Home /All Footprints / It (Should) Ends with Us
It (Should) Ends with Us
Dec 11, 2024 · 2 min read
When suffering becomes the very air we breathe, the inescapable rhythm of existence, where does faith take root? Where does hope dare to bloom? I pose this question, and I'm met with a chorus of "it's part of life," a resigned acceptance that chills me to the bone. To suggest we should actively, relentlessly combat minimizing suffering is apparently a radical, even offensive, notion.
I'm genuinely baffled by the opposition to reducing suffering. Yes, suffering can be a catalyst for powerful art, but what about the countless victims of sexual abuse, human trafficking, and systemic oppression, including the queer community? Not everyone possesses the ability to transmute pain into art, nor should they be expected to. Not everyone can find "meaning" in their pain. This brings me to Emil Cioran, a philosopher I've wrestled with extensively. Cioran argued that suffering is fundamental to human existence, not an aberration. He believed it's woven into the fabric of life. He believed we must confront it, not escape it, to gain profound self-understanding.
I fundamentally disagree with his central premise. The idea that "suffering is part of human nature" is total BS. It's not what defines our humanity or our capacity for empathy. We can be deeply empathetic without personally enduring excruciating pain. I have a theory that religious/spiritual leaders like Jesus and Buddha sought to eliminate suffering, but lacked the technological means. They relied on prayer and emotional regulation as their primary tools.
Why do we continue to glorify suffering and associate it with "humanity" when it's often rooted in injustice and inequality? If we have the means to alleviate suffering, why wouldn't we? Why is there such intense resistance?
I think there isn't a universal "against" minimizing suffering. The vast majority of people and societies value reducing it. As Cioran pointed out, some believe suffering is an unavoidable aspect of existence. This doesn't imply they desire suffering, but they perceive it as inevitable.
Solving Suffering on a Different Level: Transhumanism's Potential
I believe there are numerous ways to address suffering. One compelling approach is transhumanism. It's not just a wet dream for tech bros; it's about achieving universal freedom, happiness, and the elimination of suffering.
Religion, in its current form, may not be capable of fundamentally transforming the world, but I believe figures like Buddha and Jesus were hinting at similar concepts. They lacked the technological capabilities, but what if we now have them? Humans have searched for immortality for centuries; it's not a novel pursuit. Our intellectual ancestors, like Nietzsche and T.S. Eliot, explored the concept of transcending human limitations and evolving into a more humane state.
My vision of immortality isn't about being trapped in an endless loop. Currently, we're systematically trapped in a loop of suffering. What if we could break free from that cycle? What if we could redefine what it means to be human, not through suffering, but through conscious evolution?