Let
me start with an interesting scheme of a sci-fi novel by Chinese novelist Cixin
Liu (刘慈欣）:
During a long lasting rivalry between two planets, say planet A being earth,
and planet B being a technologically much more advanced alien planet. The alien
planet wanted to invade and destroy the earth, which is super easy for them
because of their highly advanced weapons. However, human learnt/stole one super
deadly weapon from them: if human uses it, the weapon will completely destroy
both the alien civilization and also the human civilization itself. Thus the
alien planet does not want to attack earth because of that threat (however,
human will not want to use the weapon either)
Then there is a subtle balance built upon this threat point. Human beings
selected the smartest person on earth (called the sword holder) to sit in a
room waiting for any signal from the alien planet. This person gets to decide
if he/she wants to push that button which will destroy both worlds based on the
moves of the alien planet (for example a secret attack), while the alien planet
does a lot of statistical studies on each sword holder to determine the
possibility of him/her to actually push the button if they do attack.
For human beings, they don't want to do nothing and wait to be destroyed by the
alien, yet they don't want to prematurely push the button to destroy
themselves. The sword holder need to be very cautious about pushing the button,
yet he or she has to be have the mental determination to actually push the
button in order for the whole "threat" to work. Basically the sword
holder needed to have a great balance of rationality and craziness. In fact
they calculated the threat will work only if the sword holder has a 80-90% of
chance to actually push the button when the alien does attack. And the whole
situation has no return once the button is pushed.
Very precariously, the threat worked to deter the attack from the alien, human
perched on the balance of life and death for about 1000 years, with dozens of
sword holder spending their entire life time waiting for one signal of attack
and honored as the greatest person on earth. Then some drama is
introduced as a young girl got selected as the new sword holder against a
lot of disagreement on her personality (that she is too "kind" and
not determined enough for the ultimate destruction).
The book is called “三体” and is currently being translated to English...I
believe the story is deeply influenced by the nuclear weapon situation in this
current world we are living in. In fact we are ACTUALLY just like in the story,
where we perch on the brink of life and death for decades because of the mutual
threat between countries and any drop of a straw might cause total
destruction...
Now I am getting to the point that I am trying to make...which is the title: a
mind-bending theory about suicide. I was telling a friend this story when
we were discussing suicide. I was arguing for a vague concept at that point,
and that concept is: because we can choose to die any moment, thus the
availability of death as a choice enables us to live on. A more detailed but
equally vague explanation is: we can only exist in one of the two
states: alive or dead. If we make suicide a "choice", thus every
moment we are not choosing to die, we have to be choosing the other
option--to live. Normally happy people won't consider the choice of death at
all, but at times where suicidal people are contemplating on death,
the option of death should provide a mental support for keep on living exactly
because it's life-threatening. The logic is: everyone is going to die, and you
can choose to die any moment, however there is no return once you die, so why
don't stick to the end and die then instead of now?
However, now I have an even more complicated but maybe a little clearer theory
of suicide based on the sci-fi story. Let's assume that a suicidal
person can always be divided in two parts: the part that desperately wants to
live (the survivor) and the parts that just wants to die (the killer). In
this battle inside of this torn individual, if the survivor wins, the
killer will die, and if the killer wins, both of the survivor and the killer
will die. Just like in the story. If we view both the survivor and killer
as two intelligent and independently reasoning parties, then we can see the
survivor as the alien planet that wants to destroy the earth (which is the killer),
and the killer holds suicide as the threat weapon against survivor.
Thus the survivor can never completely beat the killer because when the
self-preserving instinct of the killer kicks in, it will snap anytime and kill
them both. At this point, I face a terrible dilemma: if the killer's goal
is to kill, then it should have just killed both the survivor, and the killer
itself, thus killing the whole person. End of story. So there will be no
threat, everyone should end up dead. In order to make the balance to work, I
have to make an important assumption: It is that the killer doesn't want to
kill unless threatened. The killer side of us is not a cold-blooded killer,
it's more like a sleeping lion only to attack when provoked, or more precisely,
a revengeful soul aiming to destroy after getting hurt.
This assumption actually makes a lot of sense, as we see most suicidal people
don't die of pure torture, pain, or physical deprivation. People struggling at
the bottom of poverty, in the midst of wars and hunger don't choose to die
usually, they try very hard to survive instead. The people that mostly suicide
are living a fine life, yet dying of mental deprivation, perfectionism and
unfulfilled desires--people suicide for heartbreak, lack of success, not
having hope, which are totally non-life-threatening things. In these cases, the
killer is actually triggered by the overpowered "survivor" part, the
killer snapped and killed both because the survivor part wants too much.
Now in a balanced situation, where survivor acknowledge the existence
of imminent death, and survivor is not trying to eliminate killer all together,
thus the killer is not trigger for kill. This way the person lives, and lives
as a real person--a complex and contradicted human being, perched at the brink
of life and death the same way as our dear planet.
End of my theory.
I guess what I am ultimately saying is that a living human being is an intricate
balance of life and death, and the killer part of suicidal people are paradoxically survival-seeking. Death is the
reality check, it's the ultimate sword hanging on top that makes us cherish living.
During a long lasting rivalry between two planets, say planet A being earth, and planet B being a technologically much more advanced alien planet. The alien planet wanted to invade and destroy the earth, which is super easy for them because of their highly advanced weapons. However, human learnt/stole one super deadly weapon from them: if human uses it, the weapon will completely destroy both the alien civilization and also the human civilization itself. Thus the alien planet does not want to attack earth because of that threat (however, human will not want to use the weapon either)
Then there is a subtle balance built upon this threat point. Human beings selected the smartest person on earth (called the sword holder) to sit in a room waiting for any signal from the alien planet. This person gets to decide if he/she wants to push that button which will destroy both worlds based on the moves of the alien planet (for example a secret attack), while the alien planet does a lot of statistical studies on each sword holder to determine the possibility of him/her to actually push the button if they do attack.
For human beings, they don't want to do nothing and wait to be destroyed by the alien, yet they don't want to prematurely push the button to destroy themselves. The sword holder need to be very cautious about pushing the button, yet he or she has to be have the mental determination to actually push the button in order for the whole "threat" to work. Basically the sword holder needed to have a great balance of rationality and craziness. In fact they calculated the threat will work only if the sword holder has a 80-90% of chance to actually push the button when the alien does attack. And the whole situation has no return once the button is pushed.
Very precariously, the threat worked to deter the attack from the alien, human perched on the balance of life and death for about 1000 years, with dozens of sword holder spending their entire life time waiting for one signal of attack and honored as the greatest person on earth. Then some drama is introduced as a young girl got selected as the new sword holder against a lot of disagreement on her personality (that she is too "kind" and not determined enough for the ultimate destruction).
The book is called “三体” and is currently being translated to English...I believe the story is deeply influenced by the nuclear weapon situation in this current world we are living in. In fact we are ACTUALLY just like in the story, where we perch on the brink of life and death for decades because of the mutual threat between countries and any drop of a straw might cause total destruction...
Now I am getting to the point that I am trying to make...which is the title: a mind-bending theory about suicide. I was telling a friend this story when we were discussing suicide. I was arguing for a vague concept at that point, and that concept is: because we can choose to die any moment, thus the availability of death as a choice enables us to live on. A more detailed but equally vague explanation is: we can only exist in one of the two states: alive or dead. If we make suicide a "choice", thus every moment we are not choosing to die, we have to be choosing the other option--to live. Normally happy people won't consider the choice of death at all, but at times where suicidal people are contemplating on death, the option of death should provide a mental support for keep on living exactly because it's life-threatening. The logic is: everyone is going to die, and you can choose to die any moment, however there is no return once you die, so why don't stick to the end and die then instead of now?
However, now I have an even more complicated but maybe a little clearer theory of suicide based on the sci-fi story. Let's assume that a suicidal person can always be divided in two parts: the part that desperately wants to live (the survivor) and the parts that just wants to die (the killer). In this battle inside of this torn individual, if the survivor wins, the killer will die, and if the killer wins, both of the survivor and the killer will die. Just like in the story. If we view both the survivor and killer as two intelligent and independently reasoning parties, then we can see the survivor as the alien planet that wants to destroy the earth (which is the killer), and the killer holds suicide as the threat weapon against survivor.
Thus the survivor can never completely beat the killer because when the self-preserving instinct of the killer kicks in, it will snap anytime and kill them both. At this point, I face a terrible dilemma: if the killer's goal is to kill, then it should have just killed both the survivor, and the killer itself, thus killing the whole person. End of story. So there will be no threat, everyone should end up dead. In order to make the balance to work, I have to make an important assumption: It is that the killer doesn't want to kill unless threatened. The killer side of us is not a cold-blooded killer, it's more like a sleeping lion only to attack when provoked, or more precisely, a revengeful soul aiming to destroy after getting hurt.
This assumption actually makes a lot of sense, as we see most suicidal people don't die of pure torture, pain, or physical deprivation. People struggling at the bottom of poverty, in the midst of wars and hunger don't choose to die usually, they try very hard to survive instead. The people that mostly suicide are living a fine life, yet dying of mental deprivation, perfectionism and unfulfilled desires--people suicide for heartbreak, lack of success, not having hope, which are totally non-life-threatening things. In these cases, the killer is actually triggered by the overpowered "survivor" part, the killer snapped and killed both because the survivor part wants too much.
Now in a balanced situation, where survivor acknowledge the existence of imminent death, and survivor is not trying to eliminate killer all together, thus the killer is not trigger for kill. This way the person lives, and lives as a real person--a complex and contradicted human being, perched at the brink of life and death the same way as our dear planet.
End of my theory.
I guess what I am ultimately saying is that a living human being is an intricate balance of life and death, and the killer part of suicidal people are paradoxically survival-seeking. Death is the reality check, it's the ultimate sword hanging on top that makes us cherish living.
