> The first model is called inclusive fitness, and it relies on the notion of the “selfish gene”: (...) Your genes don’t care if you survive to reproduce, as lo

> The first model is called inclusive fitness, and it relies on the notion of the “selfish gene”: (...) Your genes don’t care if you survive to reproduce, as long as they do (...) So they might lead you, their host organism, to sacrifice yourself if it sufficiently benefits your family members, who share many of your genes. (...) And in studies of suicidal thinking, people frequently speak about not wanting to be a burden. The article lists two models, and perhaps they are not exclusive, i.e., they might coexist in society at the same time. I have examples that would fit very well in this first model, and thinking as a society... depending on the age, social role, social position, etc., I can see that the society wouldn't lose too much if suicidals exist in a low rate. I'm not talking the impact in family and close friends. In ancient times, by the way, perhaps it wasn't even easy to know when someone just disappeared as part of the normal life at those times. If we don't consider the more recent world (let say, 3,000 years ago?), depression might have had a major role in the past.