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 Canada’s MAiD program does give an individual a certain level of autonomy, does it also restrict a person’s agency, that is the ability to work on one’s 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. There’s 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, “It’s ok.” Clean up the mess. Less brains on the wall or parents found hanging. No qualification, just accommodation.
I don’t see a contradiction here with Brooks on community. Sometimes people leave because they don’t feel useful. And maybe they're not.
Great essay. I’m in your camp. One thing that I’m addressing in my next book (an anthropologist’s take on Brooks’ themes) is that Americans’ 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.
𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴.
𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘴… 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵.
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘺𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭” 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺.
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 Canada’s MAiD program does give an individual a certain level of autonomy, does it also restrict a person’s agency, that is the ability to work on one’s 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. There’s 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, “It’s ok.” Clean up the mess. Less brains on the wall or parents found hanging. No qualification, just accommodation.
I don’t see a contradiction here with Brooks on community. Sometimes people leave because they don’t feel useful. And maybe they're not.
Great essay. I’m in your camp. One thing that I’m addressing in my next book (an anthropologist’s take on Brooks’ themes) is that Americans’ 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.