I've always thought that if you know someone is suicidal, don't always make it apparent that it is on your mind.

Sometimes they just need to have a person who lets things be normal - someone who knows what is there, but doesn't let it change the tone of every interaction.

That seems one of the most helpful things you can do, in my opinion.

I don’t want to be alone, but I want to be left alone.

I have always suffered from this as well. Perhaps it is just a touch of introversion? I have a happy marriage and family but I often need time all to myself or I just get overwhelmed by the constant stimulus of...other people. I don't even necessarily do anything different than I would with my family, though I generally try to work on my own projects or study something interesting.

That's understandable. I read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/d... and I felt a lot less guilty after more thoroughly understanding myself and what introversion is (not necessarily the same as misanthropy or social anxiety)

I saw the picture of Susan Cain (the author) on that page and I thought she was awfully familiar. It was then that I realized she was the lady who gave this talk http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts.... a while back.

Enjoyed the talk, I will be looking to buy this book once I'm done with my current reading schedule.

Isn't that the (pop?) definition of extrovert and introvert, i.e. some recharge when with others, others when alone?

For me that seems to constantly change, that is, when I spent a lot of time alone, people are exciting and refreshing to me, but if I spend many intensive hours with many people, I sometimes actually physically shiver in relief the second that is over: the moment I walk out the door, close the door behind visitors, or put down the phone, I tremble a bit and feel a wave of relaxation wash over me. I like to think that's a sign that my body and mind were looking forward to some alone time, to process things maybe, instead of me being antisocial or socially inept.. but I'm not sure, could be a bit of both.

Wow this is super weird, I was just thinking this exact same thing about myself, spacing out and mulling it over in front of my computer screen, then I refocused my eyes and this was the next comment and I read it.

Crazy. I'd love to know what the answer is though, for real - what would we be classified as?

I experience things exactly as you said - for me it's about a balance. Sometimes I have been out too long doing whatever with people, hanging out, drinking etc and I want some time to take a break, get a glass of water, and get some work done. And sometimes I have been getting work done for too long and I need to be out and see people. It's a very strong urge on both sides, and the ideal spot is right in the middle.

I'm exactly like that as well.

I believe it's called "being normal". As quaint as somebody admitting to being perfectly normal might sound on the internet.

I can relate to this at times. Although I would be perfectly capable of doing working at home, I don't. Instead I sit in public places so that I am not alone. But, I would note, those places are not social. In the library of my university is a large open room, which often has several people in it; however, is a designated quiet area so talking is kept to a minimum. This way I am not alone, but I am left alone. It is the presence of other's I enjoy, not necessarily their attention.

As somebody who has cancer, mentioned in the article and mentioned right next to diabetes (cringe), I look at the people complaining about how human interaction is complicated and life is difficult and I am left speechless.

Fuck people, make an effort. Do it for the dying ones.

You're just missing the point entirely. Fry isn't setting up Cancer and Diabetes and Depression or suicidal thoughts as equals, but rather as equally likely ailments. "Make an effort" is blaming the victim for something usually out of their control which is similar to blaming you for getting cancer. Imagine if you were telling someone with skin cancer or lung cancer that they should "make an effort" to stay out of the sun or quit cigarettes. You're trivializing the disease that's already there.

And you're not the only one. This is a common attitude people have. It's as if people who really feel detached from this life and want to end it do not have that right. Instead, millions of people would rather sit down and debate whether it's ethical for someone to kill themselves or have a physician-assisted suicide. Maybe we all want to believe that everything is a Hollywood-esque setting where you just need to find the right people and love of your life to get everything back together. In reality, mental illness (cyclothymia, in this case) is just as real as every other illness and you can't just "make an effort" to get rid of it. I'm sorry about your illness, but try to not to trivialize other's, it isn't a competition.

That portion of the article is referring to clinical depression, not general loneliness and unhappiness. You just demonstrated his point (that people have a hard time seeing mental conditions like bipolar disorders as actual diseases of the mind and not just bad attitudes) quite nicely.

Pardon me for being frank, but when I pause to imagine having my life taken from me before I was done living it, or being so profoundly unhappy that I would sincerely attempt to kill myself, I can only see both as terrible in their own right. There's no sense in trying to compare the severity of one to the other.

Depression (and other forms mental illness) isn't as fatal as diabetes or cancer but it is fatal for many people and ruins the lives of even more.

Fuck people, make an effort. Do it for the dying ones.

I think this is exactly what Stephen was referring to, most people don't understand clinical depression, including yourself, it seems.

At least with something like cancer you can tell for sure whether you will live or not or for how long you will suffer. With clinical depression, even if diagnosed and medicated most people suffer as long as they are alive, and some people will even try to hide for fear of people constantly trying to be in their face with advice and overtly concerns. Similar to what Stephen is facing, which makes me wonder if he trying to hide it...

Cancer frightens me very much. How are things going for you?

I'm 25. I was fit. Never smoked. Eat healthy. Got a PhD. In two months I developed a stage 4 carcinoma. I was told in a routine check-up.

About diagnosis, the hardest part is not when they tell _you_. Well, it is not a walk in the park to get told that good chances are you won't turn 30, but your day is about to get worse. The hardest part is to go home. Tell your gf - the one you where thinking of proposing to - that you're sick - while she says tearing that you look perfectly fine and you need to explain that on the inside you are not.

I told my gf to run away from me when I was diagnosed - I really hope she is fine. I have been told I am a selfish bastard and that decision was not for me to take and many other unpleasant things. I shrug. I went through 2 surgeries, chemo and radio. They have put more that 100 metal stitches in me. I had tubes running in places I never thought it was possible. I have attempted in pain to drink morphine because I had no more needles to inject myself. It's been hard and the way I am, if I'm going to drawn in shit I won't bring down with me the ones I love. I stand by my decision and despite I deeply care about her, I'll have to do without her, because I really believe she deserves better.

Then you need to talk to your (aging) parents. Fix one day. Yeah mum dinner is fine. No she won't come I'll be there alone. She's busy. Don't worry. No reason. --- Fun talk.

The doctor told me this disease would break me down. Therapy is almost as hard as the disease itself. The people next to you really make the difference. A good psychiatrist is also very important.

I am alive, but I am not the same living being.

Everything changes.

I think there's a difference between what Fry's describing and normal introversion. Normal introversion is "I just want to be left alone for a few hours", or at most, "I just want to be left alone this weekend". Introverts have normal need for community, they like being around people - they just can't stand to be around people too much, because it's energy draining for them. Fry seems to talk in terms of "I just want to be left alone this lifetime."

There're a lot of personality traits that are perfectly normal over the short term that become pathological over the long term. Sadness, for example - he describes how before medication he would consider suicide daily, while now he can still feel sad, but it doesn't feel like this all-consuming ever-present companion. Anger too: it's normal to get angry, it's not normal to be angry. And loneliness, and drive, and even things like hope or rationality.

I remember describing to my therapist that I have this tendency to get super-obsessed with whatever I'm working on and block out everything for a couple days so that I can concentrate on it. Her first question was, "Do you return to your normal life at the end of those few days, or do you feel like it consumes you until you finish it?" When I said I usually return to normal after a bit, she was like, "Maybe that's just a personality trait of yourself that you have to learn to accept." It's (generally) not pathological if it's temporary, if you feel you have a "self" outside of the trait.

Fry seems to talk in terms of "I just want to be left alone this lifetime."

There is a struggle -- not speaking for him but for myself -- between wanting companionship and wanting to be alone. I think my default state is, "I just want to be left alone", but every so once in a while all of the alone-ness (not loneliness per se, but all of the quiet and solitude and introspection and stillness that accompanies prolonged periods of being alone) kind of piles up and becomes too much to bear, and then I need to connect in some way with someone for a little while.

But, only a little while.

And, if I don't get to make that connection, then loneliness sets in: the feeling that I am no longer alone by choice, but rather that there is something wrong with me, something that is off-putting to other people. Then, I begin to feel unable to connect to others.

It is a damnable thing. I have tried all manner of approaches to "managing" it, to make it less pathological, but in the end I simply loathe the company of other people right up until I suddenly am desperate for it -- where it's too late and too difficult to get it because I don't maintain friendships and relationships the way that other people do.

You described exactly how I have felt my entire life.

That pretty much exactly describes me as well. Maybe not quite to the same degree. But the swinging back and forth between "I really need to have a connection with someone right now" and "I don't want to be around people right now" is something I feel too. And the painful difference between being alone when you want to be alone, by choice, and being alone when you don't want to, because you don't have anyone to talk to.

As far as managing it, I can't say much. I've found that reading blog posts and forums about loneliness tends to make things worse (not really a surprise there), and getting involved in a coding project makes things better (again not too surprising). I think it helps to have a small number of closer friends rather than a larger number of less close ones, because closer friendships can more easily survive lapses in communication. As for how to make close friendships, I'm quite bad at that. My only advice so far is: have conversations about difficult topics.

I've always been like this as well. I have all sorts of solitary things that I enjoy doing, and that time spent alone recharges me for the other parts of my life. But, when I'm alone too much, I get lonely and that makes me unhappy. But, when I'm trying to maintain a social life I don't get my alone time as much and that makes me unhappy.

Fortunately my wife is very similar, so it's a good fit on that level. It can just be really hard finding a balance while still being a good friend to my friends.

Personally, I think it's great that Fry has been so forthcoming with his travails. It helps others tremendously to know that they are not alone.

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification, independent of brain-chemistry. Hamlet is right for the wrong reasons. These are my beliefs:

The only real reason to continue is because you think that you can contribute, in at least a small way, to the long-term well-being of humanity. You, an individual, are a cell in a vast organism of humanity, and your duty is to find something useful to do. There are many ways to do this, as a (spiritual, physical) healer, as a (artistic, technical) creator, or as a player of (business, political) games (who, by the way, use the output of the first two types in the game).

The "long-term well-being of humanity" itself has many possible expressions. On the largest scale, it means making sure that humanity itself can survive any calamity. That means not only taking care of this planet, making sure that it can sustain life, but it also means reaching and colonizing other places in the solar system and galaxy. Given the incredible work required to build a self-sustaining colony orbiting the Earth (which is the only viable option given our level of technology) maintaining intellectual freedom is paramount. Constructing social/political/economic systems that reward power to those with self-restraint, and engender trust in those who could harm us is also important. On a smaller scale, raising children is crucially important, because the organism of humanity needs new cells to replace the cells that die.

Comedians like Stephen Fry are our philosophers. They perform a remarkable feat of alchemy, taking the banal horrors of political and social life and transmuting them in to something funny, something insightful, something that makes you think. Humor is an effective coping mechanism when we face our own prejudices, our own contradictions and, importantly, the same mistakes we see in others. Too often our leaders, and indeed we ourselves, don't laugh enough at the tragedies of our age - for laughter is more powerful than hate, because it criticizes injustice but mercifully leaves behind the terrible burning that anger creates.

Please, Stephen, continue.

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

I don't see death as innately undesirable (though the period immediately before it can be painful) but I think that karma is real (not the loopy, Westernized kind; it occurs over millennia and its only continuation is through the mind itself-- nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies) and that rebirth is true.

Choosing to die isn't necessary karmically negative-- and euthanasia goes into a different category-- but killing anyone (including oneself) in anger or out of a negative emotion probably is karmically negative, and the moment between lives is one of the most powerful/karmically charged points that one faces. So, for me, it just seems like a risk I don't want to take. Even when life seems horrible, I don't kid myself into believing for a second that I couldn't be born again much worse off, facing all the same karmic problems but with less in the way of resources.

(No, I'm not saying "suicides go to hell" because I'm not sure I believe in a hell; but I am saying that I think an afterlife is, although certainly not proven, more likely than not and I don't want to go there on bad terms.)

nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies

Evidence of reincarnation would be astounding! Interestingly, even if reincarnation were proven, scientifically, to happen, it wouldn't change my belief at all. My duty is to Earth life in general, and the human organism in particular, and that's true whether my mind is the same age, or very much older, than the body I'm currently wearing. :)

it occurs over millennia and its only continuation is through the mind itself

Minds last no longer than brains, which is a human lifetime; how could it possibly occur over millennia?

nothing supernatural other than reincarnation, if that qualifies) and that rebirth is true.

Rebirth and reincarnation are supernatural beliefs; they have no foundation in fact or evidence at all.

but I think that karma is real

Based on what evidence?

(not the loopy, Westernized kind

It's all equally loopy.

I will take another go at explaining what OP said. Things you do have consequences; if you beat your wife every day, it is likely that your son will solve his problems by beating people. You will be dead soon, he will live on to inflict this on the world.

I want to speak to an important question, though: why DO we continue?

The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue. I have several problems with that:

1. The whole idea that you can actually with your belief systems decipher what is good for all and then actually do it. History is littered with people who have terribly damaged the world; everyone of them (from the African dictators who slaughtered for freedom) probably thought they were doing good.

2. Why does humanity need to continue? Why of all the species that have come and gone and will keep doing that are we so special? Are we particularly nice to each other? God, no. Are we particularly more brutal than other species out there? I think probably not; more inventive, yes; but about the same in terms of brutality.

3. Does the Universe particularly care about whether you the snowflake exists or not? Probably not. It is unfeeling, uncaring and simply is.

Ultimately, life is absurd and finite. The finiteness everyone is aware of; even those who are too wrapped to be aware of the absurdity. There are a few options then why people continue:

1. The promise of an afterlife; sadly not convincing any more.

2. Reasoning like that of Camus - he says that the only way to deal with the absurd is to revolt against it; live in the moment, enjoying the pleasure and the pain of the fleeting. That is one way to approach this problem, but is it enough?

The problem with your hypothesis is that you are making an assumption that what you do is good or even valuable to the human race or whether that is a valid reason to continue.

Ah, but at least I'm trying. And as for those others who have tried, failed, or even done harm - I'm glad that they tried, too. The major pitfall that I see people falling into is not having any real, positive goal that is bigger then themselves. Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.

Sure, you can make mistakes attaining that goal - but the biggest mistake of all is to go through life aimlessly.

Why? I am not antagonistic; I am merely curious.

Good points... I like point number 2, as I have often thought that there is nothing intrinsically "good" or "bad" about the existence of life in the universe, it is simply a beautifully complex arrangement of atoms, one that pleases us to contemplate and behold.

I do feel like some historical figures that damaged the world did so not out of a feeling of doing what was "good," but more like what they felt was right for them, based on their priorities and worldview (perhaps this is what you meant). Selfishness could fall under this category, if these people felt that certain levels of selfishness were acceptable to them. Indeed, all of us attempt to strike a balance between selfishness and selflessness... some people just have balances that tip toward destruction. This is not to forgive them for their crimes, but I've become increasingly skeptical that everyone thinks they are doing "good" in the sense of "good for humanity."

Anyway, my personal goal is to try to live an enjoyable life while doing my best to avoid harming others in pursuit of that life. I feel like this is a pretty common stance.

You are taking as an assumption that the value of the future must be more than of the present. Our experience and concept of time cannot, necessarily, be extracted from the brain. Given, what we might call a tragic end for humanity, even if it is sometime in the near future, does not retroactively place a tragic value on the past.

Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash.

Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

People who tell you that do NOT have your best interests in mind.

Life is not about sacrificing for the good of the collective.

Good heavens, is that what you heard? Sacrifice means giving something up; I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. You are clearly free to pick that purpose for yourself (I hope you do), or pick another purpose, or none at all.

And we are both free to advocate for our choices in the hopes of inspiring others who, at least in my case, may not have thought about it in quite these terms. You clearly don't like the sound of my purpose, so why don't you share yours?

I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.

What exactly is that?

so why don't you share yours?

Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a joy/suffering mechanism.

The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but moreover, to regulate the anticipation of physical pleasure/success and physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example, self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the rewards thereof.

So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above.

Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics, whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or epistemology.

Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc. So, there are good arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad conclusions.

By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said "disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on you at all. I just wanted to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people to go in a very bad personal direction.

> a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve.

What exactly is that?

This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind.

your post was mainly about other people

This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all.

As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the clarification.

very bad personal direction.

...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it. How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me? Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read what I wrote and understand it.

This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully

No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point.

I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.

for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive.

I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.

I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful.

Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it.

It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.

when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective

I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless.

That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing.

Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?"

Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.

It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure.

Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else.

That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand.

Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market?

It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics.

Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction.

I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote.

It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused.

Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.

Your reasons for continuing are optimistic and perhaps privileged. For a large amount of people, especially for minorities and other groups in the past, contribution to the long-term well-being of humanity was not the goal. Some people had to watch as their children or parents were taken from them by war or sometimes trade and slavery. Perhaps those people sought revenge and reunion. Others were born into extreme poverty and prejudice. Perhaps they seek equality. Others were born into abundant wealth and perhaps they seek to amass more wealth and take advantage of a money-driven world. Yet other were born into internment camps and reservations. Maybe they continue out of ancestral pride or out of a sense of justice and reality. Because of nature of humans (i.e., greediness and hatred), in my opinion, the long-term well-being of humanity is a feeble goal meant for Engineers and Scientists for the most part.

At the same time, as Stephen Fry points out here, some people continue because others won't allow them to quit. Or, in a lot of situations, they can't quit without throwing the lives of their families and friends into a gambit.

Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.

Personally, I'm more of an Absurdist or Nihlist, and I don't really see much of a point to life. I continue because I'm seeking some kind of meaningful death. In that journey, I've picked up many people as acquaintances, lovers, family, etc, and if I can at least make some of them happier or better off, then maybe it was worth it.

What is a "meaningful death"?

People around you are happy because of stuff in their head; you are merely an external event. E.g. I have a friend who hates dogs, she gets unhappy at the sight of one. I like dogs. The external event is the same, only the belief system changes. Does that inherently render the object (the dog here) worthy or unworthy?

A meaningful death only makes sense in context of a meaningless death, which what we're sort of "destined" to have. In the scope of the majority, the planet, the universe, our lives are fairly unimportant. Similarly, our deaths are equally unimportant. They don't mean anything except for an external stimulus to those who have faint memories of you. A meaningful death would be the opposite of that. It's purposefully nebulous because if I could have meaningful death, it must have meant that my life was meaningful or that I somehow derived the meaning of life. Absurdists believe that there probably is some underlying meaning to life, but that it cannot be comprehended by humankind.

Anyways, I agree with you that I'm merely an external event. In your example, the dog is neither worthy or unworthy, since that's subjective and has no inherent meaning. Whether the dog is worthy or unworthy is also irrelevant to its life or death. That's to say that although I truly believe that there's no purpose to all of this, I cannot answer that question until I've died. In that case, my life is spent trying to find a meaning in death.

In essence, there maybe meaning or maybe not; you probably won't find out till you are dead. By then, you are dead.

This is a rabbit hole; a last question: Your goals, your aims, the time you spend deciding who to love, what to do? Why does it matter what you pick?

why DO we continue? This is a discussion of the rational justification

the two aren't really connected. we continue because it's hard to think of something that is more strongly selected against, in evolutionary terms, than not wanting to do so.

we are bred for survival. all our ancestors survived long enough to have offspring...

so we continue because, generation after generation, that is what is selected for. rationality isn't that relevant.

And species, universe-wide, are selected for their ability to outlive their home worlds.

Think about that.

"why DO we continue?"

How can it possibly be, in an audience like HN has, that no one mentioned sheer curiosity until this post? I know we're not all intellectually dead here.

Especially once you get old enough to have the slightest spark of nostalgia? Or the smallest ability to pattern match/model, hypothesize, test, and conclude?

How can the HN audience, of all groups, not be interested in the future solely for the future's sake if nothing else?

Suicidal thoughts as a disease may not only be solely genetic, but may have something to do with lifestyle/environment, like other diseases. I wonder how many starving Africans actually have this disease.

it’s the thought behind the most famous speech in all history. To be, or not to be.

In high school I started memorizing that for no particular reason. Upon completing a test, I idly doodled it in the margin waiting for the class to end, and handed in the paper. The next morning, the teacher cornered me in the hall and delicately asked if everything was OK. Bewildered by the time & tone of the question, I suddenly realized what Hamlet's soliloquy was about.

I can't help feeling a bit cynical about Stephen Fry's suicide "revelation". After gaining all the news coverage, the very next day he announced some new TV project of his. Coincidence?