"can animals commit suicide?"

[iambillmurray]

In a blog post by Estadt Psychological Services, the concept of “animal suicide” (suicide that is committed by any animal other than a human) is discussed. A few instances are run through, the majority being chalked up to not suicide by choice, but rather a stress or disruption to their natural environment, almost exclusively brought on by humans.

One of my questions is this: why are people not given the same stipulation when they commit suicide? The blog post describes that many of these animals are commiting suicide, again, not by choice but to escape an unnaturally confined area or to prevent further torment to themselves or loved ones. Since people are animals, aren’t we capable of putting ourselves into the same sort of unnatural situations? It’s stated that many of the animals likely fulfilled their suicides during a state of mania, again, not unlike people.

I believe that humans have evolved to such an unnatural state, that we often find ourselves in very confining and innately confusing situations. Doesn’t this too, merit a suicide not by choice but by the same factors that were indicated for the other animals? As this was the main stipulation in the argument that animals cannot commit suicide, I found their conclusion to be lacking any real statement.

Are the society induced factors of a human's life and eventual (hypothetical) suicide part of their natural environment or is it possible that that could be what drove them to escape?

[LuckyR]

In a blog post by Estadt Psychological Services, the concept of “animal suicide” (suicide that is committed by any animal other than a human) is discussed. A few instances are run through, the majority being chalked up to not suicide by choice, but rather a stress or disruption to their natural environment, almost exclusively brought on by humans.

One of my questions is this: why are people not given the same stipulation when they commit suicide? The blog post describes that many of these animals are commiting suicide, again, not by choice but to escape an unnaturally confined area or to prevent further torment to themselves or loved ones. Since people are animals, aren’t we capable of putting ourselves into the same sort of unnatural situations? It’s stated that many of the animals likely fulfilled their suicides during a state of mania, again, not unlike people.

I believe that humans have evolved to such an unnatural state, that we often find ourselves in very confining and innately confusing situations. Doesn’t this too, merit a suicide not by choice but by the same factors that were indicated for the other animals? As this was the main stipulation in the argument that animals cannot commit suicide, I found their conclusion to be lacking any real statement.

Are the society induced factors of a human's life and eventual (hypothetical) suicide part of their natural environment or is it possible that that could be what drove them to escape?

Your argument sounds logical to me. It wasn't that long ago that "suicide by cop" was a novel description.

[Angelo Cannata]

You are assuming that humans are able to commit suicide by choice, while animals aren’t. This assumption is weak, is exposed to criticism: we can’t even demonstrate the existence of freedom, so, how can you assume the existence of suicide by choice? So, we might even say that even humans are unable to commit suicide, unless they are forced to this action by elements able to force their mind to put suicide into effect.

[chewybrian]

we can’t even demonstrate the existence of freedom

I can demonstrate it to my own satisfaction to a higher standard of certainty than almost anything else.

Certain: I exist in some form. Reality exists in some form, including but possibly not limited to me.

Uncertain: Everything else.

Logic is only, always an "if...then.." proposition. It works if the assumptions are valid, yet there are no perfect assumptions (beyond those I listed, which don't seem to imply anything). Therefore, the conclusions of logic are never perfectly certain in the 'real' world. Why should I give the uncertain conclusions of logic precedence over the perceptions which I am certainly having? (Do you not have the perception that you are choosing?). Beyond raw perceptions of colors and smells and such, my primary impression of my situation is that I am free to react as I wish to what I find (though I may anticipate consequences).

When presented with a 'paradox' that said that motion was not possible, Diogenes said nothing but simply stood up and walked out of the room. When similarly presented with the 'impossibility' of choice, I may take any choice and claim it as my own. There is nothing irrational about ranking my experience above theory.

[psyreporter]

Parrots commit suicide by choice when their life's partner dies. They stop eating.

Parrots are monogamous and have only one partner in life. They live for +100 years, longer than humans.

There may be more monogamous animals that show similar behavior. Eagles are also monogamous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals

[LuckyR]

If you think about it, suicide is a marker for depression. If you can be depressed, you can be depressed enough to neglect your survival.

[Papus79]

I almost flip this in the human case - ie. think of how many people have been in situations where most people think they'd commit suicide and never do so. I can sometimes seem almost unfathomable where we draw our endurance from.

[Papus79]

I can sometimes seem almost unfathomable where we draw our endurance from.

*It

[Fja1]

How exactly would a dog or cat, for instance, infer that death would be a dissolution of their pain, when they hardly even conceive of themselves as mortal?

[Fja1]

Cats have 250 million corical neurons. Dogs have 500 million. Human have 16 billion. Suicide and death are highly complicated concepts even for a human child.

[Sy Borg]

🦜 Parrots commit suicide by choice when their life's partner dies. They stop eating.

Parrots are monogamous and have only one partner in life. They live for +100 years, longer than humans.

There may be more monogamous animals that show similar behavior. 🦅 Eagles are also monogamous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals

Yes, and they are not the only species to lose interest in life after a loss.

It's not that humans are smart enough to kill themselves, but they are smart enough to be philosophical and to accept the suffering, knowing that "time heals all wounds" (personally, I would have added, "one way another" to this quote).

Humans have the unique capacity to sense the passing of time, allowing them to reminisce or project the future at will. Other animals seem to need stimuli to remember or project, eg. the past: a dog meeting another dog friend after a long absence. The future: A dog knowing that it's near dinner time and that food is coming.

[Terrapin Station]

We have no idea what other animals' minds might be like. I don't see how we could possibly know that other animals can't be suicidal.

The more difficult issue, actually, is animals' knowledge of what would effectively kill them in order to commit suicide, and their ability to do the things necessary for it.

[Steve3007]

I believe that humans have evolved to such an unnatural state, that we often find ourselves in very confining and innately confusing situations. Doesn’t this too, merit a suicide not by choice but by the same factors that were indicated for the other animals?

Of course there are all kinds of factors which can end up being causal influences in the act of suicide. But that doesn't mean that we have to dispense entirely with the notion of "choice". This could end up being another variation on the free will versus determinism argument, but the fact that people choose to take some course of action doesn't mean that that choice has no causal influences.

Regarding the animal aspect: As with most other comparisons between human and non-human animals, I don't think there's any objectively existing hard dividing line between the two. The fact that a relatively large gap exists between us and our nearest extant relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos), due to the species in-between having very recently gone extinct, disguises that fact. So I suspect the extent to which a given species has the capacity for abstract thought required to see suicide as an option lies on a continuum. It would be interesting if it were possible to know whether suicide was ever practiced by, for example, homo erectus. If no other extant species commits suicide, it would be interesting to know how and when the practice emerged during our evolutionary history.

[Fja1]

We have no idea what other animals' minds might be like. I don't see how we could possibly know that other animals can't be suicidal.

The more difficult issue, actually, is animals' knowledge of what would effectively kill them in order to commit suicide, and their ability to do the things necessary for it.

That's antropocentric. If you'd never had seen or heard of anyone mortally wounding themselves, then you'd have absolutely no basis for predicting what would happen. How many dogs have ever heard or seen anyone committing suicide? How many dogs have even heard of suicide, and while we're at it, death?

[Terrapin Station]

We have no idea what other animals' minds might be like. I don't see how we could possibly know that other animals can't be suicidal.

The more difficult issue, actually, is animals' knowledge of what would effectively kill them in order to commit suicide, and their ability to do the things necessary for it.

That's antropocentric. If you'd never had seen or heard of anyone mortally wounding themselves, then you'd have absolutely no basis for predicting what would happen. How many dogs have ever heard or seen anyone committing suicide? How many dogs have even heard of suicide, and while we're at it, death?

Huh? I'm saying that we don't know what other animals' minds would be like. How is that anthropocentric?

Re the second part, I'm simply saying that they're unlikely to know that a lot of particular things would kill them, and they're not going to be able to hold firearms or knives or anything, lol.