Minimum Relative Suffering
Only the most stubborn individuals would claim that there is no suffering in the world. From paper cuts to genocide, most of it is laid bare, plain to see for any who wish to risk a glance. It’s only logical that we run from it, searching for a warm blanket fresh from the dryer. Some, like Buddhists, claim the way forward is through detachment, but I think there’s a simpler way – and society is already embracing it wholeheartedly! While complete annihilation of suffering remains theoretically impossible, several laws have been discovered which outline methods to decrease relative suffering.[1]
First Law of Relative Suffering:
Each additional unit of suffering produces diminishing relative suffering.
The first and most widespread application is to heap suffering upon those who cannot defend against it. At first, this appears counterintuitive. I can already hear you shouting at your screen, “Doesn’t that increase suffering?”
You’re clever, friend reader, but you forget the most important term – “relative.” Indeed, the total amount of suffering increases during times of famine, war, and any number of vague and unnecessary cruelties available to the world and its denizens to inflict upon others. However, this begets a fundamental change in the neurochemistry of those suffering.
Corollary to the First Law:
As suffering increases, one asymptotically approaches a theoretical emotion named “contentment.”
The United States Military is aware of the power of the first law and its corollary, putting it into use from the first moment at boot camp. It’s why they scream and yell at you all the time. If you cry, it only gets worse. They tell you that you will kill people and repeat it every day. They tell you when you’re eating meatloaf and shining your shoes. They poke their head into the shower and mention it. They say it when you’re thinking about your mom’s laugh.
Eventually you start to hear it without their reminder, even years later when your mom’s laughter produces an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach. This is by design, and you should be grateful for it!
Second Law of Relative Suffering:
Hurt people hurt people.
This is quite a clever deployment of the cognitive biases we humans share. The trauma we inflict upon our soldiers makes them highly efficient at inflicting trauma on other populations. Furthermore, this mental state persists for quite some time, often being passed down to the next generation in a slightly diluted form of abuse. Thus, for a paltry investment, one is able to perpetuate increased suffering across generations.
Now here’s the magic. The more suffering experienced, the less the next unit of suffering increases the relative suffering. This effect increases to a theoretical limit of zero additional relative suffering for each new unit of unpleasantness. Amazing!
Third Law of Relative Suffering:
Detachment is effective, but costly
There is an alternative, however it is prohibitively expensive, like really fucking expensive. So much so that we don’t even know how much it costs and may theoretically require more than money to achieve. Still, humanity has to try every alternative and assume the solution can be scaled eventually.
As I said before, it’s impossible to eliminate suffering from the world, but some clever individuals theorize that you may be able to take one or two people out of the world such that they don’t see or experience the suffering. There is great wisdom in this approach, mirroring the detachment advice of the Buddha. Sure, other people will still suffer and maybe a bit more than they did before that person escaped, but isn’t it worth a shot?
So far it hasn’t worked out. Some are beginning to wonder if the costs associated with continued experimentation might be foolish. Currently there are several individuals racing for this position and their combined investment toward the goal tops the wealthiest economies on earth. The beautiful thing is that these two systems reinforce one another. Increasing the suffering of a large mass of humans often comes with the bonus of enrichment, funding the isolationist ambitions of the ubermensch.
I’m sure all of this feel unfair. However, it’s important to remember we didn’t make these rules. Humans evolved with these biases, wouldn’t it be foolish to let them go to waste?
Among those who deride this theory are a small but vocal minority proposing a new hypothesis. I won’t go into their approach as it’s a bit woo-woo for my taste, but their argument can be stated thusly:
Theoretical Axiom of Suffering:
Suffering is important.
I sympathize with their emotional plea, and wish them the best of luck in their search for evidence, however the preliminary results for “meaning” remain inconclusive . Far more likely is that it’s all just one big coincidence that we’re left to deal with.
From the Rift,
[1] People are quick to celebrate general and special relativity in physics circles, but we often discount the value of relativism in social and cultural structures.
Thanks for Reading!
Prefer to listen? Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or using the RSS feed
