Yearning for Elysium: Exploring Suffering, Faith, and Technology

This was my final paper for a class I took during my second semester at Stony Brook University called "Literature in Medicine and Ethics". The prompt was to write about your own beliefs on the idea of eliminating all forms of human suffering and extend this to our thoughts on how Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake and Annie Dillard's For The Time Being contribute to this idea as well.

---

Yearning for Elysium: Exploring Suffering, Faith, and Technology

We are lucky enough to understand suffering solely because it means we have been in the position to feel so far away from it. To feel pleasure and to be in total bliss is the catalyst to knowing suffering; one cannot be felt without knowing the other. This is easier to think than understand, we will never be able to resist the idea of eliminating suffering and old age without living in a world ridden with its consequences. Unless it’s done, albeit by technology or a miracle progression in our evolution, we will never understand how a world without hurt may be more frightening than a world with one, and I believe that this is not made easier to grasp since we live in a world that is preoccupied with belief in the spiritual. In a world where the majority of its citizens believe in a better place, like heaven, or believe in the protection of an almighty being, entity, or power that guides their life in the right direction, there will always be a fixation on getting a ticket to that place where we will no longer suffer. I believe that the idea of eliminating all forms of human suffering and aging is a preoccupation fueled by the mystics of religious and spiritual notions like heaven, hell, and the deities that divinely supervise such notions and that by eliminating suffering we leave the world with nothing left to believe in. Annie Dillard and Margaret Atwood are two authors who have their own strong beliefs on the matter, and their books assisted in the formation of my thesis. Annie Dillard’s philosophical narrative, For the Time Being, exemplifies that in this world of suffering, being religious and believing in something greater and holier than us is something to turn to rather than focusing on human suffering, and that when in doubt we should contemplate connecting with the divine. Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake demonstrates her belief that human suffering is not a notion that’s possible to eliminate without the elimination of humankind and that this elimination would be fueled by a world where human insatiability controls the creation of technology.

We live in a world of so many unexplained premonitions, the history of our existence laced with tragedies and miracles, constantly juxtaposing the flourishing of the human spirit and sudden invasions of peril. The evils of our world can be coincidental, a product of our earth cracking, rumbling, and flooding, however, they more often than not are consequential; a by-product of human nature, “a series of biological mismatches, a misalignment of the hormones and pheromones” (Atwood, p. 166). It’s understandable to desire an existence free of the evils that our kin spew out, a world only present in our imaginations. Society has turned to two places for this kind of solace, that of believing in a higher power, like God, or, by “playing God” with the creation of life-altering technologies. Otherworldly possessions and creations that aren’t naturally grown on this planet are what we as humans use to dilute our sufferings and distract from their unavoidability. I believe that our yearning for such a world and technologies is a by-product of the idolization of heaven-like places, oases, and unattainable existences while living on Earth.

Annie Dillard urges us to twist this lust into faith. In her book For The Being, Dillard skillfully weaves in examples of human suffering, becoming despondent towards religion, and looking for guidance from God and spirituality. Losing faith or gaining it, she understands that suffering can do either to a person. When tragedies occur in numbers that can’t be computed properly by a human brain, on a planet where “138,000 people drowned in Bangladesh” (Dillard, p. 48), or “In northeast Japan, a seismic sea wave killed 27,000”, or where “the dead will always outnumber the living” (Dillard, p. 49), when the world seems like more than a hell than heaven. Dillard professes that to exist in a world that hosts so much suffering while simultaneously remaining sane, one must rely on perspective when leaning into faith. As I read the book, it became clear to me that Dillard believes in suffering, “Life's cruelty joins the world’s beauty and our sense of God’s presence” (Dillard, p. 164). She doesn’t want to erase it, instead, she’s pushing herself to understand it; understanding is a crucial step in coexisting, and being a believer doesn’t just mean believing in God, or religion, it’s believing in the world too, “If I should lose all faith in God, I think that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world” (Dillard, p. 44).

Through her narrative, Dillard suggests that true belief extends beyond religious doctrine; it encompasses an acceptance of the world's imperfections and cruelties. Dillard’s perspective leads her to embrace the world in all its flaws, recognizing Earth as an embodiment of the divine, understanding that “the world is God’s body” (Dillard, p. 156). Life as a human on this earth is nothing without the price of “a mysterious tribute of tears, blood, and sin” (Dillard, p. 87), and to ultimately accept that life contains suffering it starts with accepting faith, accepting that “God is the awareness of the infinite in each of us” (Dillard, p. 89). In embracing life's imperfections and recognizing the divine in its flaws, Annie Dillard invites us to acknowledge suffering as an intrinsic part of existence.

Annie Dillard quotes Thomas Merton who says, “Suddenly there is a point where religion becomes laughable. Then you decide that you are nevertheless religious” (Dillard, p. 7). Religion, during the worst hours of existence, in sickness, grief, and loss, can seem foolish if you have the wrong perspective. Yes, indeed, the dead will always outnumber the living, but it is also a fact that more people are born every day than those who die, “6,381 of us die a die…and 10,852 new people emerge from their mothers” (Dillard, p. 199); it’s all about perspective. There is a privilege in having hope and taking advantage of its ability to be present in our lives. Dillard expresses through For The Time Being, that if we get rid of suffering, we have nothing left to pray for, and without prayer, we have nothing left to hope for. Without suffering, we are rushing to achieve a heaven whilst on earth, which is unnatural. While Annie Dillard proves to us why a world without suffering is unmanageable in a world of God’s creation, Margaret Atwood shows us that a world without suffering isn’t just unnatural, it’s nothing short of a nightmare, “Every moment he’s lived in the past few months was dreamed first by Crake. No wonder Crake screamed so much.” (Atwood, p. 218).

I admire Margaret Atwood’s depiction of her belief in the inevitable, and how the brilliance of humankind may be the antagonist of our story, as it was in Oryx and Crake. While Dillard holds our hand when explaining her proposals, Atwood has a cunning way of pushing us towards it, holding us down so we take a nice, long look at the future we’re building. The whole book is a demonstration of the fact that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should; our brilliance is our biggest enemy in a world where we just can’t seem to say no. Atwood’s depictions of human suffering before and after the BlyssPluss pandemic prove its ability to endure as long as humans remain. She goes back and forth showing pre-apocalyptic Earth, a world arguably ridden with suffering at the hands of our own, with demented technological inventions funded by insatiability, clearly written as a glimpse into our future, and it was unrecognizable and eerie. However, then the world “without” all of the suffering and human dichotomy, the one we see through the eyes of Snowman, is equally as unsettling. It’s bare, now hosted by creatures that have lost their creators, pigoons and rakunks out in the wild, the Crakers without their original guidance. It reeks of deficiency and it’s “a fresh start”, yes, but it’s being haunted by what once was, “On some non-conscious level, Snowman must serve as a reminder to these people, and not a pleasant one: he’s what they may have been once.” (Atwood, p. 106). Snowman’s survival is crucial in our understanding of what the human condition would look like if there was a world designed to be without human suffering. Snowman loses himself over time with no human interaction, “There are a lot of blank spaces in his stub of a brain, where memory used to be.” (Atwood, p. 4), and suffers regardless. He feels grief and pain, he reminisces on the times when humanity walked with him, he is living proof in the text of Atwood’s take on the significance of suffering in society, being that a world without human suffering is a world without humans. Even after eliminating the calculated elements of suffering that Crake deducted, “no more sexual torment” (Atwood, p.166), “no old age”, no racism, creatures that are “perfectly adjusted to their habitats” (Atwood, p. 303-305), it becomes clear through Snowman’s troubles in the new world, like his “talking” to his dead love Oryx, or his contemplations of suicide, that humans would still suffer regardless of an absence of the causes of suffering.

Crake’s ideologies and actions are a product of a person graced with scientific and technological brilliance without simultaneously believing in the world. Atwood makes it clear in Oryx and Crake that the voracity of scientific feats is the catalyst of humanity’s downfall, and that it will ultimately only add to our suffering as a society if we continue to create the way we do. When thinking about his old friend, Snowman thinks of Crake in this way, “Had he been a lunatic or an intellectually honorable man who’d thought things through to their logical conclusion?” (Atwood, p. 343). A “lunatic", because he tried to save the world by thinking entirely logically whilst not considering that humanity doesn’t thrive solely on logicality. It thrives on thinking with your head and your heart, it thrives on belief in one another, and it thrives on faith like Dillard professed to us in For The Time Being. Crake went about everything all wrong, and to no fault of his own, he just wasn’t wired the way someone should be if their goal is to “save humanity”; you can’t save humanity if you don’t believe in humanity.

Crake didn’t believe in humans, or the importance of our spirit, he made this clear during his argument with Jimmy in chapter seven when they disagreed on the importance of the humanities in the development of a skillful society. When talking about the purpose of art, Jimmy made a point in favor of humanity, saying “Images, words, music. Imaginative structures. Meaning – human meaning –, that is – defined by them.” (Atwood, p. 167). Crake argues back by saying “People can amuse themselves any way they like…Anyways it serves a biological purpose. (Atwood, p. 167). It was all about the science with Crake, the biological purposes and features of humans, never the substance of our corporeality. Crake’s clear misinterpretation of perspective drove him to what he did because, in theory, it makes complete sense that a world without humans would consequently be a world without human suffering. He believed that the only way to rid of the suffering of the world was mass extinction, instead of thinking in perspective like Annie Dillard would commend him to do; Crake had no sense of faith.

I believe that faith is a powerful concept shared in the dialogues of both For The Time Being and Oryx and Crake. The similarities between Annie Dillard and Margaret Atwood’s ideas surrounding the influence of human suffering is one that I think is partially fueled by the mentions of worship within the Crakers in Oryx and Crake, and evidently in Dillard’s narrative. Annie Dillard stated “The presenting face of any religion is its mass of popular superstitions” (Dillard, p. 76), suggesting that what people commonly observe about a religion may not necessarily represent its deeper or more profound aspects. Instead, it often reflects the surface-level expressions of faith, just like the Crakers did when believing Snowman’s tales of Oryx and Crake as their Gods. While technically true, Crake created them and Oryx raised them while she could, the details Snowman told the Crakers are all superstitious, saying that Oryx, “laid two eggs: one full of animals and birds and fish, and the other one full of words”, and that Crake “made the bones of the Children of Crake out of the coral on the beach and he made their flesh out of a mango” (Atwood, p. 96). Even though the Crakers were designed to avoid human emotion and fear, they look to Snowman to tell them about their gods, they look for answers. Having no need for it doesn’t automatically eliminate curiosity, and as Dillard puts it, “What use is material science as a philosophy or worldview if it cannot explain our intelligence and our consciousness?” (Dillard, p. 93). This innate curiosity suggests that the pursuit of understanding is intrinsic to sentient beings, regardless of their emotional capacities. The quote from Annie Dillard further emphasizes this point by questioning the adequacy of material science as a comprehensive worldview if it fails to account for fundamental aspects of human experience, such as intelligence and consciousness, further exemplifying Atwood’s point surrounding the flaws of evolving technologically.

Society’s preoccupation with religion and the idea of heaven is what tempts us to believe that a world without suffering would benefit the people of Earth, that rushing us all into heaven would save us from all that is wicked. Throughout history, various cultures have revered the idea of paradise, and this yearning for an idyllic existence extends to our technological aspirations, where we envision solutions that promise to beat the odds that nature has given us. However, it's essential to recognize that while these aspirations drive progress and innovation, they can also perpetuate a sense of dissatisfaction with our present reality. By idolizing unattainable existences, we risk overlooking the beauty and potential of the Earth we inhabit. Instead of solely seeking escape or transcendence, we must also strive to cultivate resilience, gratitude, and stewardship for our Earth, or if one chooses to, the divine powers that placed us here. Without virtuous aspirations for innovation, innovations are doomed to go astray, an example of this being Crake, who wanted to create a new “balance” of nature without believing in it, something that became clear to the reader during another argument he had without Jimmy over his objective, “I don’t believe in Nature either. Or not with a capital N” (Atwood, p. 206). If we are to evolve naturally and technologically we need to accept the world that was given to us, what we “desperately need is to face the way it is” (Dillard, p. 19).

Human suffering is unavoidable, as it should stay if we wish to maintain a balance between the natural world and the technologies that we inexorably persist in developing. Annie Dillard urges us to channel our lust for development into the acknowledgment of the divine, encouraging society to face its humanity, learn to look towards faith, and believe invincibly in the society that we have been granted by God. Similarly, Margaret Atwood urges us through her unnerving depiction of our future that we should learn to accept the process nature’s evolution has granted us with nobility, warning us against the dangers of unchecked technological advancement and how the loss of our humanity may be its result. Both authors remind us of the importance of balance – between faith and reason, between nature and technology, between acceptance and innovation. They urge us to confront the realities of suffering with a mind open to divinity and resilience, with respect towards our humanity, and with acknowledgment of the beauty and potential of the world we inhabit. Suffering should not be eliminated from our society, because without it we lose our intentions to remain faithful, and if we lose our initiative to believe in greater, we lose our human spirit.