I think the deathism is also evidence, but it’s not so strong. We don’t know the ennui that sets in after 500 years. It might be unimaginable, the same way a mid life crisis makes no sense to a 10 year old. I actually have a short story that posits this.
Even if such ennui is “natural” (and I don’t see how a phenomenon that only shows up after 5-6x standard lifespan, assuming parity with baseline humans can ever be considered natural), it should still be considered a problem in need of solving. And the Culture can solve just about every plausibly solvable problem in the universe!
Think of it this way, if a mid-life crisis reliably convinced a >10% fraction of the population to kill themselves at the age of 40, with the rest living happily to 80+, we’d be throwing tens of billions at a pharmacological cure. It’s even worse, relatively and absolutely, for the Culture, as their humans can easily live nigh-indefinitely.
Even if you are highly committed to some kind of worship of minimalism or parsimony, despite infinite resources, or believe that people have the right to self-termination, then at least try and convince them to make mind backups that can be put into long-term storage. That is subjectively equivalent to death without the same… finality.
This doesn’t have to be coercive, but the Culture demonstrates the ability to produce incredibly amounts of propaganda on demand. As far as I’m concerned, if the majority of the population is killing itself after a mere ~0.000..% of their theoretical life expectancy, my civilization is suffering from a condition that ours standard depression or cancer to shame. And they can trivially solve it, they have incredibly powerful tools that can edit brains/minds to arbitrary precision. They just… don’t.
yes, if midlife crises often led to suicide, we would try to cure that. this is because we regard our society as imperfect. therefore, its constituents may also be confused. therefore, we are obligated to change their minds, to protect them from themselves.
the culture has no such luxury. when its citizens decide that life is not worth living, the culture has no recourse but to trust them. it cannot blame their material circumstance, or brain chemistry, or [...].
one may argue that so many choosing this demise is, by itself, a clear indictment of the culture. (i cannot disagree, but i have not yet been 500 years old, myself.) should they not design more and more varied amusements? (but, haven’t they?) should they not seek to steer individuals away from this path? (but, do they not?) should they not invite the bored to explore the galaxy? (but, does the galaxy have what these people seek?)
to the culture, a mind is inviolable. we can accuse them of narcissism—believing a mind should be forcibly changed would implicitly admit that the culture may be unable to raise cogent, self-reflective beings. the culture is unable to admit this latter point, and so must consider intrusion into a mind to be reserved for warfare.
rhetorically: should we as the culture harass the elench? should we sway those who wish to sublime? should we deny genar-hofoen his affronter body? (for that matter, should we destroy the affront?)
I think the deathism is also evidence, but it’s not so strong. We don’t know the ennui that sets in after 500 years. It might be unimaginable, the same way a mid life crisis makes no sense to a 10 year old. I actually have a short story that posits this.
And yes, the Culture is strangely non optimal.
Even if such ennui is “natural” (and I don’t see how a phenomenon that only shows up after 5-6x standard lifespan, assuming parity with baseline humans can ever be considered natural), it should still be considered a problem in need of solving. And the Culture can solve just about every plausibly solvable problem in the universe!
Think of it this way, if a mid-life crisis reliably convinced a >10% fraction of the population to kill themselves at the age of 40, with the rest living happily to 80+, we’d be throwing tens of billions at a pharmacological cure. It’s even worse, relatively and absolutely, for the Culture, as their humans can easily live nigh-indefinitely.
Even if you are highly committed to some kind of worship of minimalism or parsimony, despite infinite resources, or believe that people have the right to self-termination, then at least try and convince them to make mind backups that can be put into long-term storage. That is subjectively equivalent to death without the same… finality.
This doesn’t have to be coercive, but the Culture demonstrates the ability to produce incredibly amounts of propaganda on demand. As far as I’m concerned, if the majority of the population is killing itself after a mere ~0.000..% of their theoretical life expectancy, my civilization is suffering from a condition that ours standard depression or cancer to shame. And they can trivially solve it, they have incredibly powerful tools that can edit brains/minds to arbitrary precision. They just… don’t.
this argument begs the question.
yes, if midlife crises often led to suicide, we would try to cure that. this is because we regard our society as imperfect. therefore, its constituents may also be confused. therefore, we are obligated to change their minds, to protect them from themselves.
the culture has no such luxury. when its citizens decide that life is not worth living, the culture has no recourse but to trust them. it cannot blame their material circumstance, or brain chemistry, or [...].
one may argue that so many choosing this demise is, by itself, a clear indictment of the culture. (i cannot disagree, but i have not yet been 500 years old, myself.) should they not design more and more varied amusements? (but, haven’t they?) should they not seek to steer individuals away from this path? (but, do they not?) should they not invite the bored to explore the galaxy? (but, does the galaxy have what these people seek?)
to the culture, a mind is inviolable. we can accuse them of narcissism—believing a mind should be forcibly changed would implicitly admit that the culture may be unable to raise cogent, self-reflective beings. the culture is unable to admit this latter point, and so must consider intrusion into a mind to be reserved for warfare.
rhetorically: should we as the culture harass the elench? should we sway those who wish to sublime? should we deny genar-hofoen his affronter body? (for that matter, should we destroy the affront?)
should we be so grabby?