I don't understand what alternative you think you have, one with the benefits of a tightly-committed society without the costs. I don't think it's possible and I'm not sure it's desirable, but I'm interested to understand what you think it looks like. Perhaps it's in the essay and I just missed it.
Although Canadaโs MAiD program does give an individual a certain level of autonomy, does it also restrict a personโs agency, that is the ability to work on oneโs own behalf? Government programs do tend to favor certain outcomes.
Standing in that cutout on the gorge bridge where lookers can pool and not inhibit traffic on the narrow walkway one looks down 630 feet or so to the tumbling Rio Grande. Waist high rail. Thereโs a phone if you need help. No more guilt, no more pain. Search for meaning but only find regret. This act an ending of all that. Last remnant of a broken man. Wrap his body in a rag. One goes there alone.
The Roman, in political defeat, fell on his sword. His honor intact. His estate secure beyond prosecution. His affairs tied in a package. The last act of courage. To die of valor rather than of shame.
Point being as autonomous individuals it is first our own business. Family, friends, etc. are of consideration. But it is the individuals pain. Everybody has a life for which they are responsible. Have rights to its finality.
Government can play a role in reducing trauma. Big poster say, โItโs ok.โ Clean up the mess. Less brains on the wall or parents found hanging. No qualification, just accommodation.
I donโt see a contradiction here with Brooks on community. Sometimes people leave because they donโt feel useful. And maybe they're not.
Great essay. Iโm in your camp. One thing that Iโm addressing in my next book (an anthropologistโs take on Brooksโ themes) is that Americansโ maniacal elevation of Privacy to a Sacred value is at the root of our inability to connect and commune. This is where we educated elites are the most dishonest about what we wish for...we have not yet come to terms with Privacy and how it destroys community slowly and surely.
๐๐ง ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ญ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ง๐ถ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ด, ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ค๐ญ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ถ๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ถ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด.
๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ญ, ๐บ๐ฆ๐ดโฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ค๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต.
๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐บ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ข๐ด๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ, ๐ช๐ตโ๐ด ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฐ๐จ๐ฏ๐ช๐ป๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐จ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ญ๐ด๐ฐ ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ช๐ด ๐ธ๐ช๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏโ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐บ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด. ๐๐ง ๐ธ๐ฆโ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ง๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ค ๐ญ๐ช๐ง๐ฆ, ๐ธ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ข๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ, ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฆ๐น๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ ๐จ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ด, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ง๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ด๐ฐ๐ง๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ โ๐ค๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ญโ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ค๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ญ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ต๐บ.
I don't understand what alternative you think you have, one with the benefits of a tightly-committed society without the costs. I don't think it's possible and I'm not sure it's desirable, but I'm interested to understand what you think it looks like. Perhaps it's in the essay and I just missed it.
Although Canadaโs MAiD program does give an individual a certain level of autonomy, does it also restrict a personโs agency, that is the ability to work on oneโs own behalf? Government programs do tend to favor certain outcomes.
Standing in that cutout on the gorge bridge where lookers can pool and not inhibit traffic on the narrow walkway one looks down 630 feet or so to the tumbling Rio Grande. Waist high rail. Thereโs a phone if you need help. No more guilt, no more pain. Search for meaning but only find regret. This act an ending of all that. Last remnant of a broken man. Wrap his body in a rag. One goes there alone.
The Roman, in political defeat, fell on his sword. His honor intact. His estate secure beyond prosecution. His affairs tied in a package. The last act of courage. To die of valor rather than of shame.
Point being as autonomous individuals it is first our own business. Family, friends, etc. are of consideration. But it is the individuals pain. Everybody has a life for which they are responsible. Have rights to its finality.
Government can play a role in reducing trauma. Big poster say, โItโs ok.โ Clean up the mess. Less brains on the wall or parents found hanging. No qualification, just accommodation.
I donโt see a contradiction here with Brooks on community. Sometimes people leave because they donโt feel useful. And maybe they're not.
Great essay. Iโm in your camp. One thing that Iโm addressing in my next book (an anthropologistโs take on Brooksโ themes) is that Americansโ maniacal elevation of Privacy to a Sacred value is at the root of our inability to connect and commune. This is where we educated elites are the most dishonest about what we wish for...we have not yet come to terms with Privacy and how it destroys community slowly and surely.