To preface, this is not praxis or relevant, and I’m not going to pretend it is. Nor am i going to pretend like this is aplicable to anything irl. I’m legitimately just curious about the socialist perspective on this.
Anyway, I just finished up playing a certain game (which I won’t name cause spoilers, but if you’ve seen a crow in a broken mirror then you know what I’m talking about) and it was another one of those stories where charecters try to “end death” and ergo end suffering. Evangelion does this too, if I remember right [it’s been a few years since i watched it so i might be wrong]. and it shows up uncommonly in some other places like pathologic, and honestly I’m conflicted.
Essentially the idea is that some charecter(s) have the power (or wish to) end death in some way or to create some general entropy where people are united as a general whole and not in singularity. From what i can tell, the characters who wish for this are depicted all in some negative light, or at the very least are on the wrong side of things (this is just my interpretation of course). For pathologic the charecter is depicted as generally stupid and incompetent and utopian, in eva its depicted as evil and selfish, and in the game I just played the character is depicted as essentially desperate and afraid.
And, I think thats right, right? The general anti-thesis to these characters is that to have something is to necessitate nothing, and visa versa. If you were to have no suffering you would have no happiness, and if you had no death there would be no change. This feels correct, and possibly even dialectical (I think, honestly the philosophy of marxism still eludes me to an extent. Sorry Gramsci). But simultaneously there’s two things nagging in the back of my mind.
First is the similarity of these arguments to those used by conservatives to continue the capitalist system. That if there was no suffering that there would be nothing to live for, and that the death and suffering caused by capitalism is just the nature of the world.
The second is that death is the status quo, the cycle is the status quo. But those ending death are seen in the opposite light, that they are the ones in power and it is through death and change that the people are liberated, in a sense. Personally I’m…wary of stories where the ones threatening the status quo are seen as bad (discounting Eva, since SEELE are the ones in power and I don’t want to defend fascists and all)
Like I said, obviously this matters very little. I doubt any of us are going to be given godlike powers to change the fabric of the universe. But I wanted some different perspectives on this than from what I’ll see from liberals and such.
Themes about cheating death go back a lot (to confirm my memory on it, Sisyphus is the most relevant I could find in a quick search). That may be where the themes are being borrowed from, is old stuff, cause capitalism likes to repackage old as new to make more money.
And I suspect some of those type of stories get told in such a way they are just the themes out of context of how they developed as a cultural message originally and that’s part of why it can be murky what message they’re trying to make beyond the themes themselves. Fearing death is a pretty universal concept, but how societies react to it won’t always be the same.
And context matters cause like… if you took a notion like that too literally, it would be very strange in the context of modern medicine, for example, or healing as a practice more generally. Could you imagine saying to a doctor, “You shouldn’t try to save people because that’s cheating death”? So there are limits to it as a narrative of going too far.
To deny the reality of decay would be burying one’s head in the sand, but at the same time, I don’t see anything wrong with the scientific pursuit of sustaining life. Cost may be an important question within that and I don’t mean the anti-China “at what cost?” (lol) or the capitalist “how many billions?” I mean in the sense of what are you losing. Collective sustainability for people and ecology alike is more important than a single rich person living to 200 or whatever. But if most can become more healthy and live longer, and the environment can be sustained in tandem, then great.
I don’t think overcoming death is in the cards for humanity, but there is a lot of room between that and the current common status quo to drastically improve quality of life for billions vs. the colonial shoggoth of a capitalist empire that many are dealing with across the globe. And I’ll take someone who believes in that who is also a little naive, over a cynic who thinks the world fundamentally has to be extreme suffering, any day.