[HumblyTossed]

> Life is misery by default, as a natural consequence of life itself. The never ending tyranny of the need to eat and avoid being eaten is the normal state of affairs.

> Honestly, if a person isn’t up for it, we need to stop trying to convince them to stay around and be miserable. Elective suicide should be a basic right, and drugs are one way out. We only create misery by “helping” people that don’t want hep.

What an absolutely miserable outlook on life.

All life is precious and fleeting. We should respect it.

[K0balt]

We should, I agree. But not everyone wants to participate.

I believe life is wonderful and precious… but it is , by default, misery.

If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.

That is the fundamental nature of life, and not everyone is up for it. And that’s ok.

[tiffanyg]

As another commenter noted, you're making lots of assumptions. For example, your mindset sounds, to me, entirely "modern 'western'".

I would suggest that the fundamental issue with your assumptions is a blurring of the lines when it comes to the objective and subjective. Specifically, nature and certain realms of human existence ARE objectively "harsh", unforgiving, uncomfortable, etc. However, that does not mean that all who exist or have existed in such realms are miserable.

If you've not seen this before, this show is just one (of a great many materials not so prevalent in modern western intensely consumer / advertising / so-called "achievement"-oriented cultures) reference with some real views of massive differences in (subjective) experience people can have across various "objective" realities:

https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/83990-the-kindness-diaries?lan...

In any case, your policy proposals earlier would, IMO, add up to poor outcomes. Not because they are inherently so bad / worse than what's been tried - more just due to the nature of the problem. Our tools / these sorts of tools are incredibly blunt compared to the complexity of the problem. And, trying to put in place some of what you propose, would definitely harm some people - in part simply in making the changes.

I am not claiming to be able to do any better, though, for sure.

[K0balt]

I didn’t mean to imply that living in harsh conditions is inherently miserable. I have lived in “natural” subsistence conditions in the Alaskan bush for extended periods of time, and while it was often acutely uncomfortable, it was not any kind of existential misery. Misery comes from unmanageable circumstances or personal outlook.

But, I agree with you that my off the cuff policy proposal has many flaws and would harm some people. I think it might do less harm than good, but without a good bit of (probably unethical) a/b testing I’m really not sure.

[HumblyTossed]

>If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. That is the never ending tyranny of imperative action.

You're making LOTS of assumptions here.

[K0balt]

Im pretty sure you are correct, but I’m struggling with imagining situations where the statement “If you do nothing (the default condition) to sustain or improve your existence, you will be miserable. “ does not apply.

I would be genuinely greatful if you could provide me with realistic examples of where this statement is incorrect.

The only ones I can think of are ones where someone else does the sustenance and improvement of your existence, like in the case of being a child or a ward of the state, perhaps? Also obviously where you are paying others to do so, but there you have actually caused this to happen and therefore are “doing” it.