The Lonely Death of George Bell | Hacker News Reader

The Lonely Death of George Bell

nytimes.com

196 pointsBud64 comments

Contrary to the implications of the beginning of the piece, Mr. Bell had connections, he had the potential for relationships, he even had friends who tried.

I'm an introvert, who recently moved to another city for graduate school. I don't get out very often unless it's to a solitary place (my own spot in a coffee shop, for instance), so I can relate to Bell's desire to be solitary most of the time. However, if anyone reading this thinks his death was a wrong, know that he had ample opportunity to at least have one or two people to "be around his death bed" so to speak. The end of the piece talks about "the Dude", not to mention the possible wife who it seems loved him even towards the end.

If there is any take away, it is to cherish our relationships with others. There are extreme cases in which people really are alone, but for those of us who can at least count on our hands the ones we love, or at least like, (even if it takes us a few minutes to enumerate them), we should continue to develop those friendships and not force people out who could otherwise enrich us. As the "investigators" put it, we don't live forever. We need to use the time we have to enrich others, because only the rest of society will out-survive us as individuals.

It's so difficult when you're on a trajectory that you know will kill you yet you cannot change it because it feels like your entire being is so tainted and the sadness is so ingrained in your soul that your mind just tells you to isolate your miserable existence from those around you. I have struggled with this my entire adult life and I'm writing this with tears in my eyes because reading this beautiful piece is like unraveling my own future. Rest in peace, George. We all die alone, but no one deserves to die lonely.

Not quite sure what to say, other than thank you for sharing. My heart goes out to you. .

I really appreciate your sharing this.

I'm sure you've sought help, but it would be remiss of this community if we didn't suggest that it might help you to speak to a professional.

Personally, i can recommend reading what Julian Baggini says about happiness. His perspective is quite refreshing and unexpected, to me at least.

I promise you, I felt the same way as you describe for years. I took antidepressants for years but they would eventually stop working. I tried all kinds of natural supplements, meditation, exercise, etc. After losing my marriage and alienating my children I tried once more but this time my doctor added a mood stabilizer. It has made all the difference in the world. I have a very close relationship with my children now, close friends, job, and enjoy many interests. Don't give up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodokushi is the Japanese name for this phenomena. There were several articles about it a few months back, like:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/roads/2015/0...

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/in-japan-lone...

http://qz.com/380685/photos-cleaning-up-after-japans-lonely-...

They say you mentally breakup with your spouse/partner some time before before actually do so. From what little I can glean here, the same can (not always, just can) hold true for dying alone.

“The majority of lonely deaths are people who are kind of messy,”

The need for instant gratification is a constant for those affected by major depression. This may come across as "messy" when in reality severely depressed people would skip anything that does not directly improve their mood.

As despair takes over and one cannot find light at the end of the tunnel, the search for this light or simply giving up becomes the main thing whereas everything else becomes irrelevant.

I'm no psychologist but could not help noticing this kind of behaviour over the years in many cases of depression, suicides, etc.

A wonderful piece, almost read like a novel.

At the end, I couldn't help but try to derive some overall take-away. The best I could come up with was to cherish your friendships and always try to keep in touch. One concern I would have is whether or not today's internet-based culture could hinder this?

I'd say it cuts both ways. I don't get out much myself, but I keep pretty well in touch with friends from all walks of life via social media. In another era many of those relationships would have atrophied with both time and distance.

Good point. However, I can’t help to think that this makes it harder to make new friends, e.g. when moving to a new city.

I think that would depend on a lot of factors. Some people have more bandwidth for social stuff and can cope with keeping in touch with old friends and also seeking out new ones. Others can't.

But, also, if you are online, you can already know people in the new city. I am somewhat prone to having my friendships start online and then become IRL instead of the other way around. While I am probably not the norm, I am not some bizarre statistical outlier these days either. Plenty of people meet people via Internet and move the relationship to meatspace.

I do it the opposite way actually. No social media at all. I call, text, and email a whole host of people on a regular basis.

Social media is honestly a hindrance of friendships. If you want to know about an old friend you haven't talked to in a while, punch up their facebook/instagram/twitter. All caught up. No need to interact whatsoever. I call, email, and text, to maintain that sense of a personal connection.

Technology helps with having relationships not atrophy, I completely agree. Social media however, I see it as a hindrance to sincere connections with people more than a boon to preserving relationships.

Perhaps. I think people who grew up with social media know it's a loose substitute for maintaining real friendships and relationships. You just won't get the same fulfillment looking at a 'friends' feed than actually reaching out to them directly (via technology or otherwise). Just like you call, email and text - many people do that (snapchat, whatsapp, etc).

I saw a movie recently which dealt with this topic of people dying with no obvious next of kin

  http://film.britishcouncil.org/still-life2

though from a british viewpoint and somewhat cynical regarding the downsizing of the department handling these affairs (I don't know what really happens over here)

I was pleased to note that the new york times actually listed costs relating to the disposal of his estate, and even went and spoke to the people who did inherit some of whom had never even heard of George Bell.

We need a society where every person is needed and wanted. We need it more than any dumb technical advance that lessens the need for people, like robots delivering pizza or whatever. That will take some heavy thinking, though, and I feel that we haven't even started.

A lot of us that are building the dumb technical advances that lessen the need for people don't particularly like people, in the general case. I suspect we'll continue to do so.

[flagged]

Amazing piece of logic here, "you came out of people -> you depend on people" and "you must like people" is implied.

I hate that I have to depend on people. I find them unreliable at best. Which is why a lot of us are working to improve the primitive societies we currently live in in order to REMOVE that dependency. I'd rather depend on algorithms (and in fact I do, more and more every single day that passes) than anything as primitive as people.

Liking and disliking are not the only choices. I'm saying to see the world the way it is.

Also, would you say your refuge in algorithms is your way of trying to control your reality? Algorithms are straight forward and predictable, unlike people. Thoughts?

I have one thought, which is that no one really needs you saving them via insulting HN comments.

And that I am trying to save anyone is your own extrapolation.

okay, fine. then what you are doing is something even less useful, and I should have no one really needs you lecturing them for no reason via insulting HN comments.

do you feel better now that your output has been properly characterized?

What exactly was insulting? His name is douche. Also, newsflash: you're lecturing me. Don't fight fire with fire.

Don't assume things about me (this is another tendency that "people" have :-)

From an early age, I found contemporary "people" uninteresting to extremely dull. I had to force myself to socialize with them in order not to become a premature social pariah. It's a lot easier these days.

I'm mostly talking about your average human by the way, not the sum total of humanity.

To give you an example, I enjoy Nietzsche's (another social pariah) writing enormously but I find Nietzsche-the-person mostly uninteresting and boring. This is the outlook I have on life. I'd rather spend my time reading all the treasures we have from the past and trying to understand them, than indulge in pointless socializing.

I don't see myself as weird or crazy. I think I'm simply way ahead of the curve here. Give it 30-40-60 years, human relationships will have degenerated to a degree that far surpasses mine.

When robots can fulfill your every "human" desire (food, sex, companionship) and you are free to do whatever you want with the rest of your time are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

This is of course assuming that your true calling in life is not "other people" or in other words, current social conditioning or consensus reality. This is when that conditioning will fully break down and society will have advanced a step on the evolutionary ladder.

If I was assuming I would be making statements, not questions. I was pointing out the mirror image between how algorithms behave and how people behave.

Though I find it ironic, because you yourself are assuming about other people with this:

are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

As if people are not able to have fulfilling human relationships AND devote themselves to a calling. As if everyone is wasting their time, because you think it's a waste of time. If it's a waste of time because people fail in their pursuits, well guess what, no pursuit is guaranteed.

This talk about robots is just the sign of the times: the mechanization of everything, even that which is not fundamentally mechanical.

You either are not paying attention to what he wrote or, alternatively, "fully devoted" doesn't mean the same to you as it does to him (and me).

BTW: Everything is fundamentally mechanical, you should check out Norbert Wiener.

> will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life?

Unfortunately, the mysterious voice that tells you to pursue a creative activity might grow silent when that activity is no longer connected with social status in your mind. Which is exactly what will happen if you grow distant from humans and your material needs are covered by machines.

Algorithms are much more primitive than people by definition. You seem to have intended to convey the opposite, a preference for relying on primitives over complicated persons.

More primitive, in the sense of less complex, yes. But also more reliable. Algorithms do what they do, and never anything else.

I'm chinese and was using primitive in an evolutionary sense.

Wrong choice of word, I agree with you.

Fair enough, but our work doesn't just impact us...

> We need a society where every person is needed and wanted.

I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful, with people-interaction being little more than the cherry on top of sundae.

This is what individualism was originally meant to be, but people continue to undermine the power of instinctual passions (acknowledging something is the first step to eradicating it).

Unfortunately, "we will satisfy people's desires by changing their desires" isn't a very attractive pitch.

I think you did not understand the full import of my comment. So let me clarify.

Your ask is for a society where every person is "needed and wanted". In other words, every person's (social) desires/ needs/ wants are to be fulfilled on a consistent basis. Given that Mother Nature is discriminative, this is simply impractical unless every one is forced (ala. communism) to equitably dish out attention/love regardless of the likability/attractiveness of the other person.

In response I stated that I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful. By that I meant - where every person is content/ happy/ delighted on their own company. Everyone exhibits a "cheerful enjoyment of life; an exultation of spirit."[1] In such a society, people continue to interact with one another as usual - but such interactions would simply be a bonus-fun. There would be no "needs" and "desires" to be fulfilled by establishing a connection/bond with the other person (interactions happen freely without any demands/bonds/expectations; love becomes obsolete).

I finished off that comment by effectively saying that the very first step people need to take, to be on the path to being in such a mirthful society, is to acknowledge the role instinctual passions play in those "needs" and "wants" ... such as, for instance, how the underlying passions of nurture/ fear/ desire (regardless of culture) underpin the various social desires/ anxieties of needing-to-belong/ seeking-approval/ fearing-ostracization/ suffering-loneliness (varies somewhat by culture).

Therefore, my comment is about first acknowledging, and then minimizing to the point of finally eradicating those desires than satisfying or changing them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joie_de_vivre

What would be the implications of such a society? Just because someone is needed and wanted does not neccesarily mean that they feel fulfilled. These "dumb" technical advances do alleviate the need for people. However, they do so with tasks or jobs that are often repetitive and mindless. Sure, more complex occupations don't ensure fulfillment, but they engage the mind in a way that it's arguably easier to find fulfillment. In this way this technology moves us forward to a society where we purse roles that optimize our sense of fulfillment. But, there are caveats to this as it assumes that everyone can find a form of income with their own set of circumstances. Technology empowers, but who and how we empower is the puzzle we need to solve.

I think for most people, the need for intellectual fulfillment at work is much less important than the need to be needed.

> IN 1996, GEORGE BELL hurt his left shoulder and spine lifting a desk on a moving job, and his life took a different shape. He received approval for workers’ compensation and Social Security disability payments and began collecting a pension from the Teamsters. Though he never worked again, he had all the income he needed.

Sometimes, having income without effort is death in life.

He got hurt making a living. That is what workers compensation is. It is not like receiving an inheritance like: Donald Trump, the Walton family, etc.

George Bell earned that worker's compensation with a remaining lifetime of pain. If that isn't earned I don't know what is.

I think the point is that Bell, who already tended toward introversion, no longer could (due to injury) nor had a need (due to not needing to work) to go outside and socialize.

That said, having an income was probably the biggest factor - that kind of back injury does not keep one from going out. I agree that his compensation is earned - but that sort of support has side effects on both the recipient and the rest of society. When taxes and regulation can be expected to take up the slack, people tend toward individualism and communities wither. Compare the strength of families and communities over the last 100 years. While good government can provide financial assistance, like how communities used to, it rarely provides the human socialization that communities do.

Really? Before socialized welfare, your place within the community was entirely tied to your working ability. Too old to farm? Go sleep under the stairs. Then take a walk in the forest in winter and don't come back.

This is a really lovely story. I'm not usually one to be sentimental bit this has got me thinking of my priorities in life.

I see a couple of things missing in the comments thus far on George Bell's isolation.

First, his age. When he was younger, he was (presumably) in love with, and almost married, a woman whom he stayed in touch with for the rest of his life. He also had close relationships with friends. For some people, the "desaturation" of life that comes with age makes it feel less worthwhile to pursue the things that once made them happy.

Second, some people who do not socialize are not necessarily devoid of the inner need for friendship and companionship - they may have learned that the pain and risk that can come with social connections outweigh the advantages.

When a man becomes old, disabled, and considerably overweight, interacting with others might not be a particularly pleasant experience.

There are no "solutions" to the "problems" George Bell had. They are a part of the human condition, and they were his experience of life.

I couldn't help but think of Eleanor Rigby. "All the lonely people, where do they all belong?"

To me, the saddest thing about George was that he seems to have merely existed, while he was alive. From the article, he didn't seem to have any passions or ambitions. He didn't seem to want to go and see things, experience things, do things. He died in the same apartment, he was born in. He didn't really live, he just was, completely passive, until he wasn't.

At least that is the impression I got from reading this.

I wouldn't say that. The fact that him and "the Dude" "solved all the world's problems" in a parking lot seem to suggest he was a thinking person with at least some desire to better some of those around him. Not to mention the fact he thought about and wrote a will, the fact that he was in love, the fact he was missed by the vanishingly few who knew him.

This was somewhat of a depressing story; mainly because emphasis was put on the whole after death scenario; that is what happened to his belongings et cetera, et cetera... But overall, I feel like I understand Bell, as well as the circumstances that lead to him dying lonely... RIP Bell Nothing more Nothing less

And there’s nothin’ short of dyin’, half as lonesome as the sound, Of the sleepin’ city sidewalk and Sunday mornin’ comin’ down – Kris Kristofferson

Indeed, a deeply touching and human story, but even more so I've been engrossed by the consuming discussion it has sparked!

$5000 for burial costs?!? And 50000 burials a year...wow...would never have imagined.

That's how it ends. Everyone dies alone.

I never understood this stigma about hermits/social isolation in western societies. In the east, it's much more accepted.

Reading this piece I got the impression that the writer and persons interviewed were HORRIFIED by what they discovered. It seemed to me as if "having friends" was pretty fucking high in their list-of-important-things-in-life.

I was very amused by this, almost started laughing in fact. Human relationships are not for everyone I'd say, in fact there are many healthy people that view them as pointless waste of time at best.

Technology will solve this little problem once and for all, in this century. I won't go as far as AGI but when house keeping robots become ubiquitous which is surely less than 20 years down the road, society at large will have to evolve and primitive points of view as described in this nytimes piece will basically disappear.

I once heard someone say "You can give everyone else but yourself a soul." While I don't really know what that means, I think of it whenever I'm by myself for long durations (3-4 months on average).

I think what it means is that the light of your presence or attention illumines another's being, but I don't think agree that that very light can't be turned toward yourself.

> I never understood this stigma about hermits/social isolation in western societies. In the east, it's much more accepted.

In east it is much more accepted? Where exactly in the east? At least from where I come from (southern state in India), being a loner -- especially a loner male -- is seen to be socially unworthy. I know one male relative, that had been divorced and never married since then, who is generally looked down by all of extended family.

Being a hermit with religious/spiritual affiliations on the other hand is different thing entirely. Normal people from my country are expected to fulfill their social responsibilities and duties which, for the men-folk, means supporting their families (women and children) ... and this is far from being accepted as a socially isolated person.

Why, every time I visit my folks in India, our relatives are quick to point out the apparent (to them) deficiency in my life just because I don't have a marital partner to spend my life with (for the Western folks here, they continue to see me as that "lonely old man sitting in the park bench").

I'm chinese and was mostly referring to my country. I know there are places like Japan and maybe as you said India where this does not apply.

EDIT:

It's also funny that you mentioned the spiritual angle.

I've studied Advaita for many years (and still practice it) and there is something to be said about the various holy men who practice it. In the case of Nisargadatta, for instance, he had a wife and kids that he immediately abandoned once he met sri sadguru sidarameshwar maharaj and fully commited to that path.

If you read his books (highly recommended) you will discover a man that lives in absolute bliss. It's like a huge weight has been lifted off of his shoulders, and I don't just mean his family (more like the burden of having to interact with society at large).

It's interesting to me how this is "accepted" in India but a person acting in exactly the same ways minus the spiritual angle is treated far differently. If that is not social conditioning I don't know what is.

People rarely acknowledge that a significant portion of their identity is a result of social conditioning (or indoctrination as you bluntly put it in another comment).

The act of seeking of approval, in particular, is the persistently amorphous result of a society shaping/ strengthening/ controlling the underlying instinctual passions (of fear and desire and nurture) over decades. Most people even in individualistic societies will fight to death their right to defend their internalizing of this brainwashing.

You may notice that a lot of spiritual beliefs too fall under the similar umbrella. If not, I invite you to this rabbit hole: http://www.actualfreedom.com.au

He returned to his wife and kids after 1-2 years.

Yes, maybe it applies to China but definitely not to India.

We put a very high price on family and relatives. Nepotism is rampant here, and people can go to any extent to help/protect their family. I think people in West put the same high value on their friends wrt to family (I think but I could be very wrong about it because of the little exposure I've had).

Funny story. In a recent seminar on road safety the speaker asked the audience "Who here will report their mother to the police if she was involved in a hit and run".

Only three hands stood up out of the whole crowd and all three were Americans. Now while it is admirable, everyone was just shocked that somebody would think of doing that to their own mother. It's just isn't the part of our culture but at least from that anecdote I think it may not be that big of a deal from to a westerner.

I'm sorry but this is garbage in my view.

We need to use the time we have in order to do the things that are important to us, not to enrich "others" whoever they may be. This obsession about society and socializing and following norms and "fitting in" is one of the things that are seriously fucked up in the western world.

We need more people who have gone sideways, more recluses, more geniuses, more people who do not fit in and do things their own way. Otherwise what's the point?

I understand that this may sound alien or maybe crazy to people who have grown up in western societies and therefore been indoctrinated to an extreme degree to seek the approval of others and so on, but that's all there is to it really, social conditioning. Nobody will remember you 200 years after you die, you better use the time you have to do something meaningful with your life and to me that does not include idle socializing so that some sacks of blood, meat and bone will "feel" sad when you're gone.

I don't know about the post you're reading but the GP doesn't talk about fitting in or following norms. Living with people is an important part of the human experience. Sure, it is less important for some and more so for others but necessary nonetheless.

>> We need more people who have gone sideways, more recluses, more geniuses, more people who do not fit in and do things their own way. Otherwise what's the point?

What is the point of what. Different people want different things from life.

>> I understand that this may sound alien or maybe crazy to people who have grown up in western societies and therefore been indoctrinated to an extreme degree to seek the approval of others and so on, but that's all there is to it really, social conditioning.

I come from an 'Eastern' society and living well with others is as fundamental to my society as it appears to be in the west. Not everyone wants to live their life in solitude to be remembered in eternity. Calling it 'indoctrination' is generalizing what is essentially your opinion to a serious degree.

Someone already replied to you about norms, although you could, in an extreme case, consider people liking you as having attached to it some expectation (like you liking them back) as a norm. At the end of the day, you have freedom to choose your own values and live by them.

The idea that society will out live us as individuals is a fact, however. That does not need to bother you, and if it doesn't, I can disagree but I can do nothing to stop you from enjoying yourself.

Mr. George, at least in some capacity, enjoyed the company of others. He was not a complete introvert then, so he might not have had your extreme aversion to people. Moreover, his death was clearly felt in some people, so unless we are only allowed to consider his feelings, his aversion to others had negative effects on at least one or two other people.

There is literally nothing objectively "meaningful" to do that we know of. At all. Anywhere. Ever.

The concepts of "meaning" and "meaningful" come from the human mind, it's subjective. Anything can be 'meaningful' to someone and not to someone else.

The point is not to make other people sad when you're gone, the point is to make other people (and yourself) happier while you're alive.

Agreed, and there's no guarantee that pursuing what we deem to be meaningful at the expense of interpersonal relationships will leave a mark on humanity. As a matter of fact, a lot of great men and women are/were the product of investments (not necessarily monetary) from their parents, teachers, friends, and family.

"Nobody will remember you 200 years after you die"

It would be good to be "remembered" in 200 years but it would make little difference to you: you'll be dead. It won't matter anymore to you and to the extent that it matters to anyone else that interest maybe closer to "fun trivia things to know" than as someone they would aspire to emulate. How many people care about most roman emperors? How many people care about the vast swath of past US presidents? They were at the top of their game during their time (to varying degrees of course) but even the vast majority of them are still relegated to historical footnotes. In the big scheme of things that happens to even the greatest of men/women. Two decades ago Thomas Edison was the face of American inventiveness (deserved or not) but now to many people it has been supplanted by Steve Jobs (deserved or not). In a couple of years the same thing will happen to him.

Living with that idea as your ultimate goal is the vainest thing that you can do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com