Event Report: Symposium Hosted by the 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project / MUFG Endowed Course Special Lecture, "The Regeneration of Soul and Body in a Mass-Death Society" (Held on December 19, 2022)

January 30, 2023

On December 19, 2022, the 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project Symposium (an MUFG Endowed Course Special Lecture) titled "The Regeneration of Soul and Body in a Mass-Death Society" was held. This symposium was a hybrid event, with a diverse audience of students, faculty members, office workers, healthcare professionals, Buddhist affiliates, journalists, and others participating both in person and online.

This symposium, part of a course offered by KGRI, aimed to contemplate the "2040 Problem" and "the erosion and re-creation of the trust we hold." The number of deaths in Japan, currently around 1.4 million annually, is projected to reach approximately 1.7 million in the 2040s, leading to a mass-death society. In such a society, how will our views on life and death, and our trust in those views, be shaken and then regenerated? This symposium explored this theme through a dialogue between Yoro Takeshi, Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo, and Shaku Tesshu, President of Soai University, as well as through their answers to questions from participants. The following is a report on the content of the symposium.

<Keynote Speech> Yasui Masato Former Director of KGRI, Professor at the School of Medicine, 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project, Healthy Life Expectancy Extension Project Leader

<Dialogue and Discussion> Yoro Takeshi Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo

Shaku Tesshu President, Soai University

Moderator: Sawai Atsushi Professor, Faculty of Law

<MC and Closing Remarks> Toriya Masako Project Professor at KGRI, 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project, Healthy Life Expectancy Extension Project Sub-leader

To begin, Professor Yasui delivered the opening remarks, speaking about KGRI's mission and the theme of the symposium.

KGRI's 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project was established with the mission of resolving the various issues that may arise with societal changes due to a declining workforce and a super-aging society—the so-called 2040 Problem—through interdisciplinary research. When we delve into the 2040 Problem, we ultimately arrive at the question of how each individual will live or, conversely, how they will die. Therefore, the 2040 Independence and Self-Respect Project considers how each individual will live as its most critical issue and conducts research to solve various problems based on the spirit of independence and self-respect advocated by Keio University's founder, Fukuzawa Yukichi. The theme of this symposium is by no means a light one, but by thinking about death, we hope to share a moment with each participant to re-examine how we will live in the future.

With Professor Sawai as moderator, Professor Yoro and Professor Shaku held a dialogue on four topics: (1) demographic changes surrounding death, (2) changes in the place of death, (3) methods of burial and funeral rites, and (4) the future mass-death society.

1. Demographic Changes Surrounding Death

Professor Sawai: A major difference between the first half of the 20th century and the latter half is that in the former period, those aged 19 and under (especially infants) accounted for 30–40% of all deaths, whereas today they account for less than 1%, with the elderly making up 80–90%. In other words, the situation has changed from a state where "one could die at any time" in the first half of the 20th century to one where "it is normal to die of old age" in the latter half. This is thought to have influenced people's views on death and the soul. I would first like to hear your thoughts on these demographic changes in death and their impact.

Professor Shaku: Death was likely much more immediate in the past. In terms of changes related to death, it's not just the age of the deceased that has changed significantly, but also the place of death. Until around the 1960s, most people died at home, but since then, deaths in hospitals have rapidly increased. I believe we must understand these circumstances as a backbone for our discussion on death in this symposium.

Professor Yoro: When I think about body donations to the School of Medicine, the age of donors has indeed been rising, and I have felt that many elderly people are passing away. The theme of this symposium is death, but this theme always has a flip side: life. Death is defined, at least socially, but life cannot be defined. I believe it's not good to focus too much on death, because if we think too much about death, we forget to think about living. This may contradict the theme of the symposium, but I hope for a society that pays a little more attention to the fact of being alive.

2. Changes in the Place of Death

Professor Sawai: As Professor Shaku mentioned, there has been a considerable change in where people die. Around 1950, about 90% of deaths occurred at home. However, from around the 1970s, the ratio of home deaths to hospital deaths reversed, and today, about 80% of people die in hospitals or other facilities. Furthermore, survey results show that some people wish to die at home but feel compelled to choose a hospital death because they don't want to be a burden to others. I would like to hear your thoughts on hospital deaths and their generalization.

Professor Shaku: Given the limits on medical resources and the improvement of in-home medical and nursing care, I think the number of home deaths will increase in the future. However, it is difficult to achieve home deaths without the option to refuse end-of-life care. Also, for the elderly, I think more people will die in elderly care facilities.

Professor Yoro: Speaking for myself, my thoughts on dying in a hospital depend on the situation. When I was hospitalized about three years ago, I did feel that it would be fine to die there, but that was a feeling I had in a very pressing, specific situation. When I'm relaxing at home, I think it would be nice to die just like this. I don't want to die in a hospital where there are many restrictions and I can't do things freely. I often hear people talk about being a burden to others, but the very existence of an individual is, in a sense, a burden, so I think it's fine to think of it as a matter of mutual support. Even if the people left behind have to take on troublesome tasks after someone dies, when those people die, someone else will take on their troublesome tasks. I think people can live happier lives in a society where we have that level of mutual trust.

Professor Shaku: I have been running a group home for people with dementia for many years, and I have the impression that while older people are good at letting others take care of them, there is a certain generation from which people have rapidly become poor at it. Younger generations are afraid of being a burden to others. I call people who are good at letting others take care of them "good at being cared for," and what they have in common is a lack of attachment. No matter how much you prepare, you will inevitably be a burden to others in some way before you die. Therefore, isn't it more important to cultivate a mind and body that can accept situations that don't go as planned—a mind and body that can be a burden gracefully?

Professor Sawai: One of the themes of this symposium is the soul. According to survey results, while the percentage of people in Japan who have a faith or believe in gods or buddhas is about 20–30%, the percentage of people who think a religious mind is important reaches 70–80%. Also, about 80% of people believe that gods and buddhas exist or might exist. On the other hand, looking at religious behavior, for example, about 70% visit graves. In this way, many people have, in addition to faith, a belief in something that transcends humanity, separate from faith. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Professor Yoro: In Japan, people distinguish between their true feelings (honne) and their public stance (tatemae), so it's difficult to take survey results at face value. I live in Kamakura, and many people visit shrines and temples. Watching their behavior, it's clear that they are influenced by things like gods, buddhas, and religion, regardless of what they say. It's probably not quite right to call it "religion," but I think the "religious" element is clearly very strong in Japan.

Professor Shaku: Looking at the year as a whole, there are quite a few opportunities for people in Japan to engage in religious practices, so in that sense, it's possible to say they live very religious lives. When we think about the soul, I wonder if it's a feeling that emerges naturally across all of humanity. What do you think, Professor Yoro?

Professor Yoro: In Japan's case, I think the kind of emotion expressed in the poem by Saigyo when he visited Ise Grand Shrine—"Nani-goto no owashimasu ka wa shiranedomo katajikenasa ni namida koboruru" (I know not what is enshrined here, but tears of gratitude overflow)—still exists in people today. Perhaps other cultures call this by another name, such as "soul."

Professor Shaku: Some Western scholars of religion consider the feeling of reverence for something without knowing what is enshrined to be a primitive religious sentiment of a low level. But I don't think that's the case at all. Moreover, Saigyo expressed this feeling in a formal poetic form. I think this poem has the power to resonate directly with our religious sensibilities.

Professor Yoro: In the West, abstraction is considered more advanced. For example, Japanese onomatopoeia would be considered primitive, but preserving such things allows for the preservation of raw human sensibilities within the culture. Abstraction means erasing them, and that's what concerns me most about the internet society.

Professor Shaku: The word "religion" itself has acquired a negative image, so there was a time, mainly in the West, when scholars of religion and philosophy of religion avoided using the word "God." There was also a time when they tried to avoid the word "religion" and used the word "spiritual," but that seems to have been quickly consumed and devalued.

Professor Yoro: I've worked in anatomy, so I've dealt with the physical body extensively, but in my work, I never touched upon the soul. Yoichi Ochiai of the University of Tsukuba uses the interesting expression "a world with mass and a world without mass." My work is precisely in the world with mass, while things like the soul are in the world without mass—in other words, the world of information. In the world of information, language is a prime example. I believe that how we handle the world of information, the world without mass, and how we handle the world with mass, and the correspondence between the two, will be fundamental to our thinking in the future.

Anatomy takes a long time, so we end up thinking about many things while dissecting. In anatomy, we hold a memorial service once a year. I think this is because those who performed the dissections want a place to express the thoughts they had while dissecting. In other words, the memorial service seems to be for the dissected, but it is actually for the dissectors. I built an insect mound at Kencho-ji Temple and hold a memorial service for insects every year. This is also because I've been killing insects for a long time and something remains in my feelings, and I have a desire to express it.

3. Methods of Burial and Funeral Rites

Professor Sawai: In Japan, over 99% of bodies are cremated, but this is not necessarily common worldwide; some countries have more burials. It is also common in Japan for relatives to collect the bones after cremation. I would like to hear your thoughts on this handling of bodies in Japan.

Professor Shaku: The reason cremation has become so widespread in Japan is that there was little resistance to it, and I think the Buddhist foundation was one factor. The Buddha himself was cremated. In ancient Japan, only nobles were cremated while commoners were not, but the cremation rate rose as facilities developed around the Taisho and Showa eras. In the early Meiji era, there was a period when a cremation ban was issued as part of the movement to abolish Buddhism, and it was decided that burial should be practiced instead of cremation, but this was quickly repealed. True cremation turns the body to ash, but in Japan's case, it's a unique form, a kind of mix of cremation and burial, in that the bones are left beautifully intact for interment.

Professor Yoro: I have visited many cemeteries in Europe, and while I can understand the sentiment, I felt a sense of unease seeing photos of the deceased embedded in the tombstones. Japanese graves belong to the other world; they are not of this world but of the world beyond, and they are more withered. That's why seeing photos embedded in tombstones like in Europe gives me a raw and strange impression. In Europe, the body and soul are distinguished, at least in the abstract, so the treatment of the body is more casual than in Japan, and there are many ossuaries decorated with bones. We don't do that in Japan. One reason is that there are no bones because of cremation, but I also think it's because the bereaved dislike lingering attachments and want to move on at some point.

Professor Shaku: It has been said that only the Japanese collect cremated remains and that there is a very deep-rooted belief in the bones in Japan, but I feel that this is gradually becoming weaker.

4. The Future Mass-Death Society

Professor Sawai: The current annual number of deaths is about 1.4 million, but according to estimates by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research* it is projected to reach about 1.7 million in the 2040s and then remain at around 1.6 million until the 2060s. The fact that the vast majority of the deceased will be elderly will likely not change from the present, but this trend will probably become even stronger in the future. How should we understand this mass-death society, and what preparations should we make?

*National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2020). *Population Research Study Material No. 336, Population Projections for Japan*.

Professor Yoro: When considering the 2040 Problem and the future of society, it's better to also take the 2038 Problem into account. 2038 is the year the Nankai Trough earthquake is predicted to occur. A major disaster will strike a densely populated area of Japan, so on top of the general trend of a mass-death society, a more drastic change will occur. When you become a party to a major disaster, people close to you die, and this changes the sensibilities of the survivors. And that change in sensibility has a very large impact on the subsequent society. For example, if you consider why the atmosphere of the Taisho Democracy, which was like the beginning of a consumer society, completely changed and disappeared, I think the Great Kanto Earthquake had a large impact. People's sensibilities must have changed after seeing the reality of about 40,000 people dying in one night at the site of the former army clothing depot. The question is, what kind of future society should we envision in the face of the Nankai Trough earthquake predicted for 2038? Will we maintain a society that concentrates logistics from all over the country into Tokyo, or will we create a society where things are managed locally as much as possible? I think the future society is likely to be something extreme that seems impossible from the perspective of modern society. However, there is absolutely no need to base our thinking about the future society on the standards of our current society.

Professor Shaku: From my position as the head priest of a temple, I can say that death rituals have been shrinking in recent years, and the gradations between life and death, once so richly colored, are losing their richness. On the other hand, as the number of deaths increases toward 2040, cremations won't be able to keep up, and a situation will arise, especially in urban areas, where people will have to wait a week or ten days after death. In other words, a state of incongruity will occur between an extended death and shortened death rituals. However, I believe that even in this situation, something like a new language will emerge. I cannot clearly present what this new language will be here and now, but I think it will surely be the narrative and words that modern people need when they face life and death. Death has one aspect as a very cold biological phenomenon, but it is also a very warm and emotional cultural phenomenon. Regarding death as a cultural phenomenon, the old stories are no longer functioning, but as a researcher, I am very interested in what will emerge when changes occur in the space between life and death heading toward 2040.

Professor Yoro and Professor Shaku answered four questions, selected from those submitted by symposium participants in advance and during the dialogue.

Question 1: Professor Yoro, Professor Shaku, how do you view suicide? My mother died by suicide, so I would very much like to hear your thoughts.

Professor Yoro: Suicide has a particularly large impact on the family, and one should not choose it. Also, there are many counseling services available these days, and suicide can be avoided with a little interaction. However, when I tell young people like high school students that they shouldn't commit suicide when they ask about it, they get angry. I think this is because they perceive it as a kind of human rights violation. In other words, they believe that decisions about their own life are theirs to make. But I want young people to consider that their life is not originally their own. It's not that they don't have a self, but there is no guarantee that their future self will think the same way as their current self, so it doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with their life and existence as their current self sees fit.

Professor Shaku: I think the person who commits suicide chooses death because living is more painful, but the fact that they are in such a situation is sad in itself, and considering the suffering of the bereaved family, suicide is a sad thing. If someone desperately wants to die, they are probably suffering from tunnel vision, so I would ask them to postpone the problem. If they do, they might realize that there are other worlds out there, or that their situation might change with just a slight shift in their own position, and their feelings might change.

Question 2: I am a doctor involved in home visit medical care. In the field of end-of-life care, ACP (advanced care planning), where arrangements for what to do in case of a sudden change in condition are made in advance with the person and their family, is recommended. ACP has also become a topic of discussion for the general public under the term "Jinsei Kaigi" (Life Conference). I do not like this ACP.

It is true that by conducting ACP, medical professionals can carry out the process of seeing someone through to the end smoothly according to the arrangements. However, the method of making patients strongly aware of their own death and having them think concretely about how it should be seems cruel to me. My ideal way to die is not one where the patient is aware of their death and prepares for it, but one where they somehow sense their time is near but are looking forward to tomorrow's meal or an event, and then die in their sleep without realizing it.

Professor Yoro, Professor Shaku, what is your ideal way to die? And how aware should we be of our own death? It seems to me that not having to be so aware of death, while knowing that we will one day die, is a privilege of modern people.

Professor Shaku: Thinking about death is, in a sense, a demand from modern society. Regarding end-of-life care, if you don't make some self-determinations and express them, you might be placed in an undesirable situation. Also, from the healthcare provider's side, there are troublesome issues, so they would prefer decisions to be made in advance. Furthermore, as a system of modern society, we live by making various contracts, so it's no longer possible to leave things after death to those around us as we used to, and since the customs of local communities have disappeared, it's difficult to leave things to the bereaved. However, as Professor Yoro also said, thinking about death is also about asking how to live now. By thinking about death, what is important and what is unnecessary to you comes to the surface or is rearranged. In other words, only humans can utilize death.

Professor Yoro: I agree with what the questioner says, or rather, I think that's how it is. Modern society is one where we think with our heads, run simulations, and try to make things go well. I question applying that way of thinking even to death, and as a result, not feeling alive. Being alive is a complicated thing, so it's fine if things don't go as planned, and it's not interesting if there isn't a range of uncertainty about when and where you will die.

Professor Shaku: I think so too. No matter how precisely you think about it, you cannot perfectly design your own death, and situations will arise that don't go as planned. Rather, isn't it more important to have a mind and body that can accept situations that don't go as planned?

Question 3: When I talk about how to live or about death, it is sometimes dismissed as a religious argument. What are your thoughts on this point, professors? Is it impossible to reach an understanding with people who think that way?

Professor Shaku: I don't really understand why it's dismissed as a religious argument. Religion is not a domain that can be dismissed so easily. I want to tell them to study more about religion.

Professor Yoro: I think there might be some kind of prejudice against religion. For such people, it might be good to start with concrete topics. For example, the question of what happens when you die would probably reach them. There are always people who won't listen, and I don't try to persuade them. You just have to wait. As they say, "Heaven's timing, earth's advantage, and human harmony." I suppose that if you talk about religion at the right time and in the right place, it will get through to the other person. Being able to dismiss it by calling it "religion" means they are living a carefree life and are not entirely serious somewhere. If they are serious, then they are probably hung up on overly trivial things.

Professor Shaku: The idea that you just have to wait for people you can't persuade seems like a concept that could be applied to all aspects of life. I suppose it means that there is an appropriate time for each individual when it comes to issues of life and death.

Question 4: When teaching young people and students about death in an educational setting, what do you both find difficult? Also, what do you take care to do when communicating about death to young people and students?

Professor Shaku: I often use a death simulation workshop that Miwa Fujii of Kwansei Gakuin University introduced to Japan. In this workshop, students are asked to write down three things for each of four categories of important things ("important things you can see," "important people," "important activities," and "important things you can't see"). They then assume they are dying of a terminal illness and choose things to let go of from what they wrote, tearing up the papers one by one. Through this workshop, what they consider important in their lives comes to the surface. Also, since the current young generation seems to cultivate their religious sensibilities through subculture, I also use things like anime and games to deepen their understanding of religion.

Professor Yoro: I don't really talk about such things with young people. It's very difficult to talk to young people. In my case, even when I was teaching at university, I only gave one lecture and the rest was all practical training. I've always operated on a question-and-answer basis, and I still do. I sometimes go out with young people, and we collect insects together. In short, I think I place more importance on the concrete act of living.

Finally, Project Professor Masako Toriya delivered the closing remarks, reflecting on the content of the dialogue and discussion to conclude the symposium.

Summary

Throughout this symposium, it was consistently stated that life and death are two sides of the same coin. Death is unavoidable and something we cannot turn our eyes from, but on the other hand, as Professor Yoro mentioned, it is also important not to be too preoccupied with death and to face the question of how to live. Furthermore, when thinking about how to live, Professor Shaku's words about building good relationships with others, cultivating a mind and body that can do so, and living without being overly attached will serve as our guide. We hope that each participant in this symposium has taken something from the professors' dialogue and discussion and that it has provided an opportunity to think about their own way of life.

Held in a hybrid format on December 19, 2022

*Affiliations and titles are as of the time of the event.