think that's an absolutely ridiculous statement.  That sort of job would still allow you to pay rent, eat and enjoy a life many people on this planet can still only dream of.  It might not cover the creature comforts and little excesses of life that Americans have bcome used to, and you'd have to sacrifice some of them, but you'd still be able to function in the world and look for better opportunities (like renee said, $20 a week can keep you fed unless you're really fussy)

You don't like the smell of fast food?  Can't stand dealing with people?  I don't want to sound harsh, especially as your aspergers can't be great for you in relating to customers, but if it was the choice between abject poverty and getting by I'd suck it up and deal with the things I didn't like before even remotely contemplating a statement like "I'd rather kill myself". 

I was raised with two maxims from my father being the only real driving forces "Always better yourself" and "Any job is worth doing well".  All going well I'll be examined for my PhD just after New Years and I'll graduate in July.  If I absolutely had to I'd still take the job in McDonald's and I'd do it well, if only so I could keep myself going for better times ahead.

A job isn't the end.

Your things, once lost, can be replaced.

A low paid job isn't worth killing yourself over.

M

Christ, I'm about to vomit.  Matt, you're so full of it here that I couldn't even read most of your posts.  By your standards, I'm extremely wealthy so I guess I'll be pulling your knife out of my eye or whatever after clicking 'post.' 

I am *substantially* more disabled than you and don't give me some crap about how I don't know what I'm talking about.  I've met you, and I don't think I need to remind everyone how many surgeries and medical problems I have had.  So, let me say this bluntly to be perfectly clear:  I would give everything I owned if I could have your level of health.

But wait, I have an awesome quality of life... Actually, I have almost everything I've ever wanted.  How did that happen?  I don't just sit around waiting for the state to wipe my ass - even though I more than qualify for such treatment.  I get up every fucking day to wipe my own ass, thank you.  I do more before lunch than most able-bodied people so all week.  In your case, it's more like a year.  Fuck McD's... I'd scrub toilets or give enemas to old men in nursing homes if that's what it took to put food on the table.  Fortunately, I've never been in that position but if that's what it came down to I believe I could do it.  I'd at least try it before contemplating methods of suicide.

Why on Earth would you kill someone before resorting to selling fast food?  Now that is irrational.  Do you want to live in a world where people just kill people indiscriminately with no repercussions in order to survive?  I don't.

Some members here understand that we can't do more wealth redistribution than we have now without totally wrecking the economy and environment for everyone. Some members here understand that welfare without rehabilitation is treating the symptoms not the root causes of poverty.

While other members here live in a fantasy world that the rich could somehow continually support the poor no matter how many there are.

I wonder sometimes why those who espouse the idea of everyone finding a "why" overlook the fact that the answer to "why" can be that there is no why.  If meaning is so personal to everybody, what's wrong with finding meaning in the sheer luck of it all?  I'm just so many bits of DNA wrapped up in an ape-like body, and I'm going to die one day, as will all of humanity.  What's so horrible about living life for nothing other than the meaning of living life?

Certainly I have purpose and direction in my own life.  My fight against theism is a perfect example.  The thing is, I don't do it because I believe in higher purpose, or the perfection of humankind, or anything of the sort.  I just see a problem, and I'm trying to fix it.  There's not really all that much else behind it.  I don't need any kind of sense of uniqueness.  Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, David Mills, and dozens of other people are very capable of doing the same things that I do.  My contribution is not unique, and I'm ok with that.

And it's sad, but who are we to judge them for not caring to hope as much as the next guy?

Again, this is fine, and I don't disparage him for trying to encourage people to do what he believes is good.  But isn't it just an appeal to numbers to say that lots of people think that life needs a purpose?  Does that mean that life needs a purpose, or does it just mean that for those people who think life needs a purpose, life needs a purpose?

Quantitatively, I think there can be no debate.  The important question is whether or not it is strictly a qualitative judgment.  Does the slave who has good food to eat every week owe it to the concentration camp survivor to survive because he has it quantitatively better, or does he have the right to take his own life because personally, he finds it unbearable, even if there are people who have suffered worse?

But what if someone's personal "why" is to live life so long that it is sufficiently pleasant?  Is his why not good enough to meet your approval?

By the way, I'm not a "strong" person so I can't take as much as most people can. I'm also very much a materialist. I really don't see a reason to survive if you are living in a bad situation. Anyway to point out to Christians they should agree with me on being anti-capitalist they should read what he actually said (according to the Buybull. I doubt he ever really existed. )

Feh.  It's just a language quibble.  Obviously every human is unique.  The odds of two people (not identical twins) randomly stumbling into the exact same genome is vanishingly small.  My point is that we're all humans.  We all zip our pants and button our shirts, and if one person can read, comprehend, and convey an idea, then there's someone else who can.

We can quibble with semantics and say that only Tolstoy could have written War and Peace because only he lived in the unique enviornment possessing the unique brain that led to its conception.  The thing is, that's not the only novel that could have been written, could have been called War and Peace, and could have become famous.  If Dawkins had not written The Selfish Gene, someone else would have.  If Barry Bonds hadn't broken Aaron's record, someone else would have eventually.

On another note, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to devalue human life or accomplishment.  The fact that someone else could break Aaron's record doesn't detract from the fact that he did.  He deserves the credit (and whatever else he deserves...).  Stephen Hawking is brilliant and deserves accolades for his determination despite living in an incredibly bad situation for many years.

In general, I believe that living is preferable to dying.  In fact, just yesterday, I heard of a friend of a friend who tried to commit suicide after becoming depressed that she's 23 and hasn't had a serious relationship.  Geez...  Talk about short sighted and impulsive.  The thing is, there are two sides to it.  In the broad scheme of things, it honestly doesn't matter if one person commits suicide unless they are in a really prominent position, like president of a country or something.  However, assuming that they have family and friends, everybody who commits suicide causes pain to others, sometimes severe pain.  Losing someone to suicide can cause severe emotional problems in the living, and sometimes, they never go away.

Every action has a reaction, and suicide is no different just because the perpetrator isn't around to see the reaction.  I fully believe that a person who has been miserable and has good reason to believe things will not get better is justified in taking their own life if that's what they feel is best, but it's not like I'm encouraging it.  I think that there are very few situations that really can't get better.