Thursday, August 13, 2009

Seeking clarity

It is often said that the stock market abhors uncertainty. In other words, investors would rather hear bad news than worry about what the news will be.

We see a corollary for this in life, with people seeking certainty about inherently uncertain things such as their health, job prospects, and family status. Further, we believe this search for certainty is behind much of the pain and conflict in modern life. As one of our readers recently noted, western cultures do not deal well with the certainty of eventual death. As she put it, "When it happens it is 'devastating, tragic, sad, unfair' as if it is not supposed to happen. A fluke rather than a rule."

This, of course, is a relatively new development, tied largely to the dramatic increase in lifespans over the past century or so. Prior to the development of modern medicine, people saw death in much more realistic terms--not only as a certainty, but one about which they could do little (if anything). Thus the widespread appeal of religion, which not only gave people hope (for life after death), but also nurtured the illusion that things happened "for a reason." Getting sick and dying, in short, was seen as a natural part of the ebb and flow of life, with death often greeted as an occasion for rejoicing rather than weeping (as the deceased was in a "better place").

Today, by contrast, we labor under the far more dangerous illusion that we can not only delay but perhaps...someday...if we keep working on it...actually prevent death. Not many people would actually admit to this, of course. But how else can one explain the vast resources we as a society devote to keeping people alive?

Indeed, people are arguably more humane in their treatment of pets than of family members. When a pet gets sick, we are far more likely to "put it out of its misery" rather than desperately attempt to prolong a life we know is drawing to a close. Yet when family members get chronically ill, most of us go into full-scale denial, refusing to accept (or even acknowledge) the ultimate certainty of their mortality.

Thus, while the rapid advance of medicine has certainly benefited society as a whole, it has also instilled the (largely unacknowledged) belief that we can cheat death if we only try harder. (After all, look at all the ways we can prolong life that did not even exist a few decades back!)

The tragedy is that, human nature being what it is, people forget the advances we have made and ask "what have you done for me lately?" They do not, in other words, celebrate the fact that they do not have polio (for example), but rather fret that the lead level in their drinking water may be slightly too high. Or that they must take a daily regimen of expensive pills. Etc, etc, etc.

This is yet another consequence of most people's refusal to accept their own mortality. Rather than viewing illness and death as just another part of life, modern society sees death as the ultimate horror, to be delayed by any means necessary in the (futile) hope that it can ultimately be cheated. The supreme irony, of course, is that in so doing we end up denying ourselves the joy of living in the moment and taking each experience as it comes.

In seeking to cheat death, we unwittingly cheat ourselves of the wonders of life.

4 comments:

  1. > Today, by contrast, we labor under the far more dangerous illusion that we can not only delay but perhaps...someday...if we keep working on it...actually prevent death. Not many people would actually admit to this, of course. But how else can one explain the vast resources we as a society devote to keeping people alive?

    Poppycock!

    People devote energy to staying alive because they enjoy life.

    The question is interesting - could we find a way to prevent death? - but it is only a philosophical question today. In contrast to your words, it is not an immediate goal of active research, except in James Bond movies.

    "we labor under the illusion that perhaps... someday... we can prevent death." Bomstein, you write dishonestly. I see you're trying to make a point, but that does not excuse sophistry.

    "Yet when family members get chronically ill, most of us go into full-scale denial, refusing to accept (or even acknowledge) the ultimate certainty of their mortality."

    Oh really, Bomstein? Most of us? Based on what data? Have you surveyed people? Have you reviewed surveys? Or are you just making it up?
    You "just know," is that it?

    And how many of these moments have you confronted, yourself? How many times have you watched a parent get zipped up in a body bag and taken to the morgue, after having decided to forgo intervention and focus on paid management? How many times have you weighed the decision about your own father - will he recover or won't he? Should we do the surgery or just wait?

    How old must a person be, to be too old to treat, Bomstein? What sort of life is better ended? How sick is too sick? Do you know? Why don't you just tell us so we stop wasting such vast resources on keeping doomed people alive?

    If a man is in train accident, and his leg is severed, is it better to not intervene - just let him bleed to death? After all, it would be "cheating death." It is obvious to everyone that his life is "drawing to a close", to use your words, and quickly.

    If a 45-yr old mother of 3 is afflicted with breast cancer, shall we just say, "you know, she had a good life so far, what's the point in trying to beat the cancer? It's her time." I mean, it's obvious to everyone that her life is "drawing to a close". Why fight it? And even if she beats it this time, chances are, it will come back and get her. What would be the point of her surviving through her kids' high-school graduation? No, fighting the cancer would be full-scale denial! We're all going to die. Why put it off for her?

    You have read many books, and speak of life, but you don't know it. You have not lived through the situations you discuss.

    You make a few good points but, in this article and in much of what you write, your good points are overshadowed by your shallow treatment of serious topics, your willingness to sacrifice honesty to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would *love* to see you extend your argument just a bit by bringing in Ernest Becker's notion of the "causa sui," or symbolic life project--i.e. kids, the next great American novel, "success" in a career, a legacy, etc.--that people develop to "cheat" death. You do allude to the notion of cheating death; I always think of Becker's brilliant development of this idea. Becker suggests that depression sets in when folks feel there's something amiss with their causa sui. Makes perfect sense . . . and *truly* absurd, no?!?! Consumerism in the West = denial of death. We're so frightened in the West of silence, of solitude . . .

    Keep up the terrific posts; I enjoy your blog.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  3. I might be going off on a tangent here, but even further, linguistically speaking, to call something meaningless has a negative connotation as well. So if I call life "meaningless" people automaticlly assume a cold-hearted view of things, whereas I see it to simply be beyond cultural value. Does the universe have value, does a tree have a value, do I have one as well? No. I simply am. Nothing beyond that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ive often wondered what if would be like if our education system were different, and death as part of human life were incorporated into the curriculum. Would it bring depression, suicide and mayhem or enlightenment....

    ReplyDelete