The War Within - Between Good and Evil by Bheemeswara Challa (e book reader online .txt) 📕

perhaps a measure of the moral distance we have travelled, that
many people might want to apply ‘dull and dreary’ to life, not death. For them, it
is life that has become a deadly battle, and death to them is the release from those
very attributes. And we have not found a way to deal with two sets of apparent
opposites: the certainty of death and the uncertainty of when and how; and our
desire to be deathless and the almost irresistible impulse we have to nibble each
other to death, if not to kill outright. On the one hand, our sacred thought tells
us that death is just yet another phase of life. And, on the other hand, the best
blessing we confer on each other is for a ‘long life’. The highest virtue is ‘saving
life’ and the greatest sin is killing. Death is said to be as natural as shedding old
clothes for new ones, but we are forbidden from any voluntarily action to hasten
that end. ‘Right to life’, which means to live in dignity, is deemed a human right,
but not the ‘right to die’, that is to die with dignity. Our equation with death,
always ambiguous and ambivalent, tenuous and tentative, has become even
more convoluted and driven by many contradictions. In everyday terms, death
has changed from the ultimate recourse and an extreme remedy for terminal
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
500
situations, to be the preferred escape route in coping with the routine pressures
and temptations of modern life.
Here is an intriguing irony that escapes our attention. Man is seeking,
through science, eternal youth and immortality, what is being described as the
“realization of the possibility of a radical extension of human life by means
of cybernetic technology”.26 But, as always, nothing is so simple. We tend to
think that eternal life automatically includes eternal youth, but it is not so. It
is possible that we will end up as Tithonus (Greek mythology), a mortal who
became immortal, but still grew old and frail and eventually begged for death.
Alongside our search for life eternal, many are finding that life itself—theirs
and of others too—is not worth all that bother. More than death, it is the wear
and tear of ageing and the attendant debility, and dependence on others that
has marred human life, and which is now a major problem in modern societies.
Many are grappling with ageing populations, and that has had serious social side
effects. Science is tackling this ‘problem’ by treating it as a ‘disease’, to halt and
even to undo through technologies like stem cell therapy and organ transplants.
When something is called a ‘disease’, like common cold or cancer, the implication
is that it can be ‘cured’. It is hard to differentiate between disease-related byproducts
and age-related debility, and the difference between ‘care’ and ‘cure’. We
are culturally conditioned to think that as we become ’old’ we should expect to
have degenerative diseases, and one is not ‘normal’ in their absence. We also mix
up ‘health’ and ‘well-being’, like ‘being’ and ‘becoming’. But there is no doubt
that anything science can do to mitigate the ravages of ageing and age-centered
diseases, which above all result in loss of control and dignity, is worthy of serious,
and morally desirable, pursuit. It is now reported that “scientists have identified
a male hormone that reverses cell ageing, potentially setting up new treatments
to counter diseases caused by cells getting old and worn out”.27 But the question
remains: How would we use the extra youth and energy? Studies have shown
that what we call ‘lifestyle changes’ have a greater effect on ‘morbidity’ or the
incidence of ill health, than on ‘mortality’ or incidence of death. And that itself,
reducing the vulnerability to disease, is a huge plus. It is possible for a disease
that is widespread (high morbidity rate) to have a low mortality rate, or vice
versa. Morbidity is a cause of mortality, but we can manage morbidity more
than mortality. In fact, the major preoccupation of human effort must shift from
From Death to Immortality
501
‘immortality’ to reducing ‘morbidity’, including reducing the terrible toll that
even ‘intrinsic’ ageing takes on human life.
But what we find is that while we search ways to eliminate not only
extrinsic but also ‘intrinsic ageing’, a new study finds that we have with us the
reverse, ‘accelerated ageing’; that many young people are ageing three times faster
than the usual, that their biological age is 20 years older than what their birth
certificates indicate.28 It is debatable whether or not environmental or lifestyle
factors can actually inhibit and retard the development of the pathology of
ageing. We cannot say that extrinsic causes have nothing to do with diseases. We
cannot, day in day out and in every possible way, pollute and poison everything
that goes into us and say it has nothing to do with us being more susceptible
to debilitating diseases. While we have some control over our eating, we have
practically none over the air we breathe; the only way to have ‘clean air’ all around
would be perhaps to go live in the mountains. Some years ago, a study showed
that air pollution kills nearly 9,500 people in London (UK) every year. It would
no doubt be far higher in such densely populated urbans centers as Mumbai or
Shanghai or Rio. But we accept it as a price of modern life—we can’t give up
our SUVs, how then can we complain? Sadly, road rage gets us worked up; not
deaths due to air poisoning. We are a stunningly strange species that mocks at
any neat description. On the one hand, we want eternal youth and immortality
and on the other hand, we poison our bodies for the sake of money, and kill
ourselves and others at the slightest irritation or provocation. Few even notice
this paradox. But with all these apparent anomalies there has been a central
change in the human perception and equation with death.
Generally all religions view death as a part of the continuum of life; they
say that we should welcome it, but at the same time they disapprove of suicide.
Even many philosophers echo this view. Socrates maintained that philosophy is
essentially a lifelong ‘meditation [or mindfulness of ] on death’ (melete thanatou).
When asked to explain the paradox of welcoming death and shunning suicide,
he said that we are the possessions of the gods, and so have no right to harm
ourselves, which is also what religions say. The only religious exception is
Jainism, which is older than Buddhism, and which has a scripturally sanctified
and respected practice of ‘suicide’ called santhara or sallekhana. It is even deemed
sacred as a way of detaching oneself from life and easing oneself into after-life.
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
502
The method adopted is to fast unto death voluntarily. It is considered an act
of ahimsa, of non-violence, as a way of subjugating one’s passions. In his daily
prayer, the person wishes to be able to face death after having taken the vow
of santhara. What was accepted as an ancient religious and spiritual practice
attracted wider public attention in recent years, with an Indian high court
declaring it as tantamount to committing suicide, which is illegal in India. It may
be recalled that Gandhi used ‘fast unto death’ as a formidable social and political
weapon. The British prosecuted him for treason, but not for trying to commit
suicide. Gandhi’s ‘fast into death’, unlike that of the Jains, was to compel others,
even if it was for good, to do his bidding, which was in itself an act of violence
in spirit. It was intended to remove hatred from the human mind; and he failed,
following the hallowed line of avatars like Krishna and prophets like Christ and
Buddha. But the broader question is: How much right does an individual have
to choose when to discard his worn-out clothes (which is how the Bhagavad Gita
describes death), or should he helplessly cling to those tattered clothes until they
drop off at someone else’s bidding?
‘Practical Immortology’ or ‘Immoral’ Immortality
We all want to find happiness in life; we all want to evade death; we all want
God (or the gods, or karma) to smile on us; we all wish life were less mechanical
and more magical; we all want surcease of sorrow. We want. We want want. And
what we want most is to insure that we keep wanting. In fact, our longing for life,
eternal youth, and eternity on earth is to have more time to ‘want’ more desires.
Without ‘want’ we are worthless in our own mind. Gandhi said that “Man falls
from the pursuit of the ideal of plain living and high thinking the moment he
wants to multiply his daily wants. Man’s happiness really lies in contentment”.
Down the ages, man has struggled to harmonize three basic ‘wants’: to make
sense of life; to live life fully; to live forever. Plato’s Republic quotes Socrates
as saying, “I do not think that we have adequately determined the nature and
number of the appetites, and until this is accomplished the enquiry will always
be confused”. Those ‘appetites’ are human wants; the ‘confusion’ is now about the
means to get them. It is more accentuated with the transformation of the human
into an avaricious animal with unquenchable appetite for consumer goods,
From Death to Immortality
503
which now far exceed the bounds of convenience and comfort. Assuming—
an assumption that itself begs questioning—that ‘being human’ entitles us to
live at a higher plateau of life than other animals, and that what we call ‘basic
human needs’ are of a higher order than the basic needs of other animals, which
primarily are confined to survival and reproduction, the question is: How should
man satisfy his higher needs and how does morality impact on that endeavor?
In our contemporary culture, almost every day, new ‘needs’ or rather ‘wants’ are
being added, which is at the root of the economic, environmental, and ecological
problems the world raises. And often we find that what we desire, what we do,
and what we get are different and out of sync, and that leads to the discontent
and despair. In the end, every desire, the way it arises, the way it gets fulfilled,
becomes a moral statement.
The desire to live forever is a dominant drive in human beings. It takes
many forms—as a desire for progeny, for fame or fortune, to leave behind
something that does not let us be forgotten. While these are ways to ‘indirect’
immortality, science is now attempting ‘direct’ immortality. It is reported that
“by tweaking our DNA, we could soon survive for hundreds of years”, possibly
up to 800 years.29 Scientists are also trying to solve the riddle of ageing and to
let us enjoy eternal youth, like angels. We cannot read Einstein’s, and Hawking’s
‘mind of God’, or the probable response of nature, but we have to choose
whether we want to live forever in this world. That could be the ultimate moral
choice. Or maybe the computer will make that choice for us and for nature
and God, and solve the problem: turn on man and annihilate humanity! Are
we really paving that way by incessantly empowering computers? We are told
that computing power is now doubling every year, and that by 2020, personal
computers will have the processing power of the human brain—some 20 million
billion calculations per second. That, by 2030, it will take a whole village of
human brains to match a $1,000 computer. And, finally, that by 2050, about
$1,000 worth of computing will equal the processing power of all human brains
on earth. By the close of the 22nd century, some say, ‘nonbiological thinking
will be trillions of trillions of times more powerful than that of its biological
progenitors, although it will be still of human origin’. It is also being envisioned
that brain-consciousness and chip-consciousness would merge, creating what
is being called ‘consciousness-singularity’. What science is grappling with is,
The War Within—Between Good and Evil
504
according to Alexandra Elbakyan,30 “How to engineer a neural implant that
will integrate itself successfully within a complex network of neurons; how the
neural implant can fit well within the complex, self-organizing system that is the
brain; and how separate, autonomous neural networks such as brains of different
people can be wired together so that they will work as a system with single,
unified consciousness”. Ultimately, however, the earth’s technology-creating
species will merge with its own computational technology, that is the brain.
Through technologies such as ‘zapping’, brain-scientists are also said to be on
the verge of precisely identifying specific regions or parts of the brain responsible
for specific functions, habits, and addictions including such mundane things as
‘saving’ and ‘spending’. Stimulating particular parts to achieve particular results
and behavioral changes and getting rid of ‘bad’ habits