Humans have been pairing up and complaining about each other for 300 millennia. Women have been provided with manuals on how to maintain a relationship and a household since the 14th century, including me in a misguided wedding gift 16 years ago (I think it was a joke on the part of an old family friend). And still we muddle on.
The kind of "micropanic" you describe here makes me feel like I've been alive for 300 millennia. My instant response is, "Nobody's keeping you prisoner, if you don't like the person you're in a relationship with, leave."
There are transactions in human relationships, we're all negotiating to attain the comfort/happiness/satisfaction we feel we deserve, but ultimately if you're not equally interested in your chosen partner's comfort/happiness/satisfaction, you're probably not in the best relationship either of you could be in.
As with you, Laura, there are all sorts of compromises/divisions of labour/gifts of compassion to the other person in my marriage that help us navigate the petty frustrations that arise when co-habiting. It's because we love each other, and being together is more important than how the pan lids are stacked or who puts the bins out.
The essay begins from the premise that the nature of reality—understood through the laws of thermodynamics—condemns all sentient beings to suffering, decay, and eventual death. Existence, far from being good or neutral, is framed as a moral catastrophe. To exist is to be complicit in an order that is inherently destructive and thus “morally evil.”
Against this backdrop, the essay proposes a radical redefinition of goodness: not as harmony with nature or acceptance of reality, but as resistance to it. Goodness is framed as any act that temporarily delays or counters the entropic drive of the universe, even if futile. Examples include:
• Medicine, which prolongs life and eases suffering, even though it ultimately cannot prevent death.
• Compassionate care, sustainable consumption, and minimizing harm (e.g., through vegetarianism or humane treatment of animals).
The key point is that goodness is not measured by success (since entropy always wins) but by the effort to resist and refuse complicity. Ethical action becomes a matter of opposing the “malign grip” of the cosmos, not working in alignment with it.
Ultimately, the essay concludes that although resistance is doomed to fail, it is still ethically required. Our only moral duty is to “strike back” at the universe by forging goodness and meaning in opposition to its entropic evil.
⸻
Underlying Philosophy
1. Metaphysical Pessimism
The essay belongs to a lineage of pessimistic philosophy (Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Cioran, Zapffe). Like these thinkers, it sees existence as fundamentally bound to suffering and loss. But it radicalizes this pessimism by framing existence not as unfortunate but as morally evil.
2. Thermodynamic Existentialism
The entropic framework grounds the argument in science: all life and consciousness are caught in the irreversible flow of disorder and death. This recalls Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus—life as an absurd struggle against a hostile cosmos. However, while Camus advocates acceptance and rebellion through affirmation, this essay urges rebellion through negation and resistance.
3. Negative Ethics
The proposed ethic is apophatic—defining goodness not by what it is in itself, but by its opposition to evil (entropy, decay, suffering). This recalls Kant’s notion of the “ought” arising against natural inclination, but here applied cosmically: morality is resistance against the very structure of reality.
4. Reversal of Romantic Naturalism
Where many traditions (Romantic, Daoist, Indigenous, ecological) see goodness in living in harmony with nature, the essay argues the opposite: harmony with nature means complicity in evil. True morality lies in resisting nature’s order, not embracing it.
5. Tragic but Defiant Humanism
Despite its bleak metaphysics, the essay finds dignity in the act of resistance itself. Medicine, compassion, and ethical living are “good” not because they triumph, but because they are attempts to delay the inevitable. This places the essay in conversation with tragic humanist traditions: the worth of life is found not in outcome, but in the struggle itself.
⸻
Discussion
The essay offers a provocative inversion of ecological and spiritual narratives. Where many ethical systems valorize harmony with reality, this vision insists that reality itself is malign. The result is an ethic of defiance—similar in tone to Camus’ rebel, Nietzsche’s tragic hero, or Prometheus bound.
It also touches on contemporary debates:
• Environmental ethics: Rather than “align with nature,” it suggests minimizing suffering against nature’s destructive tendencies.
• Medical ethics: It reframes medicine as good not because it affirms life, but because it resists death.
• Existential meaning: Even in a doomed universe, meaning arises through struggle, not outcome.
Ultimately, the essay articulates a philosophy of cosmic resistance: if existence is evil, then the highest moral calling is to resist—even if resistance is futile.
I like how the story of the trousers was turned on its head at the end!
Coming from a very patriarchal culture, I have very mixed feelings about gender roles and mutual stereotyping that contributes to their maintenance (for example, my mum, who has always done all the chores around the house for her husband, would probably never accept that she was exploited, and would simultaneously admire men who can look after themselves and raise her grandson to be fully reliant on women doing stuff for him). It is refreshing to read your thoughtful piece on this subject, thank you.
Thanks Laura for your balanced perspective on this fraught topic. The more I hear about J the more I like him. I think he is a man after my own heart. Balancing love and principles is no easy task !
What about relationships where the woman refuses to allow the man, to do the laundry for example, because he doesn’t do it exactly the way she does it. And doesn’t allow him to use the cooker because he doesn’t clean it afterwards to her satisfaction? That is, the man wants to do his share but his partner refuses to let him, for various reasons.
I think this can certainly be an issue, but I've been severely criticized for making it. A more convincing, non-defenseive response would be something like "that's usually not really the case".
When my sister jumped all over me years ago for responding to my infant nephew's bedtime crying as if I had completely ruined his life, I got a taste of what the crushing put-down can feel like. To be fair, I also stay out of the kitchen in that house because of the time the brother-in-law chastized me for dropping a couple strands of dry spaghetti on the floor.
I’m hardly here to mediate people’s individual relationships Gerard, or to account for every weird dynamic within a couple. I suppose I’d suggest the standard emotionally mature approach of compromise, which would entail each person respecting the other, recognising their needs in a way that doesn’t obliterate anyone’s agency, and fulfilling obligations in a way that respects individual difference.
I’d probably also interrogate the phrase ‘to her satisfaction’ in good faith, to understand whether her standard is unreasonably inflexible and unrelenting (which it could be) or whether his effort is unreasonably half-arsed or inadequate by a fair measure (which it could be)!
Thank you Dave. I’m not a guy, but I AM likely to forget that there’s a load of laundry in the washing machine, such that it gets smelly and needs to be washed again.
Humans have been pairing up and complaining about each other for 300 millennia. Women have been provided with manuals on how to maintain a relationship and a household since the 14th century, including me in a misguided wedding gift 16 years ago (I think it was a joke on the part of an old family friend). And still we muddle on.
The kind of "micropanic" you describe here makes me feel like I've been alive for 300 millennia. My instant response is, "Nobody's keeping you prisoner, if you don't like the person you're in a relationship with, leave."
There are transactions in human relationships, we're all negotiating to attain the comfort/happiness/satisfaction we feel we deserve, but ultimately if you're not equally interested in your chosen partner's comfort/happiness/satisfaction, you're probably not in the best relationship either of you could be in.
As with you, Laura, there are all sorts of compromises/divisions of labour/gifts of compassion to the other person in my marriage that help us navigate the petty frustrations that arise when co-habiting. It's because we love each other, and being together is more important than how the pan lids are stacked or who puts the bins out.
You are going to be reading Camus and so when I read this article I thought of you: https://aeon.co/essays/philosophers-must-reckon-with-the-meaning-of-thermodynamics. I didn’t really know what to think about it so I asked AI to summarize it: Here’s a structured summary and discussion of the essay you shared:
⸻
Summary of the Essay
The essay begins from the premise that the nature of reality—understood through the laws of thermodynamics—condemns all sentient beings to suffering, decay, and eventual death. Existence, far from being good or neutral, is framed as a moral catastrophe. To exist is to be complicit in an order that is inherently destructive and thus “morally evil.”
Against this backdrop, the essay proposes a radical redefinition of goodness: not as harmony with nature or acceptance of reality, but as resistance to it. Goodness is framed as any act that temporarily delays or counters the entropic drive of the universe, even if futile. Examples include:
• Medicine, which prolongs life and eases suffering, even though it ultimately cannot prevent death.
• Compassionate care, sustainable consumption, and minimizing harm (e.g., through vegetarianism or humane treatment of animals).
The key point is that goodness is not measured by success (since entropy always wins) but by the effort to resist and refuse complicity. Ethical action becomes a matter of opposing the “malign grip” of the cosmos, not working in alignment with it.
Ultimately, the essay concludes that although resistance is doomed to fail, it is still ethically required. Our only moral duty is to “strike back” at the universe by forging goodness and meaning in opposition to its entropic evil.
⸻
Underlying Philosophy
1. Metaphysical Pessimism
The essay belongs to a lineage of pessimistic philosophy (Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Cioran, Zapffe). Like these thinkers, it sees existence as fundamentally bound to suffering and loss. But it radicalizes this pessimism by framing existence not as unfortunate but as morally evil.
2. Thermodynamic Existentialism
The entropic framework grounds the argument in science: all life and consciousness are caught in the irreversible flow of disorder and death. This recalls Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus—life as an absurd struggle against a hostile cosmos. However, while Camus advocates acceptance and rebellion through affirmation, this essay urges rebellion through negation and resistance.
3. Negative Ethics
The proposed ethic is apophatic—defining goodness not by what it is in itself, but by its opposition to evil (entropy, decay, suffering). This recalls Kant’s notion of the “ought” arising against natural inclination, but here applied cosmically: morality is resistance against the very structure of reality.
4. Reversal of Romantic Naturalism
Where many traditions (Romantic, Daoist, Indigenous, ecological) see goodness in living in harmony with nature, the essay argues the opposite: harmony with nature means complicity in evil. True morality lies in resisting nature’s order, not embracing it.
5. Tragic but Defiant Humanism
Despite its bleak metaphysics, the essay finds dignity in the act of resistance itself. Medicine, compassion, and ethical living are “good” not because they triumph, but because they are attempts to delay the inevitable. This places the essay in conversation with tragic humanist traditions: the worth of life is found not in outcome, but in the struggle itself.
⸻
Discussion
The essay offers a provocative inversion of ecological and spiritual narratives. Where many ethical systems valorize harmony with reality, this vision insists that reality itself is malign. The result is an ethic of defiance—similar in tone to Camus’ rebel, Nietzsche’s tragic hero, or Prometheus bound.
It also touches on contemporary debates:
• Environmental ethics: Rather than “align with nature,” it suggests minimizing suffering against nature’s destructive tendencies.
• Medical ethics: It reframes medicine as good not because it affirms life, but because it resists death.
• Existential meaning: Even in a doomed universe, meaning arises through struggle, not outcome.
Ultimately, the essay articulates a philosophy of cosmic resistance: if existence is evil, then the highest moral calling is to resist—even if resistance is futile.
I like how the story of the trousers was turned on its head at the end!
Coming from a very patriarchal culture, I have very mixed feelings about gender roles and mutual stereotyping that contributes to their maintenance (for example, my mum, who has always done all the chores around the house for her husband, would probably never accept that she was exploited, and would simultaneously admire men who can look after themselves and raise her grandson to be fully reliant on women doing stuff for him). It is refreshing to read your thoughtful piece on this subject, thank you.
Thanks Laura for your balanced perspective on this fraught topic. The more I hear about J the more I like him. I think he is a man after my own heart. Balancing love and principles is no easy task !
What about relationships where the woman refuses to allow the man, to do the laundry for example, because he doesn’t do it exactly the way she does it. And doesn’t allow him to use the cooker because he doesn’t clean it afterwards to her satisfaction? That is, the man wants to do his share but his partner refuses to let him, for various reasons.
I think this can certainly be an issue, but I've been severely criticized for making it. A more convincing, non-defenseive response would be something like "that's usually not really the case".
When my sister jumped all over me years ago for responding to my infant nephew's bedtime crying as if I had completely ruined his life, I got a taste of what the crushing put-down can feel like. To be fair, I also stay out of the kitchen in that house because of the time the brother-in-law chastized me for dropping a couple strands of dry spaghetti on the floor.
I’m hardly here to mediate people’s individual relationships Gerard, or to account for every weird dynamic within a couple. I suppose I’d suggest the standard emotionally mature approach of compromise, which would entail each person respecting the other, recognising their needs in a way that doesn’t obliterate anyone’s agency, and fulfilling obligations in a way that respects individual difference.
I’d probably also interrogate the phrase ‘to her satisfaction’ in good faith, to understand whether her standard is unreasonably inflexible and unrelenting (which it could be) or whether his effort is unreasonably half-arsed or inadequate by a fair measure (which it could be)!
Yes, "emotional labor" is having a relationship with someone.
Love can be intermittently profoundly annoying. 😄
Great article, and I’m a guy.
Thank you Dave. I’m not a guy, but I AM likely to forget that there’s a load of laundry in the washing machine, such that it gets smelly and needs to be washed again.