I know it's taboo to bring up the Holocaust in Internet discussions, but this coaster and the verbiage that the Wikipedia article uses ("unloading of corpses" in particular) creeps me out at a level similar to the industrial processes the Nazis invented to perform mass murder. The coaster would probably be horrifying to watch, too -- people would scream for the first drop and the first few inversions, and then you would hear an eerie silence.
The thing I found to be most offensive is that it does 24 passengers at a time. That's really what makes it creepy. It's like they're not even trying to make your death special. If I'm going to die on the most lethal roller coaster ever designed, I don't want the last thing I see to be the backs of 22 screaming heads. And do you really need to kill 360 people an hour? Is demand for suicide really that high? I don't think so. Pull out 23 of those seats and put in a few video cameras. And play me Ride of the Valkyries or something on the way down so I can go out feeling like a badass.
And don't "unload" me. You build a massive corpse ejector into that train that launches my body through the air across the people waiting in line onto a giant trampoline over a body funnel. I'll roll right into the plastic souvenir coffin, which my family can purchase at the photo booth along with the final video for $49.99, with free drink refills included for the duration of their stay at the park.
Wow where do I start with this? I LOLed at least 3 times reading this, but the idea that this is at a theme park with other rides is probably the best part.
You in the front seat, headphones with ride of the valkyries, and 23 other people who haven't spent as much time thinking about it as you (probably the vast majority of people who are contemplating suicide) and you get your wish without compromising the efficiency of the machine.
If I wanted my death to be boring and efficient, I could do that without building a 500-ton suicide machine. This method requires some measure of spectacle, hoopla, and even a bit of ballyhoo. What I really want is for a kid to see me die and tell himself, "Now I want to be a terminal metastatic oncology patient when I grow up, because I will never in my whole existence see anything as awesome as that guy's crowning moment of self-euthanasia, unless I can also strap myself in to the very same harness and dare to dream of dreams beyond sleep." And wow, is that kid precocious, or what?
I come from Germany, the country that not only raised the bar when it comes to the industrialized killing of its population, it pretty much redefined the scope of evil achievable with cult-like dictatorships empowered by modern technology.
Euthanasia as used in the article is a form of newspeak introduced by the Nazis, a cynical redefinition that constitutes a corruption of the word's original meaning.
As such, the word choice used here makes me just as uncomfortable as the concept itself. Originally, euthanasia (greek for "good death") is a means of ending a life for which the only perspective left is suffering. In this sense, the word is still being used (appropriately) in conjunction with terminal illness where it does have a place as part of the right to self-determination exercised by patients who make the conscious and informed decision to end their lives in order to avoid this suffering.
I really wish people would stop taking hints from the Nazis when it comes to vocabulary, even if it's on purpose. "Death Coster" or "Ride of Doom" would be perfectly sufficient.
Trey Brackish: "I'm standing here at Thrill World where this roller coaster continues taking the lives of innocent people. Earlier today we spoke with John Oakfellow of the Red Cross."
John Oakfellow: "We're doing what we can, but the casualties continue to mount."
After seeing a close friend die slowly over three weeks from stage 4 ovarian cancer. I think this would be worlds better then the slow euthanasia by morphine drip that we currently use.
Totally agree. There are so many ways that a person can die a prolonged, horrible death that is medically sanctioned and supposedly more ethical than euthanasia.
After watching my father wither away with dementia I've decided to take up skydiving after I retire (and pack my own parachute). If my mental state becomes too poor to properly pack the chute I think hitting the ground at 200 mph would be a decent way to go.
This is an open secret in the healthcare profession; people really don't like to talk about it, but doctors definitely will allow the administration of a lethal dose of morphine to a suffering patient because there is quite literally no better alternative.
There's even a safety interlock on the infusion machine that the doctor has to provide the override codes for to go beyond the safe dose.
What's with that last sentence of the intro? This is an article about a roller coaster that kills people, not an argument for or against euthanasia. I come to this page wanting to read about a death coaster and then I'm thrust into a debate on whether it is moral to euthanize people.
Also, the source isn't really that solid. It's one sentence in a post on Metro which, since it looks like it's based in the UK, I don't really know much about.
If you want to include criticism for something make it a separate section or something, not a sentence in the introduction.
It looks like this was the revision where that sentence was added in:
This is completely anecdotal and not exaggerated. I don't read the Metro much. But, I have literally never read an article/headline in the Metro that I have believed.
I'm interested that it's designed by an art student. I'm not sure whether it's intended as art, but if so I suppose it lies in the dichotomy - horror of death vs the very functional combination of entertainment and euthanasia.
In that case it would certainly the most interesting piece of 'artistic research' I've seen.
And the "ultimate" designation is a nice mockery of brand hype!
I thought there was a way to fatally catapult them into a neighboring park and then, because they died there, the game engine would penalize that park for killing its guests. But I might be thinking of a different amusement park simulator.
Damn, something related to my country at the top of HN and it's about suicide more or less. Sad fact: Lithuania is among the top countries regarding suicides :(
I'm not a doctor, but I was under the impression that the brain could survive lack of blood flow for several minutes. How long is this ride supposed to last?
I do have some medical training, and I'm inclined to agree with your suspicion that it doesn't actually work.
The "critical" portion only lasts a few seconds, up to a minute. Depending on the direction of the force, 10g for a minute would be close to the edge for untrained people but not expected to have long-lasting harmful effects in most cases.
There are several ways in which high g forces cause harm to humans. The article mentions blood flow, specifically applying the amount of acceleration necessary to stop oxygenated blood from reaching the brain. Completely stopping the flow of blood for 60 seconds will result in a loss of consciousness, but the designers of the coaster seem to be under the impression that achieving this even for a moment kills people. They're wrong. If normal blood flow is restored after 60 seconds of anoxia, no adverse effects are to be expected at all, not even in the short term. Of course statistically there will be cases where the heart enters one of several possible failure modes under these conditions (again mostly in humans with pre-existing health problems) and while I expect it to be rare among the healthy population, those people would indeed need immediate medical attention - but they too can be expected to make a full recovery if they receive it.
High g forces can also damage blood vessels due to simple overpressure, causing them to rupture. This will happen with body parts located in the direction of the force applied. In this design, this will be the lower extremities, where this damage - if it occurs - will be minimal. But if you suspended people "upside down", that would be another story. Overpressure in the blood vessels of the brain is a dangerous thing. Again, I'm not sure 10g for 60 seconds is enough, but I'd intuitively say if there was any way of inducing fatalities with this coaster that would be the way to go. Especially people with existing defects and weaknesses of the blood vessels in their brains would be most at risk, people with aneurisms for example.
Lastly, high g forces can cause tissue trauma due to compression or internal impact damage. 10g for 60 seconds would not be enough to cause that in healthy organs. But if the coaster's design was changed to 20 or 30 g, delivered over an extended period, injuries and fatalities due to organ trauma (including the brain) will occur.
So on final consideration: this roller coaster will cause people to pass out for up to a minute. However, this effect is completely reversible. In healthy people, no lasting damage is expected.
That's great information. I assume though that healthy people wouldn't be euthanizing themselves just for laughs. They'd normally be sick to begin with.
This ride would be great for fraternity hazing. The frat would get some yuks as the pledges went round and round, and the school would have plausible deniability - "the University understood that they were simply enjoying a day at the amusement park".
For a frat hazing, they could simply rent a ride at a centrifuge intended for the training of astronauts and fighter pilots. It's designed to apply the same g forces for the same amount of time, obviating the need to build a 500m high theme park ride ;)
What about it did you find horrible? If you wanted to end your life it seems like a relatively pain free way to do so. Artistically it's also pretty interesting imo.
I've done some aerobatic flying, and I would not always describe the experience of high G maneuvers as pain-free. Maybe someone more medically inclined could explain why this roller coaster might be different?
There are several forms of euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia (against the will of the patient) is something most people would agree is wrong and this roller coaster would unlikely be able to be used for it.
Yes, I think so. Although when discussing euthanasia the distinction is probably made because if involuntary euthanasia were legal there would likely be a list of specific reasons you can do it (therefore drawing a distinction between involuntary euthanasia and murder).
There is no such thing as death with dignity. The body is always corrupted. "Death with dignity" is a silly loaded catchphrase designed to put opponents off balance, and is offensive to those who have chosen to die another way - some might say, with courage.
I find it particularly galling that "Death with dignity" is "a silly loaded catchphrase designed to put opponents off balance" and yet "Death with courage" is something you throw in to support that belief. You need to take a moment to listen to your own rhetoric and think about the people your opinions effect.
Let me make it clear: I am not in the least bit interested in your moral judgement of my beliefs, nor am I interested in your advice regarding my rhetoric.
You've said "those who have chosen to die another way," but people don't have that choice and are forbidden from making it. While you're opposed to euthanasia, would you be okay with giving people the option for euthanasia if they so chose?
But what of the mind? It's the aspect of choice that lends anything its dignity. Being at peace with your decision. Some people find a measure of dignity in dying naturally, it's in accord with their wishes in that respect. Others don't.
To deny those who are not at peace with it that choice robs them of some of their dignity.
I remember my grandfather dying when I was a teenager, in the hospital he was pleading with everyone around him to kill him. I feel guilty for not doing it whenever I think about him. The one thing the poor bastard wanted, the only thing left anyone could give him.
I can't hold it against him, it's not his fault. When people are suffering that much, they're not really thinking about whether they're asking a child to kill them. But he could have gone weeks earlier, could have been in a position to make the decision for himself rather than being reduced to begging.
He could have been spared that, there'd have been more dignity in it.
> There is no such thing as death with dignity. The body is always corrupted.
Okay! If my inevitable death is going to be corrupt and undignified no matter what I do, then it's a no-brainer to make it quick and painless rather than drawn-out and agonizing.
Oh dear. I've really offended the Silicon Valley Suicide Gods. Be it known that merely having certain unpopular opinions about life issues is an instant 30+ karma hit.
I would say the argument comes down to how you value life. Those most opposed to euthanasia are likely to hold the belief that all human life is equally valuable, and there is no such thing as a life not worth living, and to support euthanasia and assist someone in actively taking his or her life, is to abet them in the mistaken belief that their life is not worth living.
The typical response to this is that euthanasia opponents are living in a dreamworld, and lying to themselves. It is obvious at its face that some lives are not worth living, and to think otherwise is foolish.
On the other hand, the euthanasia opponent can reasonably ask how can we both support euthanasia and have suicide prevention hotlines? The existence of both seems to indicate that our societal response to an eagerness to die, rather than being about individual choice, is more about encouraging cultural norms about who is to be valued.
... struck directly in the head, from behind, caught completely unawares by something moving at several times the speed of sound, with enough size and kinetic energy to very quickly dissociate my body's molecules with negligible loss to the impactor's velocity. A rocket would do nicely.
I know that there's no sensible way to justify the expense for one person's almost-certainly (based on current understanding of physics and biology) painless death.
What would you say to a surprise .50 BMG in the back of the head from a few hundred yards away? It'd leave a bit more corpse, granted, but there wouldn't be much left of your head, which should satisfy the basic requirement, and it'd be a lot cheaper -- M33 ball goes for something like seven dollars a round, on average. Of course, you'd need to find someone with a suitable rifle to do the shooting, but you'd have even more trouble finding someone to do the same with an RPG or whatever.
...I think this is the most macabre thing I've said all year.
$7/pull would be more painful than the round hitting. Ouch. A rich man's sport. Still, not a bad plan, but the Angel of Mercy should be closer. I wouldn't want the job to be botched because he's got the shakes a little maybe, or maybe there's a breeze.
It also violates my desire to not know it's coming if we've had to arrange for me to be still and the shooter to be at a specific distance and frame of mind.
So, $7 for the round plus the going rate of a professional hitman.
I suddenly have a very macabre desire to crunch the numbers on that vs. a traditional open-casket funeral these days. ;)
There's really no point hashing out the argument here. It's a pointless discussion. I was just pointing out one of the possible reasons someone would find this roller coaster to be horrible.
Do you really want to devolve this into yet another internet debate on the morality of euthanasia? That's really not the point of this thought experiment.
I guess if they inverted it, so that the passengers get exposed to negative g force it would be "safer". It seems that -3g is enough to kill, so 7 loops of -10g would be sure death.
I was thinking of the cleanup crews. People are always very inconsiderate of those when killing themselves :-/ Ever saw the mess it makes when somebody jumps in front of a train?
You will never black out from negative G. You will RED out as blood rushes into your eyes. The reason you black out from positive G is that your blood pools in your legs and feet, starving the brain. Negative G is more uncomfortable because our organs are not designed for it, as it isn't encountered in nature.
Realistically, I think it would be much better to just use one of those centrifuge machines. I imagine that actually riding this roller coaster, before you faint, would be pretty painful. In a centrifuge you could probably strap in the passenger a lot better and provide much more cushioned seating and neck support so there's no pain involved.
Considering this in a purely pragmatic sense, my main concern is that if you were one of the "particularly robust" "customers" yourself, you might end up covered in someone else's vomit in your last moments.
I guess at 10 g, when the body isn't able to pump blood to the brain anymore, your stomach would have difficulties expelling its contents as well. At least if I understood the operating principle correctly.
Any conversation about individuals having the right to control their lives (including the means to end them) seems to me to be a good thing. Similarly, on a larger scale, I also find talking about the (often shady) efforts by various governments to control population to be a welcome thing. Vonnegut's "Welcome to the Monkey House" touches on both topics; it's worth a read.
I would think that the severity of hypoxia depends on where in the body it happens. As far as I know (not much, admittedly) exhaling then counting to 60 is different than not allowing any oxygen into the brain. If you look at the Wikipedia page on Hypoxia you'll see a picture of a person with Hypoxia in their hand. Can't imagine your brain would do very well if the same thing occurred there.
Exhale and count to 60, and your brain keeps running off the oxygen still in your bloodstream. Evacuate your brain of blood, and it can't do that; as deaths go, this one would probably be faster than a neck tourniquet, but slower than the .50 BMG to the head I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. (How can St. Peter tell who died that way? They're the ones who ask him "What the hell was that?")
This could never succeed here in the US - (a) general opposition to euthanasia and (b) the amusement park industry would lobby against it because it would scare people away from the regular, milder roller coasters.
It seems mostly academic, as there are much less costly, and not-unpleasant methods - overdose of opiates for example.
