Why is suicide referred to as unnatural death?

This post is not going to invoke the deeper philosophical question about what is natural and what is unnatural. Instead, it is going to critique the categorization of suicide as unnatural death under the accepted and commonly used definitions of natural and unnatural. 

What is natural death? Roughly speaking, it is when one or more systems of the body fails to perform its' functions to an extent that is required for sustenance of life. One can die of 'natural' causes when heart or liver or kidneys give up. Sometimes more than one system fails leading to multi organ failure. Why is the brain discriminated against then? If someone's brain gives up due to depression and therefore takes his or her own life, how did it suddenly become unnatural? If heart gives up, then the body does not receive blood thereby cannot get oxygen resulting in death. If brain gives up, it uses it's signaling mechanism to signal to hands to tie a rope around the neck and tighten it (the example of hanging is used here but the idea any can extended to any form of suicide). This results in cutting off the supply of oxygen resulting in death. I do not see much difference between a heart giving up and a brain giving up. I am against this discrimination against brain. Brain is like any other organ and its failure is no more unnatural than failure of other organs.

P S - This argument can be extended even to death due to accidents. I think accidents are a 'natural' part of our existence and so should be categorized as natural death. I can accept homicide as unnatural. One can argue that the ill intentions of another person resulting in one's death is also natural but that is at a philosophical level which I don't intend to consider for this blog post.

When people give birth to a child, are they JUST giving birth to a 'child'?

 

When you graduate high school and planning to go to college, would you say, 'I am planning to do college' or 'I am planning to hang out with friends for the next 4 years'? (Well, in some cases college might just be about that!!). It might be true that college life consists of hanging out with friends but that is not all college life is about. College has both good and bad aspects - low on money, high on stress, learning new things, meeting new people so on and so forth. Saying 'I am planning to hang out with friends for the next 4 years' is not untrue but inadequate and misleading because it does not encompass everything that goes in a college life. At most it might be representing 10% of college life. Continuing on, when you graduate college and planning to start work, would you say, 'I am planning to start working at a firm' or 'I am planning to earn money and spend it every month'?  It might be true that working leads to earning money which in turn leads to spending it, but that is not all work life is about. Work has both good and bad aspects - financial freedom, career development, sucking up to boss, boredom, so on and so forth. Saying 'I am planning to earn money and spend it every month' is not untrue but inadequate and misleading because it does not encompass everything that goes in work life. I do not want to put a number but earning and spending is a fraction of work life. The overall point I want to make with these two examples is, if we focus on what is convenient to us and paint a picture, we are misleading everyone including ourselves. 

But why do we do this mistake so often when it comes to giving birth to a human being? Are we giving birth to a child or bringing a new human being into existence? Of course, the way to bring a human being into existence is by giving birth to a child but that is not the end of it. If at all, it is just the beginning of it. The childhood phase is at most 10% of a human being's lifespan. A human's life has both good and bad aspects - childhood, love, friendships, achievements, adventure, diseases, mental illness, addictions, so on and so forth. Why the focus is on the unblemished, cute, lovely 10% of life and not the possible troubles associated with the rest of the life? I am not saying an adult life is always filled with troubles. But a child's life is surely not an accurate representation of an entire human being's life. So, when people give birth to a child, they are NOT JUST giving birth to a child. They are bringing a human being in its entirety to existence. And a human being is not just the unblemished cute, lovely face of a child. If at all, it is quite the opposite!!

Barriers to honesty - Cont

If you have noticed closely, at times we find ourselves using the prefix "honestly" before a sentence. For example - "Honestly, this is a fine dish you have prepared". So, what is the difference between "Honestly, this is a fine dish you have prepared" and "This is a fine dish you have prepared"? I am sure there are many circumstances where one may use the term honestly as the prefix, but this post is about people using the term in situation like the one I have given above.

My cynical take is, when we give compliments, our baseline has some dishonesty built into it. When we compliment someone, we are never true to ourselves completely. We inflate our compliments by a small bit so that the other person does not feel bad. When your spouse dresses for an occasion and ask for your rating, and you say 7.5/10, how often do you exactly mean 7.5? In my opinion, often times, it only means a 6.5 or 7 and we add an extra amount to it, so your spouse feels better. But we cannot overdo it. Because saying a 10/10 might give away the obvious dishonesty. With this background, what can you do when you actually encounter a situation which warrants a 9.5/10? You say - "Honestly, this deserves a 9.5/10". If you just say, "This deserves a 9.5/10", you cannot differentiate between your usual dishonest compliments and a genuine compliment which you want to give. The prefix "honestly" is the one which differentiates that. It is required for the honest ones to stand out among our usual dishonest ones.

Honestly, .............................. Nah, I do not have anything to be honest about for now. I will return to my dishonest self.

We are all Anti-Natalists!!

I am sure the title might be a bit (in fact hugely) off considering we are living in a world which has a population of over 7 billion and expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. But here is my reasoning.

Firstly, I want to begin with a quote by Richard Dawkins in the context of atheism. 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

So if I am a christian, I am usually atheist towards Rama, Allah, Ra etc etc. A real atheist goes one god further and doesn't believe in the god he/she is expected to believe. In other words, if the world has had n gods till now, the believers are atheists towards n-1 gods while the atheists are atheists towards n gods.  

I want to use the above line of thought in the context of antinatalists. Before the invention of contraceptives, people usually had as many children as they could in their lifetimes. In the current world, the scenario has changed drastically. People make conscious decisions as to how many children they want to have, thanks to contraceptives. Therefore, if a procreater can have n children in his/her lifetime, he/she is an antinatalist towards n-1, n-2, n-3 etc children  (considering how many children he/she has had). But a real antinatalist just goes few steps further and is antinatalist towards n children. 

In conclusion,

"We are all antinatalists towards a lot of children we could have had. Some of us just go a few steps further."

Disrespecting by respecting!

Disclaimer - I am not brought up in a foster environment and therefore my views presented here are purely theoretical. My position is not informed from any personal experiences but from witnessing others' experiences.

What is parenting? There is a scientific explanation to it which simply translates to "An act of pure selfishness to propagate one's genes". However, the narrative which is used colloquially is completely opposite and it baffles me. Usually people say parenting in the greatest form of selflessness. Mother is an epitome of sacrifice etc etc. If we pause for a second, the flaw in that narrative becomes evident. Did the child ask the parents to give birth to him/her? For whose purpose the couple is bringing a child into existence? Of course once the child is born, the parents will go to great lengths to care for the child. But why? Because the child is the carrier of their genes. Usually in a business contract, one gets paid after finishing a job. On the contrary, children have paid the returns to their parents by virtue of their birth (by carrying their genes). So only the parents do their job of safeguarding their children for a really long time. I understand there is love, care, affection etc etc in parenting but one should not lose sight of the fact that, it is standing on the firm ground of self-interest.  

If the above argument is true, how can one explain foster parenting? There are many reasons but I want to focus on one main reason of interest here. First, I will give an example to make things easy. Why does a human female (male also) like to dress well? The evolutionary biology answer is straight forward, it is to attract mate leading to procreation. But we frequently see women who have crossed menopause also like to dress well. Though procreation is out of question, it still feels nice to dress well because we are hardwired to feel that way. Similarly, though propagating genes is out of question for foster parents, they care for the child because we are hardwired to feel nice about it. It is similar to sex with contraceptives. Though sex is intended to procreate, we engage in sex without the outcome quite often. Similarly, many couples want to enjoy the pleasure of parenting though the child is not carrying their genes. 

With this understanding of parenting and foster parenting, I want to analyse one particular stance often taken by people who are brought up in a foster environment - the feeling of debt. Though many people feel a sense of debt to their biological parents too, I have noticed this to be more prominent in people who are brought up by foster parents. It is as though, they have done a sacrifice and the child is ever indebted to them. I simply don't buy this stance even if adoption has taken place with different objectives.

1. For selfish reasons to enjoy parenting - For whose purpose they adopted in the first place? The child's or their's? So the question of debt is out of scope here because in this case, not much of a difference exist between biological ones and foster ones.
2. For altruistic reasons to help a child - Some people choose to adopt to rescue a child from distress or to a give shelter to an orphan etc etc. Should the child feel indebted in this case? The title of the post was to address this particular point. In my opinion, those people who have adopted for altruistic reasons, are not narrow minded to expect a return on their investment. The children who think they are respecting their foster parents by feeling a sense of debt, are actually disrespecting by treating them as lesser individuals. They don't deserve such a superficial treatment. 

There is a quote - "People who mind, don't matter and people who matter, don't mind". Similarly, "Parents who are selfish, don't deserve indebtedness and parents who are altruistic, don't expect indebtedness"

Fighting with each other*

* NO CONDITIONS APPLY

Whether it is Covid-19 or climate change or being on the brink on extinction, Hindu-Muslim, US-Iran, North Korea ................................ will go on and on and on..................................

P S - I completely retract the point I made in my previous post. However, I am not deleting so that it gives the context to this post.

Fighting with each other Vs Fighting together

Till March 2020

India-Pakistan, NRC-CAA, North Korea, Brexit, USA-Iran, Hindu-Muslim, US-Mexico,...........

From March 2020 - (            )

Covid - 19

(        ) -  Till the end of humans?

India-Pakistan, NRC-CAA, North Korea, USA-Iran, Hindu-Muslim, US-Mexico,.............. World vs China................................................

For once, we are fighting together. Just a matter of time for us to go back to our comfort zone of fighting with each other