Imagine two large bushes growing side by side. They do all the normal "bush" things. One, though, is equipped with an auto gardener. The bush uses it to be healthier by, when it observes that it is growing a sickly shoot unlikely to become the support branch for a new system of growth, trimming it off. The same when it grows a stub that will never be more than a stub, a twig that picks up some disease or infestation et cetera: auto-gardener.
As a result of this work, the bush with the auto gardener uses 1000f (let f equal "food quantity" referring to the amount of water and sun and other nourishment it receives each year), because it's not pumping resources into dead-end stubs or sickly twigs and such. The bush next to it uses 1,300f/year, because it has to nourish its healthy, functioning parts, as well as all of its dead-ends.
Humanity is the same. If a society has to expend 1,300f, or whatever each year, to provide for its sickly offshoots, it will always be outperformed by the society with the auto-gardener which expends only 1000 (discounting the certainty of the 300f society that is sure to grow once the opportunity presents itself). The expenditure on the sickly failures is actually the starvation and smothering of future healthy offshoots, because that extra 300f going to the sick failures is a subtraction from the new growing projects that would've happened if the plant weren't spending 300f/year maintaining a network of failure.
Any gardener knows, of course, that pruning away the failed bits can be used for the beautification or health of the gardened plants, and we tend to assume gardeners are evil Nazis who do it only for beauty (and then that there's some kind of otherworldly beauty about sick growth, which movie Nazis are too dumb to see, that the plant itself wouldn't want unless it took a bunch of sociology classes first and came to believe that celebrating the sick was good), but the health component, and its relationship to beauty (perhaps mandatory?) tends to be overlooked now. And throughout human history, there is no way for us to tell whether someone made her tribe successful ninety thousand years ago by crawling to the river and tumbling into eternity rather than hanging around and using food to survive that would've been fed to three healthy newborns otherwise. The heroic sacrifices of the past are hidden from us, and the survival of, say, caveman family groups, based on the amount of resources that needed to be dedicated to selfish hangers-on each year, can't be quantified based upon the private nature of helpful suicide. Even under fool's evolution's wrongness and the random god, this equation works out; survival of the fittest not including those who kept sick elders in assisted living for 10 years versus having another child (even if it receives zero parental attention, just paid care) works out in favor of the reproducers rather than the stoic leeching survivalists.
Many components enter this possible debate, including conscious and unconscious individual human desires. For purpose of the bush example, the auto-gardener is free, since every person makes the decision for themselves. And as to the health of a society, we must consider that the prohibition against suicide was installed by the Christian murderers when they brought their rabbi to Europe. Beforehand, we know precious little about suicide and history, except perhaps the laments of those still here, "why'd he do it?" How sad--answers that the healthy might know by now if they paid enough attention to the realities of being here, including failing through no fault of your own. Ironic that the most selfless act for one's people--removing oneself as a resource-drain that prevents future children--could become evil. And it makes sense for the invaders, who wanted to introduce Jews and mass immigration and other resource-sinks to conquered Europe--who then taught everyone else to say, "You're going to eternal hellfire if you healthen your people by removing yourself."
Trivial for gardened bushes. Maybe trivial if you're not intelligent enough to imagine the opportunity costs of the personalities of babies unborn, never knowing life, because the resources were given instead to some dying old miserable husk. Viewing societies, which sometimes fight over territory or resources, imagine that 1000f isn't a plant quantity but $500 billion of food and infrastructure, and spending it on 90 year olds with dementia or children with hopes is the very real choice being made in the deathly way in first world countries every day. The extinction of white people will certainly be linked to the efforts of invaders, but the groundwork was laid long before, as the sick old fools veritably played concertos on the sinking Titanic, endlessly congratulating themselves for feeding and making up the beds of those who were on the way out. The potential desire to be gone from the burdens is never allowed to enter the equation, since the strong have convinced themselves that displaying their prizes shows they're heroes.
The social stigma against suicide arose from these invaders, and a related source of stigma prevents us from knowing not only what it was like before, but what it is like now, each time some jobless skill-lacker or half-confused old person who's lived enough of life wishes to set his or her children's infants free from the burden.
Viewing the immigration attack as ethnic chess, it worked very well on the idiots willing to empty their reserves and bear those costs. A smaller, but still meaningful, component of this whole cruel earthly game is the social prohibition against helping in the only way you have left. If there were a network of social respect, historical respectability, and fast cheap clinics that did it painlessly with 100% effectiveness and partnered with the funeral home for instant remains disposal, we wouldn't only save legions of elders from the terrifying fugue between death and life, which is a really sick separate subject we do now, but also protect from that same fugue many others. The ability of free-thinking human beings to decide they want out deserves a heavier weighing on the elder scale, because some of those poor people have been stuck in that torture for decades, but the ability of everyone to participate in a project of human improvement has justification at every physical age.