Though I admire Clark's scholarship -- in fact, I'm using Farewell to Alms as one of my texts right now -- I don't buy the Darwin part of his argument. There's a difference between deep cultural attitudes (where with respect to economic choice, England/Europe was different and, IMO, superior; this case has been made) and genetics (where the case has not been made and, IMO, won't ever be).
Which brings me to a point where I think I have significant disagreement with the rather Darwinian part of what NSD said about suicide.
I do think suicide can be a social problem. Or, rather, I think it can be a symptom of a problem in the underlying culture.
Tie it back to the bullying issue: Bullying is bad, everyone here agrees on that point. But suicide becomes a response to bullying not because of the bully, but because the bullied person sees the community (to which he wishes to belong/be accepted by) as with the bully. Suicide is contemplated because he's alone, because he's got nowhere to go.
That society does not in fact stand with the bully is not the point here. The point is that the suicide contemplator/bullied person can see it that way.
And the larger culture can provide an environment where it is more likely, not less, for the potential suicidee (is that a word?) to see himself as alone. Face it, in many ways, we are a culture that values conformity, not difference. And, indeed, our schools are especially places of conformity: whether it's peer pressure from other kids, or behavior rules for graduation, or separating the day into industrial segments of 50 minutes, or learning to be "professional" and "not to rock the boat," or political correctness, or a dozen other widely shared beliefs/practices, we are all about fitting in, about conforming.
We claim to be about protecting and enabling the individual, but over and over again we put limits on what the individual can/should do. Our words say one thing. Our actions say another. And actions, not words, are what establish our trustworthy, our credibility.
Suicide comes from despair. And where does despair come from? Despair comes from mistrust: mistrust of self, first, and then mistrust of others. I don't trust myself -- after all, I'm a consummate fuck-up. But I also don't trust anyone else, because they've shown that they have no respect/interest/toleration for me and what I value. So I can't solve my fucked-upness, and there's no one there who will really help me, who wants me as me, not as someone they can remake in the image they think is appropriate for me. So what else is left?
I'm all for interfering with natural selection processes. Not just because it means more geniuses, but because it means more individuals at a variety of intelligence levels. A lot of nonconformists are, in fact, fuckups. But I think the world is better for having them. And if Mother Nature can't deal with it, it's her problem.
I don't believe despair is ever a good thing.
Right now there are people we know -- in our families, in our workplaces, in our neighborhoods -- who are grappling with the demons of despair. And we have no clue who they are.
And a lot of their demons are stronger because we demand too much conformity as price of admission to our presence. Because we insist too much on "being like us" or "agreeing like us" or "doing like us" or "valuing like us", and acknowledge too little that the individual is just that, individual. Different. Not an example of a type. Not a member of a subgroup or a category or a race or a gender or a whatever. An individual that needs individual affirmation.
I actually agree with Formo's disgust for putting the "Gay" label on all this, and for his worries about this being taken over by the politicos. To my mind that will just encourage more conformity-thinking. That's what politicos do. They are in the business of saying "this kind of nonconformity, this kind of not fitting in" is okay. It's okay because it's a recognized means of conformity. A recognized "category" for diversity.
Which is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. It isn't alternate lifestyles that need to be affirmed, it's the individual who happens to have an alternative lifestyle or who happens to be wired differently gender/sexuality-wise. It isn't different groups that need to be affirmed, it's different individuals. It isn't "teen suicides" that need to be affirmed, its Joe Q. Teenag who is fighting his individual demons of despair. It's Jane Q. Adolesce who needs to both "be different" and "belong," and who is being asked -- not just by the bully, but by the rest of us -- to choose one over the other.
And calling it "nature" doesn't help. It's a cop out. Because part of human nature is to call Nature a bitch and slap her around until she behaves better. To resist that which is less valuable in favor of that which is more valuable.
Now if you want to argue that the individuals in question aren't worthy of preserving, that's a different matter. But don't use "nature" and its "selection" as your justification. Tell me why we're better off without them. Tell me why we're better off being more conforming.
This I believe.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)