Fear and legacy

Michelle Allison is, according to her Twitter page, a dietitian in Toronto and is half American and half Canadian. She wrote a Twitter essay that caught my attention because she succinctly asks a question to which I’ve been proposing to answer for quite a while.

Why, in a supposedly egalitarian democratic society that is quite hierarchical and unequal, would those resting near the very top of the hierarchy (largely white, male technophiles) be the ones clamoring for more? Why are the Thiels of the world, for one e.g., obsessed with upending the (barely functioning) democratic institutions that extend to the rest of us a tiny, imperfect modicum of liberty in favour of an explicitly autocratic vision that would have us be serfs and slaves? Like WHY do the people who have EVERYTHING in the current system, WHY must their shitty futuristic fantasy influence an election, when there are tons of people who have more ethically defensible visions of a future with expanded rights and equality for all people? Why do the people who have it all, who live on the bleeding edge of technological advancement, contribute in massively influential ways to our culture, who are massively financially rewarded, NEED EVEN MORE? To the point of doing away w/ enlightenment ideals and democracy itself?

I’m pretty sure the phrase “the Thiels of the world” refers to Peter Thiel. I had to look him up and, of course, found a Whkipedia page on him. He has a husband. He started PayPal, so is rich, worth about $2.6 billion. He is a devout Libertarian (a viewpoint I summarize as: I’ve got mine, too bad you don’t have yours) and a strong monetary supporter of GOP candidates. He wrote the book The Diversity Myth criticizing political correctness and multiculturalism and claiming it dilutes academic rigor. So, yeah, we know what kind of guy he is.

I would offer a different perspective on Allison’s question of why do people who have everything need even more. In my understanding it isn’t that they want more, it’s that they want us to have less. They want to make sure the chasm between their more and our less cannot be crossed.

Back to Allison and her question…

I’ve been answering her question with my understanding of ranking, the belief that there should be a hierarchy in society with men over women, white over black, straight over gay, Christian over non, rich over poor, etc. Though we are taught to rank it is something the human brain accepts quiet easily. Ranking is a strong force – people are willing to go so far as to kill to protect their rank in society.

Allison may supply a reason why ranking is such a strong force: we’re totally freaked out about death.

It seemed impossible to understand, and then my index card reminded me: because when you can't navigate your fear of death, can't even SEE it, nothing is ever enough. You can reach the top of the existing hierarchy and at the end of it, you're still human, still going to die.

Thiel is terrified of dying, openly invests in technologies that offer immortality. The neoreactionary platform has several literal immortality mechanisms baked in: futuristic AI, the technological singularity, transhumanism. It's The Highlander all over again. Nerds.

But the current system doesn't offer as direct a path as they would like to this glorious, immortal future--even though it's the one the rest of us need (and need to fight tooth and nail to expand, given how un-egalitarian it actually is) in order to have any rights at all. They've climbed to the top of the shitty hierarchy we currently have, that is at least democratic in name, and now demand an even less democratic, more hierarchical system. Because even though they have every systemic advantage a human can have, they're still not quite immortal.

The antidote to this is MORE democracy and egalitarianism, not less, and the hierarchical structure of our current system is what enabled these people to climb to the top and ram through their vision of an even less equal future, while others fought and died to have basic rights. If you give people a ladder to climb to be nearer the gods, they will climb up it, realize the gods are still not near enough, then set the thing on fire until it consumes them like a pyre. This wouldn't be too much of a problem, except usually the ladder is made of other people. I don't believe in immortality, and I don't consent to being a burnt offering. That's all.

I also had to look up The Highlander. It is a 1986 movie about immortal Scottish warriors.

I’ve read about this fear of death in one other area. John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop, wrote about the fear of death in his book Why Christianity Must Change or Die. I bought the book at a convocation of LGBT people in the United Methodist Church and read it maybe 7 or 8 years ago.

Spong worked from the theory that fear of death underlies all religion. Even in modern culture, where the hold of the church has lessened, our societal mental health is still strongly influenced by our fear of death.

I’ve just experienced six family deaths in just over two years. Death is indeed on my mind a lot. But should we fear it? Christians say there is a life after death that is glorious! Why would we fear it? I roundly reject an afterlife of Hell – a loving God would not condemn us to that. If He did, He wouldn’t be loving. Is our fear of death a sign we don’t trust the promise of an afterlife? Atheists say there is nothing after life, so again nothing to fear.

There is a scenario that does make me fearful – something catastrophic is about to happen and within a few minutes I won’t exist in this world anymore. An example is the 1986 space shuttle disaster in which the rocket engines exploded yet the crew likely didn’t die until the orbiter hit the water a few minutes later. A modern scenario would be hearing about an incoming nuclear missile (what Hawaii erroneously heard last week). So let me die in my sleep.

Again, back to Allison…

She describes “immortality projects,” which she defines as attempts to “leave a legacy” or belief systems that offer the possibility of some form of afterlife. One aspect is various aspects of culture are immortality projects because the objects or ways of doing things endure beyond a single human’s lifespan.

The immortality projects that fascinate me, however, are the ones that create systems of inequality, and use the strategic oppression and marginalization of a group of people as the foundation upon which those who think of themselves as superior can stand and reach for eternity. … I just know that the part where some people get shit on and other people get a path to heroism and leave a legacy is what interests me.

But maybe it isn’t the fear of death but the fear of living a life without much consequence. How much of a legacy do we leave that touches more than our our family? Will those in the future know us beyond our names in a genealogy database or on a headstone? Does anyone alive know anything about any of my great-grandfathers? The last one died when I was five. Did any of them change much in history?

And what will be my legacy? Will anyone read my writings or play my music even a decade after I’m gone?

I’ve been saying ranking is strong enough to prompt people to kill and otherwise make the lives of those below them in the hierarchy quite miserable. Allison is saying the fear of death prompts people to attempt to scramble to the top of the hierarchy in hopes of creating a legacy that will live beyond them. Is being taught about hierarchy (a teaching that happens constantly) strong enough to make us killers? Is the fear of death and a need to leave a legacy that strong?

I’ll be pondering this for a while.