>>11631971I actually have an explanation for this. This is because suicide is an evolutionary advantage. Yes, you read that right. "But how can that be?" you ask, "When suicide is clearly the worst outcome in terms of survivability." Read on.
I want you to consider two separate groups of people, group A and group B. Both have similar numbers of members, and are for the purposes of this thought experiment, genetically identical. Except for one key difference: group B has a gene that acts as a hidden switch where if they become miserable enough, they will kill themselves. This means that when they become a burden on their society, either due to age or in situations where there are not enough resources to go around (famine), the hardest hit individuals kill themselves and alleviate the burden on the rest of the group.
In group A, that doesn't happen. Their elderly people stay alive and consume more resources that they contribute. And in times of low resources, when there isn't enough to go around, they fight each other. And when they fight each other, odds are high that both die, or one dies but the other is grievously injured and in turn becomes an even greater burden.
Now, imagine that a famine strikes both groups. It is possible that the collective survival rate of group A (who are suffering losses to due infighting and resources spread too thin) is lower than group B (whose individuals kill themselves when things become unsustainable, but don't fight each other as much). In this scenario, it wouldn't be surprising that group B thrives in the long run.
