A
Lesson in Mortality
by
Jeffrey A. Tucker
A
death in the family is always hard, but three in three weeks is
especially difficult for children, even though it only involved
pets.
First
it was the green tree frog discovered at the local car repair shop
and taken home to be cared for. "Sticky" lived two months, long
enough for the kids to become very attached. One day we found him
dead in his cage.
Then
it was the two chickens brought home soon after being hatched at
a friend's chicken coop. They lived only two days, and died so innocent,
so young and vulnerable.
Below
I reprint the grave-side homilies that I offered when they were
buried. But first: a reflection on mortality, a fact of life even
more inevitable than taxes that modernity still can't seem to come
to terms with.
Death
impresses upon us the limits of technology and ideology. It comes
in time no matter what we do. Prosperity has lengthened life spans
and science and entrepreneurship has made available amazing technologies
that have forestalled and delayed it.
Yet,
it must come.
As
Mises puts it: "Man lives in the shadow of death. Whatever he may
have achieved in the course of his pilgrimage, he must one day pass
away and abandon all that he has built. Each instant can become
his last. There is only one thing that is certain about the individual's
future death."
Modernity
has a problem intellectually processing the reality of death because
we are so unwilling to defer to the implacable constraints imposed
on us within the material world. Whole ideologies have been concocted
on the supposition that such constraints do not have to exist. That
is the essence of socialism. It is the foundation of US imperialism
too, with its cocky supposition that there is nothing force cannot
accomplish, that there are no limits to the uses of power.
To
recognize the inevitability of death means confessing that there
are limits to our power to manufacture a reality for ourselves.
It is akin to admitting that certain fundamental facts of the world,
like the ubiquity of scarcity, cannot be changed. Instead of attempting
to change it, we must imagine social systems that come to terms
with it. This is the core claim of economic science, and it is also
the very reason so many refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy or
intellectual binding power.
To
discover the fountain of youth is a perpetual obsession, one that
finds its fulfillment in the vitamin cults that promise immortality.
We create government programs to pay for people to be kept alive
forever on the assumption that death is always and everywhere unwarranted
and ought to be stopped. There is no such thing as "natural death"
anymore; the very notion strikes us as a cop out.
Thus
do we insist on always knowing the "cause" of death, as if it only
comes about through an exogenous intervention, like hurricanes,
traffic accidents, shootings, and bombs. But even when a person
dies of his own accord, we always want to know so that we have
something to blame. Heart failure? Well, he or she might have done
a bit more exercise. Let this be a lesson. Cancer? It's probably
due to smoking, or perhaps second-hand smoke. Or maybe it was the
carcinogens introduced by food manufacturers or factories. We don't
want to admit that it was just time for a person to die.
The
denial of death's inevitability is especially strange since life
itself serves up constant reminders of our physical limits. Sleep
serves as a kind of metaphor for death. We can stay awake working
and having fun up to 18 hours, even 24 or 36, but eventually we
must bow to our natures and collapse and sleep. We must fall unconscious
so that we can be revived to continue on with our life.
Pills
can delay the need for sleep but cannot obliterate it. There are
no substitutes for sleep, no foods we can eat, no exercise we can
undertake, no special words we can say. We can shake our fist in
anger at body's demand for sleep but we still must give in. Sleep
wins out over our individual wills every day of our lives, just
as death wins out over our will to live forever.
Our
struggle against mortality can take productive forms of course,
as when we seek to leave great legacies in the material world: wealth,
art, children, literature, charity, changed lives. We do all this
in part because we seek ways to make our brief lives take on meaning
beyond themselves. To be high-minded means to care not only about
our own times but also about those that follow. If we cannot live
forever, we at least want our impact on this world to live longer
than nature permits us to live.
All
these impulses appear to be unique to the human person, a reflection
of our unique rationality and (for theists) the presence of a soul.
Animals are another matter entirely. They avoid death by instinct
(yes, I realize the term explains nothing) but they do not seek
immortality or strive to leave legacies or work to extend the life
span of their species, or otherwise improve the lot of their fellows
through innovation. They are what we would be if we lacked rationality
and souls.
When
a pet dies, all children ask the question: will my pet go to heaven?
I suppose the answer must be: not in the way we will find heaven.
And yet the children want hope that their pet will live again, and
that they will see them living again. And because no Scripture seems
to say that there cannot be, it is reasonable to say that animals
can live eternally if God so desires it. There are many problems
with this idea, of course, since orthodoxy says there is no flesh
in Heaven but if animals have no souls, how precisely would they
go there?
In
the moments following the death of a pet, such theological ramblings
have no place. What the moment calls for is
"closure," to use an overused buzz word.
And
so we gather in silence and dig the hole in the ground, place the
corpse in and say some words.
We
gather to bury and pay tribute to Sticky, a tree frog who has
been a good friend to us all. Quiet and unassuming, he lived
a good life, stirred our imaginations, and delighted us with
his antics. We will miss you, Sticky. We are grateful for the
life you lived. If there were ever a tree frog that deserved
to enter the gates of Heaven, it was surely Sticky.
Each
child takes some dirt on the shovel and tosses it in the grave,
and it is patted down. We stand in silence for a few moments, and
walk away in the quiet evening.
A
similar scene repeated itself with the tiny chicks.
We
gather to bury these two tiny chicks. Though they were so young,
and lived such short lives, we still gave them names: One-Minute
Egg, and Two-Minute Egg. We will always remember them. Let us
remember that we too will die one day, and, when considering the
whole length of eternity, our lives are not much longer than theirs.
May our souls be as innocent as theirs when we breathe our last
breath.
By
this time, the children were rather bored with funeral drama. They
quickly scampered off to live full lives in the sunshine of day,
deciding right then to think about death only when they must, but
otherwise to live and love every breath. And so it should be.
January
19, 2005
Jeffrey
Tucker [send him mail]
is editorial vice president of www.Mises.org.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Jeffrey
Tucker Archives
|