Tag Archive | Death

Trashing My Dad (or What’s Left of Him)

Trashing My Dad (or What’s Left of Him)
David R. Weiss – May 28, 2026

Honestly, this has been a hard piece to write. Hagiography (saint-making) comes easiest with the dead. To be faithful requires something more. I intend to be faithful.

Now, I’m not about to pick a fight with a dead man. I love my dad. He remains one of the clearest measures of character for me as I live my life. However—

And let me say this as gently as possible: he left a lot of trash behind for us kids to clean up. That’s maybe more blunt than gentle. Let me soften it a bit. My dad was no hoarder. I spent several years working for a nonprofit, delivering groceries to homebound elderly persons. I’ve been in several homes where hoarding was afoot. Dad was no hoarder. His home was probably typical of many elders who’d been in the same home for decades (six decades for my dad). Stuff happens.

Still, as I helped clear out closets, drawers, and boxes—and especially as my sisters and I emptied his attic, backyard shed, garage rafters, and the garage itself—I was stunned by how much stuff had happened. Accumulated. Piled up. Things held onto and never revisited, never relinquished.

We rented a dumpster and, even while recycling most everything we could, the dumpster filled with all the stuff that had happened over the years and now had nowhere else to go. Had it been dealt with “on time” bit by bit over the years, I’m quite sure much of it could’ve been repurposed, redirected, or more easily recycled. But with Dad dead (Mom died in 2022) and the house needing to be emptied and sold, that dumpster became destiny for too much stuff … reduced to trash.

I was frankly exasperated by some of the stuff we found. The well-used, flattened-down, back-in-its-original-box luggage carrier from the station wagon Dad drove … probably three decades ago. Monthly IRA statements, three-hole-punched and in binders, all neatly boxed … going back forty years. A baby crib, disassembled and stored in the garage rafters for close to forty years as well. Really, Dad? Really?!

Despite my title, I’m not really out to trash my dad. In fact, it’s the very strength of his character that makes the amount of his stuff that became trash both tragic and teachable. The stark contradiction here tells me that even good—even remarkably good persons can have their actions, their habits, their attitudes distorted by the slow but inexorable press of societal norms.

And in our society, the norm is strong to deny finitude. Close kin to our denial of death, this denial of finitude reaches further, subconsciously shaping us to live as though limits have no claim on us. And so even the best among us (like my dad) live … shop … accumulate … store … and finally trash … all manner of stuff. The norm of denying finitude—carried by our ads and our societal attitudes and aspirations—is to live as though unlimited consumption, accompanied sooner or later by unlimited waste, is simply the way it’s meant to be.

This norm has guided the present dominant version of humanity (there have been other versions) for several centuries, of which global industrial extractive exploitive consumptive capitalism is simply its most extreme, tragic, deadly expression.

And, as we filled that dumpster out in front of my parents’ house, this was the unavoidable damning truth: even persons with remarkably strong character get pulled into—and misshapen by—the irrepressible current of this worldview.

Let me be clear, neither of my parents were excessive consumers. By most measures the stuff they accumulated was pretty modest. And it was likely the virtue of frugality that held on to all that stored stuff—just in case. Death just arrived before “just-in-case” ever came calling. And, unlike my dad’s IRA, even after he crested 80, there was no required minimum distribution of his stuff.

But there are two more things to say. (Well, three.)

First, this world (our world, the human world we inhabit, which is seamlessly—perilously!—interwoven with the natural world in which we dwell) has arranged itself structurally, systemically, socially, and economically through a cascade of choices small and large (most of them driven by profit, convenience, or the consolidation of power) into a flow pattern that require a garbage dump as part of the consumer “circle of life.”

Except this garbage dump (ubiquitous around us, though usually unseen by us) is so out of balance with the planet’s capacity to safely absorb waste and renew it. Additionally, much of what gets sent there is stuff utterly orphaned from its place in nature—deprived of its ability to break down. Our established flow pattern becomes, in fact, a circle of death. A slow death, to be sure. And we keep our dumps mostly out of sight, so they don’t unsettle our sensibilities. But eventually all the stuff-turned-trash will trash us.

Second, my parents had little option other to live and die (that is, purchase and waste) within that system. It enveloped them, making it extraordinarily difficult for even remarkably good people to live in ways that didn’t deny finitude. But for the few days we filled that dumpster my sensibilities were unsettled. Profoundly. My gut churned with each load of stuff I unloaded into the dumpster where it became trash in the unholy alchemy of this world. Our world. My world.

I do not blame my parents. Forces far larger than their best intentions framed their lives—though it makes the amount of stuff left behind no less tragic. No less deadly on a planet that is decidedly finite. I suspect my nearness to them, my love and admiration for the life they built together, is precisely what deepened my pain as I filled that dumpster. Thus, tragic—and teachable.

Which brings me to my third learning. I, too, live inside the same death-dealing worldview that my parents did. I, too, am tempted—kettled* is not too strong a word!—to live as though planetary limits do not apply to me. This stuff-becomes-trash is an intergenerational dynamic. (You could easily argue that the denial of finitude has only amplified itself as we get closer to crashing up against it.)

Margaret and I are deeply invested in being good partners with the planet. We recycle religiously. We compost conscientiously. We push back against consumptive practices, rituals, and habits that are intrinsically ungreen. But we are far from perfectly green, entangled still within a worldview that whispers to us daily this mantra: no limits. And those whispers have done their work even on me.

If I were to die tomorrow, my kids would be renting a dumpster for a bunch of my stuff. From that perspective this piece is less about “trashing my dad” than challenging myself to double-down on my efforts (kettling be damned!) to repurpose, redirect, and recycle my stuff while I still have the time to do so. And to deliberately weave the truth of finitude into every choice I make.

Trashing my dad was painful. I hope I can turn that pain into action.

*To “kettle” (from the German kessel: cauldron or kettle) is a police technique that constrains the free movement of protesters until they are “boiling” on top of each other. Used for crowd control (or entrapment) it seeks submission through a show of irresistible force. Our worldview is so all-encompassing, that any persistent choice against it can precipitate an experience of being kettled: constrained by systemic-structural forces into acting as they desire.

***

David Weiss is a theologian, writer, poet and hymnist, “writing into the whirlwind” of contemporary challenges, joys, and sorrows around climate crisis, sexuality, justice, peace, and family. Reach him at drw59mn@gmail.com. Read more at www.davidrweiss.com where he blogs under the theme, “Full Frontal Faith: Erring on the Edge of Honest.” Support him in Writing into the Whirlwind atwww.patreon.com/fullfrontalfaith.

Interrupting the Anthropocene

Interrupting the Anthropocene
David R. Weiss – February 1, 2024

At less than five ounces (and barely 100 pages), Roy Scranton’s little book, Learning to Die in the Anthropocene (City Lights Books, San Francisco, 2015), definitely punches above its weight.

And they’re gut punches. Four pages in he sums up the state of the world: “We’re fucked. The only questions are how soon and how badly.” (16) Now, a lot has changed since 2015, but much of it tilts toward “sooner” and “worse.” In 2024 it might be time to throw those two sentences into ALL CAPS and italics. Roy Scranton is not optimistic about our future, but there are some shining gems hiding beyond the title that, if hardly salvific, are going to feel good in your pocket a decade from now.

Epiphanies often occur in strange places. During his time as an Army private in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003, he experienced the debilitating stress of facing daily the threat of death. But it was there that he found unexpected power in the advice of an 18th century Samurai manual: “Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.” Each morning then, he paused to imagine getting killed in a flurry of ways. Then, as he began that day’s mission, he discovered, “I didn’t need to worry anymore because I was already dead. The only thing that mattered was that I did my best to make sure everyone else came back alive.” (21-22)

In Learning to Die Scranton suggests this is precisely the unsettling wisdom we need to embrace—collectively, as a culture—to have any chance of living into the future that’s headed our way. In his view (and mine), multiple and now unavoidable collapses are going to unmake our physical and social worlds in the coming decades. As he puts it, “Carbon-fueled capitalism has proven astoundingly virulent but also toxic, cannibalistic, and self-destructive. It is unsustainable, both in itself and as a response to catastrophic climate change.” (23)

We’re caught, Scranton says, in a most wicked problem. Here, “wicked” is not a moral term. It names problems that have multiple-and-entangled roots-and-solutions. Problems for which the causes are many, for which any singular “solution” is illusory, and for which any coordinated set of solutions is simply too complicated to be technically, socially, or politically realistic. The wicked problem we face is global-wide carbon-fueled capitalism. The climate crisis and a host of other ecological and socio-political crises are symptoms of this fundamental (and finally fatal) expression of human living. The “wicked” comes forward when we realize that (by now—because we’re so far into the game) every possible response—whether technological or political, and regardless of how “green” it is—will inevitably exacerbate other dimensions of the crises we face.

One particularly jarring face of this wicked problem is what Scranton calls “Carbon Politics.” He traces the way the shift from coal (much more labor intensive in production and transportation) to oil and gas largely eliminated the ability of labor to threaten any shutdown of energy production. With the political process itself distorted to favor monied interests and insulate politicians from popular outcry, Scranton argues that even large-scale protests have lost any real capacity to make meaningful change. That’s hard to hear.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a call to cease agitating for better policies. However, it is, at the very least, a sobering view that encourages stark self-critical reflection on which grassroots-citizen actions (if any) might bear real leverage in such a twisted political landscape. Absent such gritty strategic consideration, Scranton may be correct that despite the media coverage garnered by well-planned protests, they accomplish little more than to divert/disperse public energy while those who own the means of production—and a good share of the political process as well—keep up production and profits even while the planet creaks and groans.

Those creaks and groans, increasingly accompanied by outright screams of ecological anguish, announce the impending and inescapable death of carbon-fueled capitalism—and the civilization that is wholly entwined with it. Thankfully, humanity has lived—even thrived—under systems other than carbon-fueled capitalism. Our ancestors have shown that it’s possible. Still, if humanity survives this present unmaking of our world, we’ll do so on a planet altogether unknown: different from anything we or any of our earliest relatives encountered over the 200,000 years that Homo sapiens has been around. And that “we” that finds itself in an altogether unknown world?—that likely includes some of us, some of our family, and some of our friends … anyone “fortunate” enough to be around for the latter half of this century.

The challenge before us collectively—before our culture—is learning to die well as a civilization. To let go of this way of life, and the no longer sustainable (were they ever?) notions of identity, freedom, success, and progress, that went with it. And to do so while maintaining character, dignity, courage, and wisdom. While the various hard sciences might buy us a brief window of time (there is no way they can do more than this), learning to die is ultimately the business of the humanities: philosophy and the arts. These are the cultural traditions that have offered paths to meaning amid the tumult of the lived human experience. And meaning is what anchors character, dignity, courage, wisdom.

For Scranton this means it is imperative that we turn to the humanities—especially philosophy and literature—in order to fashion a self-reflective posture toward life that prizes depth of meaning in the face of finitude and mortality. This is what it means to “learn to die.” One of the ironies about this is that all you can do is practice—until you do, finally but just once, die. But if we do this learning well, if this persistent practice becomes our way of life, it is just possible that we might find that it allows us to live well into the Anthropocene. Into that altogether unknown world. Pulling out some of those shining gems from our pockets.

This is not a happy ending smuggled into an only seemingly tragic tale. No. Whatever life we might live as the Anthropocene unfolds (and not over the coming centuries, but over the coming decades and years) will be life on the ruins of carbon-fueled capitalism. But—if it is to be human life, life in which our humanity prevails rather than collapsing into barbaric savagery—we will need new stories to hold and fashion our humanity in that new (fractured, broken, wounded) world. All the great existential questions will need to be considered afresh. We will need to ask again what it means to be human … to live … to work … to love … to die … in that world. As human beings.

Learning to die well is a gift to a future that we may or may not see ourselves. In order to make that gift we’ll need to embrace, preserve, and plumb the multicultural wisdom of meaning-making from around the globe. Today. If we do, then tomorrow that same multicultural wisdom might help renew humanity with a humbler, more mortal self-understanding that could perhaps support a common life on the far side of that death.

Scranton’s perspective is certainly … austere. Isn’t there anything we can do today besides learning to die? Yes, but it isn’t something we can do instead of learning to die; it’s something we can practice alongside that other most essential learning. We can choose to interrupt. For me, this is the most insightful, provocative, challenging (and intellectually dense) idea in the whole book. (Sorry.)

Scranton places our capacity for symbolic meaning at the heart of what it means to be human. Language and math undergird the scientific learning and technological advances that gave us critical evolutionary advantages early on. Additionally, through the humanities, symbolic meaning has been foundational in allowing us to be human-across-time: to create notions of self-awareness and meaning that persist and extend from distant yesterdays into the ferment of present possibilities. Symbolic meaning allows us to explore both outer and inner worlds—and to make choices about how we will act. Lifting us above mere instinct and impulse, symbolic meaning is the seat of human agency.

Carried first by gestures, images, and rituals, then by written symbols, today symbolic meaning is also carried digitally across multiple media: television, computers, internet. And because of the extent to which digital devices now define our lives—what we know, how we know, and how we respond to that knowing—symbolic meaning has been made captive to the interests and impulses that drive our media. And with it, human agency.

Scranton likens the contemporary human community, so digitally networked as to be almost like a hive, abuzz with the movement of symbolic meaning: cognition and emotion. But powerful interests today, some of them discrete (owners, corporations, politicians, special interest groups), others structural (marketing, algorithms), have harnessed media—especially social media, but also entertainment and marketing media—to effectively set emotion above cognition. In effect, this reduces human agency to reactive feeling.

With social media echo chambers, algorithms, and incentives to “like” (or “hate”) and “share” posts on emotive impulse, it is as though we are (left, right, and center) largely self-contained bubbles of awareness being mutually massaged by all the emotional energy we channel. The images and messages that carry a significant portion of our symbolic meaning today no longer invite us into self-reflective awareness and thoughtful, ethical agency. Rather, they reach into our amygdala (lower brains) and stoke our feelings, diverting our energy and eliding our agency on a rush of emotion. We have been brought from Namaste, a Hindu greeting that roughly means, “The sacred in me recognizes and honors the sacred in you,” to “The lizard (brain) in me pokes and jabs the lizard (brain) in you.” Ouch.

Most of us are well aware that social media (as well as entertainment and marketing media) are more interested in monetizing us than connecting us. But Scranton suggests that perhaps their primary role today is to domesticate us—to keep our minds so awash with emotion that actual human agency is an afterthought that we humans never get to. We are, as it were, fiddles being fiddled by the media while Rome burns. Oof.

Unless we interrupt the echoes. Choose to PAUSE long enough to breathe, reflect, and only then act with intention. If you thought learning to die was going to be hard, just imagine noticing every “managed” emotion sent your way by all manner of media. From meme to rant, from ad to endless entertainment. (By “managed” I mean to distinguish media-driven emotion from authentic emotion that emerges from your own life.) Can any of us really afford to actually notice and consider all of this? Can any of us afford not to when every unaware reaction we make only further empowers the algorithms that disempower us? To even contemplate the daily practice of interruption is to become immediately aware of how domesticated our lives have become.

But that domestication has given us the Anthropocene. If we don’t interrupt it, we just add fuel to the fire. And the planet is already plenty hot. This means more (much more) than just PAUSING before you toss an emoji on a Facebook post or share a meme to affirm or antagonize others. But it is not less than this. It also means checking in with yourself as you channel surf and attending to the way ads affect you. It means feeling your feelings at a higher level than your lizard brain. Simply put—and now we’re right back to the humanities—it means humanizing yourself, reclaiming your agency. For the good of humanity and the wellbeing of the planet. And part of that means learning to die (well).

So, please, put this at the top of your “to do” list: Interrupting the Anthropocene. And then do it. 🙂

*   *   *

David Weiss is a theologian, writer, poet and hymnist, “writing into the whirlwind” of contemporary challenges, joys, and sorrows around climate crisis, sexuality, justice, peace, and family. Reach him at drw59mn@gmail.com. Read more at www.davidrweiss.com where he blogs under the theme, “Full Frontal Faith: Erring on the Edge of Honest.” Support him in Writing into the Whirlwind at www.patreon.com/fullfrontalfaith.