Sebastian Junger On Near-Death Experiences

Sebastian is an author, journalist, and war correspondent. He’s been a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a special correspondent at ABC News, and his debut documentary, Restrepo, was nominated for an Oscar. He’s the author of many bestsellers, including The Perfect Storm, War, Tribe, and Freedom. His latest: In My Time of Dying: How I Came Face to Face with the Idea of an Afterlife. It’s a fascinating account of his own brush with death — and how it changed his understanding of the universe and its mysteries.

A brilliant writer and indefatigable reporter, he’s also a Cape Cod neighbor. For two clips of our convo — the universal features of near-death experiences, and the mysteries of quantum physics — see our YouTube page.

Other topics: growing up near Boston; his New Age mom and physicist dad; becoming a war correspondent and witnessing death; losing his photojournalist friend Tim Hetherington; Sebastian’s atheism and rationalism; his vivid account of nearly dying from an aneurysm in the woods of Cape Cod; the novel way a doctor saved him at the last second; visions of his dead father beckoning him to the other side; his vivid dreams over the following months; the “derealization” of believing you’re dead; how NDEs defy natural selection; the telepathy of some NDEs; how centrifuges can reproduce NDEs; the disciples’ visions of Jesus after death; the book Proof of Heaven; the Big Bang; consciousness; panpsychism; stories vs. explanations — and why humans need both; Dostoevsky and his mock execution; how NDEs are similar to psychedelics; Michael Pollan; Pascal; Larkin’s “Aubade”; and the last trimester of life.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Jon Rauch on the tribalism of white evangelicals, Ross Douthat on the supernatural, Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Yoni Appelbaum on how America stopped building things, Chris Caldwell on political upheaval in Europe, Nick Denton on the evolution of new media, and the great and powerful Mike White, of White Lotus fame. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

A listener praises the “wonderful talk with John Gray” we had last week:

Two very clever men. Much of the discussion went over my head, but it was so interesting and soothing — like listening to Bach’s preludes and fugues. That said, I still can’t believe you voted for Harris.

Another writes, “I bought a Dish subscription just to listen to John Gray.” Here’s a clip from the convo:

A dissent over an omission:

Unless I missed something, you and John Gray spent an hour-and-a-half discussing civilization without once mentioning climate change. The scientific consensus on the danger has been clear since at least 1989, when the IPCC issued its first report, but liberalism and all the other isms have utterly failed to address it. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 hit 425 parts per million last year (compared to 350 ppm in 1989, 315 ppm in 1959, and pre-industrial 280 ppm) with no serious abatement, much less reversal.

Somewhat related, several things seemed to be missing from your discussion of declining birth rates in much of the world. Yes, it’s disruptive, but it may be a necessity for civilization to endure. If “commodious living” (to quote Hobbes) means standards of living comparable to developed countries today, it would require the carrying capacity of several more Earths to sustain the current 8.2 billion population — much less the projected 9.7 billion in 2050.

As to the God stuff, it’s interesting historically but less and less relevant to today’s challenges. Personally, I’ve gone from Episcopalian to Quaker to atheist to now a form of Gaia-ism — that is, faith in Mother Earth. The Quakers like to say that God speaks with a quiet voice, but I think that Mother Earth is speaking louder every day, and we need to listen.

I’m a strong believer in renewable energy — but John and I did indirectly address climate change. If the human population starts to decline rapidly, especially in wealthy carbon-emitting countries — and it looks like it will — it will slow climate change a little. Here’s another listener on birth rates:

Like you, I feel more intelligent having listened to John Gray. Fascinating pod!

I have two comments on the discussion of the worldwide decline in fertility:

1. It wasn’t entirely clear, but it appeared you both think that Africa is an exception. It is not. Fertility rates are generally still quite high in Africa, which is misleading; they are declining from an even higher level.

2. Being an American, I observe best what has been happening in the United States. No question in my mind that radical individualism in the US is a factor for declining fertility, and I find it highly plausible that it’s also a factor elsewhere in the West. But as you correctly note, the decline in fertility is worldwide. With respect, I think the West occupies too much of your field of vision. Is radical individualism a compelling explanation for the decline of fertility in Nigeria? In Papua New Guinea? In Iran? In Nepal? In Paraguay? The same explanation for such different countries? That hardly seems plausible.

More pushback from a listener:

I’m not quite sure where you got the notion that McKinley and Trump are similar on the issue of war and America’s role. McKinley was the president who presided over the Spanish-American War, the annexation of the Philippines, the annexation of Hawaii, and the planning for the Panama Canal. All of this was designed to create a two-ocean navy that could project global power, so it wasn’t limited to our hemisphere.

McKinley was quite interventionist in ways that America never had been before, and Teddy Roosevelt continued this. By the time McKinley was assassinated, he had changed America from a local hemispheric power limited by the Monroe Doctrine to a global power that was willing to intervene in areas from the Russo-Japanese War to the First World War.

Another listener invokes a few prior guests:

I enjoyed your most recent discussion with John Gray, and I encourage you to follow through on his recommendation of reading C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man. It has been my favorite of his writings, and it’s remarkably prescient, given the subsequent advances in biology and the resulting “transhumanist” movement popular among the tech titans.

In essence, Lewis’ book is a defence of the concept of value, an argument for its centrality, and an argument against the possibility of deriving it from the void. Most serious thinkers run into the problem of value, and many then feel they must make a choice. There is, of course, the pure scientific skeptic who dismisses the concept completely, as in the famous quote, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” (from the final pages of Steven Weinberg’s The First Three Minutes).

Close to this are rationalists such as Richard Feynman or Richard Dawkins who want to celebrate the beauty they see in Nature but are content — out of scientific humility — not to inquire into their sense of value. In your episode with Dawkins, he put this sense down to him being a “cultural Anglican,” but he did not want to ascribe to this anything deeper than culture, or perhaps convention.

Next, perhaps rarest, you have a rationalist such as Sam Harris, who is willing to face the problem head on (The Moral Landscape) by conceding reality to value, but arguing that this concept can be derived and limned by reason. Somewhat adjacent to Harris, but definitely in disagreement, are those more sympathetic to religion as perhaps embodying “metaphorical truth.” These would include atheists such as Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, and perhaps others, such as Jordan Peterson, who resist being pinned down.

Finally, there is the religious view — historically the most prevalent — to which most are born, but to which some are driven by thought or feeling. C.S. Lewis himself describes this path as being “surprised by joy,” while a more recent chronicle of the journey is given by Paul Kingsnorth in the Free Press.

There are of course many different routes, but your essay on Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggests you believe rationality alone may be an imperfect guide. Having been a scientist through my professional life, I find myself perhaps closest to Bret & Heather’s view of the subject. I do, however, think that the question of value is central to most of our concerns, and I appreciate your willingness to engage seriously and sympathetically on the matter with modern thinkers of such varying perspective, but uniform eloquence.

We’ll keep it up. Two quick recs for guests:

The John Gray conversation was among your very best. Please consider inviting on Lisa Selin Davis and Benjamin Ryan, who both cover trans issues. Here’s Lisa in conversation with Ruy Teixeira:

On my column last week, here’s a dissent from “a 50-something trans woman who also lived through the ‘80s”:

I’ve read you for many years, and I’ve generally found you thoughtful (I admit, though, that I found you completely naive during most of the Bush years). But I really think you’ve jumped the shark on trans issues. I trust you know full well that trans women are not “waving their dicks and balls around in intimate spaces,” and shame on you for perpetuating that kind of ridiculousness. You are better than that.

And what of trans men? Mainstream media and MAGA excludes them because they do not fit the fear mongering that all trans women are Buffalo Bill just lurking in his van waiting for another young woman to abduct and murder. But what’s your excuse? Forcing biological women to use restrooms with trans men who look like the bears I used to hang out with at The Studd in San Francisco does nothing to make those “intimate spaces” safe for women. (Not that trans men are dangerous, but the point is that if biological women don’t want “men” in their bathrooms or locker rooms, this sure as hell isn’t achieving that.) That’s the exact effect of Trump’s order and the bathroom bans adopted all around the country.

And while I share much of your concern about extreme left overreach, the truth remains that trans people — particularly trans women — are some of the most maligned, abused, assaulted, and murdered members of our society. If you honestly don’t think there is a war on them in this country, then you have completely lost the plot.

Trump’s executive order is step one of a bureaucratic genocide. The entire point is to make life so difficult for trans people that they will have three choices: 1) detransition and disappear back into the closet; 2) kill themselves (likely the most preferred by people like Stephen Miller); or 3) for those who refuse doors 1 & 2, they will eventually fall victim to charges of “fraud” through misrepresenting their sex in government documents, in which case they will be held in jail, where they will be forcibly detransitioned (and in places like Florida, also subject to what can only be described as conversion therapy).

Do you really, honestly believe that this is a return to “sanity”? Should trans women be forced into male prisons, filled with actual convicted rapists and murderers, forced to shower with them in close proximity in open shower bays? That is exactly what Trump’s order requires. And of course, that’s the point of the order. Cruelty and abuse is the point. Don’t want to go to jail and be raped and forcibly detransitioned? Then you better detransition on your own before we catch you.

If that’s not a war on trans women, it’s hard to imagine what would qualify as one in your book. As a former prosecutor, I’ve been inside of a lot of jails and prisons; they are horrifically unsafe places even for people who have the skills (and testosterone) to defend themselves.

During your odd turf war of a gripe about the LGBTQ+ world no longer being the exclusive province of gays and lesbians, you state that gay men “have almost nothing in common” with trans people. While I understand what you mean by that (sexual orientation and gender identity are totally different things; I agree), the one thing you quite clearly have in common is being on the receiving end of a concerted and prolonged societal attack. Given that you’ve lived through this movie before, I would expect a deeper critique of the sequel that’s now playing out against trans people. Hint: it’s a war movie.

Rail all you want against intersectionality and all the nonsense postmodern genderqueer stuff — it irritates the shit out of me too — but don’t forget about what unites us all in the process.

Where to start? Let’s start with Bostock, the landmark decision in 2020 to include transgender people under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Trans activists never, ever mention that. The trans activist whom the WaPo has hired to cover these issues, Casey Parks, wrote a piece this week with the subhead, “The Trump administration’s early moves are the culmination of a nearly decade-old campaign to roll back transgender rights.” You know who wrote the Bostock decision? Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

Parks almost never mentions Bostock — it is merely a buried aside deep down in her survey of GOP anti-LGBTQIA2S+ moves of the last ten years. She also actually wrote a piece last November as a guide to “gender care” for minors — and barely refers to the Cass Review or any of the surveys that have found no good evidence behind these experiments. She repeats the lie that puberty blockers are fully reversible and only used as a pause. Ninety-eight percent of kids whose puberty is blocked go on to cross-sex hormones. She dismisses the impact on bone density as entirely reversible and minor. Here’s how she refers to the Cass Review, endorsed by the current Labour government: “a British report that right-wing leaders have cited in statehouses and amicus briefs.” She is a joke as a reporter.

Is Bostock a “war on trans women?” Please. It’s the biggest breakthrough on trans rights in history.

Then let’s remember that Lia Thomas, according to teammates, did indeed brandish his lady dick in full view of others. And, apparently, he’s very well hung. I used to take the assurances of so many that abuse of this kind never happens. Then I keep hearing of instances where it has. It’s not “beneath me” to note facts.

As for trans men, I don’t see anyone trying to prevent them from competing in sports against other men (as long as they are physically safe from injury). But, no, I don’t want to see a vagina in the locker room, thank you. And I don’t want to be told I’m a bigot because I have less-than-zero interest in having sex with a biological woman who has cut off her breasts and injected herself with testosterone. The reason for that is that I am gay. And trans activists refuse to honor or acknowledge that. They are busy trying to destroy “gay” and “lesbians” as a category in our own right. Even gay hookup apps like Grindr now cater to straight men who want trannies. We have to tolerate straight homophobes in our spaces — because gay has been trend into LGBTQIA+++.

Another dissent:

You wrote, “But there should be no biological men competing with women in sports; no violation of women’s privacy by having biological men waving their dicks and balls around in intimate spaces; and an end to the grotesque practice of allowing biological men with sex offenses into women’s jails.” I agree with that. But earlier in the same column you wrote about “the Oscars giving an unpopular film 13 nominations just so they can give a Best Actress award to a biological man.” You are referring to Karla Sofia Gascon, a biological male who identifies as a female and who was nominated for Best Actress for the movie Emelia Perez.

I have trouble seeing what you believe is the appropriate way to treat Ms. Gascon. An acting competition is not a sporting event, where biological differences count. It’s not a private space like a locker room or a prison where sex should trump gender. You call for trans people to be treated with dignity, but your comment about her does not appear to do that. Do you think Ms. Gascon should not be considered in the actress category? She was nominated based on votes by fellow actors, not some DEI rule.

My point was simply that she was nominated because she is trans and Hollywood types always want to preen as woke. From a long-time reader who’s had enough:

Trump’s first week is not “exhilarating”; it’s fucking terrifying.

I’m done with reading your oh-so-contrarian hot takes. As a father of a trans daughter (who is an adult, by the way, not that you care), I find that your crass “commentary” betrays not only a lack of knowledge but also a preference to substitute outrage mongering over learning. I guess grift pays better, but I would be horrified if my daughter opened my email and saw that I was consuming what you’re scribbling.

I used to pay for the Daily Dish. I even won a VFYW book. I guess that’s why I ended up on this mailing list. I respected massively how you were persuadable by your readers back then. With the Weekly Dish, though, not a week has gone by where I’ve seen anything like that. Quite the opposite. But even getting the weekly emails now is just a painful reminder of what you once were and how far you’ve fallen.

I’m sure you’ll be fine. There’s lots of money in attacking loony lefties — sorry, I mean political correctness — sorry, I mean woke — sorry, I mean DEI. Enjoy your well-paid position inside your epistemic closure. Meanwhile, those of us outside will be looking after vulnerable people in real danger from real hate.

Every week, over the years, we have run countless emails taking me to task on everything, including trans stuff. Just look at this page right now. And why on earth are you “fucking terrified” with respect to a trans adult? Tell me. You don’t provide specifics because there aren’t any. And no, I don’t count removing “X” from passports discriminatory. The relevant category printed on the page is “sex”. It is not “gender”. You can add gender if you want. But “X” as a sex is simply meaningless. It should never have been agreed to — because it is yet another sneaky way for the transqueers to conflate sex with gender and make gender the only relevant marker.

Yet another dissent:

I’ve always enjoyed your no-sacred-cows approach to culture and politics. You cut to the chase, often challenging my assumptions, which is exactly what I need. But I think you lost it with your latest column, “Undoing Joe Biden’s Left Extremism.” I was taken aback by your giddiness (“exhilaration” was your term) at some of Trump’s new directives. I won’t get into all your points, but let me address your stance on DEI — a subject I’ve covered extensively as a business of law journalist for over 20 years.