Australian doctor Philip Nitschke has announced that 3-d printed devices that are being coined “euthanasia pods” — a coffin-like device that makes assisted suicide accessible for nearly anybody and without medical intervention — will soon be available in Switzerland.
FTA:
"The person will get into the capsule and lie down. It’s very comfortable. They will be asked a number of questions and when they have answered, they may press the button inside the capsule activating the mechanism in their own time,” Nitschke told Swiss Info in an interview.
Nitschke explained the pod will then start the process of flooding the inside with nitrogen, which will reduce the oxygen level from 21 percent to 1 percent. He said the person will feel disoriented and slightly euphoric before losing consciousness.
“The whole thing takes about 30 seconds. Death takes place through hypoxia and hypocapnia, oxygen and carbon dioxide deprivation, respectively. There is no panic, no choking feeling,” he told the news outlet.
The pod can be towed anywhere for the death, according to Nitschke, including “an idyllic outdoor setting or in the premises of an assisted-suicide organization, for example.”
Would it be off-base to call this demonic? I could see this maybe being ok in the case of a terminal patient, but other than that.. with no medical oversight? There's probably going to be foul play with this device once it finally becomes available, just you watch. Nevermind what looks to me like a blasé treatment of the act of suicide.
It reeks of nihilism continuing to burn its way through the heart and soul of the West.
I can imagine this being used by countless impulsive people if it becomes widely available.
The first thing to jump to my mind was m all the scum who'd try to cram their ancient, decrepit grandmother or grandfather in so they could fight over the scraps of the inheritance a few months or years early.
Never underestimate the depravity of people when a family member is dead or dying and going to leave behind property or money. No joke. My grandad was dying, he got better thank god, but while we thought he was about to die I had multiple relatives bickering over what was to happen to his stuff. Never would've thought they'd do that if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
Yeah. Turns out it was completely due to VA incompetence. Gave him the wrong drug or something to that effect. This was. Oh wow, further back than I was thinking so I forget the specifics. Things cleared up relatively quick when we were able to get a doc at a non-VA hospital to take a look at him.
I think Futurama got it from a book called Immortality Inc, which is what the movie Freejack was based off of. It had suicide booths in it, BUT in that world, the afterlife was proven to be a thing. In the book, the Spiritual Switchboard was exactly that - it was a system that allowed the living to communicate with the dead. So in this context, suicide wasn't a big leap.
Clearly you have no idea how much many people want the things like that. Instead of being forced to make a mess of themselves in the public, or botching it in private and suffering, or both. Even with a gun you can fuck up absolutely horrifically, and in many countries there are no guns.
I’m sympathetic to the people dying of painful wasting illnesses or dementia that have absolutely no hope of recovery and merely want to end their pain in the quickest, cleanest way possible, but something about how giddy some people get over shit like this just weirds me out.
This article is a good example. The whole I Fucking Love Science crowd absolutely loses their shit over stuff like this, and I’m not really sure why. I think even in the best of circumstances using this kind of device should be a somber, private thing. They celebrate it in this garish, immature, bugman-esque way something that should be a very difficult, personal decision. Maybe it’s just another symptom of our society giving in to nihilism?
"People are doing [illegal thing] anyways at great risk. By making [thing] legal we reduce the risk. That doesn't mean it's not bad; it just means it's safe"
"[Thing] has been legal now for decades but is still considered bad: isn't it time for that to change?"
In other words, you decouple legality from morality when you want to make a thing legal, then you re-couple them again when you want to make it "moral".
You can see numerous examples of this in action, from abortion to drug use.
Science doesn't hold any life, let alone human life, to be sacred. The scientific method insists that we innoculate children with a compound of unknown effects, we feed live dogs to ants, and we irradiate veterans, just to see what happens.
Science has no mechanism for dealing with empathy, justice, or any other ideal; all it can do is determine if a hypothesis is materially true (although it's exceedingly good at what it does). That's why spirituality, philosophy, and religion are so important. They are the only things standing between us and ubiquitous cruelty and callous disregard for life.
You'd think that, but doing research with PhDs at the university made me aware of ethics protocols that almost every researcher has to agree to in order to get a job and get funding. These go beyond protecting life, and informed consent. They discourage studies that could harm "marginalized groups", regardless of any good the findings would provide. For example a study that finds homosexual behavior is to blame for AIDs would be wrong.
So the reality is actually worse. Only common liberal heresies are protected. As we see with the mandatory vaccination and fast-tracked approvals, the whole informed consent and ethics thing can be thrown out the window if the politicians and corporations want it bad enough. Scientists will rarely get funding for taboo research that goes against leftist dogma, but they can violate ethical guidelines if it's determined by the politics of the day to be for the common good.
There's a bridge in Toronto, near where I used to live, that was infamous for people jumping off of it.
The city ended up putting a wire fence up because it was over a busy highway. You could still get through but it was much harder. The number of people jumping dropped to near zero and the overall suicide rate for the city went down.
Most suicidal people are temporarily depressed. If you make it easy to kill themselves, they will. If it's hard, they give up because they're depressed. Later they don't feel depressed so they don't even try at all.
Making suicide easy and painless only encourages people to make hasty decisions that hurt everyone who cares about them.
It is, and completely ignored by this technology. The inventors must be aware of this if they have any interest in assisted suicide, the fact that they are ignoring it can only be insidious.
This is absolutely demonic. Imagine some depressed kid wanting to kill himself but maybe afraid to do it. If it’s painless and easy like this, he may never get the chance to find out he was wrong about life.
This is not a means of (significantly) reducing population. The overpopulation problem doesn't come from developed countries like Switzerland, those countries already have declining populations.
I have no data on that, but I doubt developing countries, where overpopulation happens, have as many suicidal people.
I honestly wasn't sure if this was satire or not until I got to the end. I don't know what's worse, this link or the fact there're people unironically like that.
Interesting how this clashes with the idea that the government is responsible for your safety.
At the exact same time that governments are forcing universal vaccination, justified by safety, they would also allow you to kill yourself because, in this specific case, your safety is your choice.
So what security measures are in place to prevent these being used as murder weapons? And I don't mean someone picking one up to bludgeon someone, and I don't even mean shoving them into the pod. I mean "you brought shame upon your family" style tactics which are common in many parts of the world and already have high suicide rates within those suffering from such tactics. Making such a process quick and easy is the opposite of what should be done in order to save those victims of abuse.
Shocking. Moral implications are bleak, but I can't grasp the political implications.
When the government announces that suicide is permissible, it is a statement that they no longer value or rely on the citizenry. The simple explanation may be that all suiciders will be simply replaced with diverse immigrants, but you can't just isolate these things - it changes the whole incentive structure. There aren't many further steps to take before the government decides it's in their best interest to make citizens maximally miserable.
Logistically, who cleans up the mess? Is the whole machine buried with corpse? Who pays for that? Is the corpse dragged out and the machine cleaned of excrement? What happens if the power goes out while someone's inside one, is there a battery? Biggest question: does it lock the door, and if so, when does it lock and who can unlock it?
I agree, and that's mostly what I meant. No illusions of serving the public here.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs. It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity, even if social/cultural cohesion is off the table. I assume the fault lies primarily in managerial disconnect with reality.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs.
I think it's a bit too late for that. Any large organization will view its members, subjects, citizens are replaceable cogs. We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity,
Anything that you consume is something that the government cannot consume. Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly. Indirectly, it often is, because economics determines how restive a population is. But there is a reason they are completely fine with promoting economy-wrecking climate insanity.
Why do they simply not take it all, or even more than they do now? Because they can't.
If you want a nice blackpill, check out Mancur Olson's theory of stationary bandits.
We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
For the brief time that this did work, people had something in common with these mysterious strangers. Even if you had nothing else in common, you were all Christians, or you were all French. But now, religion and patriotism are passe. And it seems that the powers that be are intending to use people's differences against them.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
Precisely. Any sort of virus or societal poison invented anywhere spreads rapidly to the entire rest of the world, whether it's within 1 year or within 10 years. I have predicted to people I know that we will probably have large-scale arson and looting within 10 years, same as the US.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use?
I mean what they can use. If you have something that they cannot use, then it is only counterproductive to take it from you, since it does them no good while inciting you against them.
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
I do not think they can. But the actual reason for say, police protection of civilians, may not be that the government wants to keep you safe, but that the government does not want someone else getting a share of the pie. If you go back to our stationary robbers example, if another robber tries to get in on the act, then your stationary robber may protect you against him.
Australian doctor Philip Nitschke has announced that 3-d printed devices that are being coined “euthanasia pods” — a coffin-like device that makes assisted suicide accessible for nearly anybody and without medical intervention — will soon be available in Switzerland.
FTA:
Would it be off-base to call this demonic? I could see this maybe being ok in the case of a terminal patient, but other than that.. with no medical oversight? There's probably going to be foul play with this device once it finally becomes available, just you watch. Nevermind what looks to me like a blasé treatment of the act of suicide.
It reeks of nihilism continuing to burn its way through the heart and soul of the West.
The first thing to jump to my mind was m all the scum who'd try to cram their ancient, decrepit grandmother or grandfather in so they could fight over the scraps of the inheritance a few months or years early.
Never underestimate the depravity of people when a family member is dead or dying and going to leave behind property or money. No joke. My grandad was dying, he got better thank god, but while we thought he was about to die I had multiple relatives bickering over what was to happen to his stuff. Never would've thought they'd do that if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
Yeah. Turns out it was completely due to VA incompetence. Gave him the wrong drug or something to that effect. This was. Oh wow, further back than I was thinking so I forget the specifics. Things cleared up relatively quick when we were able to get a doc at a non-VA hospital to take a look at him.
I think Futurama got it from a book called Immortality Inc, which is what the movie Freejack was based off of. It had suicide booths in it, BUT in that world, the afterlife was proven to be a thing. In the book, the Spiritual Switchboard was exactly that - it was a system that allowed the living to communicate with the dead. So in this context, suicide wasn't a big leap.
What about all the weak-willed people who'll off themselves because someone hurt their feelings online.
Watch, this will lead to mean words being equated with murder.
There are no words to properly describe the evil of these people.
Clearly you have no idea how much many people want the things like that. Instead of being forced to make a mess of themselves in the public, or botching it in private and suffering, or both. Even with a gun you can fuck up absolutely horrifically, and in many countries there are no guns.
I’m sympathetic to the people dying of painful wasting illnesses or dementia that have absolutely no hope of recovery and merely want to end their pain in the quickest, cleanest way possible, but something about how giddy some people get over shit like this just weirds me out.
This article is a good example. The whole I Fucking Love Science crowd absolutely loses their shit over stuff like this, and I’m not really sure why. I think even in the best of circumstances using this kind of device should be a somber, private thing. They celebrate it in this garish, immature, bugman-esque way something that should be a very difficult, personal decision. Maybe it’s just another symptom of our society giving in to nihilism?
We've moved from "safe, legal and rare" to "shout your abortion" I'm not surprised that there's a "shout your suicide" crowd in the mainstream.
The Standard Process of Normalization:
In other words, you decouple legality from morality when you want to make a thing legal, then you re-couple them again when you want to make it "moral".
You can see numerous examples of this in action, from abortion to drug use.
Science doesn't hold any life, let alone human life, to be sacred. The scientific method insists that we innoculate children with a compound of unknown effects, we feed live dogs to ants, and we irradiate veterans, just to see what happens.
Science has no mechanism for dealing with empathy, justice, or any other ideal; all it can do is determine if a hypothesis is materially true (although it's exceedingly good at what it does). That's why spirituality, philosophy, and religion are so important. They are the only things standing between us and ubiquitous cruelty and callous disregard for life.
You'd think that, but doing research with PhDs at the university made me aware of ethics protocols that almost every researcher has to agree to in order to get a job and get funding. These go beyond protecting life, and informed consent. They discourage studies that could harm "marginalized groups", regardless of any good the findings would provide. For example a study that finds homosexual behavior is to blame for AIDs would be wrong.
So the reality is actually worse. Only common liberal heresies are protected. As we see with the mandatory vaccination and fast-tracked approvals, the whole informed consent and ethics thing can be thrown out the window if the politicians and corporations want it bad enough. Scientists will rarely get funding for taboo research that goes against leftist dogma, but they can violate ethical guidelines if it's determined by the politics of the day to be for the common good.
There's a bridge in Toronto, near where I used to live, that was infamous for people jumping off of it.
The city ended up putting a wire fence up because it was over a busy highway. You could still get through but it was much harder. The number of people jumping dropped to near zero and the overall suicide rate for the city went down.
Most suicidal people are temporarily depressed. If you make it easy to kill themselves, they will. If it's hard, they give up because they're depressed. Later they don't feel depressed so they don't even try at all.
Making suicide easy and painless only encourages people to make hasty decisions that hurt everyone who cares about them.
Definitely demonic.
Depression makes you not want to exert effort into anything.
Therefore, to save the lives of the depressed, make there be some minor effort involved.
It's a fairly basic and yet remarkably effective strategy.
It is, and completely ignored by this technology. The inventors must be aware of this if they have any interest in assisted suicide, the fact that they are ignoring it can only be insidious.
This is absolutely demonic. Imagine some depressed kid wanting to kill himself but maybe afraid to do it. If it’s painless and easy like this, he may never get the chance to find out he was wrong about life.
Is there any way to convince the troons that this counts as gender affirming medical care?
Yes, but that's nothing to cheer for.
This is not a means of (significantly) reducing population. The overpopulation problem doesn't come from developed countries like Switzerland, those countries already have declining populations.
I have no data on that, but I doubt developing countries, where overpopulation happens, have as many suicidal people.
Culture of death.
41% can never be easier
Don't have a problem with those who are terminally ill or so fucked up that they can't even wipe their own mouths with a napkin wanting to suicide.
https://zerohplovecraft.wordpress.com/2019/09/28/the-green-new-deal/
I honestly wasn't sure if this was satire or not until I got to the end. I don't know what's worse, this link or the fact there're people unironically like that.
Zero HP Lovecraft is the best short story writer I've come across recently
It's just like that episode of Futurama
Interesting how this clashes with the idea that the government is responsible for your safety.
At the exact same time that governments are forcing universal vaccination, justified by safety, they would also allow you to kill yourself because, in this specific case, your safety is your choice.
If I lived in a pod, I'd want to kill myself too.
Switzerland really needs to become firmly acquainted with war-crimes if theyre that fake and gay.
Humanity has become so soft they are trying to kill themselves.
"Are you familiar with the concept of civil rights? Here in the zaibatsu we have one civil right, the right to suicide."
"I don't have a sense of humor, just a sense of irony masquerading as one."
Pretty cool world we have here.
So what security measures are in place to prevent these being used as murder weapons? And I don't mean someone picking one up to bludgeon someone, and I don't even mean shoving them into the pod. I mean "you brought shame upon your family" style tactics which are common in many parts of the world and already have high suicide rates within those suffering from such tactics. Making such a process quick and easy is the opposite of what should be done in order to save those victims of abuse.
Shocking. Moral implications are bleak, but I can't grasp the political implications.
When the government announces that suicide is permissible, it is a statement that they no longer value or rely on the citizenry. The simple explanation may be that all suiciders will be simply replaced with diverse immigrants, but you can't just isolate these things - it changes the whole incentive structure. There aren't many further steps to take before the government decides it's in their best interest to make citizens maximally miserable.
Logistically, who cleans up the mess? Is the whole machine buried with corpse? Who pays for that? Is the corpse dragged out and the machine cleaned of excrement? What happens if the power goes out while someone's inside one, is there a battery? Biggest question: does it lock the door, and if so, when does it lock and who can unlock it?
I don't think governments, of any kind, values the citizenry beyond what they can get out of it in terms of taxation or offices.
I agree, and that's mostly what I meant. No illusions of serving the public here.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs. It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity, even if social/cultural cohesion is off the table. I assume the fault lies primarily in managerial disconnect with reality.
I think it's a bit too late for that. Any large organization will view its members, subjects, citizens are replaceable cogs. We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
Anything that you consume is something that the government cannot consume. Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly. Indirectly, it often is, because economics determines how restive a population is. But there is a reason they are completely fine with promoting economy-wrecking climate insanity.
Why do they simply not take it all, or even more than they do now? Because they can't.
If you want a nice blackpill, check out Mancur Olson's theory of stationary bandits.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
For the brief time that this did work, people had something in common with these mysterious strangers. Even if you had nothing else in common, you were all Christians, or you were all French. But now, religion and patriotism are passe. And it seems that the powers that be are intending to use people's differences against them.
Precisely. Any sort of virus or societal poison invented anywhere spreads rapidly to the entire rest of the world, whether it's within 1 year or within 10 years. I have predicted to people I know that we will probably have large-scale arson and looting within 10 years, same as the US.
I mean what they can use. If you have something that they cannot use, then it is only counterproductive to take it from you, since it does them no good while inciting you against them.
I do not think they can. But the actual reason for say, police protection of civilians, may not be that the government wants to keep you safe, but that the government does not want someone else getting a share of the pie. If you go back to our stationary robbers example, if another robber tries to get in on the act, then your stationary robber may protect you against him.
Related dystopian music video.
The globalists' dilemma. Force people to live in the pod? Or die in it?
Why not both?