Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Really Extreme Altruism

16 Post author: CronoDAS 15 March 2009 06:51AM

In secret, an unemployed man with poor job prospects uses his savings to buy a large term life insurance policy, and designates a charity as the beneficiary. Two years after the policy is purchased, it will pay out in the event of suicide. The man waits the required two years, and then kills himself, much to the dismay of his surviving relatives. The charity receives the money and saves the lives of many people who would otherwise have died.

Are the actions of this man admirable or shameful?

Comments (87)

Comment author: MichaelVassar 23 March 2009 03:29:10PM 13 points [-]

Shame? Is that the issue? Shame sounds like something that he can't feel because he's dead but that his relatives could feel regarding him because his actions indicate/are their lack of selective fitness. His actions aren't generally admirable because human preferences aren't set up to admire that sort of altruism.
His actions are generally "good" in that they lead to a better rank order world by his criteria than non-action would, but are probably sub-optimal because at the cost of his life he can probably produce a better world rank-ordering (I certainly hope he managed to at least donate all his organs, but unless the recipients are radical altruists too he's still probably nowhere near optimal)

Comment author: TimFreeman 02 May 2011 10:10:23PM 4 points [-]

You can't usefully donate organs if you commit suicide. Suicide leads to autopsy leads to unusable organs.

This covers donating brains too, so to a first approximation, cryonics won't work for you if you suicide.

With that said, I agree that if we assume for the purposes of argument he could have donated his organs, and he cared enough about others to donate his life insurance to charity, he would probably want to donate his organs too.

Comment author: christopherj 10 October 2013 02:13:29AM 4 points [-]

I wonder how long before an insurance company decides to test cryonics as an excuse. "We respect his belief that he is not dead, but rather in suspended animation."

Comment author: DanielH 13 June 2014 05:41:33AM 1 point [-]

That would probably be a good thing. I think that the company says they pay out in the event of legal death, so this would mean that they'd have to try to get the person declared "not dead". By extension, all cryonics patients (or at least all future cryonics patients with similar-quality preservations) would be not dead. If I were in charge of the cryonics organization this argument was used against, I would float the costs of the preservation and try to get my lawyers working on the same side as those of the insurance company. If they succeed, cryonics patients aren't legally dead and have more rights, which is well worth the cost of one guy's preservation + legal fees. If they fail, I get the insurance money anyway, so I'm only out the legal fees.

At least most cryonics patients have negligible income, so the IRS isn't likely to get very interested.

Comment author: abigailgem 15 March 2009 08:18:01PM 7 points [-]

I am not sure I can be rational about this at all, because I find suicide repulsive. Yet my society admires the bravery of a soldier who, say, throws himself on a grenade so that it will not kill the others in his dugout. I might see a tincture of dishonesty in the man's actions, and yet he enters a contract, with a free contracting party, and performs his part of the contract.

So. Something to practice Rationality on. To consider the value of an emotional response. Thank you. I am afraid, I still have the emotional response, shameful. I cannot, now, see it as admirable.

Comment author: AlexanderRM 02 September 2015 08:00:02PM *  0 points [-]

I was about to give the exact same example of the soldier throwing himself on a grenade. I don't know where the idea of his actions being "shameful" even comes up.

The one thing I realize from your comment is there's the dishonesty of his actions, and if lots of people did this insurance companies would start catching on and it would stop working plus it would make life insurance that much harder to work with. But it didn't sound like the original post was talking about that with "shameful", it sounds like they were suggesting (or assuming people would think) that there was something inherently wrong with the man's altruism. At least that's what's implied by the title, "really extreme altruism".

Edit: I didn't catch the "Two years after the policy is purchased, it will pay out in the event of suicide." bit until reading others comments- so, indeed, he's not being dishonest, he made a bet with the insurance company (over whether he would still intend suicide two years later) and the insurance company lost. I don't know how many insurance companies have clauses like that, though.

Comment author: Rain 02 May 2011 07:25:06PM *  5 points [-]

Why does it matter if the man is admired or shamed?

Do generic charities accept and process suicide insurance payments or estates?

Are you planning to do this?

Note the recent movie Seven Pounds.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2009 04:05:47AM *  4 points [-]

Admirable, presuming that he expects the lives saved to be happy ones.

Comment deleted 15 March 2009 02:11:03PM [-]
Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2009 02:51:42PM 3 points [-]

Yes, but would you object to someone else attempting this?

Comment deleted 15 March 2009 02:57:07PM [-]
Comment author: gwern 15 March 2009 09:32:37PM *  14 points [-]

I would, however, suggest that they are lacking somewhat in humanity. There is such a thing as being altruistic beyond the human norm, and this is an example of it.

Reminds me of one of the 101 Zen Stories http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=13 :

"Hello, brother," Tanzan greeted him. "Won't you have a drink?"

"I never drink!" exclaimed Unsho solemnly.

"One who does not drink is not even human," said Tanzan.

"Do you mean to call me inhuman just because I do not indulge in intoxicating liquids!" exclaimed Unsho in anger. "Then if I am not human, what am I?"

"A Buddha," answered Tanzan.

Comment author: Nebu 17 March 2009 04:42:55PM 3 points [-]

If I knew someone was capable of this, I wouldn't want them as a friend or partner. Who knows when they might make one utilitarian calculation too many and kill us both?

What if the friend shared the same core values as you? If my friend had the same core value as me (e.g. it is worth killing two people to save a billion people from eternal torture), and were utilitarian, then perhaps I'd be "ok"[1] with my friend making "one utilitarian calculation too many" and killing both of us.

1: By "ok", I guess I mean I'd probably be very upset during those final moments where I'm dying, and then my consciousness would cease, my final thoughts to be damning my friend. But if I allow myself to imagine an after-life, I could see eventually (weeks after my death? months?) eventually grudgingly coming to accept that his/her choice was probably the rational one, and agreeing that (s)he "did the right thing".

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2009 04:13:21AM 2 points [-]

You're not answering the question of whether the man did something admirable or shameful.

Comment author: Kevin 23 March 2010 05:51:46PM 9 points [-]

I think this post would count as a public statement that would invalidate your life insurance policy upon suicide. Insurance companies are in the business of not actually paying out their benefits.

However, I think we could do some advocacy related to this on the usenet hardcore suicide newsgroups. We might convince some people to delay their suicides long enough to not actually kill themselves, as this meme sounds different than most other memes trying to convince truly suicidal people to not do it.

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 April 2010 04:42:17AM *  10 points [-]

I think this post would count as a public statement that would invalidate your life insurance policy upon suicide. Insurance companies are in the business of not actually paying out their benefits.

Under U.S. law, after two years, life insurance policies can't be revoked for any reason except non-payment of premiums. If they don't cancel the policy in those two years, they have to pay out regardless of how big a liar you were.

However, I think we could do some advocacy related to this on the usenet hardcore suicide newsgroups. We might convince some people to delay their suicides long enough to not actually kill themselves, as this meme sounds different than most other memes trying to convince truly suicidal people to not do it.

And if they kill themselves anyway, after the two years are over, at least they saved a lot of other lives. Do you know of a way to reach actual suicidal people?

Comment author: 110phil 16 March 2009 03:23:25PM 12 points [-]

The man has done nothing shameful: (a) his life is his own; and (b) the insurance company bet, with its eyes open, that sufficient suicide-intenders would back down from their plans within two years that the policies would still be profitable. It lost its bet, but it was a reasonable bet.

The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do. Even though he did this through "voluntary" means.

However, I can see that if you're of the opinion that it's a good thing to take money from shareholders (who presumably are wealthier than average) and use it to save lives, then I can see how you would think this to be an admirable act.

You could also argue that the insurance company isn't stupid: it may have sold a thousand policies to intended-suiciders, and this was the only one who went through with it. In that case, the insurance company made a profit, and this man actually had a 99.9% probability of being one of the mind-changers. Unless he had strong reason to believe that he'd be the exception, he should have realized that there was a large probability, that, like the others, he was irrationally believing that his probability was higher than 0.1%.

What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 May 2011 07:10:45PM 9 points [-]

What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.

Does not follow - the breakup value of your organs is not necessarily greater than your organs working together. Just because someone gets paid doesn't mean that game is positive-sum.

Comment author: 110phil 26 May 2011 02:34:19AM 4 points [-]

Yes, I assumed that the breakup value of the organs was higher. That seems reasonable to me: two kidneys save two lives, one liver saves a third life, and so on. And only one life is lost, and that one voluntarily.

Also, my argument was not contingent on anyone being paid ... donating organs on the black market works too.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 May 2011 11:07:18AM 3 points [-]

That seems reasonable to me: two kidneys save two lives, one liver saves a third life, and so on.

House MD doesn't seem to get that sort of conversion rate from organs to lives saved. Am I generalising from fictional evidence or is your life saving equation absurdly optimistic. Ok, I admit, both.

Comment author: 110phil 26 May 2011 07:11:58PM 1 point [-]

I guess it's an empirical question. A death creates two kidneys. Are there usually two people on a waiting list who need the kidneys and would otherwise die? If not, then perhaps I am indeed being too optimistic.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 May 2011 08:23:24PM *  12 points [-]

I guess it's an empirical question.

Yes.

A death creates two kidneys. Are there usually two people on a waiting list who need the kidneys and would otherwise die?

Humans aren't lego. Yes, we can transplant but they don't always work and they don't always last indefinitely. We also don't just use them to flip a nice integer 'life saved' up by one. It's ok if the spare organ just increases someone's chances. Or extends a life for a while. Or drastically improves the quality of life for someone who was scraping by with other measures.

If I recall correctly kidneys are actually the easiest organ to transplant - the least likely to cause rejection. With the right donors it gets up into the 90s(%). But translating that into lives saved or 'years added to life' is a little tricky. Especially when we the patients also happen to require transfusions of donor blood throughout the process. We like to say the blood transfusions are 'saving a life'. There are only so many times you can count a life as 'saved' in a given period of time.

Comment author: 110phil 28 May 2011 12:21:57AM 1 point [-]

OK, fair enough.

It sounds to me, though, like it should be possible to somehow quantify the benefit of donating a kidney, on some scale, at least. Or do you think the benefit is so small, relative to one suicide, that my original argument doesn't hold?

Comment author: michaelkeenan 29 January 2012 09:43:59PM 5 points [-]

it should be possible to somehow quantify the benefit of donating a kidney, on some scale, at least.

From Wikipedia:

Kidney transplantation is a life-extending procedure.[24] The typical patient will live 10 to 15 years longer with a kidney transplant than if kept on dialysis.[25] The increase in longevity is greater for younger patients, but even 75-year-old recipients (the oldest group for which there is data) gain an average four more years of life. People generally have more energy, a less restricted diet, and fewer complications with a kidney transplant than if they stay on conventional dialysis.

Comment author: Annoyance 23 March 2009 03:37:35PM 23 points [-]

"So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do."

No, he didn't. They wanted to offer a life insurance policy. I'm confident that they're not thrilled about having to pay out, but they're not being forced to do anything against their will - only to keep to the obligations they freely entered into.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2009 04:11:32AM 16 points [-]

The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do. Even though he did this through "voluntary" means.

This paragraph indicates that you believe that forcing people to do something they don't want to do is wrong.

What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.

This paragraph indicates that you believe it is morally beneficial to save lives--in this case, by donating organs.

Why is it that when these two moral principles contradict, you let the first one win?

Comment author: AnnaSalamon 04 May 2011 06:23:41AM 10 points [-]

One thing to note is that the man would probably harm, not help, his chosen charity (in expectation).

If it was thought that the charity had encouraged the "really extreme altruism", or if it was simply thought that the charity was the sort of thing that fanatics like that liked, the charity would have serious problems attracting others' work or donations, since most people fear fanatical and suicidal mental states. It would need to refuse the money, and refusing the money wouldn't be enough to prevent serious damage.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2011 08:08:02AM 8 points [-]

One thing to note is that the man would probably harm, not help, his chosen charity (in expectation).

One would hope that in the two years between signing up for the insurance policy and offing himself he took the time to figure out how to make the donation suitably indirect and manage appearances. All it would take is one person you can trust.

Comment author: khafra 04 May 2011 03:05:57PM 2 points [-]

I don't know if "trust" is a sufficiently boolean property for this. One would need an executor trustworthy to

  • Handle large amounts of money with no oversight

  • Deal with the legal system

  • Maintain absolute discretion on the subject, basically forever

  • Deal with the knowledge that a close, trusting friend is going to commit suicide for unconventional reasons

A good lawyer fits some of those criteria, but not all; and is difficult for the unemployed to retain. Frankly, I think that most people who could inspire that kind of loyalty in others could do more good alive.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 May 2011 03:24:32AM *  9 points [-]

Deal with the knowledge that a close, trusting friend is going to commit suicide for unconventional reasons

They do not need to know this. Their role is to execute your will. That is all.

Frankly, I think that most people who could inspire that kind of loyalty in others could do more good alive.

Will the money to someone else who is obsessed with the cause. In that case you don't need personal trust. Just game theory.

Saying "this will do more harm than good" sounds wise and sends the desired message of 'suicide is bad and I do not encourage it' but isn't actually accurate under examination.

Comment author: rwallace 05 May 2011 02:02:32PM -1 points [-]

"This will do more harm than good" may not be accurate under examination, but I think it is accurate in reality.

What you're talking about is a flimsy elaborate plan that requires some people to do exactly what they are supposed to do and nobody else to seriously interfere. The probability of such a plan working first time is small enough to be ignored. Something will go wrong that you didn't think of.

In many contexts, that's not a showstopper: you wait until something does go wrong, then you fix it. But if step two of the plan was "you die", it's going to be a bit hard to fix what goes wrong in step three.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 May 2011 04:52:54PM *  7 points [-]

I disagree. Especially with the way 'flimsy', 'elaborate' and 'reality' are used (or misused) and the straightforward complications of will-execution raised as though this is some sort of special case.

I would consider an argument of the form "This is a f@$%@ing terrible idea because if you kill yourself you DIE" far more persuasive than anything that relied on technical difficulties. Flip. This is two years worth of preparation time. How long does it take to google "suicide look like accident"? The technical problem is utterly trivial. It is just one that you are better off not implementing. On account of life being better than death.

Comment author: rwallace 05 May 2011 06:51:47PM 1 point [-]

Well I agree with you that "if you kill yourself you die" is a sufficient and primary argument against the proposal. I was merely following the implied "what if somebody is in a suicidal mood and therefore not convinced by the primary argument, what arguments are there against the feasibility of the proposal on its own terms" of this subthread.

Comment author: Mestroyer 26 June 2012 03:31:15PM 0 points [-]

You could just split the money among a whole bunch of different charities. That way no one in particular is shamed by the news stories that result.

Comment author: timtyler 15 March 2009 09:15:59AM 0 points [-]

Offering insuring against sucicide seems pretty stupid to me. Like offering insurance against someone burning their own house down. So, presumably, this story is fictional.

Comment author: CronoDAS 15 March 2009 09:42:07AM *  12 points [-]

I don't know of anyone who has actually done this, but it is indeed possible. At least in the United States, life insurance does cover death by suicide, as long as the policy was purchased two years before the suicide took place. Of course, the person purchasing the policy does have to disclose his medical history, including any past or ongoing treatment for depression, which insurers take into account when deciding how much to charge for a policy (or whether to offer one at all).

Yes, it's morbid, but I actually did the research on this; an otherwise healthy young man might be able to get a 10 year term life insurance policy with a payout of $1,000,000 for an annual premium of around $600 (and a $10 million policy for $6000).

Comment author: Mario 15 March 2009 10:58:33AM 1 point [-]

I think, then, that the harm associated with this man's suicide would have to take into account the rise in premiums he would be forcing on people in similar situations. His death may increase the amount a similar man would have to pay, decreasing the likelihood that he could afford insurance and increasing the harm that man's death would cause his dependents. Over time, those effects could swamp any short-term benefit to the charity.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 March 2009 04:50:22PM 16 points [-]

Or, if the behavior became common, insurance companies could simply decline to cover suicide. The problems would arise if, say, a car accident were accused of being a covert suicide (but wouldn't we have this same problem before the 2-year limit?) Perhaps that's why insurance companies cover suicides - for peace of mind, so that you know they won't accuse your corpse of having done it on purpose.

Comment author: Nebu 17 March 2009 04:46:09PM 6 points [-]

I think we can consider the harm associate with this man's suicide causing a rise in premiums to be relatively negligible, seeing as people have committed suicide while insured in the past, and it hasn't made prices so incredibly high as to stop insurance companies from being able to sell similar policies today.

Comment author: jimmy 15 March 2009 07:02:46PM *  5 points [-]

Not only that, but he never generated the wealth in the first place. His savings were his, sure, but the rest of the money was essentially conned from the insurance company.

He did not make the world richer by sacrificing himself, he sacrificed himself to (dishonestly) reallocate resources.

I'd say support his actions iff you would support stealing to give to charity.

Comment author: Nebu 17 March 2009 04:50:27PM 11 points [-]

the money was essentially conned from the insurance company.

I don't see it as "conned" (or perhaps I'm inferring some connotations that you don't intend to imply by that word?): The man took "suicide-insurance". That is to say, he signed a contract with the insurance company saying something along the lines of "I'll pay you $X per month for the rest of my life. If I don't commit suicide for 2 years, but then commit suicide after that, then you have to give me 1 million dollars."

I'm sure the insurance company fully understood the terms of the contract (in fact, it is practically certain that it was the insurance company itself which wrote out the contract). The insurance company fully understood the terms of the deal and agreed to it. They employ actuaries and lawyers go over the draft of their contracts to ensure it means exactly what they think it means. No party was mislead or misunderstood the terms. So how is that a con?

Comment author: brazil84 04 May 2011 10:23:12AM 2 points [-]

I agree, I don't think it's a con. It only seems like a con because you are betting with the insurance company about the contents of your brain and most people naturally assume that they understand the contents of their own brain better than some outside agency.

However, I think that assumption is pretty clearly false. It seems that institutions have the benefit of a lot of past experience and can use that experience to understand people better (and predict their behavior better) than they understand or could predict themselves.

Comment author: MichaelVassar 23 March 2009 03:33:19PM 4 points [-]

Most people could acquire much more near term wealth via insurance than via work but could not acquire more near term wealth via theft (expected value) than via work.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2009 04:16:30AM 1 point [-]

he sacrificed himself to (dishonestly) reallocate resources.

How was he dishonest?

Comment author: MichaelHoward 17 March 2009 07:25:46PM 3 points [-]

Because he didn't disclose to the insurance company that he was planning to commit suicide at the time he took out the policy(!)

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 17 March 2009 11:02:11PM 3 points [-]

So? Not revealing info != dishonesty. Unless he signed a contract that stated that he had no intent to commit suicide, I don't think he ever lied.

Let's say I am a proficient at counting cards while playing blackjack. I go to the casino to gamble and walk away richer--consistently. This case is actually very similar to the insurance one, in that in both cases I am making a bet with some sort of large organization, and I know more about the nature of the bet than the large organization does.

Anyway, is the card counter dishonest? And if not, how is the man who commits suicide different?

Comment author: JGWeissman 02 May 2011 08:07:41PM 9 points [-]

Not revealing info != dishonesty.

Optimizing your decisions so that other people will form less accurate beliefs is dishonesty. Making literally false statements you expect other people to believe is just a special case of this.

If you decide not to reveal info because you predict that info will enable another person to accurately predict your behavior and decline to enter an agreement with you, you are being dishonest.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 04 May 2011 12:32:32AM *  3 points [-]

Hm, I wrote that comment two years ago. My new view is that it's not much worth arguing over the definition of "dishonesty" so figuring out whether the guy is "dishonest" or not is just a word game--we should figure out if others having correct beliefs is a terminal value to us, and if so, how it trades off against other terminal values. (Or perhaps individually not acting in ways that give others incorrect beliefs is a terminal value.)

As a consequentialist, I mostly say the ends justify the means. I am a little cautious due to the issues Eliezer discusses in this post, but I don't think I'm as cautious as Eliezer is--I have a fair amount of confidence in my ability to notice when my brain is going in to a failure mode like he describes.

Comment author: Nornagest 02 May 2011 09:17:33PM *  3 points [-]

I'm not entirely comfortable with this line of thinking. Drawing a distinction between withholding relevant information and providing false information is such a common feature of moral systems that I can't help but think any heuristic that eliminates the distinction is missing something important. It all has to reduce to normality, after all.

That said, biases do exist, and if we can come up with a plausible mechanism by which it'd be psychologically important without being consequentially important then I think I'd be happier with the conclusion. It might just come down to how difficult it is to prove.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 May 2011 09:39:20PM 3 points [-]

I'm not entirely comfortable with this line of thinking. Drawing a distinction between withholding relevant information and providing false information is such a common feature of moral systems that I can't help but think any heuristic that eliminates the distinction is missing something important.

I agree that a distinction should be drawn but I disagree about where. I think the morally important distinction is not between withholding information and providing false information, but why and in what context you are misleading the other person. If he's trying to violate your rights, for example, or if he's prying into something that's none of his business, then lie away. If you are trying to screw him over by misleading him, then you are getting into a moral gray area, or possibly worse.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 May 2011 10:57:54PM *  4 points [-]

Drawing a distinction between withholding relevant information and providing false information is such a common feature of moral systems that I can't help but think any heuristic that eliminates the distinction is missing something important.

The pragmatic distinction is that lies are easier to catch (or make common knowledge), so the lying must be done more carefully than mere withholding of relevant information. Seeing withholding of information as a moral right is a self-delusion part of normal hypocritic reasoning. Breaking it will make you a less effective hypocrite, all else equal.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 May 2011 04:51:03AM -1 points [-]

Optimizing your decisions so that other people will form less accurate beliefs is dishonesty. Making literally false statements you expect other people to believe is just a special case of this.

Only if dogs have five legs if you call a tail a leg.

Optimising your decisions so that other people will form less accurate beliefs can only be legitimately construed as dishonest if you say or otherwise communicate that it is your intention to produce accurate beliefs.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 02 May 2011 09:49:37PM 0 points [-]

That is how I feel.

Comment author: MichaelHoward 18 March 2009 12:40:40AM 3 points [-]

Now I've thought more about it, if there's nothing in the agreement about suicide being intended at the time of application, then I think you're right.

I think of insurance policies as having clauses in about revealing any information that might affect the likelihood of a claim, but I can understand why that might not apply to life insurance policies.

Comment author: AllanCrossman 15 March 2009 01:56:26PM *  4 points [-]

The Straight Dope has looked at this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/apvljw

Comment author: [deleted] 24 December 2012 08:31:41AM 0 points [-]

Would a middle ground option such as "permissible but not morally required" (i.e. neither admirable nor shameful) be valid?

Comment author: MinibearRex 02 May 2011 07:28:39PM 0 points [-]

Simple answer: Is the charity going to do more benefit with that money than he caused his family and friends? If so, then his actions were at least a net positive from a utilitarian standpoint. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was the best action, though. Could he have raised a comparable amount of money on his own to help people with, without resorting to killing himself? If so, then I am more inclined to believe that he simply had decided to kill himself, and took advantage of it in order to try to cause some benefit for the world, which I suppose I can give (limited) support to.

Comment deleted 15 March 2009 02:30:48PM [-]