7 ms·

First let me preface this by saying that I have no training in psychology or related fields, so this comment may be complete bunk. I think that suicide could h

by tbirdz 11y ago

First let me preface this by saying that I have no training in psychology or related fields, so this comment may be complete bunk. I think that suicide could have some evolutionary advantage in a group. Say there is a member of a group who has become sick, injured, or otherwise incapacitated and is unable to contribute to the group. The group must spend more work to take care of the member than they receive back from the individuals paltry, or nonexistent contributions to the group. If the member's ailment is temporary, then it would be advantageous for the group to bear the burden of taking care of the member, as they would benefit more in the long run. However, if the member's condition is more permanent, then they represent a net loss to the group's well-being. It would then benefit the group as a whole if that member were to commit suicide, eliminating their burden from the group. I think this is something that many individuals with suicidal ideation feel on some level. They think that they cannot contribute to their group (family, friends, job, community, country, etc), and that their lack of contribution will be indefinite. For example, a person with anxiety so bad that they are unable to leave the house or get a job might feel like a burden to their family, and unable to contribute. Or, a person with depression might have such a low opinion of themselves that they are unable to see the contributions they are making, or think that their contributions are meaningless and so feel like they are not contributing anything at all worthwhile. Even though suicide could have had evolutionary advantages in the earlier days of human existence, in modern times I don't think this is the case any longer. With modern medicines and technologies, medical conditions are not as crippling as in the past, and there are more ways to contribute to a group than ever, even without being able to walk or leave the home. The difficulty would then seem to be either helping the suicidal individual to find a group and method of worthwhile contribution, or helping the individual to understand the ways they are already contributing to a group and why that contribution is worthwhile. Of course, this is just a baseless theory of mine, and I would be very curious to see if there is any actual evidence to back this up.

haberman 11y ago
From a purely mathematical perspective, how would evolution ever select for a trait that causes someone to destroy themselves for the benefit of others? It seems like any characteristic that prevents the individual from reproducing is by definition not selected for. But I could be misunderstanding something. Maybe it could work in the case of people who are already parents. Favoring the group could increase the likeliness of their children surviving perhaps?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's easy to make evolutionary just-so stories and they're usually worthless anyway, but here's my attempt at one: as an animal, if you reach a certain age and are not already a parent, it means you're deficient. It's better for the gene pool if you die without reproducing. If you're a parent and you did all that was needed for the offspring to survive the early development period, you're no longer needed and probably better off dying instead of consuming resources your children need.
  - haberman 11y ago
    Yes I generally hate evolutionary just-so stories. > if you reach a certain age and are not already a parent, it means you're deficient. It's better for the gene pool if you die without reproducing. This explanation makes no sense to me. Evolution doesn't select for the overall gene pool AIUI, it selects for fit individuals. I can't see how, even in theory, this explanation would be plausible. > If you're a parent and you did all that was needed for the offspring to survive the early development period, you're no longer needed and probably better off dying instead of consuming resources your children need. This explanation sounds at least mathematically plausible to me.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    How does this explain the higher rate of suicidal ideation/actions in depressed adolescents who are at their biological prime for reproduction?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I don't know. Except maybe that biologically they're supposed to have children instead of sitting in school and waiting for marriage, home and a job.
      - yarou 11y ago
        No idea what this means if you're a male. Males are fertile forever basically, so there isn't some "optimal" age to have offspring. By your logic, males should be continuously fathering offspring throughout their lives, as soon as they reach puberty.
goblin89 11y ago
> I think that suicide could have some evolutionary advantage in a group. Sounds like archives of Sarah Perry’s The View from Hell[0] may be something you’d interested in checking out. She touches upon a range of suicide-related topics and provides references for further reading. [0] http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/ http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/

by tbirdz 11y ago

haberman 11y ago

From a purely mathematical perspective, how would evolution ever select for a trait that causes someone to destroy themselves for the benefit of others? It seems like any characteristic that prevents the individual from reproducing is by definition not selected for. But I could be misunderstanding something. Maybe it could work in the case of people who are already parents. Favoring the group could increase the likeliness of their children surviving perhaps?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
It's easy to make evolutionary just-so stories and they're usually worthless anyway, but here's my attempt at one: as an animal, if you reach a certain age and are not already a parent, it means you're deficient. It's better for the gene pool if you die without reproducing. If you're a parent and you did all that was needed for the offspring to survive the early development period, you're no longer needed and probably better off dying instead of consuming resources your children need.
- haberman 11y ago
  Yes I generally hate evolutionary just-so stories. > if you reach a certain age and are not already a parent, it means you're deficient. It's better for the gene pool if you die without reproducing. This explanation makes no sense to me. Evolution doesn't select for the overall gene pool AIUI, it selects for fit individuals. I can't see how, even in theory, this explanation would be plausible. > If you're a parent and you did all that was needed for the offspring to survive the early development period, you're no longer needed and probably better off dying instead of consuming resources your children need. This explanation sounds at least mathematically plausible to me.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  How does this explain the higher rate of suicidal ideation/actions in depressed adolescents who are at their biological prime for reproduction?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I don't know. Except maybe that biologically they're supposed to have children instead of sitting in school and waiting for marriage, home and a job.
    - yarou 11y ago
      No idea what this means if you're a male. Males are fertile forever basically, so there isn't some "optimal" age to have offspring. By your logic, males should be continuously fathering offspring throughout their lives, as soon as they reach puberty.

goblin89 11y ago

> I think that suicide could have some evolutionary advantage in a group. Sounds like archives of Sarah Perry’s The View from Hell[0] may be something you’d interested in checking out. She touches upon a range of suicide-related topics and provides references for further reading. [0] http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/ http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/