Sure, but no one has said this is a matter for society. The question is, what are an individual's philosophical beliefs. It is unlikely there will ever be enough advocates of this approach to change the fundamental dynamic of an entire culture. — Tom Storm

It is both a matter for society and the individual. The question is, a) what are an individual's philosophical beliefs and b) Is s/he actually acting on them? Societies do change and they change in fundamental, radical ways. We've seen a definite loosening of attitudes towards suicide.

Do you know of a society that has 'normalized' suicide (by this I am assuming you mean have made it a part of the culture) and what the effects of this have been? Or are you making a guess here? — Tom Storm

I don't feel like getting into the empirical side of things but I think we can both agree that society has liberalized over the past few hundred years and I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend continue. I'm not prepared to deal with the empirical side right now, let's stick with philosophy.

I just wanted to comment that as I've been going over the OT I'm very impressed with how the writings/teachings align so well with the principles of evolutionary fitness. I know this isn't philosophy but it's interesting to me.

Yes, you don't know why, but people don't share value systems and often construct totally different worlds from each other. — Tom Storm

You're right, but I'm going to say that societies that don't value human life and normalize suicide are just objectively terrible societies. That's basically a society where the marginalized would be pressured to kill themselves to escape problems. For me this is not a case of "you have your views, I have mine."

So? You make that sound like a bad thing. Extinction sounds perfectly reasonable to many folk. — Tom Storm

Then go be extinct. Don't procreate. Commit suicide when you have a bad day (don't actually do this, but if you're living out this philosophy then you would because human life is essentially worthless under this line of thought.) For those who just don't care about dying or going extinct -- why don't you live out your philosophy? You will be dead quickly and I wouldn't have to debate any more pessimists because they would all be dead. IMO philosophies need to be lived out and if one's philosophy is constantly telling one to kill themselves or to consider killing themselves then that philosophy ought to be stamped out via its believers living it to its logical conclusion.

I hate to tell you this but entire philosophies have been based on this premise that (e.g.,Camus) “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." — Tom Storm

I agree that suicide is a legit philosophical problem among philosophers but it's really not one if you go by the major religions. This is why religions tend to stick. I don't know why anyone would want to live in a society where suicide was insanely normalized and human life was valueless. That would be a terrible society. It reminds me of a quote in Deuteronomy that claims that the Torah (pentateuch) is life. As someone who has struggled with suicide this really strikes me as true.

The Old Testament describes, in exquisite detail, what blind worship leads to, what absolute power and authority utlimately transforms into (a megalomaniac). — Agent Smith

Have you actually read the OT in its entirety? The OT does not advocate or describe blind worship. Of course obedience is important but that obedience to God is not blind or unquestioning.

Is a bigger population a good thing, necessarily? — schopenhauer1

Necessarily, no. Generally speaking, yes.

If no one procreates, no one loses. "Who" is missing out? No one. — schopenhauer1

I disagree with this. Your culture and ideals are at risk if you don't procreate. In the OT people are conceived of as a genetic line, not as atomistic individuals and by not procreating that line ends along with its customs, traditions, and whatever else is associated with it. Adults are deprived of the experience of being parents and their parents are deprived of grand children. I would say that there's a deprivation.

Why can't I just kill myself under your system if I have good reason to suspect that the rest of my life will be painful and I don't have much to live for? Doesn't suicide become dangerously reasonable?

The answer you're looking might be that the world would be empty if everyone stopped procreating. But God intended for the world to be populated; he created it so life could inhabit it. That's what Genesis tells us.

Let me ask you this.. what would happen if everyone stopped procreating on some divine theological level? — schopenhauer1

They'd still procreate on a non-divine/theological level. Sex is fun and a bigger population is generally a good thing.

Interesting analogy. If you don't comply with the dictates of a given society.. indeed you do get "beat down" because you aren't playing nicely with the setup. — schopenhauer1

While I agree with this, this isn't exactly how I interpreted God's punishments towards the Israelites in Exodus. Basically what's happening is that after God frees the Israelites from Egypt they still have to wander 40 years in the desert and conditions are presumably tough even despite God sending mana. On at least two occasions the general Israelite community starts complaining (the word they use is "grumbling") and God quickly makes things worse. Of course it's not advantageous to sit around and grumble all day. I've been reading the OT lately and it's ridiculously great for evolutionary fitness both on a personal and societal level.

The hidden defense though is simply to not procreate and continue the situation for others.. — schopenhauer1

You likely know this but this belief is in an opposition to Genesis and God's pronouncement that life/creation is good. Even if one's life is full of suffering life is still good. If I were an atheist I might/would likely agree with you here though. I think your position is plausible if we remove God.

From their perspective, if God outright strikes you down where you stand, He can do so because He created you and you will ascend into heaven for eternity. Imagine that you genuinely believed that if God zapped you dead where stand right now, you will be freed from this life of suffering and ascend into a paradise forever. That is, from my conversations with many literalists, what they generally claim in a nutshell. — Bob Ross

I agree with some of this post but I don't know where you're getting the "ascend into heaven for eternity" bit. The OT says next to nothing about the afterlife; is that NT stuff? In the OT when Korah challenges Moses God opens up the Earth and all of Korah and his family fall in and are destroyed. God often strikes down evil people in the OT and nothing would lead me to believe that they end up in heaven. He also sends plagues and poisonous snakes on the Israelite community because they start complaining ("grumbling") about conditions in the desert and thousands are recorded as dying. Their sin here is really just weakness and disobedience. It's very much "beatings will continue until morale improves." In this sense I see God kind of analogous to evolutionary reality. There are other times where he's more of a stern law giver.

The promised land was secured by violence. "Kill them all." Deuteronomy 20:16-18. Was this a surprising innovation by God, or just standard operating procedure in armed conquest? More the latter, I would think. — Bitter Crank

There are instances in the OT where God demands the men, women, children, and animals of a people be destroyed. The reason God gives the Promised Land to the Hebrews is because the practices of the other tribes/people in Canaan were described as vile and its mentioned several times how the land had to "vomit" them up. The promise land isn't given because the Hebrews are good, but because everyone else was terrible.