Dead And Gone
So I have been batting this around for much of my life and hopefully me writing it will explain my insecurity better. It also underlies my question, why do we discourage suicide on the basis that it hurts other people when our influence as average individuals is quite limited as well as that influence of those that may be hurt? Point being, in terms of influence (and therefore ability to affect other people) there is a larger buffer in response to anything the average individual does which is determined by their influence and those people that they have influence on and so on down the line before people stop caring. I have reasons for arguing against suicide, but they aren't that.
Why is it that we all find it so hard to believe that we, like the other 99.9999% of the world, are utterly inconsequential in terms of history and influence? While our lives added into the masses have a potential for lasting significance, the average individual as a being with a unique perception and experience of the world is almost always negated in favor of those talented enough to push their way into cultural influence. Not only do these select individuals have enough talent -the ability based on various character traits to be recognized- to be influential, but we as a culture choose these individuals to represent our ideals. In this way, influence functions democratically where the majority of the population chooses those whom are praised (and therefore have lasting influence) based on what is held valuable in our personal lives (beauty, money, charisma, ability to express emotion (see art), etc). As worldwide consumers we cannot deny a role in deciding cultural influence. The social structure is then, at least partially, based on our wishes and our ability as individuals to enact change, which is limited. This limited inability to enact change and place ourselves or our contrary ideals (to that of the majority) is what defines our inconsequential lives as individuals. We are permanently stuck on a fence post between complete lack of influence and the necessity for influence to be defined by a culture (which we help comprise).
I would also submit that in the inevitable chicken/egg argument, that it is primarily our ideals that define cultural influence, not cultural influence defining our ideals. Of course this is a positive feedback loop, but cultural influence could have never been defined originally without humanity's original ideals of what is valuable in an individual (although this has certainly changed as a result of loop interactions).
Not only are we as individuals inconsequential, but because we are acutely aware of this fact in regards to everyone else, we feel the need place ourselves on an illusionary pedestal above the surrounding world. Our personal importance to ourselves is necessary for cultural influence to occur at all and is largely unavoidable just by living. Through lying to ourselves about the nature of our being, we enable personal importance for what we value (which is why we resist suicide and seek what is beneficial) and therefore enable the life of the masses and their cultural influence at the cost of the individual.