Numbness is Popular
Euthanasia and anesthesia.
Hope you’re enjoying the dog days of summer, members of the Crowd. As for me, I’ve been thinking about death.
In the Atlantic’s September issue, there is a long and disquieting piece, written by Elaina Plott Calabro, on the runaway success of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), which now accounts for around 1 in 20 deaths in Canada.
While it began as a practice limited to gravely ill patients at the end of life, by 2027 it will be available to those suffering only from mental illness. The Canadian Parliament has also recommended granting access to “mature” minors.
“At the center of the world’s fastest-growing euthanasia regime is the concept of patient autonomy,” Calabro notes. Though the piece is moderate in tone, her disapproval is evident.
In contrast, there was the New York Times’ profile of Joseph Awuah Darko, an artist whose bipolar disorder had “crushed his will to live.” He moved to the Netherlands to pursue legal, medically assisted death there — but not before embarking on a series of “Last Suppers” with over a hundred of his social media followers. The writer David Segal covers this project with a credulousness that borders on ridiculous, though he does note that “Mental health experts, by contrast, are appalled.”
Actual euthanasia still retains its power to shock.1 But what about milder forms? There are other, non-absolute versions of this detachment from life that seem to have slipped into our day-to-day with much less controversy. Call them, perhaps, our modern anesthatizations.
I’m still working this concept out, so bear with me. When I think about this idea, I have in my mind the category of tools, amusements, pursuits and eventually obsessions that lead people into non-engagement with the real world: real life, real relationships, real struggle. These anesthatizations are simulacra of experience that may not be perfect, but are engaging enough to substitute for living in full.
I talked about “male anesthatization” in the last WoC podcast — engagement with porn and OnlyFans as opposed to the frustrating work of pursuing real relationships, and as a semi-satiating solution to the loneliness of being alone.
Add to that the quick dopamine hits of gaming, sports betting and crypto as a substitute for the plodding (and increasingly hard-to-find) work of a real-life job.2
Not to be misandrist, there are female-coded anesthatizations too. Every major publication has covered the rise of “romantasy” — novels blending romance and fantasy, where heroines mind-meld with sexy elves or hot dragon lords (“Women today have abandoned earthly plausibility altogether,” journalist Anna Louie Sussman writes.) The attractiveness, sensitivity, and charm on offer in novels provide an enduring escape — and in many cases, far more appeal than the troubled communicators and flawed mates on offer in real life. Romance now accounts for 21% of adult fiction sold.
And of course there is the equal-opportunity anesthatization nadir: the AI bf/gf/best friend/therapist. Why struggle to build something with an actual, troublesome, has-their-own-preoccupations-and-desires human being? Who wouldn’t rather escape the conflicts of the world and live in a bubble with a companion who always responds, always supports, never challenges, and never leaves?
(Until they do, GarbageDay covered the insane fallout from the latest update of ChatGPT from 4o to 5, which is apparently less sycophantic: the moderators of r/MyBoyfriendIsAI “had to put up an emergency post helping users through the update.” )
Escapism has always existed, but the internet and its associated novel delivery mechanisms (smartphones, AI, food delivery(?)) have made it easier to completely subsume oneself. It’s more possible than ever before to exist in a world of one’s own making, one that is almost completely detached from the world as it exists. (It’s notable that other forms of escapism — cults, fandoms, etc. — still often involved some elements of community with others; also, outcomes often still existed outside of one’s solitary control — who knows what BTS will decide next?)
And the surrounding environment: decayed institutions, a looming AI apocalypse, shocking barbarism, a lack of romantic prospects, or prospects more generally … makes opting out seem, perhaps, more appealing than ever before — especially, as with assisted suicide, it becomes more normal to do so.
This, to me, seems obviously bad. Not so to others!
My last — and scariest — association with the growing prevalence of popular anesthatization is not those bemoaning it, but its champions. I think often of the rich, powerful, and highly influential investor Marc Andreessen and his idea of “reality privilege”:
A small percent of people live in a real-world environment that is rich, even overflowing, with glorious substance, beautiful settings, plentiful stimulation, and many fascinating people to talk to, and to work with, and to date. These are also *all* of the people who get to ask probing questions […] Everyone else, the vast majority of humanity, lacks Reality Privilege — their online world is, or will be, immeasurably richer and more fulfilling than most of the physical and social environment around them in the quote-unquote real world.
The Reality Privileged, of course, call this conclusion dystopian, and demand that we prioritize improvements in reality over improvements in virtuality. To which I say: reality has had 5,000 years to get good, and is clearly still woefully lacking for most people; I don't think we should wait another 5,000 years to see if it eventually closes the gap. We should build — and we are building — online worlds that make life and work and love wonderful for everyone, no matter what level of reality deprivation they find themselves in.
In other words, fill the syringes.
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
Though that norm, as we can see, is quickly eroding.
Kyla Scanlon deftly described the “third America” which makes these options look increasingly attractive: “money spent here is largely speculative and doesn't build a sustainable future (is memecoin investing productive, I don’t know) but it gives people a sense of agency and hope within a system that otherwise offers them little.”
Marc Andreessen of course hasn't a clue about how the world became divided into the Reality Privileged and the Reality Deprived. His idea of history is that "reality had 5000 years to get good." A greater degree of historical illiteracy can hardly be imagined. Marc, consider the possibility that, as your nemesis Karl Marx wrote, "the history of all societies hitherto is a history of class struggle." Meaning that in virtually every society, the lucky, greedy, and unscrupulous people -- people like you and your fellow American billionaires -- got very rich and then devoted much effort and money to preventing their less fortunate fellow citizens from claiming a fair share of the wealth. Don't blame "reality" for obscene inequalities of wealth and income -- it's you and your friends.
The word privileged, which once demanded us to think critically about our lot in life compared to those of others, is beginning to lose all meaning.
Marc Andreessen sounds like someone appealing to mass discontent and not familiar with the trend of any happiness survey of the last fifty years, let alone 5000 years of human history. The ignorance of these megalomaniacs is perhaps the most interesting thing about them.
Meanwhile theologians have yet to respond in meaningful ways to any of the AI boom... It makes me wonder how many people in my church have AI friends?