"Being Stressed Out As a Spiritual Practice?!" Say, what?
You’re probably thinking: “Wow, I’m way, waaaaaay more spiritual than I ever thought. If being stressed out is a spiritual practice, then I’m right up there with the Dalai Lama!”
Or perhaps (more likely) you're thinking: “You’re joking, right?”
No, I’m serious! But let me back up for a minute.
We know that biologically, during evolution, good things (like eyes, brains, etc.) are selected for only if they are needed at the time. After all, if a creature can survive OK without the latest mutation, then it will do so, and the latest mutation won’t spread across the population. Hence, everything I appreciate, like being able to walk, think and see, are all the results of huge amounts of struggle, without which we’d all still be pond scum. Like that ‘80’s workout slogan, “No pain, no gain”.
And look at what we are blessed with! Powerful bodies made of incomparable molecular 'machines', eyes, the most advanced brain known of in the Universe, and more – each the result of an unthinkable amount of hardship – or it simply would not have been selected for.
When one deeply appreciates this mountain of struggle we all stand upon, our daily difficulties take on new meaning. Challenges (ours and our ancestor's), as bad as they may be in the moment, are what gave all of us much of what we value most! If I sat around and did nothing in a cushy life, I’d feel that I’d let those Ancestors down, that I wasn’t a worthy recipient of the wondrous gifts they bequeathed me.
So whenever I feel pressure or difficulty, I know that it's very much like that which allowed me to be, and that pressure can help me grow. I couldn’t feel it without some taste of stress. In fact, our lives today have a lot less stress than existed in many of those past lives! Few of us, after all, are just hoping to be breathing tomorrow, which at times in the past was really in doubt on a regular basis. So, though I don’t intentionally try to get unneeded stress, I remind myself that every drop of stress I get is a gateway to deeper appreciation of every good thing in the world today.
Yes, being stressed out is indeed a spiritual practice, if I choose to make it so.
Also, I hear clubs are notoriously full of scantily clad lady folk.
*Now Larry is really paying attention*
To further complicate the issue, my girlfriend has been out of town for the past two weeks. So speaking frankly, Larry (and Shane!) have been missing her ... a lot!
What is a testosterone-filled young man supposed to do in this situation?
Science has shown that when a man’s primary partner is away, his testosterone levels elevate, as does his sperm count. Evolution would have it so, apparently, because in the ancient (maybe not so ancient) past, this was prime time for a man to possibly land an EPC. That’s code for, what biologists routinely call, “extra-pair copulation.”
Higher testosterone = think more about sex and take more risks.
Hmmm . . .
Fortunately, armed with this knowledge, I can now know what challenges to expect, and I can pre-decide how to deal with them.
I am committed to not cheating. However, I also have a deep appreciation and reverence for the power of my instincts, especially when alcohol is involved and inhibitions are thereby lowered and judgment is clouded.
So what did I do?
With Larry whispering inside my head, trying to fulfill his ancient yearnings, I decided to create a game of sorts. It would be a game to see just how impeccable I could be in my actions, and a game to honor my girlfriend. Undoubtedly also, this game would strengthen the “muscles” of my prefrontal cortex that must be trained and exercised to do the “harder thing” — harder meaning, going against our primal instincts (sorry, Larry!).
The day before Larry and I were scheduled to go clubbing, I called up a trusted friend and explained the game:
“I want to commit to only having 3 drinks and also acting in such a way that if there was a video camera on me, and my girlfriend was going to see the tape the next day, she would be proud of my behavior — and feel very honored by me.”
I also shared this game with my girlfriend — which was not at all a scary thing to do. Ever since she and I took time together to read about the basics of our evolved male and female brains (see the links below), I have been able to authentically share what most of us guys assume we just have to keep hidden: that we do notice hot women, and that our Larrys do perk up. (See my earlier post, when I introduced “Larry” as my own playful name for the lustful part of my brain that harks back to when humanity’s ancient ancestor was still a reptile.)
Actually, I didn’t just explain the game to Meredith. Once she got the gist, she and I started joking around about all the hot women that would attract Larry’s attention, but that I, trustworthy Shane, would not be flirting with.
The night was a breeze (and still a ton of fun!). I danced with my female friends, I had my three drinks, and I completely honored my girlfriend and our relationship.
Would I have been fine had I not been playing this game? Absolutely. It was never about “keeping the reins” on out-of-control habits. It was simply a way of honoring my instincts and honoring what's most important to me, which is the trust in my relationship.
If you are a man who has struggled with straying or flirting outside of your relationship — and if you are committed to faithful monogamy — I encourage you to learn about your brain’s evolutionary machinery. Then you can choose to practice honoring its deeply rooted desires, as well as your higher values and commitments.
When you can authentically love those deep drives, without succumbing to their every whim, (and your partner can too), be prepared to enjoy a “lightness of being” and playfulness that's unlike anything else! _______________________
NOTE: Links to some of Meredith's and my favorite resources on this subject:
by Michael Dowd “We will never achieve a just and sustainably lifegiving future on the resources of the existing religious traditions, and we can’t get there without them.” ~ Thomas Berry
The 21st century will be seen historically as humanity’s rite of passage. We’re growing up as a species, going through the very same process we’ve all gone through as we mature. As children we’re guided by beliefs and we think the world was made for us. As adults, we’re guided by knowledge and we live our lives (at least in part) as a contribution to others and the world. Indeed, for healthy adults, self-giving is actually one of life’s greatest satisfactions. As well, most of us needed no special training or incentives to begin questioning the beliefs we were spoon-fed as children – just the usual dose of hormones and peer focus that signals adolescence.
These two transformations, from beliefs to knowledge and from self-focus to contribution, are precisely what we’re now collectively experiencing. I call this species-wide rite of passage the “Evidential Reformation,” and I believe it is destined to transform not only the science-and-religion debate and how religious traditions relate to one another, but, even more importantly, how humans relate to the larger body of life of which we are part and upon which we depend.
A Big History Perspective on Religion Through Time
Big history, also known as the epic of evolution, is our common creation narrative. It is the first origin story in the history of humanity that is globally produced, derived entirely from evidence, and will soon be taught to high school students around the world (see here, here, and the YouTube clip at the end of this post).
In our “childhood” as a species – as tribes, then villages, then chiefdoms and kingdoms, then city-states and early nations – our main source of guidance came from religious beliefs. Shared allegiance to a particular religion that bridged even ethnic and linguistic differences was a crucial factor in the rise of civilizations across the globe. Consider: our instinctual heritage as social mammals will suffice for fostering cooperation at the scale of a clan. (Biologists call these instinctive forms of cooperation kin selection and reciprocal altruism.) Mutually advantageous trade then facilitated greater circles of cooperation. But for 10,000 or more human beings to be induced to cooperate: for that, you need religion – a singular, shared, unquestioned religion, and probably one that doles out harsh consequences (including ostracism) for apostates.
A multitude of religions arose independently of course, because in any bioregion where fierce competition for territory or resources arose, there would have been a survival advantage to groups that could forge cross-clan alliances for mutual defense. As well, there are two functional issues that all cultures need to address: what’s real and what’s important. (In a six-minute YouTube video based on his book, Religion Is Not About God, philosopher of religion Loyal Rue refers to these two functions as “how things are” and “which things matter.”) These two functional issues will be answered differently based upon where and when you live and upon the happenstance of interpretive imagination of one’s ancestors. Each “wisdom tradition” thus reflects regional collective intelligence encoded mythically. That is, the regional collective intelligence is encoded in pre-scientific language that reflects a people’s daytime and nighttime experience. (See here for a discussion of “Day and Night Language,” which was a central concept in my book, Thank God for Evolution.)
In our “adolescence” as a species (which was a threshold crossed as the modern era swept the globe), we began to question the beliefs, interpretations, and meanings we had inherited. The birth of this new form of collective intelligence, global collective intelligence, occurred when access to powerful new technologies (beginning with the telescope) ramped up our ability to discern how things are. We then faced the frightening truth that ancient understandings were not, in fact, the best maps of what is real. This challenging process is still facing much of the world, as traditional religious beliefs are increasingly found to be obsolete and simply no longer credible when interpreted literally.
Some individuals thrilled to the prospect of participating in this threshold event: of valuing measurable observation, rationality, and collectively encouraged skepticism and testing as the preferred means for discerning what’s real and what’s important. In the 19th century these “natural philosophers” became known as “scientists.”
The two institutions responsible for ensuring that the self-interest of individuals and groups are aligned – namely, governance and religion – were impacted differently by the rise of modern science. Democratic forms of governance were the first to embrace evidence as authoritative. Religions are only now beginning to catch up and to not only experience the terror but also taste the thrill of what the Evidential Reformation offers.
Like any rite of passage, once one voluntarily steps through the threshold there is no integrous and healthy way of going back. So of course there are shrill voices of protest and deep institutional inertia.
But ultimately, this shift will happen. One by one, segment by segment, the great religions of the world will pass through the threshold – else they will wither and the new generations will leave them entirely behind.
“Idolatry of the Written Word” as Today’s Greatest Impediment
What the Evidential Reformation offers for religion is centrally this: Science reveals “God’s word” for humanity today – that is, what’s real and what’s important, or how things are and which things matter – far more accurately than the Bible or Qur’an could ever hope to. And Moses, Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the Prophet Mohammad would surely be among the first to applaud this trend were they alive today.
Yet, until faith leaders become a whole lot bolder in proclaiming to their flocks the goodness and necessity of this shift, religious people will remain blind and deaf to what God (Reality personified) is revealing today through scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence. And that means that God/Reality will continue using the New Atheists to mock unchanging religious beliefs and those who espouse such beliefs.
The main hindrance to religious people wholeheartedly embracing evidence as divine communication – divine guidance (i.e., how Reality reveals itself) – has been what I have long been characterizing as idolatry of the written word(also here). Idolatry of the written word occurred anywhere in the world where ancient oral stories (which surely evolved for millennia as conditions and needs changed) became frozen into unchanging scripture – scripture that was then deemed as the foundational (even the sole) locus for discerning priorities, values, right thinking, and right behavior.
This shift from oral storytelling to unchanging scripture as the way wisdom, morality, and a sense of the sacred (supreme value) is generationally passed forward set the stage (albeit centuries later) for a profound and now exponentially expanding mismatch. This mismatch is between globally shared and empirically tested updates of (once-again) evolving wisdom versus what religious people still preference as “God’s Word”.
Idolatry of the written word has thus led to what could be considered “demonic beliefs.” I do not hesitate to use such harsh language because any and all beliefs that cause good people to do bad things and to vote in evil ways (ways that are shortsighted, self-centered, and harmful to future generations) are demonic. And who among us does not see where such beliefs have led to a kind of collective insanity? The only cure, as far as I can tell, is for religious leaders to accept – indeed, to celebrate – that scientific, historic, and cross-cultural evidence are the actual venues through which Reality/God is speaking and guiding humanity today. Fortunately, this shift is happening rapidly…and seems likely to be fleshed out in just another generation or two.
I do not decry or disvalue this aspect of religious history. Indeed, I accept that idolatry of the written word could not have been avoided. Without the shift to literacy, humanity would never have been able to access the fruits of modernity: the rule of law, exponentially growing knowledge, cumulative technological and medical advances, and a widening sense of one’s “in-group” and compassionate treatment thereof.
Nonetheless, the negative social consequences of this form of idolatry have been quite severe – and threaten to become even more terrifying and destructive as deadly weapons come in ever smaller packages. It is thus time to prophetically speak out against continued favoring of ancient scriptural ‘authority’ over our best collective understandings of facts and values today. Said another way, the Church, currently shipwrecked (also here) on the immovable rock of “biblical authority”, can still be saved, but only by embracing “the authority of evidence”. Reality would have it no other way.
Our Way Forward: Aligning Self-Interest with Species-Wide & Global Interests
One of the most significant and hopeful insights to emerge from the early days of the Evidential Reformation is a re-envisioning of what “self-interest” really is. Self-interest actually exists at all biological and cultural levels – not just at the obvious, individual level. Indeed, the key to ever-increasing social complexity in the human realm over the past 10,000 years has been the aligning of self-interest at multiple levels. It could even be argued that nothing is more important for ensuring a just and thriving future than aligning the natural self-interest of individuals, corporations, and nation-states with the wellbeing of the body of life as a whole. The outcome of this shift would be to make competition co-operative, self-interest nontoxic, and society wise.
One could thus conclude that humanity’s “Great Work” in the 21st century is to co-create global and bioregional governance such that individuals and groups that benefit the common good benefit themselves, while individuals and groups that disregard or harm the common good are taxed, penalized, or face moral strictures.
By organizing and managing ourselves so that the impact of parts on the whole, for good or ill, are reflected back to the parts, we shall create a system through which individuals, corporations, and nations are incentivized to do what is just and ecological – while simultaneously being incentivized to not do what is unjust or un-ecological. This aligning of self-interest at multiple scales would ensure that what is perceived as the cheaper, easier, more convenient thing to do is also the right thing to do, rather than the harmful thing, as it is now. This re-incentivizing of societal goods and services to comport with human nature (as it really is, not as we wish it would be) would also help all elements of society to access and make decisions based on humanity’s collective intelligence (also here and here).
The promise of the Evidential Reformation, as I see it, is this: As the world’s great religious traditions come to honor and celebrate evidence as divine guidance, and big history as our common creation story, they will begin to wield their moral authority in ways that assist, rather than resist, the passage of our species out of the desert of destructive and unsustainable adolescence and into the promised land of contributing and fulfilled maturity.
Isn't it neat to know that we all have lizards and furry li'l mammals living in our heads, running our lives?
Ok, maybe not exactly, but as we learn more and more about evolutionary brain science and evolutionary psychology, as well as gain more evidence about our amazing ability to rationalize and self-deceive, the analogy becomes less fantasy and more spot-on than we might imagine.
A person might be inclined to be a bit worried at the thought of scaly lizards and furry creatures running amuck, inside our brains. However, to me, this news is far from disconcerting. In fact, this knowledge gives me compassion to lighten up on myself and others when our "inner animal" or "shadow" nature, or "darkside" flares up, and wisdom about how to live my life in spite of being a human being with mismatched instincts in a world of supernormal stimuli.)
I invite you (yes YOU reading this post) to think about those times when you have felt deep shame and condemnation for certain aspects of yourself and others. You know the feeling, deep inside, that despises the part of you that you keep hidden from others? Those lustful feelings that you "shouldn't" be feeling, those food cravings that you just can't control? What if all those urges were actually perfect? Not as some "airy-fairy" new-age proclamation that "you're perfect just the way you are," but as an actual fact that modern science has uncovered?
What if this "dark" part of yourself that lusts and hungers out of control is actually perfectly adapted to serve an evolutionary role? What if that very instinct is the very reason you even exist? After all, if your ancient ancestors didn't have those very same instincts, they wouldn't have been motivated to seek as much food as they could in preparation for the famine, or go chase after the pretty cavewoman (well..."pretty" might be stretching it for a cavewoman :-). My friends, it's time to turn and give a big ol' hug to our "shadows!"
To me, that is what an evolutionary perspective provides: the ability to compassionately look at yourself and others, "flaws" and all, and KNOW that you are perfect...that is, perfectly adapted for the environment your brain evolved in, I should say.
To me, this knowledge has been personally and relationally transformative. I can now plainly see, often in the moment, the lizard, mammal, and monkey that are pulling on the levers and dials of my thoughts and actions, while my higher brain (neocortex) rationalizes every move and pretends IT is running the show!
Also, knowing that these instincts (for safety, sustenance, and sex) have refined and ingrained themselves for MILLIONS OF YEARS, I see what I am up against. The words "precautionary measures" start to seem like a really good idea...
After all, do I really think that if I try to fight against these urges, or condemn them, that they will be any less potent? Do I really think I don't have to put in place any structures to override these primitive urges (using accountability, social support, etc), that this lizard / monkey / animal won't get its way sometimes (or most of the time in all likelihood?)
Did I mention the CRAFTED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS thing?
In terms of the oldest part of our brain (the reptilian brain)... When I think that, in effect, there is a little lizard (I call him Larry) inside the deepest part of my brain, who desires to eat sugary, fatty, salty food and wants to mate with every attractive female that he sees, it suddenly becomes dramatically easier to be one step ahead of him, while smiling at his wily ways.
When a beautiful babe walks by, Larry chimes in, "Hey, look at her! Maybe she'll look back at you, which could lead to some innocent flirting, which could lead to... (you know where Larry is going with this one. :-)
Equipped with this knowledge about "Larry" and what he wants, compared to what I am actually committed to, instead of indulging his every whim I can now chuckle, make a joke about Larry's primal urges (often with my girlfriend, which is SUCH a gift to both have this knowledge), and move on with my day.
Also, regarding Larry's penchant for sugary, salty, and fatty foods, this knowledge allows me to put in place the support that will have me making wise nutrition and exercise choices (accountability around sticking with an exercise program, stocking my house only with 90% healthy options, so that Larry isn't tempted, etc).
I know that millions of years of evolution backing these urges for sugar, salt, and fat is nothing to trifle with!
To me, this understanding is vital for having exactly the kind of life I want and relationships that truly work. I now see plainly what inner forces are in me, what they are likely to pull me towards, and what I need to do or put in place to make wise, healthy, integrous choices.
Kick-ass!
P.S. I want to give a shout-out to my homey, "Larry the Lounge Lizard." You got me a long way ol' boy! But you can relax for now. I promise there will be food and fornicating in your future!
P.P.S. For more information about Larry and the other animals inside your brain, check out all the amazing resources on this page!
The above was written by Shane Dowd. (It's his very first blog post.) Click on Shane's name on this page for more background on him (and to see his gorgeous girlfriend).
"We think the budget mess is a squabble between partisans in Washington. But in large measure it's about our inability to face death and our willingness as a nation to spend whatever it takes to push it just slightly over the horizon."
That's how New York Times columnist David Brooks concluded his courageous July 2011 essay, "Death and Budgets."
A month earlier, Daniel Callahan and Sherwin B. Nuland co-authored a similar call to action published originally in The New Republic and also available online, "The Quagmire: How American Medicine Is Destroying Itself". These renowned experts on the medical and ethical issues of death and dying contend,
"In the war against disease, we have unwittingly created a kind of medicine that is barely affordable now and forbiddingly unaffordable in the long run. The Affordable Care Act might ease the burden, but it will not eliminate it. Ours is now a medicine that may doom most of us to an old age that will end badly: with our declining bodies falling apart as they always have but devilishly — and expensively—stretching out the suffering and decay. Can we conceptualize something better? . . . Can we imagine a system that is less ambitious but also more humane — that better handles the inevitable downward spiral of old age and helps us through a somewhat more limited life span as workers, citizens, and parents?"
Callahan and Nuland continue, "The answer to these questions is yes. But it will require — to use a religious term in a secular way — something like a conversion experience on the part of physicians, researchers, industry, and our nation as a whole."
Amen!
This is precisely why, when presenting an evolutionary picture of death to religious and secular audiences alike, I aim to parlay information and anecdote into a concoction that just might evoke a conversion experience. Here is one success story, drawn from an email I received in 2007 after delivering a sermon, "Death Through Deep-Time Eyes," at a Unitarian Universalist church in the Midwest:
"I am a funeral director intern and will be getting my license within the next couple of months. Every day I deal with death. Every day I hear sermons about Adam's sin and death's sting. I always feel strange, sitting at the back listening to whichever preacher happens to be the pick of the day. I always knew I didn't believe what they spoke. I learned about evolution and the Big Bang from teachers who didn't believe in it, but who had to teach it. I watch programs on it on the Discovery Channel. I believe it. But I have never had it put into a story that could define me. It was always distant, something that happened in the past. You brought to me the first creation story that I could relate to. No talking snake in a tree tempting a nude woman. No. You gave me words to a story that is based in fact — something I can make my own, something that is my own. And for that, I thank you."
Death denial in our culture is not only entrenched; it is the default perspective because of our dominant religious heritage. A large segment of the American population still believes (or regularly listens to preachers who believe) in the Bible literally. For them, the explanation for why there is death is drawn from Romans 5:12 (attributed to the writings of the Apostle Paul): "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men."
Death in our culture is seen as bad and wrong. Death simply shouldn't be. How do we know this? Because ancient oral stories unfairly frozen into unchanging scripture — what Michael Dowd calls, "idolatry of the written word" (also here) — claim that there was no death in the beginning — at least no death of animals. Not only did the lion lay down with the lamb, but even T. rex is said to have been a vegetarian in those halcyon days when our species numbered merely two. (Note: If you are unaware of this literalist explanation for how death came into the world, take a few moments to read online a creationist tract on this topic, in cartoon format — or visit the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.)
Not only do teachers and preachers of fundamentalist leanings point to scriptural passages that portray death as "the enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26), but the culture of our medical institutions reinforces it. Death-as-enemy, sadly, is reinforced, as well, by the economics of the ratings systems for doctors and hospitals.
And thus I regularly challenge my audiences by proposing that, "No generations before our own, anywhere on Earth, experienced more prolonged emotional anguish, family discord, and even physical suffering in relation to the passing of elders than do the generations of Americans alive today."
David Brooks, Daniel Callahan, and Sherwin Nuland have now given me the courage to add, "and none of the multitudes who came before us had an opportunity to die in ways that were as flagrantly heedless of the well-being of future generations as the end-of-life practices that prevail today."
Consider, for example, the illness of aging that is the most emotionally and financially devastating of all: dementia. Back on the farm, when grandpa entered the night-wandering phase of (what is now called) Alzheimer's disease, there would have been no locks on doors. Indeed, when little Johnny noticed grandpa on his way out one cold autumn evening, mama would likely have said, "Hush, child. It is Grandpa's time to go." Next morning, Grandpa would be found asleep in the barn or the hayfield — no, dead. Death by hypothermia is actually not a harsh way to go. It begins with sleep; the aftermath looks like sleep.
If Grandpa survived the wandering phase of Alzheimer's, however, then when he lost the ability to respond to hunger and to feed himself, no one would insist on doing it for him. Or if a stroke broke his capacity to speak and swallow, no one would rush to install a feeding tube. Rather, "Hush, child. In his own way, Grandpa knows his time is over."
And when an elder became bedridden for any reason — heart failure, broken hip, stroke — it would not be long (especially in the winter months) before sluggish lungs would welcome home "the old person's friend": pneumonia.
In contrast, several decades ago, my cousin received a call from the late-stage Alzheimer's facility where my aunt had been bedridden for several years. Long a victim of bedsores, she had finally contracted pneumonia. When my cousin suggested that no antibiotics be given, he was scolded, "You mean you want to kill your mother?!"
Many of us carry stories such as these. Indeed, by the time we reach middle age, almost all of us have at least second-hand awareness of the horrors that arise from the reckless availability of and passive submission to advanced medical interventions that do no more than buy a little time before the next medical intervention is advised. Those increments of weeks and months are purchased at enormous cost. For what?And, just as importantly, by whom?
Probably not by me: I am 59 and my nation is still piling on the debt and allocating ever more of its tax revenues to paying interest on and rolling over old Treasury bills.
No. Those who will ultimately pay for keeping grandma institutionalized, drugged, and strapped to her chair or for spending the equivalent of a half dozen college educations in the final six months of grandpa's dwindling life will probably be the age group whose life prospects are already shrunken and gray, owing to levels of college debt and underemployment that my generation would have considered immoral if not insane.
So, yes, I stand with David Brooks. I stand with Daniel Callahan and with Sherwin Nuland. I stand for generational justice and compassion and care for the dying — including those for whom death would be a blessing and would naturally come if we would but stand back and allow it to run its gentle course.
So let more of us dare to speak what we already know: heroic efforts for the disabled elderly are all too often demonic. Whatever communal good our elders contributed while still hale and hearty, however proud their legacy to offspring, community, and nation, the ways in which they (and more often "we") manage their end of life care and choices will determine not only how we remember them but what they effectively pass forward.
Will we allow them to pass forward a healthy and prosperous future to the generations in waiting? Or will our sick assumptions about death-as-enemy consign them passively to the negative side of the ledger? Will we who make the decisions in their stead fail them in our final acts of love?
"Hush, child. This is Opa's final gift to you and to your children to come. One day, many, many years from now, it will be your time to pass the gift forward. And you will be grateful for that opportunity, just like, in his heart, Opa surely now feels."
This is a vision that I find beautiful — as well as necessary. And I speak from experience, thanks to the simple generosity of an ordinary woman who allowed me to walk to the threshold with her, arm in arm.
As I've written about elsewhere, in 1998 my mother fought her way out of the hospital after yet another heart attack (she had received bypass surgery eight years earlier). She explained, "Con, I don't want my grandchildren paying for this anymore."
As a General Motors widow and Medicare beneficiary, Helen knew that "her" grandchildren paid not a dime. But my mother considered all the grandchildren in America as her responsibility. And so, yes, her grandchildren would indeed be paying for the next stent or pacemaker or whatever would be installed this time around.
She even refused diagnostics: "I don't need to know how much I damaged my heart this time, Con. I want to go with a good old-fashioned heart attack — just like my mother did." And so I was invited to return to live with my mother, to help her walk the final path toward her own notion of an honorable death. I felt privileged to comply.
As a freelance writer, with no children to care for, and whose worldview could be trusted to honor my mother's wishes, I would be the helpmeet for this final phase of her life. Five weeks after I moved in and helped her cross off item after item in her final to-do list, she and I together accomplished her three-fold wish: to die at home, with no pain (well, reduced pain, thanks to morphine), and with someone to hold her hand.
Simple. And it was. Yet how few of my peers have a parental end-of-life story as vibrant, even joyous, as mine?
This essay is thus a call for generational justice, for generational generosity. It is a call for a religious conversion of sorts. To begin, let us more widely share our stories of elegant and triumphant deaths. And let us share the stories, too, where it just seemed to all go wrong — and for far too long.
It is time, as well, to share the sad new stories accumulating of youthful dreams closing down — like the story of one young woman in Eugene, Oregon. With a master's degree in Communication and an abundance of student debt, she was grateful to have the same job she had held as an undergraduate: on a call line in a Verizon Center. "All the nonprofit job opportunities are taken," she told me. "So, none of my student loans will be forgiven. My biggest decision now is whether to try to pay them off in 12 years or 20."
What about your dreams? I asked.
She looked at me incredulously — as if I had spoken in a foreign tongue. Her boyfriend, sitting alongside, glared at me. In that moment, I was just one more over-indulged boomer whose generation was largely responsible for the mess those two had inherited.
Earlier in the conversation I had committed another faux pas. The young woman had told me the story of her beloved grandmother, who encouraged her so much as a child, but who now was saddled with dementia in a nursing home. "Do you realize," I said matter-of-factly, "that just six months of what it costs to take care of your grandmother would probably pay off your entire college debt?"
The point of this essay is not to restate "The Case for Killing Granny" (which was the cover story of a September 2009 issue of Newsweek). It is not advocacy for medical rationing or any other top-down directive. Rather, I wish to invite other boomers and what remains of the generation ahead of us to co-lead a bottom-up initiative to just say no to unrealistic, dishonorable, and supremely costly interventions that only prolong suffering — not life. If even a fraction of us do this, then rationing of health care will not be necessary.
Fortunately, we are already on the cusp of a revolution in medical practices that will boost our ability to say no to costly diagnostic testing. The impetus? Data now reveal that standard diagnostic tests (PSA tests, mammograms) for the asymptomatic middle-aged and elderly cause more harm than good. The cover story of an August 2011 Newsweek (titled, “One Word Can Save Your Life: No!”, by Sharon Begley) begins,
Dr. Stephen Smith, Professor emeritus of family medicine at Brown University School of Medicine, tells his physician not to order a PSA blood test for prostate cancer or an annual electrocardiogram to screen for heart irregularities, since neither test has been shown to save lives. Rather, both tests frequently find innocuous quirks that can lead to a dangerous odyssey of tests and procedures. Dr. Rita Redberg, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and editor of the prestigious Archives of Internal Medicine, has no intention of having a screening mammogram even though her 50th birthday has come and gone. That’s the age at which women are advised to get one. But, says Redberg, they detect too many false positives (suspicious spots that turn out, upon biopsy, to be nothing) and tumors that might regress on their own, and there is little if any evidence that they save lives.
But overuse of advanced medical procedures goes beyond diagnostics. It includes costly interventions that have become standard procedures. Begley writes,
The dilemma, say a growing number of physicians and expert medical panels, is that some of this same health care that helps certain patients can, when offered to everyone else, be useless or even detrimental. Some of the most disturbing examples involve cardiology. At least five large, randomized controlled studies have analyzed treatments for stable heart patients who have nothing worse than mild chest pain. The studies compared invasive procedures including angioplasty, in which a surgeon mechanically widens a blocked blood vessel by crushing the fatty deposits called plaques; stenting, or propping open a vessel with wire mesh; and bypass surgery, grafting a new blood vessel onto a blocked one. Every study found that the surgical procedures didn’t improve survival rates or quality of life more than noninvasive treatments including drugs (beta blockers, cholesterol-lowering statins, and aspirin), exercise, and a healthy diet. They were, however, far more expensive: stenting costs Medicare more than $1.6 billion a year.
By the time the first boomer reaches three score and ten, I see us coming together as a generation, once again, and declaring something along these lines: that until every 20-something in America, and every 30- or 40-something with kids, has taxpayer-supported health insurance, and until there are community service options for working off college debt, we boomers will refuse to tap Medicare for any heroic medical interventions beyond our 70s. If we can find a way to ensure that all the youth have a chance to create a full and contributing life, and that they receive no less taxpayer support for their health care than we do, then maybe (or maybe not) we'll accept a Medicare-funded bypass or pacemaker or cancer surgery or hip replacement in our 80s.
But until the day that generational justice is assured, we'll foment a new revolution. Not just dignity, but death done with generosity, death done with celebration and joy and play. Death done in a way that leaves a legacy — not of insupportable debt but of wondrous stories of light-hearted farewells and crazy, cool send-offs. Perhaps like the one I heard about just last week.
My husband, Michael Dowd, and I were theme speakers for a week-long church summer camp in the San Bernardino Mountains of California. For nine years we have lived entirely on the road as "America's evolutionary evangelists," bringing the saving good news of a mainstream scientific naturalism to communities from coast to coast. For this particular summer camp we divided our twin talks into "Evolutionize Your Life" (Michael's topic) and "Evolutionize Your Death and Legacy" (my own).
After each talk outdoors under the pines, the group would re-assemble on the lodge porch for "Talk Back," for which I solicited stories rather than comments and questions. And the group happily obliged. There were stories of trauma, stories of prolonged drama, stories dire enough to ignite a revolution. And there were a few stories as glorious as mine with my mom.
One young woman told of how her grandfather, who was dying of cancer at home, called for a final party. Family and friends arrived and told stories and cried and laughed together. Her bedridden grandfather did too. Then the old man signaled for a pre-arranged final gift: an extra dose of morphine. He closed his eyes. He died not in secret, not with shame, but with celebration and love — and with this story as his final gift.
So let's proclaim a revolution that, clearly, has already begun. I suggest a six-fold path that each of us, as individuals and in small collectives, can walk. Consider my suggestions; then offer your own.
Step 1. Seek out a spiritually fulfilling way to embrace death, rather than fight or fear it.
In my own presentations, audios, and videos, I advocate the Epic of Evolution — Big History — as the science-based worldview that can allure us into befriending death. A variety of sciences have revealed that death not only plays a necessary role, but also a creative role in the emergence of complex atoms and then life and complex life and culture in this universe. I also recommend the award-winning documentary "Griefwalker," which movingly explores the death-and-dying work of Canadian Stephen Jenkinson. The "Griefwalker" worldview (born of ecological, place-based native wisdom) is compatible with my own — and with any other secular or religious perspective that does not make of death an enemy. (See my husband's poignant post: "Thank God for Death—Could Anything Be More Sacred, More Necessary, More Real?")
Step 2. Do not wait for middle or old age to begin your spiritual work of embracing your own inevitable death and the deaths of those you love.
There are two powerful reasons to befriend death sooner rather than later. The first reason is for your loved ones; until you can celebrate death as a natural, necessary, and sacred part of the circle of life, you will be like a bull in a china shop when in the presence of those who are consciously and gracefully dying. Worse, you may be the recalcitrant family member whose death denial makes medical staff wary of a lawsuit if they do anything less than everything for your loved one slipping away. The second reason to do the work now is best expressed by Stephen Jenkinson: "Not success, not growth, not happiness; the cradle of your love of life is death." If you want to live fully, then invite the specter of your own death to become your cheerleader for vibrant living.
Step 3. Extend your sense of self as you age — to your descendants, to the generations to come, and to the larger body of life.
Perhaps the easiest way to shed your own fear of death is to cultivate a sense of, what Thomas Berry called, your "Great Self." Perhaps begin with redefining yourself within the river of time. Your small self is the whirlpool or the standing wave; your Great Self is the river. As well, Joanna Macy, Arne Naess, John Seed, and other proponents of "deep ecology" offer profound writings and other resources for cultivating an "ecological self." For me, the extended-self image I lean toward is that I might feel no more loss at the moment of death than that of a tree losing but one of its leaves.
Step 4. Attend (with gusto) to your legacy throughout your middle and later years.
One's deathbed is not the time to regret how little of merit, of lasting value and consequence, you may be passing forward. Instead, discover the joys of giving, of volunteering, of mentoring, of contributing to the younger generations your natural gifts of heart or mind and your acquired skills and wisdom. If you raise children during your life, a perfect time to gently invite legacy-consciousness into your choices is when the last one finally leaves home.
Step 5. Seek out opportunities to share your death-friendly perspective and to evoke compassionate listening of the perspectives and stories of others.
Explore various ways within your family, church, and community to formally and informally share best practices for overcoming death anxiety and for encouraging an ethic of generational justice and generosity. "Best practices" include how to firmly, but lovingly, communicate our desires, our intents, and the moral drives that ground those commitments to family members who may have trouble hearing and graciously accepting the choices we intend to make. And there's nothing quite as life-giving as expressing heartfelt gratitude to those who have positively impacted you in some way, or sorrow/regret and a sincere apology to those you've consciously or unconsciously harmed.
Step 6. Take a deep dive into reconsidering the dance between individual rights and broader responsibilities in the death and dying process and in advanced care for the elderly.
"Right to die" ideally would be accompanied by an ethic of responsible communication — a commitment to lovingly (but firmly) communicate one's intent with all loved ones for whom withdrawal from medical intervention or active life termination may conflict with religious or other norms — or for whom death anxiety is so strong that conversation about death is difficult. As well, those who actively choose generational generosity rather than costly medical interventions have a unique and powerful opportunity to heal estranged familial relationships and tarnished friendships. Not only does impending death signal a "last chance" for reconciliation, but it is not unusual for those who calmly and clearly renounce medicalized dying to access remarkable psychological resources of patience, power, and empathy. It is then that miracles can occur: old relational wounds truly can be healed. Just as important, clearly communicated and legally enforceable intents and actions are essential for preventing new rifts among family members that may ensue if irresponsibility on the part of the dying pushes the decision-making downstream.
"Oh, Helen, you'll have to come again soon."
"Oh no, dear, this is the last time. It has been lovely."
* * *
ADDENDUM: October 19, 2011. Another important article has come to my attention: “LETTING GO” by Atul Gawande, accessible online HERE.
The key fact it presents is this:
“In 2008, the national Coping with Cancer project published a study showing that terminally ill cancer patients who were put on a mechanical ventilator, given electrical defibrillation or chest compressions, or admitted, near death, to intensive care had a substantially worse quality of life in their last week than those who received no such interventions. And, six months after their death, their caregivers were three times as likely to suffer major depression.”
That led me to this insight:
Beyond cost and suffering, one of the saddest aspects of high-tech medicine in a death-denying culture is that it too often strips patients and family members of a basic human right: the right to end-of-life conversations. If a doctor is unwilling to acknowledge that an operation will only delay death, then too often the patient dies in surgery or falls out of cognitive capacities before final expressions of love, gratitude, and forgiveness take place. Or, because death is delayed, a family member flies in for a few days or a week or two, then has to return home to work and kids — but during that visit they cannot have a true final conversation because that would seem morbid or out of line if there is still ‘hope.’ So then they fly back again when death is finally acknowledged, but by then the patient is never really conscious, so the chance for a final conversation truly is lost. For most people it is not enough to be physically at the bedside as the loved one dies – if the time for final words has already passed.
* * *
CONNIE BARLOW is the author of four books that celebrate meaningful understandings of mainstream evolutionary and ecological sciences. She and her husband, Rev. Michael Dowd, have spoken to more than 1,500 religious and secular groups since April 2002. Click HERE to see her writings, audios, and videos on death, which can also be accessed via her website, TheGreatStory.org
I've been thinking, writing, and speaking quite a bit lately about my gratitude for the New Atheists. I see them as playing an indispensible role in helping the religions of the world evolve so that each can bless humanity and the larger body of life, now and into the future. Prophets historically were those who issued a word of warning to their people: "Come into right relationship with Reality—or perish!" Right relationship with reality today requires our species to grow from belief-based to evidence-based guidance and inspiration.
To be clear, I thank God for the New Atheists not because I want everyone to be like them or think like them (though I do wish everyone would value evidence like they do), nor because I consider them perfect vessels of divine wisdom. Rather, I'm grateful to them because of how they are helping religious people (like me!) get real about God, guidance, and good news, and also because of how they are prodding religion and humanity to mature in two absolutely essential ways. (For those interested, I discuss these two ways briefly on this 3 minute YouTube clip, and more thoroughly in this 20 minute sermon.)
Re how I see the New Atheists playing a vital role in the evolution of religion, the resources I particularly recommend are the following text of my sermon on the subject, two online audio recordings (which bookend my nine month cancer saga), and a video of my sermon delivered on August 1, 2010 in Oklahoma City:
SERMON TEXT: Thank God for the New Atheists! (I deliver my sermons extemporaneously, so this is a template, not a word-for-word transcript. I suggest reading this sermon first, before expriencing any of the other resources that follow.) HERE is an edited version of this same sermon, published in the February 2011 issue of Skeptic magazine. And HERE is an even shorter version, published in the December 2010 issue of Australasian Science magazine.
PODCAST: "The New Atheists As God's Prophets" [September 6, 2009] - 25 minute podcast that I recorded just two hours after I learned that I had an especially aggressive form of cancer. I asked myself, 'If I have only one message left to deliver to the world, what would it be?' The answer that came: "Show people how the New Atheists are God's prophets."
SERMON AUDIO: "The New Atheists As God's Prophets?!" [June 6, 2010] - 20 minute recording of a sermon I delivered at People's Church in Ludington, Michigan, just days before learning that my cancer was in remission (after 6 rounds of R-CHOP chemotherapy last fall and having my spleen with large tumor attached surgically removed in February).
by Michael Dowd
I want address the question of death because most people, religious and non-religious folk alike, are clueless regarding what has revealed about death in the past few hundred years, through science. And this ignorance has resulted in untold suffering — for families and for society as a whole, as well as for individuals.
I am regularly asked (more often since I was diagnosed with lymphoma), "Do you believe in an afterlife? What do you think happens to us when we die?" My typical response is to make one or more of the following points...
by Jon Cleland Host
