> I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate. I didn't say you made the distinct

> I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate. I didn't say you made the distinction. I did. I said suicide is acceptable because it cuts one away completely, whereas behaviors such as alcoholism can have severe negative effects on others that aren't merely emotional turmoil. > Who said "only"? It's just the default option. So they have alternatives besides self-destruction and waiting to die but self-destruction is the rational choice? > It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of. True, but upthread, you (or whoever the commenter is) mentioned substance abuse as an example of self-destructive behavior. I just went with it since I don't disagree. > What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry. Opinions are valid insofar as they reflect one's moral axioms and the available facts. I know what you're talking about with regards to identity. > According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise? I was thinking you meant "rational" in the sense of you being reasonably correct. As in, it's rational to not go to areas with smoke if you're trying to evade danger. Seems I misread. > Sure, if it helps anyone. I think it is useful to discuss any harmful actions. > Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only. I didn't say you said that. > I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable; And I'm saying that these things aren't truly "unattainable" and they may be attained in the future. > so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others I doubt the collective environmental impact of these people is very significant compared to the overall global energy consumption and, more pressingly, the potential preservation to be had in working to fix this mess. It's their choice, but saying suicide is most rational seems nearsighted at the present moment. Maybe in a few decades things will really be hopeless. > By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before. Not sure what you're trying to say here.