The Doomer Exit Strategy

Every doomer has a plan

Collapse 2050 is a one person endeavor managed by me, Sarah Connor. As you might have guessed, this is a pseudonym. I remain anonymous because I am employed full time in the soul-sucking finance industry. I'm striving to get out soon. My writing is entirely reader-sponsored, as this let's me speak the truth to my audience. No sugar coating to appease advertisers or corporate sponsors. If you're new here please consider subscribing. The site is free for all, but paid subscribers help to cover hosting costs. Thank you.

---

Photo by Mathew MacQuarrie on Unsplash

Almost every 'doomer' (I prefer the name 'realist') that confides in me has an exit strategy for when the shit hits the fan. This is a softcore way to say they know when and how they will kill themselves.

Under certain circumstances, I believe suicide is a legitimate option. I think we can all agree that there are many fates worse than death. Tortuous diseases and disabilities fit this description.

For this reason, some countries have legalized assisted death for individuals facing terminal decline. We have long provided this service to our pets. Ending misery is seen as humane.

So why does society jump through hoops to prevent people - often strangers - from killing themselves?

I believe this embedded reaction stems from when we lived in much smaller hunter-gatherer groups. In such a setup, losing the possibility, productivity and wisdom possessed by an individual damages the entire group. Of course, that individual would be known and loved by most in the smaller clan so the emotional toll would also be heavy.

That thinking is now weaved into in society's DNA - today we'll spend resources and take risks to prevent a complete stranger from jumping off a bridge, even if it's no danger to anyone else.

Suicide is seen as a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Many who have attempted and survived claim they regretted their decision as soon as they took it.

Death is tragic, and I've experienced first hand how suicide devastates family members. It can be a selfish act.

Perhaps empathy is why we try to save total strangers from ending things. Or perhaps it's simply institutionalized morality passed down by our distant ancestors.

But what about when nobody is affected? Do we have the right to intervene? Is intervention even successful?

For some, intervention is simply an inconvenience to avoid during the next attempt.

Society is conditioned to intervene with a message of hope. "Things will get better." Unfortunately, the time and place for this projection of hope is over.

Today, hope is fading. And, as civilization crumbles around us, this will become true for billions.

Who knows what horrors await us, but our uncertainty is not much different from the dread German civilian women felt as bloodthirsty Soviet soldiers closed in on Berlin. They heard the rumors and knew what awaited them. Suicide was a relief.

Our suffering isn't as imminent, but the dread persists.

It's unfair to expect people to suffer uncontrollably, either at the hands of oppressors, roving gangs or mother nature.

While it's not unusual for people to kill themselves at the sign of impending doom, many don't. They suffer instead. I suspect many realists today won't follow through on their exit strategies, even as the walls cave in. The survival instict is too strong. Moreover, the bar for determining what's livable will lower as things worsen. We are remakably adaptable, especially if change is incremental.

I don't have an exit strategy, although I wish I did. It would take a lot to get me to that point, and even when the time has arrived I'm not sure I could pull the trigger. Part of my fear is failure, leaving myself worse off than before. A stronger restraint is the people who depend on me. There's no way anyone I love is left behind. My choices are contingent upon their choices.

Others would certainly off themselves before me, perhaps to my advantage.

In some regards society should facilitate suicide. Put some of that human ingenuity to work to peacefully and voluntarily reduce the demand for food and infrastructure. If a billion people wanted to and could easily end their lives, how much time would that buy the remaining population. From this perspective, suicide might be the ultimate altruistic gesture.

This is getting mighty dystopian, and many will say I have a depopulation agenda, similar to the oligarchy. First, I would argue the oligarchy actually wants the supply of labor and consumers to grow. Second, my observations are raw, calculated and hypothetical. I'm opening a discussion on a shunned topic. I have no answers.

Regardless of the impacts to society, I believe suicide - much like assisted death, abortion or hospice care - is a personal decision that lies on the healthcare spectrum.

With more people facing the decision as the world goes to shit, we need to revisit our moral objections to what might be an ideal end for many.