Just when I thought the powers that be in San Francisco could not get any better at wasting taxpayer dollars, I learned that the Board of Directors for the Golden Gate Bridge today voted 14 to 1 in favor of installing 3.4 miles of netting beneath the deck of the famous bridge in order to break the fall of individuals attempting suicide.
At a cost of $50 million this now wears the crown as the single most idiotic idea to ever emerge from the city of San Francisco.
Consider that 15% of those who attempt suicide and fail will only try again within the first six months. Now consider that this announcement is being trumpeted across the city so anyone who wants to die will only do so by another means.
So anyone who actually does jump off of the bridge now knows the net is there. Which means of course, the volume of jumpers will now only increase as stunt jockeys and losers in general jump off the bridge in an attempt to gain attention to themselves.
This also means, of course, rescue workers will be forced to endanger themselves to untangle and retrieve these idiots from the net. This to me represents even more wasted money and also a needless risk to some good people who are NOT trying to kill themselves.
If you really want to deter suicide, then attack the cause (like needlessly high city taxes). There are plenty of other ways to kill oneself and we can prevent those for less than $50 million.
~Man Overboard
17 Comments
Believe me I am not trying to defend this decision, but I do want to raise one point.
There has been a huge amount of coverage and press regarding the suicide jumpers at the Golden Gate Bridge. Stories have been published and documentations have been filmed. Apparently people from all over the world come to this location just to end their life – talk about a social commentary.
Perhaps the City of San Francisco felt compelled into action based upon all of this negative press. Is it possible there was intense pressure on the city to be proactive considering the Golden Gate Bridge is a national icon?
Population control? I’m just saying, if you want to do it, what gives the government the responsibility to spend $50 million to hang a net to stop you…
If you are dumb enough to attempt suicide then you deserve to die! Survival of the fittest.
Jay’s right…big waste of money. These people don’t need a safety net, they need professional help.
Jack, I’ve seen the bridge in person, and another reason that this is a waste of money is cause there’s a bunch of cliffs to the side of the Bridge and all around that area. People will just jump off those.
This is a big PR move.
Seriously, the net is a step against evolution. The weak are supposed to die off, not be stopped.
Sorry broham I can’t agree with you there.
How can you judge someone’s worth by whether they decide to kill themselves or not? As it is who are you to decide how much anybody is worth? Seriously man, it’s not like your name is Jesus H. Carr.
You obviously have never had anyone you know kill themselves, or you wouldn’t talk like that.
Plus, Jack’s post is about how ridiculous it is to spend $50 million on a net. It wasn’t about how the net is holding up the process of evolution and survival of the fittest.
Jon, I just realized Rineberg basically made the same dumb comment you did, so I’m sorry for singling you out before.
Andrew, I have known someone that has killed themself. Three actually!
Let me tell you that if someone is determined enough to do it, it doesn’t matter how many nets you put up, they are going to find a way. What are you going to do, safe-guard every bridge and height in the world?
You are obsessed with me judgeing people’s worth. That’s not what I am doing. I am simply saying that if someone is going to find a way to kill themself no matter what, why waste money preventing them unless you can take away every possible threat there is?
BTW, do you believe in evolution or creation?
I believe in evolution, and agree with every word you wrote in your last comment.
I took issue with you calling a suicidal individual weak. And to Greg I take issue with calling that action dumb. I feel that both of those statements disregard the complexity of what drives a person to kill themselves.
I have always understood evolution as “A process where more species of life are born than actually end up living in a trial and error format where the strong survive and the weak die off.”
From this perspective, I wouldn’t exactly say that suicidal people are the “strong” that fight for the survival of our species. Would you?
I think suicide is both a dumb and a weak act. I’m sorry if you take offense to my position but I feel that suicide is the most selfish act you can possibly do which deserves no sympathy or any positive adjectives whatsoever.
I agree it’s selfish.
Yes, those who can’t stomach stresses of the culture they are born into are those most likely to kill themselves. Look at the insane suicide rate in japan! In that sense it could be said they are too weak, but only in so much as strength would be the ability to cope and adapt to the stress of a given culture.
But, that view point also reduces strength to coping, and that doesn’t take into account native intelligence and the other genetic traits of an individual.
The fact is, individuals who are evolutionarily superior to others can be born in crappy environments that don’t foster their abilities. They might kill themselves because of this. So then where was the weakness…in the individual, the environment, or in the culture that allowed that kind of environment to exist.
There are too many factors to just label a suicidal person as weak and dumb. It’s reductionism.
Andrew, I have to assume that you are just playing devil’s advocate on this issue. You are doing a great job and you should be on a debate team. You are much more articulate than I am which gives you an advantage in most verbal discussions.
However, you are never going to get me to change my mind and say that suicide is an evolutionary strong and smart decision…not under any circumstances.
This suicide debate of whether someone is dumb/smart/weak/strong is a great one and I wish I could hear everyones views on it, however we have steered away from the issue of spending 50 million on a net underneath the Golden Gate Bridge.
Why don’t we instead snipe people right before they jump with non-lethal tranq. bullets. Then we can hook them up to the energy grid, harvest their body heat/electricity, and place them in a virtual reality dream world much better than the life they once knew.
Instead of spending 50 million on the net, they should build an enormous gold statue in the form of Governor Shwartzennegar. That’d be about as useful as the net.
Yeah..lol giving that stare he gave in True Lies (1994) that broke the glass on the dinner table.