People reading my blog may be familiar with my previous post here:
https://steemit.com/death/@garethnelsonuk/the-problem-with-death-positivists
Following on from it, and following on from my series on practical transhumanism, I thought it makes sense to address further the problems with the so-called death positive movement and deathism in general.
To repeat the definitions: deathism is the belief that death is desirable, good or even "beautiful".
"Death positive" is the term used by a movement that advocates publicly that we simply discuss death, as opposed to hiding from it - being open about our post-mortem wishes etc.
As I stated earlier, the problem is not in what the death positive movement claims to be about, it is what the movement is actually about that is the issue - and for many of the movement's adherents, their cause is in practical terms deathism.
Let's look at how, point by point:
- The concept of "death phobia"
Pathologizing the natural and rational fear of death and calling for acceptance of death instead. It is true that death phobia in the extreme can be a debilitating mental illness like any other phobia, but the fear of death itself is a rational one.
Like pain tells us that something is wrong with our body, fear tells us that there is something that poses danger to us, when properly calibrated. Death most certainly does pose a danger to us, the fear is justified.
- Outright advocating against transhumanism
This is extremely common and it'd be silly for me to say that I can agree with a movement that goes against principles I believe in strongly. I believe that it is not just desirable, but a human right to make use of whatever technology is available to enhance one's abilities and live a longer and happier life, and so it is clear why advocating against this is a problem.
Many in the death positive movement seem to perceive transhumanist ideals as naive or impossible - which is something we can disagree on or discuss - but many outright consider the conquest of death as a negative thing and something to oppose.
Many of these people literally want me to die, want you to die, want everyone to die - and this is not mere hyperbole, it is deadly serious.
- Spreading the idea that life extension or curing aging is a harmful thing
This directly impacts on efforts to fundraise for things such as aging research, we can measure the harm in financial terms here by simply asking potential donors to organisations like SENS their reasons for not donating. Many when asked state it is because they fundamentally do not support the cause of curing aging, seeing death as somehow a good thing.
If we lived in a sane society, the people that advocate not curing a disease because they believe death is good would be seen as the reprehensible fools they are.
- Dehumanising grief
Grief after a loss is a powerful emotion, it is a psychological pain that hurts like no other and often never truly goes away. This pain is good though - every time a good person dies, it should hurt - we should feel angry. Feeling angry at an injustice is the first step towards seeing the injustice, and if we try to dehumanise grief and try to make it something people should be ashamed of, we lose sight of the injustice of mortality.
This is not to say it is bad to make grief less painful and helping people cope with that pain is a noble thing to do, but encouraging the idea that it is wrong for grief to be painful can only lead to mental illness.
I'm sad to say that this can get quite personal for some of the movement's followers: after the twitter #deathmaidenconf drama many decided to outright mock me over my grandmother's death - calling me "freak" and similar simply for saying that I miss a loved one.
Were this just a few twitter trolls it would be something I could ignore, but it disturbs me greatly that professionals at an academic conference like that one encouraged the harassment I received at the time - and these are professionals well-respected within the death-positive movement.
- Macabre entertainment as excuse for death
I share something in common with many death positivists in that I enjoy macabre entertainment (horror fiction, black and death metal, dark classical music). I love atmospheric and creepy things too and consider some graveyards and other such places to have their own beauty - but this beauty is NOT something that belongs to Death.
Goths are fine, we are not talking about a mere fashion or subculture with a dark aesthetic such as goths though. We are talking about an organised movement with both stated goals and unspoken beliefs - and the belief that death is good or even beautiful is often promoted by using macabre entertainment which naturally appeals to some people.
Death itself is always ugly, we can only enjoy the great works of art it has inspired (and it has inspired some true beauty) while we are alive. By promoting the idea that macabre and dark things being beautiful is equivalent to death itself being beautiful, some death positivists encourage further deathism.
My open questions to those in the death positive movement
- If your movement is not deathist, will you condemn those in your movement who do hold deathist views or will you simply allow the deathist elements of your movement to continue to represent it?
- Hypothetically speaking, if you could push a button that would make the entire world immortal and perfectly healthy, would you push that button?
- If you would not push that button, you are advocating for not curing the diseases that will kill people that would otherwise be saved - therefore, would you push a button that turns off the life support machines of an equivalent number of people to those that would have been saved?
- Have you ever experienced a loss yourself, and if so did you find it painful enough to decide that it is unjust? If so, did you later change your mind on how unjust it was, and if so why?
- If your movement is about talking openly about death and is not deathist, why do your movement's most respected names so often speak against transhumanist ideals?
