[dkv]

Evolutionists have developed several models to explain the apparent contradiction of suicide and evolutionary theory. Denys de Catanzaro has conducted a lot of research into this field. Others, such as Donald H. Rubinstein, and Anne Campbell have also done work in this field. The major difficulty for evolutionists is to explain why an organism would so deliberately harm its own potential reproductive capacity. Suicide seems to be perhaps the ultimate maladaptive trait, other than, perhaps, infanticide of one's own children.

REP: The purpose was never to reproduce but to be happy and create strategies for sustainable pleasure. Suicide is due incorrect interpretation of decrease in Happiness
relative to desired future.
================================================
De Catanzaro begins to explain suicide by saying that differential reproduction is in fact much more important to evolution than is "survival of the fittest." That is to say, that mere survival is not particularly important to passing on genes. Even if someone is short lived, but reproduces a lot, they are likely to have more descendants than someone who lives a long time but does not reproduce very much. The other factor in explaining from the evolutionary perspective is inclusive fitness. Since an individual will share many genes with their relatives, it is in their evolutionary interest to ensure their relatives' survival and reproduction. More of their genes will be present in subsequent generations.

REP:Differential Reproduction ,... you see this is what I am talking about.
Differential reproduction for what ?
How does it work?
How long is long enough?
A complete stupidity
=========================================
De Catanzaro believes that a general theory of suicide can be formed based on a calculation of the "costs of an individual's immediate death to the propagation of his or her genes." He developed a very complex equation that takes the various factors of the subject's potential reproduction, such as dependency of children, remaining reproductive potential, dependence on kin, and others, into account and is able to predict the subject's risk for suicide. Current research has been conducted mostly in the United States, with a large portion of the sample being young, educated, and religious.

REP: Abnormally high.Foolish argument. How is this beneficial may I know? Who wrote this article?
========================================

According to de Catanzaro's variables, those at greatest risk of suicide include the elderly, especially those who are a burden on their family, anyone who is ostracized by their kin, someone unable to provide for their kin, dependent on their reproductively capable kin, or anyone who has difficulty relating with the opposite sex. All of these conditions will lead to emotional and psychological conditions that will make suicide more likely. De Catanzaro cites studies that show that emotions have a physiological basis to show that the self destructive response may be a natural, evolved response to their situation to ensure the continued propagation of one's genes.

REP: HAHAHAHAHAH this guy doesnt know anything about suicidal tendencies.
A child can also attempt to suicide or harm himself if his desires are not fulfilled.
In some cultures elderly might do suicide. But in others this is not necessary.
===================================================

According to this theory those mostly likely to kill themselves would be the elderly dependent on financially pressed children, or someone with little hope of reproducing who is also dependent of kin. Dr. de Catanzaro's theory can also be applied to general self preservation. It can be used to predict how likely a mother or father is to sacrifice herself or himself to save their children, or other situations of that sort. De Catanzaro takes pains to recognize that his formula is only a base on which to predict likelihood of suicide or self sacrifice. He freely acknowledges that suicide is partially a learned behaviour, as is evidenced by the phenomenon of groupings of suicides occurring in short periods of time. He believes that there are many cultural phenomena that will affect any given individual. De Catanzaro also places strong emphasis on the fact that modern expressions of suicide may sometimes be unpredictable because we are in a different environment from that which we evolved in. He believes that there are many more suicides today than there would be in our "natural" environment due to stress and our confrontation with many situations that we have not been selected to deal with.

Another approach explains the differences between the sexes. One theory argues that men die of suicide more often than women because they do not value their lives as much as women. Since men are not essential to the survival of their offspring, and their potential for reproduction is much more varied, men have evolved to be less fearful of taking risks than women have. If a woman under natural conditions were to die, her children would most likely die as well. Therefore women have evolved to be more fearful of death and physical risk than men, and are therefore less likely to die of suicide. Under this theory suicide is just an expression of males' general willingness to take risks.

REP: Hopelessly uncommetable content.
Try something else.
GENE propagate because of suicide.
Try a simple experiment : Commit a suicide and see whether your species genes propagates or not. The population of whites increases or not.
Highly unlikely though I would not comment on the ___________________

The theory remains contradictory to the core.

Try to falsify my statement that :
ALL LIFE FORMS(GENE,CELL,VIRUS,MALE FEMALE,SPECIES etc) MOVE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE PLEASURE.
If you can falsify then I am fool otherwise you know who is.

[_Stefan_]

1. Your replies to the content in your post are rubbish. You really do have an anti-evolution agenda to be so thick as to not understand the theory properly. It is not difficult to understand once you get over your your false ideologies.

2. Perhaps you should define "pleasure", and describe in detail, with reference to supporting evidences, what exactly TSP is, and how it evolves. Show how the evolution of pleasure is the main goal of evolution, and how a process that has no foresight can possibly have a goal (Oh, of course you don't like the concept of blind evolution either). Give examples of biological phenomena that cannot possibly be explained by Darwinian evolution, and outline how these phenomena evolved by TSP. Shallow statements such as

"As against this we have a purpose of Towards Sustainable Pleasure.
When we say sustaianable it means strategy. Strategy to increase the expereince of pleasure.
AND THEREFORE MIND EXISTS TO CREATE SUPERIOR STRATEGIES for TSP(towards sustainable pleasure)
This suggests that all other functions are derived to perform or exceute TSP"

are not acceptable.

[dkv]

Details can be given by any devil.
But the concept is simple and independednt of exact deatils of pleasure because the pleasure is understood by us. It is like understanding meter to measure the distances.
The rubbish part has been frequently understood to be relative. 
In my opinon all the gene replication theory along with spandrels make the whole a dustbin.
AND I CAN ONLY LAUGH.

[_Stefan_]

After all the nonsense you've been so insistently advocating, it's a surprise that you won't even try to validate TSP. Stop wasting our time with this drivel.