The decline of the family has unleashed an epidemic of loneliness(city-journal.org)
city-journal.org
The decline of the family has unleashed an epidemic of loneliness
https://www.city-journal.org/decline-of-family-loneliness-epidemic
1,282 comments
I had a bout of this about 20 years ago, so I made a rule for myself: I wasn't allowed to decline an invitation. If somebody proposed doing something together and I was able, I had to do it. That made a huge difference in my life. I did a lot of things that were... unexpected. (A few examples: I joined an ultimate frisbee league. I went skydiving. I joined a church group. I went to a strip club. I attended a wedding.) It wasn't all fun or even pleasant, but I wasn't lonely anymore.
The internet was just getting started then, so that experiment might work out differently now, but it's worth considering how much of our modern isolation is just a matter of choices.
The internet was just getting started then, so that experiment might work out differently now, but it's worth considering how much of our modern isolation is just a matter of choices.
I have a similar rule with my wife, that she doesn't know about.
If she wants to do something with me, then I say yes, as long as I don't have a prior commitment, or, you know, am not sick or physically unable. I started this rule with her from the moment we met. I think it is part of why we stayed together all these years, and why we worked out well when so many of my previous relationships didn't.
I love a lot of solitary activities, like reading, writing, single-player games, drawing and painting, learning new things, working on projects that she isn't interested in, etc. Without my self-imposed rule, I would likely decline to do a lot of other activities, especially outside my own interests.
But if she wants to do something or go somewhere or just sit and talk, then I say yes.
My kids are young enough that I don't quite have the same rule with them, and partly because they just want me to do stuff with them and be with them literally all the time, so we are still in boundary-setting phase, but I assume that I will eventually adopt the "as you wish" rule with them as well.
If she wants to do something with me, then I say yes, as long as I don't have a prior commitment, or, you know, am not sick or physically unable. I started this rule with her from the moment we met. I think it is part of why we stayed together all these years, and why we worked out well when so many of my previous relationships didn't.
I love a lot of solitary activities, like reading, writing, single-player games, drawing and painting, learning new things, working on projects that she isn't interested in, etc. Without my self-imposed rule, I would likely decline to do a lot of other activities, especially outside my own interests.
But if she wants to do something or go somewhere or just sit and talk, then I say yes.
My kids are young enough that I don't quite have the same rule with them, and partly because they just want me to do stuff with them and be with them literally all the time, so we are still in boundary-setting phase, but I assume that I will eventually adopt the "as you wish" rule with them as well.
This is a vital rule for partner relationships. I learned it from theater "yes, and" exercises. Really important to do for kids too. Good luck!
I think this is great advice. I'm not particularly lonely, being married and having two kids, but sometimes my wife and I don't do enough together. We instituted a regular babysitter night every two weeks, and we are required to find something and go out that evening.
But only passively saying yes to everything is not enough. I need to take action and organise something to do with her. And also take initiative to organise things with other friends. Sadly, those friends don't seem to follow this "as you wish" rule.
But only passively saying yes to everything is not enough. I need to take action and organise something to do with her. And also take initiative to organise things with other friends. Sadly, those friends don't seem to follow this "as you wish" rule.
Great advice and in regards to kids I ended up sitting on the floor with our 18 month old today for over an hour, just blowing bubbles. Watching him learn to blow the bubbles himself and seeing the joy on his face was pretty special.
>the "as you wish" rule
Beautiful.
Beautiful.
> the "as you wish" rule
That's not what it's about. It's about doing things. Together. Marriage isn't just about signing your names on a piece of paper; it's a (supposedly) life-long commitment to a team of two people where you are one of the team members. My wife and I do the same thing (and yes, it goes both ways), and we both agree that's the one reason we're such an awesome team.
That's not what it's about. It's about doing things. Together. Marriage isn't just about signing your names on a piece of paper; it's a (supposedly) life-long commitment to a team of two people where you are one of the team members. My wife and I do the same thing (and yes, it goes both ways), and we both agree that's the one reason we're such an awesome team.
I don't think "as you wish" is meant to be in resignation but as a wholly committed and happy gesture of love. I'm assuming it's in reference to The Princess Bride, where the character Westley says it as an expression of love for a girl who first takes it as wry compliance.
Fair enough. I can't say I've seen that movie. :)
My last girlfriend was largely the opposite, especially after the relationship had aged some and she seemed to assume we'd be staying together. She was very independent, and didn't really like doing a lot of things I wanted to do, and kept her own friends separate from me and did things with them on the weekend if I was doing something she didn't want to bother with (such as packing up to move in with her).
I ended up backing out of moving in with her because I didn't feel very close to her and that we didn't do enough together. Shortly after, she dumped me by text and ghosted me.
I ended up backing out of moving in with her because I didn't feel very close to her and that we didn't do enough together. Shortly after, she dumped me by text and ghosted me.
This guy took that idea to the extreme: built an app to randomly join random Facebook events and forced himself to go wherever it took him.
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/06/08/53...
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/06/08/53...
I started something similar about 12 years ago...inspired by the movie “Yes man” I started saying yes to every opportunity that I came across.
Wanna have lunch together? Yes!
Wanna go out with us tonight? Yes!
Wanna help me move? Yes!
It really got me out of my shell and made me realize that the reason I was alone is because I was an asshole. People had been trying to include me all my life, but I had always declined :(
I am much better these days :)
Wanna have lunch together? Yes!
Wanna go out with us tonight? Yes!
Wanna help me move? Yes!
It really got me out of my shell and made me realize that the reason I was alone is because I was an asshole. People had been trying to include me all my life, but I had always declined :(
I am much better these days :)
For me it's more the opposite, in the last 2-3 years I said no for the first time in 15-20 years because I was more in the mood to do something on my own or just chill and do nothing.
I'm just saying this because in retrospect I think I've never been lonely because I was going out and meeting people at every opportunity that came up and I could never understand people who said "I'd rather stay at home today.". But because I've not got dozens of friends this was still a manageable level and I'd still often would've gone out more.
I'm just saying this because in retrospect I think I've never been lonely because I was going out and meeting people at every opportunity that came up and I could never understand people who said "I'd rather stay at home today.". But because I've not got dozens of friends this was still a manageable level and I'd still often would've gone out more.
HA! Same w/ me, a "silly" movie actually changed my life for the better, thank you for letting me know at least another person got the same out of it.
"Wanna help me move?" is my favorite. Nothing like getting a free workout with a friend or family. You might even get a dinner out of it too.
> "Wanna help me move?" is my favorite. Nothing like getting a free workout with a friend or family. You might even get a dinner out of it too.
Oh cool, nothing like giving up an entire day for the possibility of a permanent back injury or accidentally damaging someone's furniture all because they're too cheap to drop a few hundred dollars on some professional movers.
Oh cool, nothing like giving up an entire day for the possibility of a permanent back injury or accidentally damaging someone's furniture all because they're too cheap to drop a few hundred dollars on some professional movers.
>I had a bout of this about 20 years ago, so I made a rule for myself: I wasn't allowed to decline an invitation.
That approach works great as long as you are currently getting invited to things. If it's been a year since the last time you were invited to anything, that's not going to solve your loneliness problem.
That approach works great as long as you are currently getting invited to things. If it's been a year since the last time you were invited to anything, that's not going to solve your loneliness problem.
This is true, but trivial. If nobody ever asks you to spend time with them, you are doing something extraordinary to prevent it: never leaving your house, violent aggression, being drunk all the time, etc. You should definitely deal with that situation first.
But if you have normal interactions with people on a regular basis, you'll get invitations. They might be tiny or tentative or impersonal, but if engage with questions like "Can I talk to you for a second?" or "Would you like a sample of our new Teriyaki Chicken?" or even "Do you have the time?" you'll gradually open yourself up to more possibilities.
But if you have normal interactions with people on a regular basis, you'll get invitations. They might be tiny or tentative or impersonal, but if engage with questions like "Can I talk to you for a second?" or "Would you like a sample of our new Teriyaki Chicken?" or even "Do you have the time?" you'll gradually open yourself up to more possibilities.
I absolutely disagree. Just taking the workplace as an example, I've been at companies where I would hang out with at least one coworker per week and there were companies where I did nothing at all with coworkers outside office hours except maybe the christmas party.
And I do think if you're not in any club (for sports or hobbies or whatever) it gets harder and harder to make friends the older you get (spoken like a true mid-30s person ;). I don't have kids or a dog, so the workplace is next to the best venue to meet new people.
TLDR: I don't think it's in any way rare or weird to not receive invitations if you don't already have a network of friends. This is a catch-22.
And I do think if you're not in any club (for sports or hobbies or whatever) it gets harder and harder to make friends the older you get (spoken like a true mid-30s person ;). I don't have kids or a dog, so the workplace is next to the best venue to meet new people.
TLDR: I don't think it's in any way rare or weird to not receive invitations if you don't already have a network of friends. This is a catch-22.
Unless you're in solitary confinement, people will invite you to connect with them. It may not take the form of "Hey, let's have a beer after work." It might not be directed specifically at you. But the opportunities are there.
I'm not saying "you must do this, it is the only way." It worked for me at a specific place and time in my life, and that isn't a universal condition. But I don't think we are helpless. Modern urban life may be alienating, but it's not inescapable. If you find that you value human connection more than likes or RSUs or Game of Thrones, you can find a way to have more of it.
I'm not saying "you must do this, it is the only way." It worked for me at a specific place and time in my life, and that isn't a universal condition. But I don't think we are helpless. Modern urban life may be alienating, but it's not inescapable. If you find that you value human connection more than likes or RSUs or Game of Thrones, you can find a way to have more of it.
So join a club. Clubs are great places to meet people. Find one appropriate for a hobby you have, or explore a new hobby.
Learn a new skill and meet people.
Learn a new skill and meet people.
Volunteer! I meet the best people volunteering. People who will do stuff for non-monetary reasons are usually pretty great.
[deleted]
Thanks, I was just about to comment something along those lines. It is relatively easy to get back into society if all you need to do is stop declining offers. It is a completely different game if offers happen very rarely. In my case, I've got yet another challenge: I have a disability. And people tend to treat you like sfrm another star. It is really quite a challenge to stay connected if society treats you like an outcast.
Do you still follow this "never no" rule, or did you come to a point or change in your life to ease up or ease off?
I think it lasted about 6 months before I completely abandoned it, but I had started to cheat even before then. The main reason I quit was "mission accomplished". I had made new friends, discovered some social activities I enjoyed and was generally happier. But also I noticed some downsides.
One was that people will exploit that rule, even if they don't know about it. That church group would have cheerfully turned me into one of their most dedicated and active members just by inviting me to all the things. They meant well, but I was sending mixed signals by accepting all their invitations even though I wasn't interested in their faith. Once I had been to a few events I had to start saying no.
Another was that once I had a bit of a social life going, I didn't want to let happenstance push me around so much. The choice was no longer between do this thing or stay home and mope; I started to have other options and I didn't want to just end up doing the first thing that presented itself.
All in all, it was a great way to change my habits, but not a good way to live life indefinitely.
One was that people will exploit that rule, even if they don't know about it. That church group would have cheerfully turned me into one of their most dedicated and active members just by inviting me to all the things. They meant well, but I was sending mixed signals by accepting all their invitations even though I wasn't interested in their faith. Once I had been to a few events I had to start saying no.
Another was that once I had a bit of a social life going, I didn't want to let happenstance push me around so much. The choice was no longer between do this thing or stay home and mope; I started to have other options and I didn't want to just end up doing the first thing that presented itself.
All in all, it was a great way to change my habits, but not a good way to live life indefinitely.
I was going to specifically ask how the "joined a church group" went because that seemed to be the example that had the most potential for being a slippery slope to a more complete change of life than you may have been looking for.
I have a family member that pretty much went all-in on came-to-it-later-in-life religion. It really felt like their susceptibility to loneliness was successfully exploited.
I have a family member that pretty much went all-in on came-to-it-later-in-life religion. It really felt like their susceptibility to loneliness was successfully exploited.
That sounds like a great plot for a movie.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/
I've made the exact same rule, as well. I've spent more money because of it, but my life has been much better. Sometimes, a trade-off is necessary. It also makes life much more interesting, and it's really made me grow as a person.
Wow, thank you for your advise! This might be interesting to try...
As much as I'd like to follow the rule, I think I have an actual, varied social life now, and this would be... Risky.
I've been invited to a violent sounding orgy of the many male, one female kind (always been a dream of the girl's, but I do have someone I'm seeing). In the last few months, also been invited to an open Satanic book reading sessions. Beginner friendly, I had been told.
I've been invited to a violent sounding orgy of the many male, one female kind (always been a dream of the girl's, but I do have someone I'm seeing). In the last few months, also been invited to an open Satanic book reading sessions. Beginner friendly, I had been told.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to put a limit of "as long as it doesn't violate my ethics/morals or any criminal statutes."
"Hey, I need to dispose of [toxic waste¦a body¦evidence], can you help out?" "Sorry, have to wash my hair."
"Hey, I need to dispose of [toxic waste¦a body¦evidence], can you help out?" "Sorry, have to wash my hair."
The second one does not really violate moral or ethical codes, IMO? The first one I know some people might be able to justify, but I brought it up with my girlfriend jokingly, she said I was a dead man if I even thought about it, and that was that :)
It just becomes a slippery slope though, because rules like this are meant to push you towards doing things you don't really want to. Once you start making exceptions, you will find reasons to say no to everything.
Like, I made myself a rule to not buy anything on the first day I see it. All well and good, but yesterday I bought a guitar for about $1500. I had technically seen it in the store before, but this was a different one of the same model, with a much nicer finish, and felt better to play.
Seems like an innocuous exception, but internally I know that I'm going to start impulse spending again. At least now I can (better) afford random bouts of stupidity!
It just becomes a slippery slope though, because rules like this are meant to push you towards doing things you don't really want to. Once you start making exceptions, you will find reasons to say no to everything.
Like, I made myself a rule to not buy anything on the first day I see it. All well and good, but yesterday I bought a guitar for about $1500. I had technically seen it in the store before, but this was a different one of the same model, with a much nicer finish, and felt better to play.
Seems like an innocuous exception, but internally I know that I'm going to start impulse spending again. At least now I can (better) afford random bouts of stupidity!
I didn't get into anything that extreme, but I did do some things that made me uncomfortable. That was sort of the point. I stopped when it didn't seem to be serving me well anymore.
Hah, made me remember an activity I did in my youth - male dancer for bachelorette parties. Sure met lots of people doing that!
A good longer play to bust out of that is to start working out of an independent cafe. Find one with a lower rate of laptop jockeys but that still has a couple.
Bounce around until you find one that feels right: a good amount of regulars, people doodling, and bullshitting with baristas.
Show up a couple times a week, drop into the odd conversation. And be ready to say “anyone want to grab a beer” come quitting time.
This is just about the fastest (week to a month) way to find yourself a new in person social circle.
Bounce around until you find one that feels right: a good amount of regulars, people doodling, and bullshitting with baristas.
Show up a couple times a week, drop into the odd conversation. And be ready to say “anyone want to grab a beer” come quitting time.
This is just about the fastest (week to a month) way to find yourself a new in person social circle.
This is great advice! (I also agree with OP's sad lack of connection in America. It is there but it is work to find it sometimes)
Also great:
Volunteering. You're guaranteed to meet some good people because these are other people that are interested in (1) working together (2) helping people (3) donating their time. The very worst-case scenario is that you don't make friends, but have helped somebody in need. =)
Sports. Grown-up recreational sports are nothing like the (often hostile) world of sports you might remember as a kid. Generally very supportive places. Co-ed leagues tend to be more easygoing. If you're a beginner, pay for some lessons. For example... lots of tennis coaches out there. If you are healthy enough to move around you can learn to play a pretty decent game of tennis in not much time and with less $$$ than you'd spend on a new Xbox. Obvious direct and indirect benefits as well.
Also great:
Volunteering. You're guaranteed to meet some good people because these are other people that are interested in (1) working together (2) helping people (3) donating their time. The very worst-case scenario is that you don't make friends, but have helped somebody in need. =)
Sports. Grown-up recreational sports are nothing like the (often hostile) world of sports you might remember as a kid. Generally very supportive places. Co-ed leagues tend to be more easygoing. If you're a beginner, pay for some lessons. For example... lots of tennis coaches out there. If you are healthy enough to move around you can learn to play a pretty decent game of tennis in not much time and with less $$$ than you'd spend on a new Xbox. Obvious direct and indirect benefits as well.
I am allergic to cigarette smoke. Whatever gathering/party it is, some always light up cigarettes and that party literally ends right there for me. So, I have given up on conventional social gatherings. Even people I play sports with (I am a regular at badminton and football/soccer) smoke when we hangout.
I have always loved travelling so that's what I do every weekend - to some town or hills or a beach or trekking somewhere. Treks are where I meet quite some people and they don't smoke, at least not there.
I have always loved travelling so that's what I do every weekend - to some town or hills or a beach or trekking somewhere. Treks are where I meet quite some people and they don't smoke, at least not there.
Anecdotal, but I barely know any smokers these days. Most of my smoker friends have quit.
Hiking is great though
Hiking is great though
Yeah, wow. Can't remember the last time I had to deal with unwanted cigarette smoke.
Plus all the smokers I know (not many left!) smoke outside like considerate, normal human beings so there's no way anybody would be forced to really encounter their smoke.
Plus all the smokers I know (not many left!) smoke outside like considerate, normal human beings so there's no way anybody would be forced to really encounter their smoke.
Being outdoors doesn't help when they're within 50 feet of you; the smoke will still inevitably drift directly to the person who hates it the most.
Smoking seems to be on the upswing among young people too.
Smoking seems to be on the upswing among young people too.
When I wasn't working in the office, I did my work in coffee shops during grad school. I still try not to work at home now, and walk to a local coffee shop if I need to work on a weekend. Working in a public place made grad school more tolerable. Even though I was doing my work, I felt like part of my community and I was able to interact with other people. I even did make some friends doing it.
It sounded to me like WhompingWindows is a grad student, so I heartily endorse they try this approach. Just be in public spaces more. It helps.
It sounded to me like WhompingWindows is a grad student, so I heartily endorse they try this approach. Just be in public spaces more. It helps.
It's a good idea, but I don't don't know about the fastest. I'd recommend your idea and a series of neutral/specific hobbies/sports that give you a wider breadth
No doubt that you’ll have people to chum around with at a meetup. None whatsoever. And it’s a great thing to do both socially and professionally.
I’d say though that the people you meet while shooting the shit at a cafe are more likely to be “general friends” that are based more on shared personalities and humor than a shared interest. As such, these types of friendships feel/are less utilitarian
I’d say though that the people you meet while shooting the shit at a cafe are more likely to be “general friends” that are based more on shared personalities and humor than a shared interest. As such, these types of friendships feel/are less utilitarian
I don't know if I understand your first sentence very clearly, but yes I agree. I made a comment on reddit yesterday regarding a very similar topic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bxat83/people_wh...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bxat83/people_wh...
Do you mean like going to lots of cafes literally full-time (~8 hours a day) or something? Otherwise how do you possibly bounce around lots of cafes and figure out who the regulars are within just a week?
A cafe or a bar is nothing but a "third space". Something outside of home and work. So don't take it literally. It can be the gym/dance/music/sports clubs/gardening/church/volunteering/fishing/libraries etc etc. Look for that "third space" which aligns with your interests, needs and values and keep visiting.
I had the same situation. A non sustainable life. With her all changed. I go to the gym so she does not have a skinny boyfriend. When I find something good at netflix I wait until she is home and we can watch it together. When I find a nice place, I remmember it so I can show her the nice bench under that tree in my hometown.
I always have flashback about the time I moved to another city without family bondings. Then I smiley because it's over.
I always have flashback about the time I moved to another city without family bondings. Then I smiley because it's over.
That sounds great! Just be careful not too become too dependent on someone else.
Becoming dependent is part of the deal. It keeps people together through the difficult times.
A life with your significant other shouldn’t be about “dependence” once you start basing your self worth and happiness on your SO, it gets a lot harder when you are upset with each other (it will happen) or even when you want to do something that they don’t
- or vice versa.
Either one of you can also start feeling rejected when the other person just wants some alone time.
Either one of you can also start feeling rejected when the other person just wants some alone time.
You’re quibbling about language I think. It sounds like to you, depenence means an incessant need. Like a chemical dependency.
But that’s not implied by dependence. It just means you depend on that person for that thing sometimes. It means life would be tough if they stopped providing it. It doesn’t mean you would fall apart or become unable to function.
Certainly there are things people want to depend on their partner for and things they don’t. But none of it is universal. It’s totally individual. Someone might want to be financially self sufficient. Another person would feel totally safe bringing $0 to the relationship. Neither is a bad choice, it depends on whether that’s something you’re comfortable depending on your partner for, and whether they’re comfortable dependably providing it.
But that’s not implied by dependence. It just means you depend on that person for that thing sometimes. It means life would be tough if they stopped providing it. It doesn’t mean you would fall apart or become unable to function.
Certainly there are things people want to depend on their partner for and things they don’t. But none of it is universal. It’s totally individual. Someone might want to be financially self sufficient. Another person would feel totally safe bringing $0 to the relationship. Neither is a bad choice, it depends on whether that’s something you’re comfortable depending on your partner for, and whether they’re comfortable dependably providing it.
I’m definitely no relationship expert, but the “experts” often talk about the difference between “dependence”, “interdependence” and “codependence”.
Edit: Just in case it wasn’t obvious, “interdependence” is the only one that is considered healthy.
Edit: Just in case it wasn’t obvious, “interdependence” is the only one that is considered healthy.
I think it’s more in relation to loneliness.
My wife and I have our own lives that we happen to share with each other, but at least from my perspective, if she were to somehow vanish one day, my life would be immeasurably worse for it.
I really don’t want to imagine coming home to a big empty house.
My wife and I have our own lives that we happen to share with each other, but at least from my perspective, if she were to somehow vanish one day, my life would be immeasurably worse for it.
I really don’t want to imagine coming home to a big empty house.
I agree completely. But, it is too easy to lose yourself in your relationship and forget who you are. Lately, I’ve had to make a concerted effort to increase my social circle from basically zero since I got married.
It just “happens”. I moved across town (metro area - across town is literally over an hour away with traffic), my friends and I all became busy with our own lives and i woke up one morning and realize that my family had become my whole life (not in a good way). Between that and my career I had no friendship circle and I stopped just doing things by myself to recharge. It didn’t help that most of friends were female. Of course that doesn’t work out too well when you’re married.
I had to actually start purposefully keeping in touch with friends and former coworkers as I changed jobs every couple of years and when I saw an old high school classmate (from over 20 years ago) that I was “friends” with on Facebook, I made an effort to reach out to him and another classmate to meet for drinks.
It just “happens”. I moved across town (metro area - across town is literally over an hour away with traffic), my friends and I all became busy with our own lives and i woke up one morning and realize that my family had become my whole life (not in a good way). Between that and my career I had no friendship circle and I stopped just doing things by myself to recharge. It didn’t help that most of friends were female. Of course that doesn’t work out too well when you’re married.
I had to actually start purposefully keeping in touch with friends and former coworkers as I changed jobs every couple of years and when I saw an old high school classmate (from over 20 years ago) that I was “friends” with on Facebook, I made an effort to reach out to him and another classmate to meet for drinks.
No, dependency breeds contempt. If he values the relationship he needs to remain independent, i.e. have his own mission in life and not just live for his partner.
Yeah, I think the term is really "integrate". While I'm not dependent on my wife, there are things that I trust her to do and things she trust me to do, and we don't even think about them anymore because my partner is handling them. You give up stuff because your partner has got them. You sort of sag into each-other as people.
Stephen Covey used[0] the term "interdependent", which I rather like.
[0] 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
[0] 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
That was my mistake in my last relationship. Everything I did alone and loved it absolutely - sometimes even more, I started doing pretty much "only with her" and after we parted ways that has been the most difficult part - I kind of forgot how I was happy, active, engaged with just being myself and not with anyone else necessarily.
Co-dependency is not 'part of the deal'. It's something toxic to a relationship.
This. Remember to love and invest in yourself for your own sake -- it will make you a better partner too.
Excellent advice. Also, you have to do it for yourself, because you want to be the best version of yourself possible, not because you think it's what someone else wants.
not because you think it's what someone else wants.
But you appreciate the work you went through to attain those heights that much more when you have someone to see the view with, who appreciates it as much as you do.
Which IMO is the best part of "working on yourself", and "improving yourself". Doing it for yourself is absolutely great and can make for a wonderful lived experience. But having someone to share it delivers great sense of validation--as creatures who like to procreate, we're always going to desire that.
But you appreciate the work you went through to attain those heights that much more when you have someone to see the view with, who appreciates it as much as you do.
Which IMO is the best part of "working on yourself", and "improving yourself". Doing it for yourself is absolutely great and can make for a wonderful lived experience. But having someone to share it delivers great sense of validation--as creatures who like to procreate, we're always going to desire that.
100% agree. And sharing that view with someone who has walked (much of) the path with you is infinitely more fulfilling. It makes it real. Otherwise it's just a tree falling in the woods.
Having that kind of deep relationship is so rare these days, to anyone who has the pleasure of experiencing it.. cherish it forever!
Based on my own experience of being with someone for 10+ years, I can attest it takes a lot of patience, compromise, trust and hard work (from both parties).
But it can be incredibly fulfilling.
Based on my own experience of being with someone for 10+ years, I can attest it takes a lot of patience, compromise, trust and hard work (from both parties).
But it can be incredibly fulfilling.
Otherwise it's just a tree falling in the woods.
That's a GREAT metaphor!
That's a GREAT metaphor!
Chances are good that people will become dependent on each other at some point in their lives anyway, especially with those you plan to grow old with. And that is completely fine. Doesn't mean that you need to identify yourself through your partner or friends. I do think this get interpreted wrongly too often, since a fundamental part of a relationship or friendship is having someone you can depend on in times of need.
Of course you're right. Nevertheless I think it's healthy to pursue interests that don't necessarily involve your partner and, perhaps more importantly, not to neglect other friends - otherwise a potentially failing relationship might feel like losing everything, because it actually is.
[deleted]
Then when she develops more serious health or mental problems, and you have nobody to help look after your children, relationship therapy has burned through a couple therapists, and you're telling each other how lonely you each are but avoid real conversations because they inevitably lead to more loneliness, then you will again have a new perspective. Good luck.
Please don't. You're welcome to share your own experience, if that's what you're alluding to here, but not to rhetorically put it onto someone else.
I guess I am going to be the only person to defend this statement. I see where you are coming from and I’m willing to give you the benefit of a doubt that you meant the “hypothetical you”.
But to use the old cliché- it’s better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
But to use the old cliché- it’s better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
Having the childcare load shift due to a partner's health issue is something that will happen. I have been there and it isn't easy. But personally I was happy to step up and am proud of how I acted in that moment. Sorry to hear about what sounds like your more negative experience.
[deleted]
I hope you can see the light in the world again, some day.
Damn, isn't there enough negativity in the world? You gotta bring that in here?
Well, this entire thread is about loneliness. If we want to understand it and help it then we probably should be talking about it.
[deleted]
> I go to the gym so she does not have a skinny boyfriend.
PSA, there's nothing wrong with being skinny, and some people prefer a skinny partner.
PSA, there's nothing wrong with being skinny, and some people prefer a skinny partner.
PSA: People happily burbling about what works for them and their partner in their relationship are not judging nor body policing anyone else and should not be treated like they are.
My read on that comment:
"I can't be arsed to go to the gym regularly for my own benefit, but I'm happy to do so to please her and I'm all the healthier for it. win-win!"
My read on that comment:
"I can't be arsed to go to the gym regularly for my own benefit, but I'm happy to do so to please her and I'm all the healthier for it. win-win!"
There's no need to read aggression in my comment or to reply like that. I was simply stating this for readers who might feel self-conscious about being skinny, as I did when I read the comment. Western culture very much shames skinny, healthy men so I thought it was a useful reminder.
There's no need to read aggression in my comment or to reply like that.
I mirrored the framing of your comment. If it feels ugly to you for me to reply in that manner, maybe think about that. Because that's the crux of my point.
There are good ways to promote body positivity. Making comments that look like a personal attack on someone else for simply being happy about their current choices isn't really one of them.
I mirrored the framing of your comment. If it feels ugly to you for me to reply in that manner, maybe think about that. Because that's the crux of my point.
There are good ways to promote body positivity. Making comments that look like a personal attack on someone else for simply being happy about their current choices isn't really one of them.
American culture very much shames thin, healthy men because they're not fat like everyone else. I've been told many times "you need to eat more!" (and they weren't talking about healthy food either), even though my weight is right where it should be. As you might expect, the people saying this are all overweight.
Being fat is normal now in American society, and anyone who isn't is seen as a deviant.
Being fat is normal now in American society, and anyone who isn't is seen as a deviant.
When we met I was skinny AF. I started gym and now I no more feel awkward when I see pictures with me and her. But the main profit of gym is in my mind. I'm more tolerant about everything. When people do shit I can act with a clear mind and without mental agression.
It can be surprising what exercise can do for your head. It seems to be something purely physical, but it has certainly made me more active in other ways. It's easier to say "yes" to activities when you have more energy, and that's what exercise does to you.
While there's nothing wrong with being skinny, if his partner is encouraging him to go to the gym to take care of himself, that's A-OK.
I think of skinny and fat as opposites, backed up by word uses like the "Fattypuffs and Thinifers" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fattypuffs_and_Thinifers - it's amusing that people go to the gym because they don't want to be fat, and people go to the gym because they don't want to be thin.
Are there other things in life where people go to the same place for, at a glance, opposite reasons?
Are there other things in life where people go to the same place for, at a glance, opposite reasons?
Technically they’re both at the gym, but they’re probably doing mostly non-overlapping activities in separate spaces. (Which is a shame because building muscle mass is an often overlooked way to lose weight)
There are different things you can do at the gym, but more than that, with many things, the best/healthiest place to be is between two extremes rather than on either end.
Not just with weight, but with nearly everything in life: try to find a balance. Between time for yourself and spending time with others, between socialism and capitalism, almost every -ism, belief or drive taken to extremes becomes harmful, but can be a useful contribution to a balance between different concerns.
Not just with weight, but with nearly everything in life: try to find a balance. Between time for yourself and spending time with others, between socialism and capitalism, almost every -ism, belief or drive taken to extremes becomes harmful, but can be a useful contribution to a balance between different concerns.
Some people go to the gym to get skinnier.
In any case, I used to hate working out, and always had terrible posture. I've been doing crossfit for half a year now and improvements are visible to a lot of people around me. I don't want to bulk up, but better posture is good for anyone.
In any case, I used to hate working out, and always had terrible posture. I've been doing crossfit for half a year now and improvements are visible to a lot of people around me. I don't want to bulk up, but better posture is good for anyone.
It's all subjective what is what, but "skinny" can easily veer into unhealthy, especially for adults.
There are some good ideas in this thread. I spent a lot of lonely time in my 20s living alone and working from home. One thing is to live in a shared house. That is a way to have people to live with. It worked for me to not be as lonely at times in my adulthood.
The other thing is to get involved with social physical activity, clubs, or volunteering. I played hockey and went to a group fitness gym. I made long term friends there. I am into ham radio and the club where I live is pretty good. I used to volunteer at a kids camp and that was great for making friends with the staff members and doing social things outside of camp.
To me, find where your interests align with social/community activity. Currently, I am trying to get the ham radio club to be more out in the community. We are doing radio communications for a running race this weekend. It is exciting.
The other thing is to get involved with social physical activity, clubs, or volunteering. I played hockey and went to a group fitness gym. I made long term friends there. I am into ham radio and the club where I live is pretty good. I used to volunteer at a kids camp and that was great for making friends with the staff members and doing social things outside of camp.
To me, find where your interests align with social/community activity. Currently, I am trying to get the ham radio club to be more out in the community. We are doing radio communications for a running race this weekend. It is exciting.
I felt very similar but at the age of 20 I shut myself indoors and it's been like that ever since. Everyone has long forgot about me. I turned 31 an hour ago.
I think I just got used to it. I was lucky that I inherented a small flat, although in bad condition and location. I score some freelance gigs time to time to keep myself alive. I have tried online communities or friends so to speak but I don't really get it how it's done. I didn't have a problem in real life.
I read HN always every night before I fall asleep. In 2008 or so my show HN made it to first page. I was very happy that say. Genuine happiness. I might have lacked being a human now.
I think I just got used to it. I was lucky that I inherented a small flat, although in bad condition and location. I score some freelance gigs time to time to keep myself alive. I have tried online communities or friends so to speak but I don't really get it how it's done. I didn't have a problem in real life.
I read HN always every night before I fall asleep. In 2008 or so my show HN made it to first page. I was very happy that say. Genuine happiness. I might have lacked being a human now.
You have cash, good health, and free time.
Take up an “extreme” sport. Skiing, SCUBA diving, mountaineering, surfing, windsurfing, paragliding. Become a de facto member of your chosen activity’s local scene.
Or just find a girl, ???, propagate your bloodline into the future.
Like, whatever, man. It’s over when they’re packing the dirt in your grave.
Take up an “extreme” sport. Skiing, SCUBA diving, mountaineering, surfing, windsurfing, paragliding. Become a de facto member of your chosen activity’s local scene.
Or just find a girl, ???, propagate your bloodline into the future.
Like, whatever, man. It’s over when they’re packing the dirt in your grave.
You don't sound too thrilled about the way things are going. You can change it if you want.
Volunteering to help with for some in-person activity can provide that essential social connection.
Also, consider talking to a professional. They evaluate situations like the one you describe all the time.
Volunteering to help with for some in-person activity can provide that essential social connection.
Also, consider talking to a professional. They evaluate situations like the one you describe all the time.
Happy Birthday!
Also, if I may be so presumptuous as to offer a suggestion: try contacting someone from earlier in your life. Many times, people are lost in their own world, their worries and problems and life just happens as it always does. However, they are very likely to be happy to suddenly hear from an old friend. I have been on both sides of this and it was ultimately a good experience. In one case, I also happened to have contacted someone at an opportune moment and saved them from self harm.
Again, a very happy birthday to you and I hope that, this year, you find joy in life.
Also, if I may be so presumptuous as to offer a suggestion: try contacting someone from earlier in your life. Many times, people are lost in their own world, their worries and problems and life just happens as it always does. However, they are very likely to be happy to suddenly hear from an old friend. I have been on both sides of this and it was ultimately a good experience. In one case, I also happened to have contacted someone at an opportune moment and saved them from self harm.
Again, a very happy birthday to you and I hope that, this year, you find joy in life.
Happy birthday mate
Hopefully you're using a redshift/flux type app when you read HN immediately before bed, otherwise the blue light from the screen will prevent your body from secreting melatonin, compounding any other issues you might be dealing with.
HN itself isn't so bad - the background is (246,246,239) which means blue is reduced about 3% from pure white or gray.
Can't say the same for any link you might follow though.
Can't say the same for any link you might follow though.
Happy bday man. Recently turned 30 myself. Living w some guys i used to work w right now and its really turned my life around - we need people
Happy Birthday, friend!
I can relate to every sentence you wrote, minus certain details.
I like and enjoy my coworkers but our respective interests are too dissimilar. The interactions at work never go deeper than the current objective or niceties. This is completely fine (for now) but in the future I would love to be on a true team.
Going home is indeed meh. As much as it feels nice to unwind, I'd much rather unwind with my gang.
I used to be on a sports team and lived morning, day, and night with my boys. Even though life was chaotic, it was incredible to have a gang. One thing I know for certain is that I could do more to gain that back. Short-term I plan on (1) joining an adult sports league and (2) hit up the super interesting people I've met since moving.
But long-term I believe lifestyle redesign is the only solution to our highly atomized world. I look to the past for ideas.
I like and enjoy my coworkers but our respective interests are too dissimilar. The interactions at work never go deeper than the current objective or niceties. This is completely fine (for now) but in the future I would love to be on a true team.
Going home is indeed meh. As much as it feels nice to unwind, I'd much rather unwind with my gang.
I used to be on a sports team and lived morning, day, and night with my boys. Even though life was chaotic, it was incredible to have a gang. One thing I know for certain is that I could do more to gain that back. Short-term I plan on (1) joining an adult sports league and (2) hit up the super interesting people I've met since moving.
But long-term I believe lifestyle redesign is the only solution to our highly atomized world. I look to the past for ideas.
Do you know how to ride a bike? It's summer and I am sure there are a ton of casual (i.e. non-racing/fitness groups) bike groups that ride around regularly.
Unlike sports or gyms there's a lot more hanging around and chatting, plus you can end up with new destinations. Meanwhile the exercise gives you endorphins.
In my similar sized city there's enough cyclists that there are many different "scenes" depending on what you are looking for, but many overlap so that you'll almost always have a familiar face at one.
Riding a bike for transportation also lets you feel a little more human getting around your city. You may run into people you know.
Unlike sports or gyms there's a lot more hanging around and chatting, plus you can end up with new destinations. Meanwhile the exercise gives you endorphins.
In my similar sized city there's enough cyclists that there are many different "scenes" depending on what you are looking for, but many overlap so that you'll almost always have a familiar face at one.
Riding a bike for transportation also lets you feel a little more human getting around your city. You may run into people you know.
You make music? Go to meetup.com or craigslist to find other musicians with similar skill levels and ambitions. I'm in my mid 50s and my kids are off at college and I finally have free time, and no friends.
A couple years ago I bought a used bass and amp (again, craigslist) for cheap, dusted off my old skills, then found some other people on meetup.com who want to play music socially for fun and improvement, but don't have the ambition to actually be in a performing group. It is nice to socialize for couple hours every couple of weeks with new people on a non-programming activity. One of the guys is especially compatible with me, and we've met up a couple of times outside of the band.
A couple years ago I bought a used bass and amp (again, craigslist) for cheap, dusted off my old skills, then found some other people on meetup.com who want to play music socially for fun and improvement, but don't have the ambition to actually be in a performing group. It is nice to socialize for couple hours every couple of weeks with new people on a non-programming activity. One of the guys is especially compatible with me, and we've met up a couple of times outside of the band.
Anecdotal, of course, but I've found the meetup scene to be terrible in a some places. Most I've seen are inactive, aimed at a specific demographic, or are fronts for scams / MLM's.
IIRC, the only Meetups worth going to are meetups where you already know someone or Meetups that friends have recommended.
There are different kinds of loneliness. I suppose the worst is when all apply.
You lack family, you have coworkers, you have random humans in the area, you didn't mention any sort of buddy. So have 2 or 3 out of those 4.
I'm bummed about spending the last quarter century without a buddy. Family and coworkers and random humans do not substitute. Maybe I have no time for it, but I also think it takes a certain kind of environment. The shared environment of an Internet-free childhood neighborhood and school created the right conditions.
You lack family, you have coworkers, you have random humans in the area, you didn't mention any sort of buddy. So have 2 or 3 out of those 4.
I'm bummed about spending the last quarter century without a buddy. Family and coworkers and random humans do not substitute. Maybe I have no time for it, but I also think it takes a certain kind of environment. The shared environment of an Internet-free childhood neighborhood and school created the right conditions.
> I can't wait to hit the phase of life with a partner and/or family living with me.
You're in a phase of life where you could live with others, although there's no guarantee of there actually being a good opportunity near by.
I spent a chunk of my 20s living in a student housing cooperative in Ann Arbor, MI, and for the most part it was a great experience. It was big enough, and enough of the population was grad students, that it was easy to be left alone when that's what you wanted. But it was also plenty easy to find someone up for a game of chess or whatnot at pretty much any time of day.
It was also inexpensive, I still had some space of my own, and while some work was owed to keep the house running it was in practice substantially less than I spend on my own apartment with typically better results.
You're in a phase of life where you could live with others, although there's no guarantee of there actually being a good opportunity near by.
I spent a chunk of my 20s living in a student housing cooperative in Ann Arbor, MI, and for the most part it was a great experience. It was big enough, and enough of the population was grad students, that it was easy to be left alone when that's what you wanted. But it was also plenty easy to find someone up for a game of chess or whatnot at pretty much any time of day.
It was also inexpensive, I still had some space of my own, and while some work was owed to keep the house running it was in practice substantially less than I spend on my own apartment with typically better results.
As someone in the same area, I'm curious if you did this post-grad-school? I can't imagine the co-ops in e.g. Kerrytown are very welcoming of non-students, but I don't know.
Being a non-student, I needed approval from the house. Being student age and working on campus, it was easy to get - but it's sometimes granted to people for whom neither of those is the case.
I lived next door to the co-op at State and Catherine, and there were a few people who lived there who were in their late thirties and definitely not students. I don't know about _all_ of them, but some definitely don't care if you are a student or not.
Unless things have changed in ways that seem very unlikely, every ICC house "cares" in that non-students need house approval and students (generally?) don't. But houses will certainly vary in terms of how easy it is to get that approval. They will also vary along many, many other axes.
I recommend social hobbies. Mine are BJJ and Magic the Gathering. BJJ is great because it can be highly technical but you will meet people way outside of nerd circles. My kids do it and love it as well. It is a hard thing, too, so it keeps the ego in check. You have no choice but to be extremely, intimately close with other humans. The friends I am making are great. There are plenty of other hobbies, but start there.
Edit: (start by investigating social hobbies)
Edit: (start by investigating social hobbies)
Seconded. I've been training Brazilian jiu jitsu for 15 years. For most of that time, friends from jiu jitsu has been half of my social life. When I graduated and moved to a new area by myself for a job, jiu jitsu is how I met people.
Don't we all know what BJJ is.
Brazilian jiu jitsu is correct. It’s a wrestling style.
Compared to many martial arts, BJJ is very interactive in that you learn something new and then immediately put it into practice against training partners. BJJ gyms don’t really do katas (lining up the class to practice poses/moves individually).
This is nice because you get immediate feedback on what works. I’m a small guy. In a real fight I would probably get smashed by any average sized dude, but my experience diving into jiu jitsu has been fun and interesting. It’s a very technique based and strategic game, so my size isn’t as much of a factor as it would be in other sports.
Most gyms do a free trial period. You won’t have any idea what you’re doing for the first month or two, but I think it’s healthy to get humbled once in a while.
California (specifically So Cal) is kind of the Mecca of BJJ in the US, so a gym should be easy to find. Give it a try everyone.
Compared to many martial arts, BJJ is very interactive in that you learn something new and then immediately put it into practice against training partners. BJJ gyms don’t really do katas (lining up the class to practice poses/moves individually).
This is nice because you get immediate feedback on what works. I’m a small guy. In a real fight I would probably get smashed by any average sized dude, but my experience diving into jiu jitsu has been fun and interesting. It’s a very technique based and strategic game, so my size isn’t as much of a factor as it would be in other sports.
Most gyms do a free trial period. You won’t have any idea what you’re doing for the first month or two, but I think it’s healthy to get humbled once in a while.
California (specifically So Cal) is kind of the Mecca of BJJ in the US, so a gym should be easy to find. Give it a try everyone.
SoCal is not just the Mecca of BJJ in the US, I think it has become the Mecca of BJJ in the world. IBJJF Worlds has been held in Long Beach, CA since 2007. (And was last weekend!)
But, I also submit that the NY area is the central place for jiu jitsu on the US east coast.
But, I also submit that the NY area is the central place for jiu jitsu on the US east coast.
We have some cool things happening in Denver too, but not quite like either coast. I train at the Easton academies and it is pretty great.
It seems to be Brazilian Ju-Jitsu, judging by the lack of any other expansions of the acronym in the first page of DuckDuckGo's results.
Its Brazilian Ju Jitsu, for those wondering.
I have some ideas but pretty sure they are wrong.
Seconded on request for clarification.
Seconded on request for clarification.
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
cwarrior(1)
>Going home feels so meh... I can go work through more Sherlock Holmes videos or Netflix series or work on music or art, but there is no one to share with, no one to talk to throughout the day, no one to engage with on my passions. I just kinda laze about without more contact.
Invite someone over!
>If anyone in Providence, RI wants to hang, let me know!
I actually live in Cranston, lol. You like biking? Cryptocurrency? Music production?
Invite someone over!
>If anyone in Providence, RI wants to hang, let me know!
I actually live in Cranston, lol. You like biking? Cryptocurrency? Music production?
Hecks yeah! I bike around East Bay Path, Blackstone River Path, I also love to ride around the Boulevard on the East Side.
What kind of music are you into? I play piano, a buddy of mine is into guitar and Linnstrument. We may be having a board game night tonight actually, been looking forward to it, LMK if you want to stop by.
What kind of music are you into? I play piano, a buddy of mine is into guitar and Linnstrument. We may be having a board game night tonight actually, been looking forward to it, LMK if you want to stop by.
My friends do more instrumental and hip hop style production. I'll send you a message! I might be busy tonight, but we should keep in touch.
I actually have no clue how to private message people on ycombinator. It seem to be impossible. Send me an email to [email protected]
I am biking the MS150 this weekend, so I may be late to reply. Wish me luck! :)
I am biking the MS150 this weekend, so I may be late to reply. Wish me luck! :)
A friend of a friend told me that people, such as diplomat families who have to quickly settle but often relocate, will deliberately but routinely eat at the same restaurant, say, every Thursday evening. After a couple of weeks they'll find staff or other regular diners will engage with them and build relationships.
It's a bit easier as an expat because there are lots of other expats also looking to meet people. Very freshman year of college type vibe in my experience. Your problem becomes less making friends, and instead ensuring you make the right friends. There are a lot of dodgy characters in expat communities.
In some countries, that is a good way to get killed.
Can you expand on this? I'm interpreting this to mean that in some countries opsec dictates that you eat at a different place every night? Why?
Being killed is probably a bit hyperbolic for most countries, but I would imagine it means that keeping such a predictable routine in a country where you are inherently a target (read: white people in many third world countries with high rates of robbery/violence) can make it easy for you to be targeted for robbery. Or, in limited places, terrorist acts. If the dishwasher's cousin is a small time local criminal and mentions the white family arrives and leaves at a super predictable time, his group of friends may get drunk one night and decide it's an easy payday.
I'm a lot like you - work from home, spend most of my time interacting with people through non-physical mediums, get very lonely often.
I've found biking to be an exceptional way to meet new people and break out of the lonliness funk I fell into after moving to a new city where I knew no one. Most shops organize group rides at all skill levels, and most cities have bike groups. It's a wildly social sport, and most rides end at cafes or breweries. It gets me out of the house and there's an instant camaraderie that comes with sweating with a group of people for a couple hours on a long ride.
I've found biking to be an exceptional way to meet new people and break out of the lonliness funk I fell into after moving to a new city where I knew no one. Most shops organize group rides at all skill levels, and most cities have bike groups. It's a wildly social sport, and most rides end at cafes or breweries. It gets me out of the house and there's an instant camaraderie that comes with sweating with a group of people for a couple hours on a long ride.
> but there is no one to share with
The flip side of this is that when you do actively seek out opportunities to share, you can instantly meet a lot of people in one go if you're the one sharing, instead of a spectator.
It does take effort, but opportunities are out there. I went to a "bring your own art" event in SF a couple weeks ago that was a public event on Facebook. I took a photography work I had made. I took a robot I had built to Maker Faire. For tech projects, email event organizers, meetup organizers and ask if you can present at their next event. For art projects consider sharing a unique or interesting story or journey, not just a single piece of art. If you actually do make something cool or you have a good story, you'll be surprised how easy it is to get a few yeses.
When you are the creator/presenter/speaker, you meet people quickly because it's not awkward for others to approach you and ask questions. It's a lot harder to meet people as a mere participant.
Seeking out events you can present or exhibit at is not that easy for everyone. But since you're in Providence, you should be able to find plenty of events an hour away in Boston.
Also, if you have a hard time finding events but you have a critical mass of a few friends in the area, consider hosting an event. It can be as simple as a potluck, which means you basically have to do no work except maybe make 1 dish yourself and clean up afterwards. Let your friends know it's okay to bring +1 or +2. Many times they will. You'll meet a lot of new people that way too.
The flip side of this is that when you do actively seek out opportunities to share, you can instantly meet a lot of people in one go if you're the one sharing, instead of a spectator.
It does take effort, but opportunities are out there. I went to a "bring your own art" event in SF a couple weeks ago that was a public event on Facebook. I took a photography work I had made. I took a robot I had built to Maker Faire. For tech projects, email event organizers, meetup organizers and ask if you can present at their next event. For art projects consider sharing a unique or interesting story or journey, not just a single piece of art. If you actually do make something cool or you have a good story, you'll be surprised how easy it is to get a few yeses.
When you are the creator/presenter/speaker, you meet people quickly because it's not awkward for others to approach you and ask questions. It's a lot harder to meet people as a mere participant.
Seeking out events you can present or exhibit at is not that easy for everyone. But since you're in Providence, you should be able to find plenty of events an hour away in Boston.
Also, if you have a hard time finding events but you have a critical mass of a few friends in the area, consider hosting an event. It can be as simple as a potluck, which means you basically have to do no work except maybe make 1 dish yourself and clean up afterwards. Let your friends know it's okay to bring +1 or +2. Many times they will. You'll meet a lot of new people that way too.
I'm also single (again), almost 40, do sport twice a week (with people) and usually go outonce a week with somebody. I because I wanna see other people than just the guys on work an friends, I use for example public transportation for going to work.
Makes me wonder - is the abundance of choice that makes us lonely? True, deep relationships take time. Your social circle is larger, but you haven't gotten the chance to develop any deep bond because neither you nor they have enough time for each other - because there's so much else to do.
>Makes me wonder - is the abundance of choice that makes us lonely?
While this would explain loneliness in cities, I doubt it. I believe it's unrealistic expectations from TV, social media, newspapers, both positive and negative, about relationships and people in general. Just like pornographic movies affect one's love life, seeing unrealistic depictions of social life destroy natural curiosity about other people, lead to doubts and suspicions etc. ... The availability of the option to avoid other people does its part.
While this would explain loneliness in cities, I doubt it. I believe it's unrealistic expectations from TV, social media, newspapers, both positive and negative, about relationships and people in general. Just like pornographic movies affect one's love life, seeing unrealistic depictions of social life destroy natural curiosity about other people, lead to doubts and suspicions etc. ... The availability of the option to avoid other people does its part.
What you describe sounds more like FOMO. I don't think that's the same. One can be perfectly detached from social media and television and still experience loneliness. It's more a reflection of unmet biological needs. We're physically detached from one another, on the social spectrum.
Human nature is really weird. I can totally relate to everything you've written, and at the same time, I, as a father and husband, would love to experience a week like that really badly every now and then.
It shows that what people think they want is a silly, shifting goalpost and that "happiness" is an untenable, fictional concept the mind uses to distract itself on its meaningless quest to stay alive.
Insofar as it's possible, not taking your feelings or life seriously is the best tactic I've come to use. But I'm relatively young, so I might be wrong.
And it's pretty vacuous: so, what, don't act on chasing happiness? Feel lonely but act like it doesn't matter and do nothing? Try to exist in a psychologically-inert routine until you die? Yes. xDD Or, you know, do small things to improve things, but don't try too hard because it doesn't seem worth it.
(My exception to this would be superego, rather than id, shit like revolutionary action which has the potential to take you and everybody else into new maxima of well-being IN WHICH you otherwise try to exist in psychologically-inert routines until death -- because that's at least more meaningful than neurotically ping-ponging around for personal maxima of well-being. More return on stress investment.)
Insofar as it's possible, not taking your feelings or life seriously is the best tactic I've come to use. But I'm relatively young, so I might be wrong.
And it's pretty vacuous: so, what, don't act on chasing happiness? Feel lonely but act like it doesn't matter and do nothing? Try to exist in a psychologically-inert routine until you die? Yes. xDD Or, you know, do small things to improve things, but don't try too hard because it doesn't seem worth it.
(My exception to this would be superego, rather than id, shit like revolutionary action which has the potential to take you and everybody else into new maxima of well-being IN WHICH you otherwise try to exist in psychologically-inert routines until death -- because that's at least more meaningful than neurotically ping-ponging around for personal maxima of well-being. More return on stress investment.)
I don't know that I disagree with everything you've stated, but speaking from experience I do think if you half-ass your attempt at happiness, the grass will definitely be greener on the other side later in life.
Don't make exceptions about the things that make you happy, even if you know the things that make you happy might change down the road.
Don't make exceptions about the things that make you happy, even if you know the things that make you happy might change down the road.
Thanks for this comment. I had once reached this conclusion (everything is meaningless anyway, stop worrying about being single&lonely), but had forgotten it.
I think its really important to have your own time in a family. I think its a bit weird to go on holiday by yourself but that is maybe the best way. My wife goes home with the children for a while in the Summer and I'm left by myself and its really great - even when you just learn that you miss them.
Strike a deal with your other. We both take solo 1 week trips each year.
Amen. I feel so bad about how much I look forward to the occasional travel I do for work...
[deleted]
I don't know what the music scene is like in your area, but there is a vast plethora of people who want to compose/improvise with others. You can turn your coding/art-fu into a social asset if you see how to use it.
libcinder, openframeworks, pure data, faust, three.js, tone.js, there are a multitude of things regular musicians could use but don't know about.
libcinder, openframeworks, pure data, faust, three.js, tone.js, there are a multitude of things regular musicians could use but don't know about.
Also check out processing.org.
Wow, this post made me feel very lonely !
I am in relatively similar situation : I have moved from Europe to SF.
I probably work too much and my main hobbies are movies, video games, books, etc .. all pretty lonely occupations.
Most of the time I don't really mind being alone, not at all, but sometimes it is a painful feeling.
I also have a pretty established routine : -working a lot -working out -watching some movies/playing -sleep
rinse and repeat.
I know I should probably volunteer to some associations doing good.
I do have a girlfriend .. but we are in a long distance relationship, so we can't always be there for each other.
Open to tips in orer to meet new people in San Francisco !
I am in relatively similar situation : I have moved from Europe to SF.
I probably work too much and my main hobbies are movies, video games, books, etc .. all pretty lonely occupations.
Most of the time I don't really mind being alone, not at all, but sometimes it is a painful feeling.
I also have a pretty established routine : -working a lot -working out -watching some movies/playing -sleep
rinse and repeat.
I know I should probably volunteer to some associations doing good.
I do have a girlfriend .. but we are in a long distance relationship, so we can't always be there for each other.
Open to tips in orer to meet new people in San Francisco !
Check out https://www.meetup.com/. There are usually a lot of activities happening there where you can meet new people. I used to go to some photography meetups in south bay and tech meetups too, it was a nice low pressure way to meet new people.
Here's an idea: stay at a hostel. It's the easiest time you'll have making new friends. They won't last long and they will be young and poor but they'll be very friendly almost immediately. It won't give you true fulfilment but it'll make you not feel lonely for a while.
Adopt a dog. Go to the park twice a day. You’ll feel amazing.
I used to live in an area with lots of apartment buildings and had to babysit a friends dog for a couple of weeks. I met a couple of people when I took the dog out at 6:30am because they were doing the same thing. Ran into the same people every day. Plus you always let the dogs visit (sniff each other) so starting a conversation is almost automatic.
Now I have my own dogs. Easy to meet people if you go to obedience, agility, or other dog classes.
With a dog you get all of the above, plus the affection from the dog, plus the additional exercise.
Now I have my own dogs. Easy to meet people if you go to obedience, agility, or other dog classes.
With a dog you get all of the above, plus the affection from the dog, plus the additional exercise.
I've had the same experience. There are regulars that I get to talk to most days, and many of them have interesting stories. I'm friends with a retired college professor, lawyer, political activist, journalist, nurse, wedding planner and restaurant manager, fitness instructor. All from hanging out at the same dog park almost every day for a few years now. It only takes 30 minutes a day and makes me feel less lonely.
Dogs are a pain in the ass. They smell bad, and make your home smell bad. They require constant attention. Leaving them at home, locked up, all day long while you're at work working long hours is cruel. Your apartment/condo will require you to pay a big fee to get their poop DNA tested, and when you don't pick up their poop, you'll be slapped with a huge fine. Honestly, it's easier having a child: at least children can go to the bathroom by themselves after a few years, and eventually can feed themselves too.
Dogs don't fit in with every lifestyle.
Try yoga at a small studio, communities are often great :>
My anecdote: I went to yoga the same night at the same small studio for years. Mostly the same people showed up every week but I didn't find it to be an atmosphere good for socialization at all. I don't know at what point in a yoga class you'd have time for conversation.
Maybe afterwards when people are gathering up their stuff and heading out. There is always something to talk about, i.e. how you liked the class, was it hard or easy, etc.
This may vary a lot depending on ages, genders and past class experiences. If you're male and the class is largely not, trying to strike up conversations may get you quickly labeled 'creepy pickup artist.'
Some might think that but it doesn't really matter. You can meet tons of people who'll just want to chat and hang out. I do it and I see other males do it.
Exactly! Even before class if there's a reception/waiting room area, as people are less rushed.
I get you, not every studio has that kind of vibe. I go to a few different ones, and I've made tons of friend at one of them, while talking to people at other ones hasn't been as fruitful.
That's not everyone's "fit in" group though.
It's like saying attend local evangelical church. The people you meet will be potential friends for some types of people. For other types, not so much.
It's like saying attend local evangelical church. The people you meet will be potential friends for some types of people. For other types, not so much.
Good point. Although maybe a good percentage of people can imagine finding a social group at one or the other, noting that not all churches are evangelical in either theology or culture. Meaningful shared group experiences are important.
Virtually all churches have some sort of theology that they preach, and if you think it's a bunch of BS, it's not going to go well for you there. You can keep your mouth shut about it, but eventually the fact that you're living a lie will get to you.
But yoga is not a religion, although I get your point.
I used the yoga example because people there generally seek self-improvement and cultivate a good vibe, which helps in engaging social interactions
I used the yoga example because people there generally seek self-improvement and cultivate a good vibe, which helps in engaging social interactions
Hey man. I'm in Westerly! Occasionally make it into the city. And I'm very much into cycling. Always down to get beers, ride, check out live music, etc.
I’m in Providence but have no idea how to send a DM on HN; if you can see the email on my profile feel free to send something
Maybe a local book or movie club? I find these are a great way to meet some new people as an adult.
Attend some meetups in your area/start going to the gym regularly if you aren't already, I find the gym is a good way to meet people.
Are they? I usually feel like the last thing I'd ever do at a gym is talk to someone, and someone talking to me would be really surprising...
I find that if I'm going to the gym to work out, I don't much talk to people - when I'm lifting or on the treadmill or whatever, I'm focused on what I'm doing, and everybody else seems to be in the same boat. However, if it's something like a pickup basketball or soccer game, there's always time when you are waiting around between games that there is time for people to interact and chit-chat. Even more so with something like softball, where half the game you have down-time sitting in the dugout waiting to get up to bat.
Pickup Ultimate Frisbee is one of my suggestions, as you're right on about this. There is pickup Ultimate everywhere and people are mellow and friendly. You can use pickupultimate.com to look up local games (it's not complete, but a good start). People will happily teach you how to play -- just stand on the sideline & ask questions. Bring a white shirt and a dark shirt and you're ready to go.
Depends on the gym. If it's just a place where you spend 15 bucks a month and there's a bunch of machines you can use, probably not a meeting place. Would perhaps even be creepy and/or rude to talk to others.
But when you're taking classes with people, or it's a crossfit kinda gym that's totally built around a team concept, great place to meet people.
But when you're taking classes with people, or it's a crossfit kinda gym that's totally built around a team concept, great place to meet people.
To me, it seems like gym isn't the place. I've been taking group class for over 4 months. I've not made a single friend in this time. People come on time, do the class, pack up their shit quickly and leave.
It is in bay area, and I go-to my company gym which is fairly busy and big.
It is in bay area, and I go-to my company gym which is fairly busy and big.
I cannot think of anything worse than someone trying to talk to me while I'm at the gym. I'm very regimented, I've got specific exercises (sets and reps) and I'm watching my rest intervals to the second and mentally preparing for the next set. Just thinking about someone interrupting me between sets is giving me anxiety.
I guess it comes down to how you operate at the gym, is it a class, lifting, cardio? For me it would be really frustrating.
I guess it comes down to how you operate at the gym, is it a class, lifting, cardio? For me it would be really frustrating.
Yes and no.
When I worked out at 8 am, there were a lot of retired and semi retired people that LOVED to chat.
When I switched to lunch time, hardly any of that, people were in a rush to get in and out.
At 5:30AM I met a lot of regulars and also meet a lot of my wife's gym friends as she had been going at that time for years. But I couldn't do the 5:30am thing, really messed with my sleep. Too worried about getting to sleep early enough.
When I worked out at 8 am, there were a lot of retired and semi retired people that LOVED to chat.
When I switched to lunch time, hardly any of that, people were in a rush to get in and out.
At 5:30AM I met a lot of regulars and also meet a lot of my wife's gym friends as she had been going at that time for years. But I couldn't do the 5:30am thing, really messed with my sleep. Too worried about getting to sleep early enough.
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is a fantastic way to make a ton of friends and feel like you are part of something bigger than yourself. It’s a very “intimate” sport to begin with so forming close relationships is quite natural. The only negative is that serious injuries can and do happen that can take you out of the game for long periods of time (or permanently)
We are the most connected society in the history but still the most depressed and loneliest one. We have lost the significance of physical presence of someone. Over the years we have evolved to live in tribes, that is why depression was quite rare in Joint families.
I had a career change away from tech about two years ago, which happens to be the same time I moved to Providence! If you want to grab a drink sometime in the next couple days and chat about parks and rec, let me know!
Some other things you can do (which worked for me during a time of loneliness) are:
* be resourceful. For example, reach out to old co-workers or people you enjoyed being with and ask them to lunch or coffee
* go to coffee shops just to be around people
* go out to a movie
* use a dating site or app, if for nothing else but to meet and talk with another personReplied to a similar sentiment on reddit yesterday. Might be worth a read.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bxat83/people_wh...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bxat83/people_wh...
[deleted]
Join something! A band, a chamber group, an orchestra? An artists' collective with shared studio space?
Hey, you got a bunch of great people giving you suggestions for what to do. Just wanted to add - hang in there. I'm sure you'll get to a place in your life where you'll feel more connected with someone/less lonely in general.
Best of luck!
Best of luck!
As crazy as this sounds smoking weed can help if you are feeling lonely. It will help you disconnect from outside stimulus but too much and you'll find social interactions not as desirable as they are now.
It also makes you content with boredom. I'm not sure that's a proper solution, as in the long-term breeds a dependency.
I know this is a bit out of the blue; but going to improv classes, and book clubs, were really good ways to get out and meet interesting people. I wish you the best of luck in your socialization endeavors.
Consider adding a /social/ hobby. The ones I've found have very friendly people are improv and jiu jitsu.
Hmm you might be readier to start that partner/ family phase than you think ;)
Boston, MA. Send me an email.
Why don't you make an effort to meet new people and expand your social circle?
Whatever it is today, I fear the future will be much worse. The most devastating existential consequences of loneliness can take decades to manifest. You feel a little lonely in your day to day life now, but wake up twenty years from now and realize you're socially isolated with no meaningful relationships or community and it's "too late" to make up the lost time. Most dangerous of all may be that online social networks provide participants with the feeling of deep social and community engagement that turns out to be a surface-level mirage beneath which we were just each staring at ourselves in the mirror the entire time.
Suicide rates have skyrocketed for middle-aged white men in the US. They are now the highest statistic. [0]
It's happening already.
• Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US.
• The age-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was 14.0 per 100,000 individuals.
• In 2017, men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women.
• White males accounted for 69.67% of suicide deaths in 2017.
[0] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
It's happening already.
• Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US.
• The age-adjusted suicide rate in 2017 was 14.0 per 100,000 individuals.
• In 2017, men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women.
• White males accounted for 69.67% of suicide deaths in 2017.
[0] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
> men died by suicide 3.54x more often than women
That's a very interesting statistic considering women attempt suicide 1.2x more than men.
That's a very interesting statistic considering women attempt suicide 1.2x more than men.
Men tend to use firearms more often when attempting suicide whereas women tend to use medication more often. The latter is easier to treat and ambulances are better equipped for overdoses than gunshots.
Firearms is one possible explanation. An other is that women get treatment more than men, particularly for depression. Treatment greatly reduce the risk of completed suicide.
There is a large uncomfortable area within suicide data. In a study, about half who attempt suicide said it was a cry for help. While we can't ask those that die, we do have data that say that those people usually have both a history of suicide attempts and a lack of treatment for it. This combination has a gendered aspect.
So it can be firearms, the culture around treatment, both, or other aspects which explains why men die by suicide 3.54x more often than women while at the same time women attempt suicide 1.2x more than men.
I think the best action to reduce suicide is with the medical profession. Treatment of drug and alcohol addiction, depression, and those who have attempted suicide in the past. We can try to reduce the number of firearms and adding barriers on bridges and subway platforms, but I have my doubts that areas which implement such action actually see a reduction in completed suicides. At best it gives the health care system a bit more time to provide treatment.
There is a large uncomfortable area within suicide data. In a study, about half who attempt suicide said it was a cry for help. While we can't ask those that die, we do have data that say that those people usually have both a history of suicide attempts and a lack of treatment for it. This combination has a gendered aspect.
So it can be firearms, the culture around treatment, both, or other aspects which explains why men die by suicide 3.54x more often than women while at the same time women attempt suicide 1.2x more than men.
I think the best action to reduce suicide is with the medical profession. Treatment of drug and alcohol addiction, depression, and those who have attempted suicide in the past. We can try to reduce the number of firearms and adding barriers on bridges and subway platforms, but I have my doubts that areas which implement such action actually see a reduction in completed suicides. At best it gives the health care system a bit more time to provide treatment.
Another observation made by a few clinical physiologists I watch was that men are more likely to have a higher propensity for violence, so when they attempt suicide they are more effective at it. A man is more likely to take the more violent "way-out" and by extension the more lethal approach (rope, gunshot etc.), as opposed to a woman who takes the perceived less violent approach (overdose, suffocation etc.)
Whether that is the truth, my verdict is still out, but the literature seems to point that way.
Whether that is the truth, my verdict is still out, but the literature seems to point that way.
A plausible theory but it smells a bit like the idea that women care more about how they will look when they are dead so they apply suicide methods that won't deform their face.
My verdict leans heavily that suicide is always a failure in treating the underlying issue. Depending a bit on who you ask the wast majority of suicides is caused by untreated mental or emotional disorders, most commonly depression. A untreated disease which definition is the inability to feel happy and recover from feeling sad seems quite relevant in the context of suicide, and when we know there is a difference in treatment and see a difference in outcomes then that should be our first stop in our logical conclusions.
My verdict leans heavily that suicide is always a failure in treating the underlying issue. Depending a bit on who you ask the wast majority of suicides is caused by untreated mental or emotional disorders, most commonly depression. A untreated disease which definition is the inability to feel happy and recover from feeling sad seems quite relevant in the context of suicide, and when we know there is a difference in treatment and see a difference in outcomes then that should be our first stop in our logical conclusions.
But we have data that show how people die and what sex they are, and we see that some methods are mostly preferred by men and some methods are mostly prefered by women.
Threads about suicide on HN are suboptimal because most people don't really know what they're talking about and the CDC data is fucking impossible to use (compared to data from the UK).
Threads about suicide on HN are suboptimal because most people don't really know what they're talking about and the CDC data is fucking impossible to use (compared to data from the UK).
DanBC, no one is contesting the data in outcomes. The data show a clear difference in how women and men die from suicide.
What is discussed is the cause for it. The theory smells that men are violent thus they choose violent methods and women are vain and thus choose vain methods. It just conveniently fit our gender stereotypes perfectly which should be a rather big red flag for anyone looking at social science with a critical view.
There are several contending theories. To the degree that suicide attempts are a cry for help the difference in how society react towards men and women likely impacts the method of choice. An other theory is convenience where more women get opioids prescriptions then men, while more men are involved in activities with high gun ownership.
There are more. Gender differences in mental health, differences in alcohol consumption, and difference in social support networks are all additional suspects in explaining why we see a gender difference in outcomes and methods.
One of the data point that looks a bit odd is that even if we account of difference in method, men are about 60% more likely to still die in the attempt. As far as I know this difference is still there for methods like self-poisoning which is the most "preferred" method for women. Unless we want to go into the bucket of stereotypes again and simply state that men are more competent with suicide regardless of method it seems like we should entertain the idea of other causes for gender differences.
What is discussed is the cause for it. The theory smells that men are violent thus they choose violent methods and women are vain and thus choose vain methods. It just conveniently fit our gender stereotypes perfectly which should be a rather big red flag for anyone looking at social science with a critical view.
There are several contending theories. To the degree that suicide attempts are a cry for help the difference in how society react towards men and women likely impacts the method of choice. An other theory is convenience where more women get opioids prescriptions then men, while more men are involved in activities with high gun ownership.
There are more. Gender differences in mental health, differences in alcohol consumption, and difference in social support networks are all additional suspects in explaining why we see a gender difference in outcomes and methods.
One of the data point that looks a bit odd is that even if we account of difference in method, men are about 60% more likely to still die in the attempt. As far as I know this difference is still there for methods like self-poisoning which is the most "preferred" method for women. Unless we want to go into the bucket of stereotypes again and simply state that men are more competent with suicide regardless of method it seems like we should entertain the idea of other causes for gender differences.
Just because stereotypes exist, does not invalidate them. Most exist because of a common perception, correct or not. While I agree they should be challenged, they likewise can reveal things as well.
Is that an unreasonable assertion, when society pressures women much more heavily to place importance in their physical appearance?
It reads like kitchen psychology. "Wants to leave a pretty corpse" also seems like the worst possible motive, among many. Access to firearms would be a far easier explanation. Just with in the "pretty corpse" theme, I would consider "does not want those finding her to be shocked for life" to be far more important than vanity.
Huh. Didn't know that. The firearm thing makes a lot of sense.
I left out the statistic that mentioned in 2017, firearms accounted for 50.57% of all suicide deaths. Didn't want to get misconstrued because I support the 2nd amendment and people like to use this fact as ammunition against it.
But now I would like to see a breakdown of that statistic by gender, to see how many firearm-related suicides were men vs women.
I left out the statistic that mentioned in 2017, firearms accounted for 50.57% of all suicide deaths. Didn't want to get misconstrued because I support the 2nd amendment and people like to use this fact as ammunition against it.
But now I would like to see a breakdown of that statistic by gender, to see how many firearm-related suicides were men vs women.
Poland has virtually no guns, yet there is 6.7:1 male to female suicide ratio.
But the same thing applies - in Poland men will be chosing more violent methods (such as hanging) while women will be chosing poisoning.
The 4th is protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. I assume you meant the 2nd.
I'm curious what the breakdown is in Japan where suicide rate is high but firearms virtually non-existant. However, I understand suicide statistics from there may be unreliable.
I'm curious what the breakdown is in Japan where suicide rate is high but firearms virtually non-existant. However, I understand suicide statistics from there may be unreliable.
Government stats for Japan are here[1]. While there is a stigma around suicide here (particularly families wanting a death to be 'accidental'), I don't think it's common enough to really affect the statistics.
To quote the source: "For men, the most common method is hanging (首つり, 69.3%), followed by jumping (飛降り, 8.8%), and suffocation by burning charcoal or a similar substance (練炭等, 7.3%), and for women the most common method is hanging (59.8%), followed by jumping (14.2%) and drowning (入水, 6.3%)."
For both sexes, jumping appears to be significantly more common for children under 19 than other groups. Train jumping (飛込み) is much less common than you might think, but is common for the "age undermined" (不詳) group (men 14.3%, women 42.9%), presumably because the remains are hard to identify.
[1] https://www.mhlw.go.jp/wp/hakusyo/jisatsu/18/dl/1-6.pdf (page 30)
To quote the source: "For men, the most common method is hanging (首つり, 69.3%), followed by jumping (飛降り, 8.8%), and suffocation by burning charcoal or a similar substance (練炭等, 7.3%), and for women the most common method is hanging (59.8%), followed by jumping (14.2%) and drowning (入水, 6.3%)."
For both sexes, jumping appears to be significantly more common for children under 19 than other groups. Train jumping (飛込み) is much less common than you might think, but is common for the "age undermined" (不詳) group (men 14.3%, women 42.9%), presumably because the remains are hard to identify.
[1] https://www.mhlw.go.jp/wp/hakusyo/jisatsu/18/dl/1-6.pdf (page 30)
Thanks for providing this. It's the sort of info that's virtually impossible to find as someone who doesn't speak Japanese. (I tried and only found sources that weren't official or were overly general like WHO stats.)
These all seem like pretty awful ways to die. I don't even know how you go about drowning yourself. I'm surprised medication isn't more common.
These all seem like pretty awful ways to die. I don't even know how you go about drowning yourself. I'm surprised medication isn't more common.
do you happen to know how the gender gap works in Japan?
is it still the case that women try more and men die more? By what ratios?
is it still the case that women try more and men die more? By what ratios?
Wow that's an embarrassing typo. Thanks for catching that.
> I understand suicide statistics from there may be unreliable.
Why is that? I know suicide rates are high there, but isn't there information to glean from it?
> I understand suicide statistics from there may be unreliable.
Why is that? I know suicide rates are high there, but isn't there information to glean from it?
My guess would be social stigma.
Well there are two possible conclusions from this:
1- Women can't figure out how to effectively commit suicide and fail at the attempt at a rate that is 400% greater than men because they aren't capable - I don't believe this for a minute.
or
2- Women engage more in the cry for help attempt, while men go through with it all the way more often.
Personally I'd go with 2, but I'd be open to hearing any other alternative explanations.
The 'women do it wrong because they want to look pretty when dead' or 'women can't figure out violence' (a version of #1) seem like condescending conclusions drawn to avoid having to deal with the probability of #2, which sounds simpler.
1- Women can't figure out how to effectively commit suicide and fail at the attempt at a rate that is 400% greater than men because they aren't capable - I don't believe this for a minute.
or
2- Women engage more in the cry for help attempt, while men go through with it all the way more often.
Personally I'd go with 2, but I'd be open to hearing any other alternative explanations.
The 'women do it wrong because they want to look pretty when dead' or 'women can't figure out violence' (a version of #1) seem like condescending conclusions drawn to avoid having to deal with the probability of #2, which sounds simpler.
Some people 'attempt' suicide to attract attention, compassion, whatever. Obviously, dying is not in their plans.
I read once that women tend to do it for attention; like a cry for help in ways likely to fail such as pills, wrist cuts etc.
Men to do it to end their own existence and choose things like hanging, gunshot, jumping off a bridge etc.
Men to do it to end their own existence and choose things like hanging, gunshot, jumping off a bridge etc.
Are you assuming that all those suicides are linked to loneliness? What about people with money issues, incurable diseases, mental conditions, etc?
Why would I assume that 100% of suicides are linked to loneliness?
What bearing does that have on whether or not loneliness is a contributing factor to overall depression in the US?
What bearing does that have on whether or not loneliness is a contributing factor to overall depression in the US?
Often life issues are linked to depression so I'd argue yes indeed.
> Whatever it is today, I fear the future will be much worse.
People sleeping in their car at the airport to make their current gig(s) possible in the gig economy are already living in the future. Especially now that Uber has a STFU option. And not all gigs involve face to face clients.
People sleeping in their car at the airport to make their current gig(s) possible in the gig economy are already living in the future. Especially now that Uber has a STFU option. And not all gigs involve face to face clients.
Have you heard about transgenerational stress inheritance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_stress_inher...
We are also still learning about the gut-brain axis. The human microbiome is inheritable, and many modern practices (infant formula, C-sections, antibiotics, processed foods) having detrimental effects.
What's worse is humans seem to have an instinctive trend of self-isolation in the face of psychological distress, which worsens the condition.
Add the inevitable downstream effects of climate change (economic uncertainty if not another world war)... and, yeah, it's bleak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_stress_inher...
We are also still learning about the gut-brain axis. The human microbiome is inheritable, and many modern practices (infant formula, C-sections, antibiotics, processed foods) having detrimental effects.
What's worse is humans seem to have an instinctive trend of self-isolation in the face of psychological distress, which worsens the condition.
Add the inevitable downstream effects of climate change (economic uncertainty if not another world war)... and, yeah, it's bleak.
I agree with your first point — like other structural problems, loneliness adds up over time.
But on the second point, I'm really not sure that online social networks are just a "surface-level mirage." I met my spouse online, and many of my closest friendships have developed online, by instant message, etc. I don't think the alternative to "online communication" is necessarily that we will all socialize in person. If we got rid of the internet and instead (just for a random example) we were all alone in our houses reading books by ourselves, I think that would be a step back.
But on the second point, I'm really not sure that online social networks are just a "surface-level mirage." I met my spouse online, and many of my closest friendships have developed online, by instant message, etc. I don't think the alternative to "online communication" is necessarily that we will all socialize in person. If we got rid of the internet and instead (just for a random example) we were all alone in our houses reading books by ourselves, I think that would be a step back.
Yes on the second point, I think there's likely a distribution - perhaps 20% of participants use it as a helpful tool and 80% use it as a harmful crutch. I don't know what the actual ratio would be, but anecdotally I know quite a few young people in the latter group for whom many casual relationships seem to have replaced fewer serious ones.
I think the key is how social networks are used. You notably met your spouse online, which means at some point things presumably transitioned to an offline relationship which can't be terminated just by hitting a block button. Online networks can be great ways to meet new people, but there's ample evidence which suggests that having a purely digital social life is bad for mental health.
If we look at Tinder, there was a study of millennial users a while back which found that about 70% of them had never met anyone through it and didn't intend to. Moreover Tinder has economic incentives to keep you on their platform, swiping, texting, paying subscription fees, and viewing ads, all things you stop doing when you meet people and enter into a committed relationship.
Most social networks unfortunately follow this model; they have monetary incentives to keep you as engaged as possible in their all digital, all the time lifestyle, rather than unplugging and physically sharing space with other humans.
Healthier business models can certainly be imagined and maybe they'll even be implemented someday, but they aren't prevalent right now.
If we look at Tinder, there was a study of millennial users a while back which found that about 70% of them had never met anyone through it and didn't intend to. Moreover Tinder has economic incentives to keep you on their platform, swiping, texting, paying subscription fees, and viewing ads, all things you stop doing when you meet people and enter into a committed relationship.
Most social networks unfortunately follow this model; they have monetary incentives to keep you as engaged as possible in their all digital, all the time lifestyle, rather than unplugging and physically sharing space with other humans.
Healthier business models can certainly be imagined and maybe they'll even be implemented someday, but they aren't prevalent right now.
The opposite over here. Met less than a dozen at most of people exclusively through various online interactions. Use various online media and platforms only to sustain existing relationships and even this not always works. Dating and social networking applications from the FB platform are so full of attention absorbing people, inflencers, and similar that I have quit these long time ago.
Can't agree more with this. Social media apps kind of force people to post(show off) about their lives constantly; with people feeling the need to broadcast even trivial things in their life like a morning coffee. Things like stories makes it even worse as people viewing/commenting on stories gives you that dopamine fix throughout the day and you crave for more of the same by constantly posting.
I like the idea of these platforms for content creators like photographers, athletes etc. but overall I see a lot more negative than positive for common users.
Online dating apps are the worst and I even found myself getting sucked into the whole attention thing. I quit it when I realized a lot of women I was talking to/went on dates, was just to get the ego boost. It was very unhealthy for me and definitely not fair for the other person.
I like the idea of these platforms for content creators like photographers, athletes etc. but overall I see a lot more negative than positive for common users.
Online dating apps are the worst and I even found myself getting sucked into the whole attention thing. I quit it when I realized a lot of women I was talking to/went on dates, was just to get the ego boost. It was very unhealthy for me and definitely not fair for the other person.
> Whatever it is today, I fear the future will be much worse.
This is an easy trap for humans to fall into. "The sky is falling" type stuff.
Humans have faced lots of problems over the millenia, but the reality is that our lives continue to improve as a whole..not get worse.
This is an easy trap for humans to fall into. "The sky is falling" type stuff.
Humans have faced lots of problems over the millenia, but the reality is that our lives continue to improve as a whole..not get worse.
On the other hand, we're now facing situations that we've never faced before, both as a species and as individuals. Increasingly, we're moving towards a future where you will never need to leave your home or interact with anyone. Netflix, and Amazon deliveries. Self-driving cars. Kids will eventually get their education online. Virtual reality is under active development.
Then there's AI, and sex robots. Why bother with a real boyfriend/girlfriend when you can talk to your phone and have an artificial companion? Real humans have their own wants and needs and may not do what you want. Worse, they might leave you. Your robot girlfriend on the other hand, you could have endless conversations with her in which she tells you exactly what you want to hear and never challenges you.
That's far-fetched, you say. In the near term, I tried Tinder and it's pretty addictive. An endless stream of new people I can meet. Most of them want nothing serious though. They don't even want to sleep with you more than once or twice for the most part. It's all about novelty-seeking. It seems to me like increasingly few people want a sustained relationship. Breakups hurt, so let's never risk having one, a constant stream of lovers is emotionally safer in a way, I suppose, but I can tell you it definitely leaves me feeling lonely.
Then there's AI, and sex robots. Why bother with a real boyfriend/girlfriend when you can talk to your phone and have an artificial companion? Real humans have their own wants and needs and may not do what you want. Worse, they might leave you. Your robot girlfriend on the other hand, you could have endless conversations with her in which she tells you exactly what you want to hear and never challenges you.
That's far-fetched, you say. In the near term, I tried Tinder and it's pretty addictive. An endless stream of new people I can meet. Most of them want nothing serious though. They don't even want to sleep with you more than once or twice for the most part. It's all about novelty-seeking. It seems to me like increasingly few people want a sustained relationship. Breakups hurt, so let's never risk having one, a constant stream of lovers is emotionally safer in a way, I suppose, but I can tell you it definitely leaves me feeling lonely.
> Humans have faced lots of problems over the millenia, but the reality is that our lives continue to improve as a whole
That's untrue. Human civilizations tend to go through cycles. They rise, eventually stagnate, and then decline over the span of hundreds of years. The Akkadians, the Mycenaeans, the Romans, and the Maya all collapsed and the lives of people living in those empires got worse, often for a very long time.
It's reasonable to think that a similar type of decline is happening in the west today.
That's untrue. Human civilizations tend to go through cycles. They rise, eventually stagnate, and then decline over the span of hundreds of years. The Akkadians, the Mycenaeans, the Romans, and the Maya all collapsed and the lives of people living in those empires got worse, often for a very long time.
It's reasonable to think that a similar type of decline is happening in the west today.
I think comparing modern day civilization to the rise and fall of the Roman empire is a mistake, particularly European civilization. We learned our lesson. We’re not building empires, not waging expensive wars, not succumbing to armed revolution. People are for the time being mostly happy and prosperous.
That isn’t to say we don’t face challenges, but they’re fundamentally different from those of the empires of old. Something changed with true global markets, and mutually assured destruction.
That isn’t to say we don’t face challenges, but they’re fundamentally different from those of the empires of old. Something changed with true global markets, and mutually assured destruction.
I'm using ancient empires as an example because pretty much everyone agrees on what happened in ancient history. It's not a controversial / political issue to talk about Rome falling because nobody who was involved in those empires is alive today.
> We learned our lesson. We’re not building empires, not waging expensive wars
I don't know where you live, but here in America we've been at war with various Middle-Eastern nations for the last 2 decades. About 90% of the history of our nation has been spent involved in some kind of a war. Those are expensive wars too. We've spent trillions on Afghanistan alone. We have around 800 formal military bases in 80 foreign countries.
I think that we are far more imperialistic than the Romans, even though our culture doesn't acknowledge it.
> global markets, and mutually assured destruction
Yeah, we have better technology too and a very different financial system. However, this hasn't saved us from expressing many of the same symptoms that ancient collapsing empires had... Especially the social issues that this article talks about.
> We learned our lesson. We’re not building empires, not waging expensive wars
I don't know where you live, but here in America we've been at war with various Middle-Eastern nations for the last 2 decades. About 90% of the history of our nation has been spent involved in some kind of a war. Those are expensive wars too. We've spent trillions on Afghanistan alone. We have around 800 formal military bases in 80 foreign countries.
I think that we are far more imperialistic than the Romans, even though our culture doesn't acknowledge it.
> global markets, and mutually assured destruction
Yeah, we have better technology too and a very different financial system. However, this hasn't saved us from expressing many of the same symptoms that ancient collapsing empires had... Especially the social issues that this article talks about.
> Humans have faced lots of problems over the millenia, but the reality is that our lives continue to improve as a whole..not get worse.
I think this is no longer true. Life expectancy is actually on the decline in developed countries, driven by (among other factors) the loneliness epidemic described in this article.
You can argue over 5,000 years or something things have improved, sure, but in the present day there's a strong argument that quality of life is getting worse.
I think this is no longer true. Life expectancy is actually on the decline in developed countries, driven by (among other factors) the loneliness epidemic described in this article.
You can argue over 5,000 years or something things have improved, sure, but in the present day there's a strong argument that quality of life is getting worse.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the reason they continue to improve, is because of our fear that it won't?
A little fear, and skepticism of the future, is a good thing.
A little fear, and skepticism of the future, is a good thing.
Lookup steven pinker. The short of it is even if there are certain things that seem like a big problem, overall right now is the greatest time to be alive in human history, and in 10 years, or 20 years, or 30 years the same is likely to be true.
Man, the older I get the more I realize that life is always a balancing act. I immigrated from a 3rd world country (probably a 2nd world now) 20 years ago with my parents. Both of my parents were engineers and both were paid about once a year by their employer because nobody had any money. So we were broke and poor my entire childhood. And yet we always had friends visiting us. There were always celebrations. Seemed like we managed to get by and stay happy despite the circumstances. Rewind a couple decades later and I barely see my parents living. Both come home exhausted from work. I spent most days stuck in the office and then toil away working on my own projects and ideas. And that's it. We have everything we ever wanted and absolutely no happiness. I recently came back from a trip to my home country and I see neighbors talking to each other and inviting each other for dinners and celebrations. People are eager to help each other out. You can strike up a conversation with a total stranger at a bus station and it doesn't feel weird and awkward. I was looking at all of this and thinking if i'd give up everything i have now to simply enjoy humanity for a change. You can't have everything in this world.
> i'd give up everything i have now to simply enjoy humanity for a change.
Everything but security which, unfortunately, is worth giving up a lot of other things to have.
I'd move to my wife's home country tomorrow if we could live without fear of our child being kidnapped. My wife's uncle was kidnapped and murdered, another aunt and cousins bound in their home by robbers, and another cousin held for a day by a group of illegally armed militiamen from a neighboring country.
Other than that it's paradise!
Everything but security which, unfortunately, is worth giving up a lot of other things to have.
I'd move to my wife's home country tomorrow if we could live without fear of our child being kidnapped. My wife's uncle was kidnapped and murdered, another aunt and cousins bound in their home by robbers, and another cousin held for a day by a group of illegally armed militiamen from a neighboring country.
Other than that it's paradise!
> I'd move to my wife's home country tomorrow if we could live without fear of our child being kidnapped
Not comparing it with your wife's country (especially since you said people got murdered), but in the bay area, you won't find kids walking alone anywhere. Despite being one of the safest places in the US, parents and society overall is paranoid. They have traded group safety for individual safety.
Not comparing it with your wife's country (especially since you said people got murdered), but in the bay area, you won't find kids walking alone anywhere. Despite being one of the safest places in the US, parents and society overall is paranoid. They have traded group safety for individual safety.
What you wrote reminded me of an old film from 1986, _The Mosquito Coast_. Specifically the quote, "everything we need is right here."
Brazil?
Not far off. Sadly, there are any number of countries in the region with similar conditions.
And don't forget health-care ...
Somewhat less of a concern as long as you maintain coverage in your own country (in my case, US) and have the wherewithal to go home if you decide you need to. But yes, a serious accident or onset of a critical and fast-acting illness would have you questioning your choices.
“You'll get mixed up, of course, as you already know. You'll get mixed up with many strange birds as you go. So be sure when you step. Step with care and great tact and remember that Life's a Great Balancing Act. Just never forget to be dexterous and deft. And never mix up your right foot with your left.”
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, The Places You’ll Go!
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, The Places You’ll Go!
Pleasantly surprised to see this.
Grew up alongside a large family with an almost annual high school graduation party. That book was a cornerstone of the event, read aloud and a copy given to each graduate.
Never really "got it" until just now. Makes me wish I'd read his books a kid.
Grew up alongside a large family with an almost annual high school graduation party. That book was a cornerstone of the event, read aloud and a copy given to each graduate.
Never really "got it" until just now. Makes me wish I'd read his books a kid.
Lived for a couple of years in America and opted to return to my country for similar reasons as yours
Industrialized nations mistake comfort and wealth for happiness
Industrialized nations mistake comfort and wealth for happiness
Everyone does, not just Americans. People aren't born knowing what they want out of life. So the first instinct or the default setting, is to do what everyone else is doing. If everyone around you is chasing X you are likely to chase it too. The more connected the world gets the more that tendency is amplified. Everyone wants an iPhone and everyone wants to line up for Avengers 29 or whatever. If it was just the Americans Apple and Disney wouldn't be raking in the cash that they do. They are just taking advantage of that default setting.
People who have twiddled about with their own default settings, whether they are in China, America or Congo find different routes to happiness that have nothing to do with what the rest of herd is upto.
People who have twiddled about with their own default settings, whether they are in China, America or Congo find different routes to happiness that have nothing to do with what the rest of herd is upto.
I don't know where in America you lived, but not everywhere is like that. It is a big and diverse place, after all.
Which places are different?
Which places are different in the United States? That's a very board question but in general there are a handful of major regions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_...
The non-opioid-epidemic portions of rural America are very much like that.
How about if you clearly look different?
My wife wears the hijab, and I’m sure she would be treated differently in a more rural area, especially in the current political climate...
My wife wears the hijab, and I’m sure she would be treated differently in a more rural area, especially in the current political climate...
Michigan isn't a terribly dense state but has a large Muslim population.
My rural hometown had a population of around 2000 people, and supposedly around 10% or so are hmong. They weren't treated any differently as far as I knew; several were part of what passed for the preppy / popular clique in school.
I am a white male, and get plenty of stares, because I am unusually tall and have an unusual hair style. Wherever you go, if you stand out, people will notice. That isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't mean people don't like you.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
Looks like the oldest mosques in the united states are in places like Maine, North Dakota, and Iowa (in addition to obvious places like NYC). Like I said before, this is a big, diverse country.
My rural hometown had a population of around 2000 people, and supposedly around 10% or so are hmong. They weren't treated any differently as far as I knew; several were part of what passed for the preppy / popular clique in school.
I am a white male, and get plenty of stares, because I am unusually tall and have an unusual hair style. Wherever you go, if you stand out, people will notice. That isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't mean people don't like you.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
Looks like the oldest mosques in the united states are in places like Maine, North Dakota, and Iowa (in addition to obvious places like NYC). Like I said before, this is a big, diverse country.
Tell her to wear a MAGA hat over the hijab, then people will be too confused to harass her.
As a brown person who has spent plenty of time in more rural places in America—you’d be pleasantly surprised.
Wear a mossy oak hijab into the rotation if you want to go out of your way to fit in (or just don't any you'll probably be fine).
IMO you tend to get less racism in rural areas than you do in suburbs but when you get it it's not as obscured. It's a million times more about class and culture than it is about race.
IMO you tend to get less racism in rural areas than you do in suburbs but when you get it it's not as obscured. It's a million times more about class and culture than it is about race.
As an openly transgender person, I had the same thought. Specifically, in the Bay Area I can be a walking pride flag, and in fact strike up conversations with all kinds of people in all kinds of places and feel very connected. There's all kinds of community here that I haven't found other places I've lived.
In a lot of parts of the country I have to be very careful about what I say and how I present.
In a lot of other countries, my very existence is criminalized.
In a lot of parts of the country I have to be very careful about what I say and how I present.
In a lot of other countries, my very existence is criminalized.
Plenty of women in hijabs in rural Minnesota these days. Depends on the town but in a lot of places it's no problem at all.
If your wife wears a hijab, then you are right, you will need to stick to a few very specific parts of the US. The good news is that in those parts, you'll probably find a thriving Muslim community to interact with.
Neither discomfort and misery give you happiness. But with wealth and in comfort you have more resources to focus on what is really important to you!
I find it so incredibly ironic that it was immigrants, fleeing countries utterly lacking in comfort, wealth, or happiness, in search of a better life for themselves and their children, that helped build the comfortable industrialized nation of the United States.
It seems life - human existence - is cyclical and has amnesia. We forget too quickly what real discomfort is. Or at least, fail to strike a proper balance.
It seems life - human existence - is cyclical and has amnesia. We forget too quickly what real discomfort is. Or at least, fail to strike a proper balance.
somatic(3)
> inviting each other for dinners and celebrations
I've experienced more of this in the U.S., than in the Indian culture I grew up in. Hanging out with friends, having dinner together, inviting new people you don't know to dinner -- are all very much a part of American culture. People in the U.S. quite intentionally go out of their way to make new friends. It's one of things I love about the United States. In Indian culture, people often stick to just family, and a small circle of friends that rarely changes through life. Compared to that, American openness is wonderful.
> You can strike up a conversation with a total stranger at a bus station and it doesn't feel weird and awkward.
Ironically, the U.S. might be one of the only countries where this is common, and quite socially acceptable. Even in New York, I've broken norms, talked to strangers, and made new friends. In many countries, if you try to strike up a conversation with a stranger, you'll likely get a strange look, followed by silence or a curt unfriendly reply. I'm thankful that in general, people in the U.S. are so friendly, and happily willing to talk to and befriend total strangers.
I've experienced more of this in the U.S., than in the Indian culture I grew up in. Hanging out with friends, having dinner together, inviting new people you don't know to dinner -- are all very much a part of American culture. People in the U.S. quite intentionally go out of their way to make new friends. It's one of things I love about the United States. In Indian culture, people often stick to just family, and a small circle of friends that rarely changes through life. Compared to that, American openness is wonderful.
> You can strike up a conversation with a total stranger at a bus station and it doesn't feel weird and awkward.
Ironically, the U.S. might be one of the only countries where this is common, and quite socially acceptable. Even in New York, I've broken norms, talked to strangers, and made new friends. In many countries, if you try to strike up a conversation with a stranger, you'll likely get a strange look, followed by silence or a curt unfriendly reply. I'm thankful that in general, people in the U.S. are so friendly, and happily willing to talk to and befriend total strangers.
You, too, can strike up a conversation with a total stranger at a bus station and it doesn't have to feel weird. It is, however, likely to be short because people are so unused to it in the atomized west that, if you don't carry the whole conversation, they simply won't know what to say.
In much of "flyover country", Americans routinely greet, chat with, and interact with strangers in public. Ironically, it's one of the American traits often criticized by Europeans. "How rude, how intrusive, to invade my private bubble."
But then, the UK has a similar phenomenon, with sophisticated Londoners making the same complaints about England's own flyover country, "the North" [1]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT0ay9u1gg4
But then, the UK has a similar phenomenon, with sophisticated Londoners making the same complaints about England's own flyover country, "the North" [1]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT0ay9u1gg4
My mom lives in a small town in Canada. When she visits the Bay area and we go for walks, she always says "hi" to the people we pass. It usually makes people do a double take.
But it was the same when I lived in a mid-sized town in the mid-west US. People were much more friendly and inviting. Randomly striking up a conversation (small talk) was usually quite well received.
But it was the same when I lived in a mid-sized town in the mid-west US. People were much more friendly and inviting. Randomly striking up a conversation (small talk) was usually quite well received.
I moved to the bay area and it is comical how closed off people are. I say hi to people on the walking trail and maybe one in five will respond. This place is lonely central. If I didn't have my SO I'd go insane.
Yes, it's a big city behaviour more than first world behaviour.
It the UK it's a north / south divide, nothing to do with urban vs. rural. Disclaimer: Unfriendly southerner here. Also no idea if this is still true in 2019.
Also East/West. Seems to be worse the closer you get to London.
>>In much of "flyover country", Americans routinely greet, chat with, and interact with strangers in public.
I’ve had the opposite experience. Strangers routinely strike up conversations with me when I’m in New York, Boston, Chicago. Last time I was waiting for a friend at a bar, and there was baseball on TV. Some old man sitting next to me turned to me and started telling me about the time he got something signed by Babe Ruth. As a foreigner I’m totally used to it of course, but I’m also cognizant of the fact that it is out of the ordinary in American standards.
I’ve had the opposite experience. Strangers routinely strike up conversations with me when I’m in New York, Boston, Chicago. Last time I was waiting for a friend at a bar, and there was baseball on TV. Some old man sitting next to me turned to me and started telling me about the time he got something signed by Babe Ruth. As a foreigner I’m totally used to it of course, but I’m also cognizant of the fact that it is out of the ordinary in American standards.
Last night, I said something to my spouse about a conversation I had with a "single serving friend", and she didn't know what I was talking about. I said it was a Fight Club reference, then went farther and explained that I had a five minute conversation with a complete stranger (just walking down the street together), and I had to explain this idea to her, because she's an introvert and would never, ever engage in a conversation with a stranger.
How do you come to meet someone who seemingly doesn't have any way of meeting or interacting with others they aren't already acquainted with? How do you come to marry someone before you have this conversation to discover their lived experience of social interactions is so radically different to your own? No judgment, just a strange backstory that seems to raise more questions than it answers.
My spouse meets people entirely through her existing social networks - me, her existing friends, her dance community, and work. She doesn't just strike up conversations with complete strangers, it makes her very uncomfortable. Whereas I'm an extrovert and happily start or engage in conversations with strangers all the time.
She and I met back in the day through her boyfriend at the time (interestingly, we're still friends - he lives in town and we see him regularly). And she met him through her college roommate, freshman year.
She and I met back in the day through her boyfriend at the time (interestingly, we're still friends - he lives in town and we see him regularly). And she met him through her college roommate, freshman year.
The South is pretty friendly and outgoing in many places. I strike up conversations almost everywhere and most people are ok with it. Of course there are some people that hate small talk and I try to respect that.
Your second sentence seems to contradict the "it doesn't have to feel weird" part of the first.
hi5eyes(4)
Just move to you home country and enjoy all you like about it! It is that easy! You have to live there to compare, as grass is always greener on the other side, especially when you are on a vacation.
You are the master of your life! Make a block party to make neighbor friends, go to a park on a weekend, take a bus (yes, you can't start a conversation at a bus station if you only drive), travel to different US cities.
You are the master of your life! Make a block party to make neighbor friends, go to a park on a weekend, take a bus (yes, you can't start a conversation at a bus station if you only drive), travel to different US cities.
>especially when you are on a vacation.
This. I used to live in Seattle after vacationing there a handful of times, but after living there I found it to be one of the most least welcoming, racist, Progressively Elitist™ places I've ever lived (and I've lived all over the US).
It's easy to say "I will commit to making more meaningful connections with people/strangers today", but if this is not received or reciprocated; well...there's not really much you can outside of devoting more time in trying to breakthrough some sort of glass wall that some places have created an environment for. Which comes down to two choices in my book:
1. Fight through and prove yourself/others wrong 2. Go somewhere else that you feel will be more accepting
This. I used to live in Seattle after vacationing there a handful of times, but after living there I found it to be one of the most least welcoming, racist, Progressively Elitist™ places I've ever lived (and I've lived all over the US).
It's easy to say "I will commit to making more meaningful connections with people/strangers today", but if this is not received or reciprocated; well...there's not really much you can outside of devoting more time in trying to breakthrough some sort of glass wall that some places have created an environment for. Which comes down to two choices in my book:
1. Fight through and prove yourself/others wrong 2. Go somewhere else that you feel will be more accepting
Makes you wonder what will be the next political activism replacing feminism and social justice activism? It seems there will always be opposing opinions, no matter where you go, so you are seemingly missing 3. avoid/ignore politics the best you can.
:'(
The older I get, the more certain I am that people come first. No one sits around in old age wishing they had spent longer hours at the office.
The older I get, the more certain I am that people come first. No one sits around in old age wishing they had spent longer hours at the office.
We can have that here. We need to downsize our lives. Stop paying for things we don't need or really even want. Be okay with jobs that make less, even a lot less, as long as our basic needs are met. Leave our mobile phones on the desk and walk outside not knowing what you'll expect, and be open with meeting new people. If enough people do this, our towns and suburbs can be revitalized.
>We have everything we ever wanted and absolutely no happiness.
I guess this is the difference between generations and why they struggle most of the time understanding each other. What older generation dreamed about and worked hard to get the younger generation takes for granted, and that is not necessarily something bad. I would argue that it's mostly good, because that's why people have ambitions/goals/dreams about something which previously thought was impossible. Hence pioneering in different fields of science, entrepreneurship, social interaction, etc.
This is basic evolution, yet we struggle to understand it. Old organisms in almost every aspect of life are hard to change. That's why the nature takes care of it time so naturally. Most parents don't realize that they don't have to love what their children do in order to simply love them and let them live their dream.
Just like with everything in this universe, "Wants" tend to swing from one side to the other just like a pendulum.
The tricky part is trying to find the balance without overshooting, and restarting the cycle.
The tricky part is trying to find the balance without overshooting, and restarting the cycle.
One workaholic to another: There’s plenty of people in the US, even in places like San Francisco, who have balanced lives and don’t spend their whole time working. Put in their 8 or 10 hours per day at a startup then go off and do fun hobbies like standup comedy, singing in church choirs, or just binging Netflix.
Hell, my girlfriend has zero sidehustle and she does just great for herself.
Working all day erryday is a choice you are making. I make that choice because I didn’t move here to coast and I’m okay, even happy, with the tradeoff.
Food for thought :)
Hell, my girlfriend has zero sidehustle and she does just great for herself.
Working all day erryday is a choice you are making. I make that choice because I didn’t move here to coast and I’m okay, even happy, with the tradeoff.
Food for thought :)
8 hours is a full days work.
Most people only have a couple of hours to themselves after working 8 hours + commuting, buying/preparing/eating food, ablutions, taking care of various chores etc.
Is 10 the norm where you are? That is very saddening. Where are you btw? During/after the industrial revolution many workers fought hard and died just to get the the working day down to 8 hours (and not 12 or more which is what the industrialists wanted)
It's pretty common for people in SFBA to work 10 hours per day. Something about signaling that you're eager and a team player and want to advance etc. 8 or 10 hours doesn't particularly matter. My point is that even in some of the most competitive markets in the world, people do just fine with doing a full day's worth of work, then going home and having a life.
OP seems to be under the impression that this is somehow not possible.
The trend among engineers of doing a full day's worth of work then going home and working even more on side projects, open source, or whatever is a whole 'nother bag of worms. I'm not sure why we do that. You wouldn't expect a marketer to go home and do some marketing in their spare time. Or a business person to make some slide decks for fun.
Us engineers are weird.
edit: Why is this getting downvoted? Is it really that unimaginable on HackerNews that one could work full-time and still have time for hobbies, friends, and family?
OP seems to be under the impression that this is somehow not possible.
The trend among engineers of doing a full day's worth of work then going home and working even more on side projects, open source, or whatever is a whole 'nother bag of worms. I'm not sure why we do that. You wouldn't expect a marketer to go home and do some marketing in their spare time. Or a business person to make some slide decks for fun.
Us engineers are weird.
edit: Why is this getting downvoted? Is it really that unimaginable on HackerNews that one could work full-time and still have time for hobbies, friends, and family?
The author of this talk actually specifically mentions the phenomenon of software engineers going home and working on more software, for free. People are motivated, and the reason why makes sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Odd. All the recent grads I know are skirting 7 because they hate their jobs, and so far it hasn't backfired.
I work 10 hours a day, but only 4 days a week
> toil away working on my own projects and ideas
Maybe you should give up that part and have fun instead.
Maybe you should give up that part and have fun instead.
My mother, dad, aunts, etc. all immigrated to the US in a period of about 5 years. They all settled in Brooklyn and a few even lived in the same apartment complex. Growing up the extended family was HUGE and someone new was over every Sunday.
The next generation has become geographically spread out, I moved to the West Coast, a few of my cousins are in college out of state.. about half of this generation is likely to build their family outside of the NYC metro area, my children's generation is likely to split off from wherever I settle as well.
This is an unfortunate cost of the "American dream", my parents, aunts and uncles didn't have great paying jobs but they were close to family.. for the cost of a higher salary many of us make decisions that make communication with those we love difficult. Yesterday was my brother's 30th birthday but because of the time difference and work schedules we did not speak on the phone, only through text.
The next generation has become geographically spread out, I moved to the West Coast, a few of my cousins are in college out of state.. about half of this generation is likely to build their family outside of the NYC metro area, my children's generation is likely to split off from wherever I settle as well.
This is an unfortunate cost of the "American dream", my parents, aunts and uncles didn't have great paying jobs but they were close to family.. for the cost of a higher salary many of us make decisions that make communication with those we love difficult. Yesterday was my brother's 30th birthday but because of the time difference and work schedules we did not speak on the phone, only through text.
I never had a lot of family around while I was growing up. It was just my parents and sister, one set of grandparents (until my early teens), and a few other non-family people that my parents treated like family.
I similarly moved to the west coast. My parents have passed away, and my sister (and her family) still lives on the east coast. I've made myself a family of sorts out of a group of very close friends, but I do feel the lack of family sometimes, especially when I see how close some friends are with their (local) extended family members.
It's something I never expected to have, especially given the small nature of my family while growing up, and yet I still feel like I'm missing out on something.
I similarly moved to the west coast. My parents have passed away, and my sister (and her family) still lives on the east coast. I've made myself a family of sorts out of a group of very close friends, but I do feel the lack of family sometimes, especially when I see how close some friends are with their (local) extended family members.
It's something I never expected to have, especially given the small nature of my family while growing up, and yet I still feel like I'm missing out on something.
I find myself an anomaly and doubt my life choices sometimes for deciding to stay near family rather than chasing the career dream. But perhaps it's because I saw the cost, in my parents' generation, of immigration and long distances. I saw the benefits too...
I moved away from family to a new city around 5 years ago for a job, and I'm in the midst of deciding if I should move back. Most of my immediate and extended family lives where I grew up, but job prospects aren't as good (I work remotely, so less important but still relevant), and culturally it's probably a step down from where I am. That said, I'm from a fairly large family, and having them around is something I miss despite visiting several times a year.
My grandparents as children lived in farming/ranching communities where all the rest of their family lived. But then along came WWII and after the war many went to college on GI Bills and subsequently ended up living far apart from each other. Their children ended up living in a number of different states. I have eight brothers and sisters and we all live in different states scattered all across the USA from east to west and north to south. It has been decades since we were last all together in the same location. I already assume that my children will settle down somewhere far removed from where they were raised. Heck, I plan on moving away from where I raised them when I retire. I just can't see how it could ever go back to families living in the same town. It seems so unrealistic and infeasible.
Yeah articles like this oen gloss over the nuclear family already being historically odd and perhaps the first step on this lonely disaggregation.
I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and girls don't have time and don't want to commit to a stable long relation. They invest pretty much themselves and their time in their career, traveling , parties, dogs, cats and bitcoins :) !
The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40 years old! Travel the world and have fun.
By the time they are somewhat satisfied with theirs status they have reached ~35 years old. At that point is more difficult to find a person and accept to share your life and habits with them.
They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it.
I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families.
I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. It is hard to find kids friendly restaurants, hotels and resorts. People invite you to parties and kids are always not welcome. Not to mention also the additional cost associated with having a family.
But you know what ? I am so happy every day when I come home and my kids run towards me and we play and have fun. I and my wife coudln't be happier!
A piece of advice, stop running, take time off and think about your life beyond work and money. Traveling is fun but is way more fun and interesting when you can share it with some one you care about, like your family!
The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40 years old! Travel the world and have fun.
By the time they are somewhat satisfied with theirs status they have reached ~35 years old. At that point is more difficult to find a person and accept to share your life and habits with them.
They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it.
I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families.
I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. It is hard to find kids friendly restaurants, hotels and resorts. People invite you to parties and kids are always not welcome. Not to mention also the additional cost associated with having a family.
But you know what ? I am so happy every day when I come home and my kids run towards me and we play and have fun. I and my wife coudln't be happier!
A piece of advice, stop running, take time off and think about your life beyond work and money. Traveling is fun but is way more fun and interesting when you can share it with some one you care about, like your family!
> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it.
Reminds me of this passage from The Brothers Karamazov:
> “I heard exactly the same thing, a long time ago to be sure, from a doctor,” the elder remarked. “He was then an old man, and unquestionably intelligent. He spoke just as frankly as you, humorously, but with a sorrowful humor. ‘I love mankind,’ he said, ‘but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,‘ he said, ‘I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I can begin to hate even the best of men: one because he takes too long eating his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps blowing his nose. I become the enemy of people the moment they touch me,’ he said. ‘On the other hand, it has always happened that the more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.’”
The speaker goes on to say:
> Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.
Reminds me of this passage from The Brothers Karamazov:
> “I heard exactly the same thing, a long time ago to be sure, from a doctor,” the elder remarked. “He was then an old man, and unquestionably intelligent. He spoke just as frankly as you, humorously, but with a sorrowful humor. ‘I love mankind,’ he said, ‘but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,‘ he said, ‘I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I can begin to hate even the best of men: one because he takes too long eating his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps blowing his nose. I become the enemy of people the moment they touch me,’ he said. ‘On the other hand, it has always happened that the more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.’”
The speaker goes on to say:
> Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.
Nice quote. Does the author tell why he ends up hating a human when he loves humanity. I think I too have that problem. I look at all the TED talks and think I should love humanity but I have a bad husband to my wife and a bad father to my kids. tia.
I think it's not anything wrong with you per se, nor have I read the book, but I think it's because like the author says, dealing with people on an individual basis requires personal sacrifice. Particularly, emotional sacrifice. Allowing people to get a cold without letting it bother you. Making compromises and being forced to do things you don't want, while not being able to do what you want, on a daily micro level.
Whereas tasks that show your love for humanity are more detached from actual individuals. Curing cancer requires you to interact with lab equipment and microorganisms more than humans. Sure your opportunity costs here may be playing video games or traveling, but they are less emotional costs and more material costs.
Paying emotional tolls is difficult, and from my experience, many people are simply incapable of paying them. I mean, they are or may be capable, but they would have to change the way they act or behave, and they are not willing to do so. I think there's a genetic component to it.
Whereas tasks that show your love for humanity are more detached from actual individuals. Curing cancer requires you to interact with lab equipment and microorganisms more than humans. Sure your opportunity costs here may be playing video games or traveling, but they are less emotional costs and more material costs.
Paying emotional tolls is difficult, and from my experience, many people are simply incapable of paying them. I mean, they are or may be capable, but they would have to change the way they act or behave, and they are not willing to do so. I think there's a genetic component to it.
Both of you need to watch this talk by David Foster Wallce immediately: https://youtu.be/8CrOL-ydFMI
It’s incredible and very relevant.
It’s incredible and very relevant.
It is nice to know you are fan of David Foster Wallace. I first came across This is Water about 10 years back, shortly after he passed away. It was an article that appeared on New York Times. The article described what an extraordinary writer he was. The I read This is Water. It was jaw dropping. I have read that essay several times after that. I have remembered the contents of that article several times when struck by melancholy. I was deeply moved by that essay. He has written This is water with such deep understanding of the human condition and with such empathy. I have wept for his untimely death. I always wonder, how does he was able everything about the humans in slow motion and with such high resolution. Amazing. No words. We are worse off without him.
I heard someone describe this as the "capstone" vs "conerstone" model. Previous generations got married and had kids much earlier, and built their lives off of that cornerstone. When it comes to me personally and my peers, we see marriage and children more as a capstone -- something to be done once our student loan is paid, or when we're ready to put a down payment on a house, when we get that promotion, etc.
I'm still in awe that starting off your life with massive student loans is a thing. This is almost always a very poor decision as there are tons of cheap regional schools where a part time job can mostly get you through school with very little debt. And yet we've got a generation of new adults starting life under crushing debt that purchased them something of dubious value (an expensive degree versus a cheap one). My regional university had a decent CS program and tuition was $3k/year.
> tons of cheap regional schools
Where?
I teach at the University of South Carolina, where tuition and fees are over $10K a year. To my knowledge, the same is true of all the other four-year colleges in the state (Clemson, College of Charleston, Lander, USC Upstate, The Citadel etc.)
Not as outrageous as private school tuition, but it's still a very substantial burden, especially when you factor in food and housing as well.
My impression is that this is quite typical for the US. I would be delighted to learn that I am mistaken.
Where?
I teach at the University of South Carolina, where tuition and fees are over $10K a year. To my knowledge, the same is true of all the other four-year colleges in the state (Clemson, College of Charleston, Lander, USC Upstate, The Citadel etc.)
Not as outrageous as private school tuition, but it's still a very substantial burden, especially when you factor in food and housing as well.
My impression is that this is quite typical for the US. I would be delighted to learn that I am mistaken.
The "one weird trick to graduate on the cheap! colleges hate him!" of choice these days is community college.
Have fun trying to get your credits to transfer. I had trouble getting credits to transfer from the Air Force Academy to a state college. They want you to do them there. They would take them as generic credit hours but it was an uphill battle to get them to actually satisfy graduation requirements (which are the real thing that keeps you from graduating, you will already have enough credit hours).
Have fun trying to get your credits to transfer. I had trouble getting credits to transfer from the Air Force Academy to a state college. They want you to do them there. They would take them as generic credit hours but it was an uphill battle to get them to actually satisfy graduation requirements (which are the real thing that keeps you from graduating, you will already have enough credit hours).
I've always heard that you should complete your AA at community college before transfering for your bachelors as it's a lot easier to transfer with the entire degree than trying to translate individual credit hours between schools.
So first two years cheap at community college for an AA/AS then you only have two years for your bachelors at a more expensive school.
So first two years cheap at community college for an AA/AS then you only have two years for your bachelors at a more expensive school.
I was charged more than that for a public university in the 1990s. In a few years I paid for that, my wife's similar loans, and a new car. I also got married and had my first two kids.
So it looks cheap to me, assuming the housing isn't insane. I think there is a reasonable assumption that a person gets loans, chooses a sensible major, and actually graduates.
So it looks cheap to me, assuming the housing isn't insane. I think there is a reasonable assumption that a person gets loans, chooses a sensible major, and actually graduates.
As it turns out, if you ask children with little to no experience living independently and managing money to do something predicated on living independently and managing money, they make poor decisions.
>I'm still in awe that starting off your life with massive student loans is a thing.
I'm of the opinion that, at least in the US, we romanticized the idea of "going off to college" to "find yourself". It is assumed to be this huge drug-fueled, party sex orgy that is funded on essentially credit.
I'm of the opinion that, at least in the US, we romanticized the idea of "going off to college" to "find yourself". It is assumed to be this huge drug-fueled, party sex orgy that is funded on essentially credit.
> tons of cheap regional school
That is how it was when I first went away to college in 1994; I think I paid around $3k a year tuition at University of Missouri. I started planning a 529 for my kids this week and was shocked to find that in state tuition here (South Carolina) is $15K a year for just tuition and fees. I'm scared to imagine what it will be in ten years.
That is how it was when I first went away to college in 1994; I think I paid around $3k a year tuition at University of Missouri. I started planning a 529 for my kids this week and was shocked to find that in state tuition here (South Carolina) is $15K a year for just tuition and fees. I'm scared to imagine what it will be in ten years.
You can still find small regional schools around the country which are cheaper, although not if you have to pay out of state tuition. But between rising healthcare costs and rising administrative costs, each of which represent roughly 50% of the increase in college tuition, with the small remainder being states kicking in less per student.
Without a doubt college is a lot more expensive, and it is much harder to find a school doing things cheaper. Which is why my kids will likely just live at home and get their degrees online. They'll miss out on some college experiences which they can then make up for by not being $80k in the hole when they graduate. I mean most kids are on a 25 year payment plan, which is basically their entire working life.
Without a doubt college is a lot more expensive, and it is much harder to find a school doing things cheaper. Which is why my kids will likely just live at home and get their degrees online. They'll miss out on some college experiences which they can then make up for by not being $80k in the hole when they graduate. I mean most kids are on a 25 year payment plan, which is basically their entire working life.
Got married at 38, first kid coming at 40. Had nothing to do with debts and all that other stuff; I chose to live out my wild years to full satisfaction and natural completion.
First and only kid at 41 for me, no looking back. Keep disrupting, dad!
I know two sisters who each got married.
The older one practiced worldly prudence, courted during high school, got engaged at beginning of college, and waited almost a decade until after her fiancé graduated before they got married and started to have children. But now he can't get a job with his degree (pharmacist), she works at some retail job as a manager, and the whole family lives with her parents. He's in >$100,000 debt and briefly went to a medical facility during a nervous breakdown after realizing he realistically can't pay it back.
The younger sister had no such ambitions. Courted in high school, got engaged, married right out of high school, immediately started a family, he works at Walmart making higher than average money, and she stays at home raising the kids. They also live with her parents in the same house.
True stories. This all happened over the past 7 years.
I would say the prudence of the second couple vastly outshines the "prudence" of the first couple.
The older one practiced worldly prudence, courted during high school, got engaged at beginning of college, and waited almost a decade until after her fiancé graduated before they got married and started to have children. But now he can't get a job with his degree (pharmacist), she works at some retail job as a manager, and the whole family lives with her parents. He's in >$100,000 debt and briefly went to a medical facility during a nervous breakdown after realizing he realistically can't pay it back.
The younger sister had no such ambitions. Courted in high school, got engaged, married right out of high school, immediately started a family, he works at Walmart making higher than average money, and she stays at home raising the kids. They also live with her parents in the same house.
True stories. This all happened over the past 7 years.
I would say the prudence of the second couple vastly outshines the "prudence" of the first couple.
I'm not sure your story proves a whole lot.
By the way you phrase it, the outcome of the older sister hinged upon the husband failing to get a job as a pharmacist. If he had successfully landed a job, the outcome of your story would be very different.
The same argument could be made for the younger sister. What happens when Walmart downsizes, and the husband is out of job with a background only in retail?
I'm not sure it is worth citing or criticizing the 'prudence' of either couple.
By the way you phrase it, the outcome of the older sister hinged upon the husband failing to get a job as a pharmacist. If he had successfully landed a job, the outcome of your story would be very different.
The same argument could be made for the younger sister. What happens when Walmart downsizes, and the husband is out of job with a background only in retail?
I'm not sure it is worth citing or criticizing the 'prudence' of either couple.
Plus, I'm under the impression that "can't get a job as a pharmacist" is a rare problem.
The first couple waited almost a decade to start having a family, and accrued $100k in debt.
The second couple had a family immediately, have no debt, and are otherwise in the exact same situation as the first couple.
And the couple that had children sooner, are younger and more energetic, and also have less stressful jobs that allow them to spend more time and better quality time with them.
Also there is a real value in having the mom stay at home full time where she can teach their children their own values and guard them from bad practices or influences at such an impressionable age.
The second couple had a family immediately, have no debt, and are otherwise in the exact same situation as the first couple.
And the couple that had children sooner, are younger and more energetic, and also have less stressful jobs that allow them to spend more time and better quality time with them.
Also there is a real value in having the mom stay at home full time where she can teach their children their own values and guard them from bad practices or influences at such an impressionable age.
How is living at home with your parents an example of prudence?
Where is this? There's no where in the US where you can't get a job as a pharmacist. No where. Retails are needed very much so, you have to stand and it pays really freaking well, except it's hard to cross over into other types. Again, in the USA, in any state in this country, working full time, at the very worse, you will make $90k/yr as a pharmacist.
It's changed. Check out r/pharmacy.
Getting a PharmD used to be a golden ticket. Then a ton of schools opened up and flooded the market. Wages are actually on the way down and from what I've heard, the retail jobs really suck.
Getting a PharmD used to be a golden ticket. Then a ton of schools opened up and flooded the market. Wages are actually on the way down and from what I've heard, the retail jobs really suck.
There's either something you don't know or aren't telling us. There has to be a specific reason why someone who holds a Doctor of Pharmacy would be unable to get a job.
Wow, neither of these examples are at all appetizing as an example of a life well lived!
I am not sure how you come to that conclusion without knowing more details. What if the couples truly love each other and enjoy each other's company. What if they share looking after children thus having time for themselves and each other. There might be people who have good jobs are able to travel but hate their jobs, are lonely and don't like their spouse.
I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids.
I think we hear about the bad stuff, some flight attendant or passenger complains, and the logical conclusion of a family with a crying baby is booted is the end result. My counter-anecdote is the exact opposite, my fourteen month old daughter cried the majority of our 3.5 hour return flight and she was quietest (not quiet but quietest) was when I was standing and holding her in the middle of the aisle. Any dirty looks, and I scanned for them occasionally, were non-existent (or I missed them and they never vocalized) and most people either had noise-cancelling headphones or just rolled with it. When we apologized for the noise there was a lot of "Oh ours our teenagers now, we've been there, you're ok!"
Some of it maybe the bigger stink they make the longer it all takes, but a lot of it is probably shared communal experiences. If some baby was wailing their lungs off next to me on a plane, I'd roll with it, the parent(s) is having a far tougher time of it then I am.
I think we hear about the bad stuff, some flight attendant or passenger complains, and the logical conclusion of a family with a crying baby is booted is the end result. My counter-anecdote is the exact opposite, my fourteen month old daughter cried the majority of our 3.5 hour return flight and she was quietest (not quiet but quietest) was when I was standing and holding her in the middle of the aisle. Any dirty looks, and I scanned for them occasionally, were non-existent (or I missed them and they never vocalized) and most people either had noise-cancelling headphones or just rolled with it. When we apologized for the noise there was a lot of "Oh ours our teenagers now, we've been there, you're ok!"
Some of it maybe the bigger stink they make the longer it all takes, but a lot of it is probably shared communal experiences. If some baby was wailing their lungs off next to me on a plane, I'd roll with it, the parent(s) is having a far tougher time of it then I am.
Same observation here. I've never seen anyone give dirty looks to any crying kids / babies on a plane. Most people are closing their eyes / sleeping or have their headphones on doing whatever. I mean, there are so many solutions to a crying kid (for the observer) that there's no reason to get upset about it (and I haven't seen this being the case at all).
>I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families.
that's a wrong dichotomy. There's no fundamental reason why 35 year olds don't socialize, or why our education system stops at 25, why we have no communal institutions, and so on.
The alternative isn't just between individualism and the family, what is needed is building out communities in ways that gives people the ability to connect in new ways that reflect our changes in work and living arrangements.
As the article mentions the UK has introduced a minister for the problem of loneliness. What we need is to put policies into place that develop new modes of social life and to expand the public sphere.
The nuclear family isn't really that attractive any more for a reason, so just asking to go back isn't really a great idea. People like the freedom that comes with having no or fewer children, being able to move, and being financially independent.
that's a wrong dichotomy. There's no fundamental reason why 35 year olds don't socialize, or why our education system stops at 25, why we have no communal institutions, and so on.
The alternative isn't just between individualism and the family, what is needed is building out communities in ways that gives people the ability to connect in new ways that reflect our changes in work and living arrangements.
As the article mentions the UK has introduced a minister for the problem of loneliness. What we need is to put policies into place that develop new modes of social life and to expand the public sphere.
The nuclear family isn't really that attractive any more for a reason, so just asking to go back isn't really a great idea. People like the freedom that comes with having no or fewer children, being able to move, and being financially independent.
That is an interesting opinion.
Can you expound on what you would propose. My experience is that clubs or meetups often don't forge all that close relationships. Another example I could think of which is more positive is co-ops where people lived in a door room type experience with community rules and chore responsibilities (cooking, cleaning, maintenance). But I think many adult American's would think of a co-op as to close to a commune.
Can you expound on what you would propose. My experience is that clubs or meetups often don't forge all that close relationships. Another example I could think of which is more positive is co-ops where people lived in a door room type experience with community rules and chore responsibilities (cooking, cleaning, maintenance). But I think many adult American's would think of a co-op as to close to a commune.
Coop living for the elderly I think would be a fairly good start, I'm German and we have some of those communities in the south, it's usually like a small village where older residents take care of each other with the assistance of some company who provides caregivers, but people enjoy much greater autonomy than they do in their homes. It's not only cheaper, but also more dignified and people seem to be happier.
For younger people I think coops are a great thing too. In the US implementing policies that discourages single family housing and promotes closer connection between workspace and living space I think would help. If you live and work in walking distance of your chess club going there is more likely compared to someone living in the suburbs.
For communities there's also time banking which has gotten a little attention in recent years. Essentially paying people in a special currency for reciprocal help in their local communities that can only be exchanged locally, and everyone earns the same based on how long they work. Basically an egalitarian approach to fill in the gap where markets are too anonymous to provide meaning or where they don't exist at all.
And then I think government and companies should do much more to promote education for middle aged and older people. And not just online learning, but physical interaction. In my experience educational institutions are some of the best places to make new social connections.
For younger people I think coops are a great thing too. In the US implementing policies that discourages single family housing and promotes closer connection between workspace and living space I think would help. If you live and work in walking distance of your chess club going there is more likely compared to someone living in the suburbs.
For communities there's also time banking which has gotten a little attention in recent years. Essentially paying people in a special currency for reciprocal help in their local communities that can only be exchanged locally, and everyone earns the same based on how long they work. Basically an egalitarian approach to fill in the gap where markets are too anonymous to provide meaning or where they don't exist at all.
And then I think government and companies should do much more to promote education for middle aged and older people. And not just online learning, but physical interaction. In my experience educational institutions are some of the best places to make new social connections.
i'm 26 and have traveled a fair bit and lived/worked in the US and UK
young people go to the cities for high status, high paying jobs to pay off student loans and/or save up for the future in an increasingly uncertain world
competition is extremely high for these jobs, compounded 1000x due to the rise and use of social media among my generation, which always suggests that next thing to buy or that next vacation to go on, either from corporations or your "friends" (it's hard to tell which is which after a while) - get that raise so you can unlock the next tier of stuff you see wealthy people doing
gone are the days of getting an intellectually stimulating and well paying job with IBM/Ford/GE and building your career off it while having a family young, people my age usually stay in a job for 2/3 years then on to the next startup/job/"adventure" (if they have the right degree to get a job in the first place)
then there's a completely separate cohort of people my age who have settled outside the city, gotten married, looking to have kids in low cost of living areas and figure out job stuff as they go (very risky unless you own your own biz or work for a family biz)
dating is a similarly competitive game in the big cities, one that warrants its own 10 page essay per city based on the conversations i've had with single friends in LA/NY/London/SF
the gap between generations is growing more and more pronounced/quicker due to technology grouping similar people together and amplifying their cultures...it takes effort but you need to continuously bridge this gap with those younger than you, otherwise their needs, desires, motivations will be completely alien to you - i almost don't understand the fortnite meme generation, but i make efforts to
most young people are acutely aware of life outside work and money (especially asians/immigrants due to pressure from conservative parents), but it's getting harder and harder to find the middle class/balance between earning enough to have a family comfortably and affording a place to live while keeping your job options healthy/open for whatever BS is coming next down the economic chain
young people go to the cities for high status, high paying jobs to pay off student loans and/or save up for the future in an increasingly uncertain world
competition is extremely high for these jobs, compounded 1000x due to the rise and use of social media among my generation, which always suggests that next thing to buy or that next vacation to go on, either from corporations or your "friends" (it's hard to tell which is which after a while) - get that raise so you can unlock the next tier of stuff you see wealthy people doing
gone are the days of getting an intellectually stimulating and well paying job with IBM/Ford/GE and building your career off it while having a family young, people my age usually stay in a job for 2/3 years then on to the next startup/job/"adventure" (if they have the right degree to get a job in the first place)
then there's a completely separate cohort of people my age who have settled outside the city, gotten married, looking to have kids in low cost of living areas and figure out job stuff as they go (very risky unless you own your own biz or work for a family biz)
dating is a similarly competitive game in the big cities, one that warrants its own 10 page essay per city based on the conversations i've had with single friends in LA/NY/London/SF
the gap between generations is growing more and more pronounced/quicker due to technology grouping similar people together and amplifying their cultures...it takes effort but you need to continuously bridge this gap with those younger than you, otherwise their needs, desires, motivations will be completely alien to you - i almost don't understand the fortnite meme generation, but i make efforts to
most young people are acutely aware of life outside work and money (especially asians/immigrants due to pressure from conservative parents), but it's getting harder and harder to find the middle class/balance between earning enough to have a family comfortably and affording a place to live while keeping your job options healthy/open for whatever BS is coming next down the economic chain
28 here, and I agree completely. Nice point about the people who try to figure the job thing out while taking the more “traditional” path — I feel like that’s a sizable part of our generation that’s usually ignored.
Also, yeah, I don’t get the memes that my high school niece sends me at all. Their sense of humor is completely foreign to me.
Also, yeah, I don’t get the memes that my high school niece sends me at all. Their sense of humor is completely foreign to me.
>gone are the days of getting an intellectually stimulating and well paying job with IBM/Ford/GE and building your career off it while having a family young,
well for me personally at least that's a great thing. Working for giant company X while living in company town coming home to your labradoodle and your wife with a cooking pot to in hand to watch TV to me is the horror very well portrayed in American Beauty.
Coming out of university I could pick between going abroad, working for a startup, working for a normal business, working from home even, not being looked down for not wanting a family and so on. The liberty I have today is something my parents never had. And sure, with freedom comes disorientation and competition, but to me that's exciting rather than distressing.
well for me personally at least that's a great thing. Working for giant company X while living in company town coming home to your labradoodle and your wife with a cooking pot to in hand to watch TV to me is the horror very well portrayed in American Beauty.
Coming out of university I could pick between going abroad, working for a startup, working for a normal business, working from home even, not being looked down for not wanting a family and so on. The liberty I have today is something my parents never had. And sure, with freedom comes disorientation and competition, but to me that's exciting rather than distressing.
Yep, definitely we have much more freedom of travel and work. which is great if you embrace and are prepared and ready for that lifestyle. keep doing your thing! another book/movie that addresses the american dream trap is revolutionary road by yates, i'd recommend the book if you like american beauty. but these are both cultural artifacts of a different era IMO
> young people go to the cities for high status, high paying jobs to pay off student loans and/or save up for the future in an increasingly uncertain world
The current world is very capitalistic - high risk and high reward. Smart people are aware that there are paths that will allow them to retire at 40 or earlier, and are trying to pursue them. Unfortunately, these paths often require lots of dedication, so people neglect other areas of life. Whereas in earlier days, there were perhaps fewer good paths to financial independence, and people just accepted being in their jobs until old age, and tried to find comfort in family, friends etc.
The current world is very capitalistic - high risk and high reward. Smart people are aware that there are paths that will allow them to retire at 40 or earlier, and are trying to pursue them. Unfortunately, these paths often require lots of dedication, so people neglect other areas of life. Whereas in earlier days, there were perhaps fewer good paths to financial independence, and people just accepted being in their jobs until old age, and tried to find comfort in family, friends etc.
Along a similar note... kids are for the young. When you're in your 20's it's MUCH easier to play with young kids and at least try to keep up as it is when you're in your 40's.
There's also something to be said for averting hookup culture and actually trying to build a relationship as opposed to ejecting at the first sign of inconvenience.
I say both of these things as a twice divorced 40-something that hasn't had kids of his own and deeply regrets it.
There's also something to be said for averting hookup culture and actually trying to build a relationship as opposed to ejecting at the first sign of inconvenience.
I say both of these things as a twice divorced 40-something that hasn't had kids of his own and deeply regrets it.
FWIW I'm 50 and have an almost 5-year-old and almost 1-year-old. So far I'm keeping up with them OK.
I am a bit worried about having an 18 year old and being 68 though. We'll see how it goes.
I am a bit worried about having an 18 year old and being 68 though. We'll see how it goes.
my dad was 45 when I was born and 47 when my brother was born.
maybe he didn't have as much energy as some of the younger dads when I was a kid. but on the other hand he was able to retire while I was in high school, so he was able to spend a lot more time with my brother and I before we moved out.
maybe he didn't have as much energy as some of the younger dads when I was a kid. but on the other hand he was able to retire while I was in high school, so he was able to spend a lot more time with my brother and I before we moved out.
It's easier to sell to lonely individuals than a satisfied family. Hence all the crazy pressure to work more and be less... human.
You sure? People with families tend to spend more money (out of necessity). It's easier for people without kids to save up more money.
It's easier to meet your basic survival needs as an individual, and thus you have more disposable income for nonsense commodities. Everybody I know who is single and has a good job buys tons of junk they don't need (or often even want). It's the norm.
It's a variant of norm. Another variant is to throw away anything one doesn't use for more than a year, rent-not-buy most of entertaining stuff, including musical instruments, game consoles, fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts. Actually, hoarding and junk collecting is a prerogative of the poor.
Even renting "fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts" sounds like an opulent lifestyle, where someone has a lot of disposable income and is finding was to entertain himself with the extra cash.
It may sound like that, but it may be the other way around. Here in Moscow I can rent SmartForFour Cabrio for 720 RUB (10.80 USD) per hour via carshering app, insurance and city parking included. 45 feet sailing yacht on Mediterranean costs 2500 EUR per week and is suitable for up to 6 people, berthing and fuel will add 500 EUR, cheaper than most of hotels. Check out AirBnB for holiday villas)
Yeah I was literally doing some research on an electric unicycle that I probably won't use too often.
People with families spend more money on commodities. People without spend more on luxury goods which have higher margins.
Bringing a child into the world to increase my own personal happiness, when nothing else I could do has such a direct and massive climate impact, is not something I can justify personally. Not to mention, my child would have to live to see the impacts of climate change.
There is coming a point (it has already passed, in my opinion), where we can no longer justify our purpose for existence as "creating more humans."
There is coming a point (it has already passed, in my opinion), where we can no longer justify our purpose for existence as "creating more humans."
That's an extremely negative-sum way of viewing the world. Some individual humans (and even communities) can and have had a net-positive impact on the environment. For instance, did the parents of Greta Thunberg have a net-negative impact on the world by choosing to bring her into it?
When people implicitly say that bringing children in the world is necessarily a net-negative on climate, they're implying that their lifestyle is necessarily net-carbon-positive and that they just refuse to do enough to make their own lifestyle net-carbon-negative. Yet it IS possible to do so. I'm reminded of this Indian fellow who planted an entire forest pretty much by himself (although surely his wife/family also helped enable him to accomplish that goal): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7i3QlMvsZs
...there are so many decisions one can make to cut one's carbon emissions to near zero. And some decisions can even make one's carbon emissions negative (some startups at Y Combinator, even... although there are more proven methods as well).
The most powerful thing as a parent is that you can help pass on your values to your children. Teach them (through example) how to live a low or negative carbon lifestyle and teach them the value of the environment and why the Earth must be protected. Plant trees. Make intentional decisions with lifestyle (mode of travel, living arrangements, diet) that lower carbon emissions, and explain these things to your children starting at a young age.
Because the world will NEED people with those values in the future if climate change will ever be addressed and eventually reversed without a collapse of human civilization. Because if everyone with a positive view of the environment and the need to fight climate change does not pass on that worldview to their children, BUT those who deny climate change and do not value the environment pass on their worldview to their children, then that is clearly not going to work out for those who value the environment.
When people implicitly say that bringing children in the world is necessarily a net-negative on climate, they're implying that their lifestyle is necessarily net-carbon-positive and that they just refuse to do enough to make their own lifestyle net-carbon-negative. Yet it IS possible to do so. I'm reminded of this Indian fellow who planted an entire forest pretty much by himself (although surely his wife/family also helped enable him to accomplish that goal): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7i3QlMvsZs
...there are so many decisions one can make to cut one's carbon emissions to near zero. And some decisions can even make one's carbon emissions negative (some startups at Y Combinator, even... although there are more proven methods as well).
The most powerful thing as a parent is that you can help pass on your values to your children. Teach them (through example) how to live a low or negative carbon lifestyle and teach them the value of the environment and why the Earth must be protected. Plant trees. Make intentional decisions with lifestyle (mode of travel, living arrangements, diet) that lower carbon emissions, and explain these things to your children starting at a young age.
Because the world will NEED people with those values in the future if climate change will ever be addressed and eventually reversed without a collapse of human civilization. Because if everyone with a positive view of the environment and the need to fight climate change does not pass on that worldview to their children, BUT those who deny climate change and do not value the environment pass on their worldview to their children, then that is clearly not going to work out for those who value the environment.
Just to follow up, there are things one can do immediately to drive their carbon emissions negative.
For instance, pay people to plant (native) trees and restore ecosystems (or do it yourself). About $15/month could offset your entire carbon footprint and bring it negative: https://mossy.earth/
If you don't buy that argument for forest restoration counting ($15/ton of CO2), then you could also try some of the more expensive methods like sustainable biochar sequestration ($300/ton CO2). Even the super expensive options for offsetting CO2 are no more than a car lease payment at the individual level (and cheaper, of course, if you reduce your direct emissions as well).
For instance, pay people to plant (native) trees and restore ecosystems (or do it yourself). About $15/month could offset your entire carbon footprint and bring it negative: https://mossy.earth/
If you don't buy that argument for forest restoration counting ($15/ton of CO2), then you could also try some of the more expensive methods like sustainable biochar sequestration ($300/ton CO2). Even the super expensive options for offsetting CO2 are no more than a car lease payment at the individual level (and cheaper, of course, if you reduce your direct emissions as well).
I had no idea something like this existed. A beautiful combination of cool, clever, and inspiring. Thanks for making me aware of it.
It is not realistic to expect that children will live without carbon emissions when it is clear that billions and billions of people don´t do that.
We have too many people on the planet. Carbon emissions is only one of the many huge environmental problems we have. Creating new consumers to the planet is clearly the most devastating act for the environment what individual people can do.
We have too many people on the planet. Carbon emissions is only one of the many huge environmental problems we have. Creating new consumers to the planet is clearly the most devastating act for the environment what individual people can do.
You can't just dismiss out of hand the power of individual choices (living carbon negative) while simultaneously advocating for a certain type of individual choice (not having children).
The number of people that can inhabit the planet without destroying the environment is highly dependent on individual choices and (maybe even more) government policy. Government policy is determined by voting power, which is in turn determined by the values of people weighted by population. So absolutely it matters if the pro-environment folk advocate removing (to some degree) their own voice from future populations of voters while anti-environment folk do not.
The most devastating act that individual people can do is to not pass on positive, lasting values to the next generation. Because you're not going to stop anti-environment people from passing down negative values by doing so; you'll in fact be amplifying their stance. We must heal the Earth.
The number of people that can inhabit the planet without destroying the environment is highly dependent on individual choices and (maybe even more) government policy. Government policy is determined by voting power, which is in turn determined by the values of people weighted by population. So absolutely it matters if the pro-environment folk advocate removing (to some degree) their own voice from future populations of voters while anti-environment folk do not.
The most devastating act that individual people can do is to not pass on positive, lasting values to the next generation. Because you're not going to stop anti-environment people from passing down negative values by doing so; you'll in fact be amplifying their stance. We must heal the Earth.
Do you think you qualify for receiving the Darwin Award?
If you want plants to die, starve them of carbon dioxide.
> Because the world will NEED people with those values in the future ..
The world doesn't even need human or dinosaur. It will work just fine.
The world doesn't even need human or dinosaur. It will work just fine.
I'm pretty sure that by "the world" the GP meant human civilization.
And I feel like that's obvious enough that this objection that you and others raise has to be willful, disingenuous misinterpretation, just to be disagreeable or something.
And I feel like that's obvious enough that this objection that you and others raise has to be willful, disingenuous misinterpretation, just to be disagreeable or something.
The way I see it is that you don't bring child into the world to "increase" your own personal happiness. They are (at least in my personal case) the result of my own happiness. And yes they require a lot of work, but all the hard work is totally worth it every time your children look at smile at you.
My point is not that they require a lot of work. My point is that they have a massive impact on climate change. You could spend your entire life flying to conferences, living on a cruise ship, dumping trash in the ocean, and none of it would even hold a candle to the environmental impact of having a child.
This type of attitude is pretty common these days. It's this postmodern view of the world where humanity is somehow separate from nature and must be controlled to protect nature. This is such an arrogant attitude. Sure, you may be right, that having a child has a high carbon footprint, but your decision to not have children doesn't improve anything. Not being actively bad isn't the same as being good.
What's your point? That we should collectively bury our heads in the sand and keep living the two-kids-and-a-minivan suburb life right up until the end?
That's quite the extrapolation from what I actually said. My point is that the choice to not have children is not the same as actively helping. Not making things worse is not "good". And demonizing all of humanity as though we are somehow a virus to be eliminated is arrogant. We can be mindful of our impact on the environment without assuming that we're a problem.
> Not making things worse is not "good".
If you have Choice A which actively makes things worse and Choice B which doesn't make things worse then Choice A is the "good" choice as it is the one that causes the least harm. Driving a 50cc scooter instead of a car doesn't actively help carbon emissions, in fact it still puts out carbon, but it any reasonable person would say that switching from a car to a scooter helps the environment. Splitting hairs over whether doing less harm counts as "helping" isn't very productive.
If you have Choice A which actively makes things worse and Choice B which doesn't make things worse then Choice A is the "good" choice as it is the one that causes the least harm. Driving a 50cc scooter instead of a car doesn't actively help carbon emissions, in fact it still puts out carbon, but it any reasonable person would say that switching from a car to a scooter helps the environment. Splitting hairs over whether doing less harm counts as "helping" isn't very productive.
> That we should collectively bury our heads in the sand and keep living the two-kids-and-a-minivan suburb life right up until the end?
Have kids and don't do that. If the "good guys" aren't having kids then we'll be fucked. I assure you the "bad guys" are having loads of kids and they don't care one iota about climate change....
Have kids and don't do that. If the "good guys" aren't having kids then we'll be fucked. I assure you the "bad guys" are having loads of kids and they don't care one iota about climate change....
There's a 3rd option not being given attention here: adoption. Why play into the idea that the fate of the future depends on some contest to reproduce more "good guys" than "bad guys"? There's plenty of kids that need families who, otherwise, may become the very "bad guys" you speak of. At the same time, you're not further burdening the world's ecosystem with another human simply because of a selfish desire to have another "you" out there. Sounds like a win-win to me.
The view isn't that humanity is separate from nature. It's being cognizant of humanity's impact on nature. The decision not to have children absolutely does improve the situation. In fact, as far as environmental impact the decision to have children is one of the highest-impact choices a person can make. I suppose if you want to be pedantic it doesn't improve anything but it does drastically reduce the continued harm to the environment.
> It's this postmodern view of the world where humanity is somehow separate from nature and must be controlled to protect nature.
The viewpoint that really puts humanity as separate from nature is the one that assumes that the planet can support an unlimited quantity of humans without obliterating nature in the process. How many people do you think the earth can support? 10 billion? 15 billion? At some point we're going to hit a wall. But, thanks to technology, long before we hit that wall most of the plants and animals we take for granted today will be gone.
If we want to preserve a fraction of the biodiversity we have today, at some point soon the human population of the planet will have to stop growing. People who don't have kids are making the rational, forward-looking choice as far as I'm concerned.
The viewpoint that really puts humanity as separate from nature is the one that assumes that the planet can support an unlimited quantity of humans without obliterating nature in the process. How many people do you think the earth can support? 10 billion? 15 billion? At some point we're going to hit a wall. But, thanks to technology, long before we hit that wall most of the plants and animals we take for granted today will be gone.
If we want to preserve a fraction of the biodiversity we have today, at some point soon the human population of the planet will have to stop growing. People who don't have kids are making the rational, forward-looking choice as far as I'm concerned.
> The viewpoint that really puts humanity as separate from nature is the one that assumes that the planet can support an unlimited quantity of humans without obliterating nature in the process...
The true but unpleasant situation is that, on average, people on HN should be having more kids while those in developing countries should have fewer.
You not having a kid is very unlikely to be a net positive for humanity if you live in a developed country with a large, stable income.
The true but unpleasant situation is that, on average, people on HN should be having more kids while those in developing countries should have fewer.
You not having a kid is very unlikely to be a net positive for humanity if you live in a developed country with a large, stable income.
> The true but unpleasant situation is that, on average, people on HN should be having more kids while those in developing countries should have fewer.
Exactly backwards if you look at the resource consumption and carbon footprint per capita in SF vs. that in developing countries[1]. iPhones and Ubers and Bird scooters are expensive. Not just in monetary terms but in terms of generating tons of carbon emissions during production, operation, and disposal/recycling.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Exactly backwards if you look at the resource consumption and carbon footprint per capita in SF vs. that in developing countries[1]. iPhones and Ubers and Bird scooters are expensive. Not just in monetary terms but in terms of generating tons of carbon emissions during production, operation, and disposal/recycling.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
> People who don't have kids are making the rational, forward-looking choice as far as I'm concerned.
People who don't have kids because they are worried about climate change are doing a big disservice because they are ensuring that all the folks who don't give a rusty rats ass about climate change eventually outnumber them.
People who don't have kids because they are worried about climate change are doing a big disservice because they are ensuring that all the folks who don't give a rusty rats ass about climate change eventually outnumber them.
Ideology and science are not like the ability to run fast. They don't require biological heritage to propagate. If I spent the money I would spend educating my kids on funding education in the developing world it would probably result in far more net increase in awareness of climate change.
Developing world's impact on climate change on per capita basis is tens and hundreds times smaller than America's.
It's not them you need to educate.
And we can work towards that kind of preservation without demonizing humanity as a whole and not view ourselves as some kind of virus that must be eliminated. That's really my point. And it's a very arrogant view that ironically stems from religion, though no liberal westerner will ever admit to it. The concept of humans being separate from nature goes back to the story of Adam and Eve and is embedded in western thought. It's a good thing to be mindful of the environment, but it's not a good thing to think that all of humanity is evil and needs to be eliminated in order to save the earth.
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. Carrying capacity is a thing, and it applies both at the petri dish level and at the biome/global level.
“Nature” as it existed 500M years ago has been obliterated and does not exist today. Same for nature as it existed 100M and 10M years ago. Who’s to say which era’s version of nature is correct and deserves special preservation?
Well, by your logic, killing all the people in the most overpopulated areas would be a great thing to do. That and/or sterilize them all.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
> Not being actively bad isn't the same as being good.
True, but doesn't being good involve not being actively bad?
True, but doesn't being good involve not being actively bad?
No. You don't get points for being not-bad. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
So it's OK to be bad as long as you are also being good? Seems like the two would cancel each other out, at best.
nwalker85(1)
> My point is not that they require a lot of work. My point is that they have a massive impact on climate change. You could spend your entire life flying to conferences, living on a cruise ship, dumping trash in the ocean, and none of it would even hold a candle to the environmental impact of having a child.
Your argument applies equally to "having a child" and "letting some person live."
Your argument applies equally to "having a child" and "letting some person live."
That's a pretty big jump. In one case, I create a human where one does not currently exist. In the other case, I choose to impose my will on a human that currently exists and has a will of their own.
> That's a pretty big jump.
It's not as big of a jump as you think. If climate change is such an urgent issue that anti-natalism should be on the agenda, perhaps it's a big enough crisis to motivate a re-evaluation of some old ideas about the sanctity of individual human lives.
It's not as big of a jump as you think. If climate change is such an urgent issue that anti-natalism should be on the agenda, perhaps it's a big enough crisis to motivate a re-evaluation of some old ideas about the sanctity of individual human lives.
This is like the bartender telling you that "maybe you've had enough" and, instead of just not drinking anymore, you immediately calling an ambulance to take you to the hospital and get your stomach pumped.
Seems like all-or-nothing thinking to me.
Seems like all-or-nothing thinking to me.
> perhaps it's a big enough crisis to motivate a re-evaluation of some old ideas about the sanctity of individual human lives
You say this flippantly, but if we don't eventually reverse the trends, this will happen. It will be camouflaged in the garb of warfare against the "enemy", as it always is.
You say this flippantly, but if we don't eventually reverse the trends, this will happen. It will be camouflaged in the garb of warfare against the "enemy", as it always is.
You're delusional if you think climate change isn't going to play out without human deaths on a massive scale, regardless of whether that's wars for habitable land and water or explicit murders of "surplus" populations.
We're on a path that is going to significantly lessen the carrying capacity of the planet (on the human timescales we care about). It's implicit and unavoidable barring a wholescale change in power structures and probably human attitudes in general.
It's not a good thing but it is inevitable at this point.
We're on a path that is going to significantly lessen the carrying capacity of the planet (on the human timescales we care about). It's implicit and unavoidable barring a wholescale change in power structures and probably human attitudes in general.
It's not a good thing but it is inevitable at this point.
So you want war? War is the way scarce resources tends to be managed at scale...
It really, really sounds like you haven’t done the math. The average per-capita CO2 emissions in the USA is about 15 tons (among the highest in the world) and a round-trip flight between SF and NY is about 1.5 tons, 10% of that. So if you flew to conferences 10 times per year, you would be using the entire carbon footprint of an average US citizen, which is among the highest in the world.
I assume you think the child would stay put? :)
You're disregarding future procreation in those calculations[0]:
[0]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
[0]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
Your original statement - that a carbon-hedonistic lifestyle of frequent flying and cruise ships would still be lower CO2 output than having children - is flatly wrong, and your source does not bolster your argument.
Sure, but who's to say whether or not those children will fly on planes or go on cruises? Or their grandchildren? Or their great-grandchildren? This strikes me as a fallacious argument that simply not going on cruises or plane rides can offset the environmental footprint of having children. At least not unless there's some mechanism to forbid those children from every flying on a plane or taking a cruise - and not aware of any such mechanism.
What have you personally done to change that? To reduce your ecological impact? To improve the world.
There's an old saying that if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You don't think raising a child under the auspices of being environmentally aware, and that their influence would extend beyond yours is a good thing? That if you and your partner only have one child, you are generationally reducing the population while allowing your views to seed and grow.
There is so much negativity in the world... kind of lines up with the article title itself, and is more of the same problem than the solution. Even then, you aren't helping the world by actively not having children.
There's an old saying that if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You don't think raising a child under the auspices of being environmentally aware, and that their influence would extend beyond yours is a good thing? That if you and your partner only have one child, you are generationally reducing the population while allowing your views to seed and grow.
There is so much negativity in the world... kind of lines up with the article title itself, and is more of the same problem than the solution. Even then, you aren't helping the world by actively not having children.
So you are saying that children "have a massive impact on climate change" ?
I don't have any statistics that can either confirm or dispute that assertion. But I will gladly ban SUV and Cruise s in favor of whatever climate impact children can have.
I don't have any statistics that can either confirm or dispute that assertion. But I will gladly ban SUV and Cruise s in favor of whatever climate impact children can have.
Are you crazy? Increasing the number of humans on the planet is the number one thing you can do to worsen climate change. You forget that we are nothing but an organism, we all produce waste and contribute hardly nothing beneficial to the environment.
If that is true of organisms, then life of all types is a net negative.
What a sad perspective. I know many people who contribute massively to the environment. Maybe you need to choose a different, pro-environment lifestyle? Plant some trees. It's possible to live carbon negative and pass on those values to your children.
What a sad perspective. I know many people who contribute massively to the environment. Maybe you need to choose a different, pro-environment lifestyle? Plant some trees. It's possible to live carbon negative and pass on those values to your children.
You should acquaint yourself with trees and fungus, if you think negative environmental impact is the case with all organisms.
Oh, I'm sure an overgrowth of trees or fungus would lead to a net negative for some living thing somewhere.
Indeed.
Why not just raise your kids with a low eco footprint? The whole argument is silly to me. If you want to find the best action you and your children can do about climate change - it’s going vegan.
The impact of changing your diet is not all that large. You can wipe out a year of eating vegan with a single transatlantic flight.
There’s a ton of info out there that says it better than I can but the consensus is the vegan diet is the biggest thing you can do.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“Agriculture is a sector that spans all the multitude of environmental problems,” he said. “Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“Agriculture is a sector that spans all the multitude of environmental problems,” he said. “Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
> You forget that we are nothing but an organism, we all produce waste and contribute hardly nothing beneficial to the environment.
So in your view, humans are weeds. Do you think it's time to get out the weedkiller?
So in your view, humans are weeds. Do you think it's time to get out the weedkiller?
This is the biggest load of bull.... being pushed these days, reaming of a selfish, entitlement attitude.
And what about your environmental impact? How do you justify that?
That's a hard question. Some days I don't have an answer.
In a book i've read the hero was saying that if you believe the end of the world is imminent, and you are contemplating suicide, then most likely you are in a cult.
Unfortunately modern environmentalism is a cult with its own armageddon. And WWF actively displacing native hunter gatherer people to "save the wildlife". What is the point of preserving environment if there are no people in it?
In fact shrinking population is the worst thing for the environment that can happen now, because at this point we have already activated the natural process of arctic melting and releasing CO2, and even if half of people were magically removed there wouldn't be a huge difference.
On the other hand the new science and technology depend on large number of people ready to pay for them. Things like starlink, new CPUs, would be impossible with smaller population. But if the population was larger, we would already have floating cities increasing carbon capture in sea, desalination plants irrigating large parts of sahara, system of balloons, solar updraft towers and satellites controlling the local climate.
If you are from a rich country, not having children is doubly bad, because you have all the resources to give these kids better education. The world would have been a much better place if people from western countries were immigrating to the rest of the world bringing their money and their knowledge of how to build a better society, but instead of that the rich countries are making easy for smart and entrepreneurial people to immigrate there leaving us perpetually underdeveloped. (When most of the people who were exposed to western values, and had good education immigrate, there is not enough power remaining to fight with those who want to build medieval dictatorship).
Unfortunately modern environmentalism is a cult with its own armageddon. And WWF actively displacing native hunter gatherer people to "save the wildlife". What is the point of preserving environment if there are no people in it?
In fact shrinking population is the worst thing for the environment that can happen now, because at this point we have already activated the natural process of arctic melting and releasing CO2, and even if half of people were magically removed there wouldn't be a huge difference.
On the other hand the new science and technology depend on large number of people ready to pay for them. Things like starlink, new CPUs, would be impossible with smaller population. But if the population was larger, we would already have floating cities increasing carbon capture in sea, desalination plants irrigating large parts of sahara, system of balloons, solar updraft towers and satellites controlling the local climate.
If you are from a rich country, not having children is doubly bad, because you have all the resources to give these kids better education. The world would have been a much better place if people from western countries were immigrating to the rest of the world bringing their money and their knowledge of how to build a better society, but instead of that the rich countries are making easy for smart and entrepreneurial people to immigrate there leaving us perpetually underdeveloped. (When most of the people who were exposed to western values, and had good education immigrate, there is not enough power remaining to fight with those who want to build medieval dictatorship).
Any data to cite on this claim?
I can type "environmental impact of having a child" into google[0]
[0]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
[0]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
That's taking the average of all humanity.
If pro-environment people do not have children to pass their values to but anti-environment people do, then clearly there won't be much support for climate action in the future.
Climate action is still a very long road. Yes, we probably already have nearly 1.5C baked in, but our children and grandchildren will still have a massive role in the future of the environment.
If pro-environment people do not have children to pass their values to but anti-environment people do, then clearly there won't be much support for climate action in the future.
Climate action is still a very long road. Yes, we probably already have nearly 1.5C baked in, but our children and grandchildren will still have a massive role in the future of the environment.
> Yes, we probably already have nearly 1.5C baked in, but our children and grandchildren will still have a massive role in the future of the environment.
Another great reason not to have kids. They are going to be left to deal with the consequences of the 1.5C. Including war, famine, and the likely re-emergence of various fascist and totalitarian ideologies due to the crisis. Why would you choose to put people you love through that?
Another great reason not to have kids. They are going to be left to deal with the consequences of the 1.5C. Including war, famine, and the likely re-emergence of various fascist and totalitarian ideologies due to the crisis. Why would you choose to put people you love through that?
Because they can do immense good as well. The future has not been written yet. They have agency to do well, and I think that those who are able have a responsibility to pass on their values to ensure there are people in the future who will do good.
If only the fascists and pro-totalitarians pass on their values to future generations, then you're right there is little hope. But that's what we're discussing! I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that ISN'T the future.
If only the fascists and pro-totalitarians pass on their values to future generations, then you're right there is little hope. But that's what we're discussing! I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that ISN'T the future.
Forget your feelings and stick to the key question - does the world need more people, less people, or do we have exactly the right amount? I think we have too many, practically every day I see people in my own city that I will never see again in the future. It's chaotic.
Your measure of "too many people" is that you see people in your city and never see them again? That's an amazingly self-centered metric for deciding how many people there should be.
And it's very easy to fix your problem. Just move to a small town.
And it's very easy to fix your problem. Just move to a small town.
Maybe you’re asking the wrong question. Instead, assume that unlimited human population growth is inevitable, and ask what technology or social systems do we need to develop in order to sustain that growth.
What do we need to develop/implement in order to support a population of 10B? 100B? 1T?? At some point, routine space travel needs to come into play. 100x-to-100000x improvement in the efficiency of our energy capture/storage/distribution technology. Terraforming or other world-modification technology. At 10-100 trillion population, interstellar travel and communication. At 100+ trillion population, we need to invent stuff that isn’t even in science fiction yet.
I find all this agonizing over how to keep this tiny ball of mud habitable to be... less than ambitious.
What do we need to develop/implement in order to support a population of 10B? 100B? 1T?? At some point, routine space travel needs to come into play. 100x-to-100000x improvement in the efficiency of our energy capture/storage/distribution technology. Terraforming or other world-modification technology. At 10-100 trillion population, interstellar travel and communication. At 100+ trillion population, we need to invent stuff that isn’t even in science fiction yet.
I find all this agonizing over how to keep this tiny ball of mud habitable to be... less than ambitious.
If we can't figure how to keep this mud ball habitable longer, we wont make it to any of the other marvels!
>Forget your feelings and stick to the key question - does the world need more people, less people, or do we have exactly the right amount?
HN doesn't have an unwritten rule about expressing emotions, and the person you're responding to didn't dodge any question. Given that the submission is about happiness, it's very much on topic to discuss children and happiness.
HN doesn't have an unwritten rule about expressing emotions, and the person you're responding to didn't dodge any question. Given that the submission is about happiness, it's very much on topic to discuss children and happiness.
>Bringing a child into the world to increase my own personal happiness, when nothing else I could do has such a direct and massive climate impact, is not something I can justify personally. Not to mention, my child would have to live to see the impacts of climate change.
I find your comment, and your subsequent replies, exemplifies the headline of the submission quite well:
>The decline of the family has unleashed an epidemic of loneliness
I find your comment, and your subsequent replies, exemplifies the headline of the submission quite well:
>The decline of the family has unleashed an epidemic of loneliness
Maybe your child will be a part of a generation who can have a realm impact over the climate, in a positive way, or maybe just a path to it.
And creating more humans is not only a purpose, it is also the means of existence.
> There is coming a point (it has already passed, in my opinion), where we can no longer justify our purpose for existence as "creating more humans."
Two comments. First, within evolution (true, a brutal and inhumane theory), the point of life is exactly to survive and reproduce. It is literally unnatural to deliberately choose to not have children (unless you don't believe in evolution).
Second, I presume that you don't mean for this to be taken to the point of nobody having children, that is, to the extinction of the human race. I get the impression that some eco-types think that would be a good thing; I deeply disagree.
Two comments. First, within evolution (true, a brutal and inhumane theory), the point of life is exactly to survive and reproduce. It is literally unnatural to deliberately choose to not have children (unless you don't believe in evolution).
Second, I presume that you don't mean for this to be taken to the point of nobody having children, that is, to the extinction of the human race. I get the impression that some eco-types think that would be a good thing; I deeply disagree.
>It is literally unnatural to deliberately choose to not have children
Something's being natural or unnatural has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. I assume that when the OP says "we can no longer justify" they are making a moral claim, which means that saying it's "unnatural" to not reproduce is failing to be relevant.
Something's being natural or unnatural has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. I assume that when the OP says "we can no longer justify" they are making a moral claim, which means that saying it's "unnatural" to not reproduce is failing to be relevant.
Fair point.
Also note that my argument was trying to argue within someone else's viewpoint, and it's not a viewpoint that I agree with.
Also note that my argument was trying to argue within someone else's viewpoint, and it's not a viewpoint that I agree with.
You're going to die someday though, and so will whoever you make the kid with. So that will reduce the impact.
Plus there's an assumption we won't figure out climate change. Why assume that kid will be as bad for the environment as you?
Plus there's an assumption we won't figure out climate change. Why assume that kid will be as bad for the environment as you?
I'm not sure all that logic is sound.
First, having a child does not require you to travel more, get a bigger house, keep it warmer or cooler, buy non-second-hand clothes or do anything else with a significant carbon footprint beyond grocery shopping (which admittedly has a nontrivial footprint). It's not until adulthood that they'll really start to have a full fledged carbon footprint of their own.
Second, social animals that we are, a person's net total impact on the carbon footprints of others can be much larger than that person's individual, "direct" footprint. Raise your kid the right way and their footprint could, in a very real sense, be negative.
Third, there are some indications that the point in the future where we either solve climate change or fail catastrophically is near enough that it may have past before your kid reaches that damaging, adult phase.
Your kid would live to see the impacts of climate change, though. If we as a society would just put a price on carbon emissions and reimburse the externalized costs through a fee & dividend system, even that would not be a problem (in theory) because your kid would be compensated financially for any climate-change-induced hardship.
First, having a child does not require you to travel more, get a bigger house, keep it warmer or cooler, buy non-second-hand clothes or do anything else with a significant carbon footprint beyond grocery shopping (which admittedly has a nontrivial footprint). It's not until adulthood that they'll really start to have a full fledged carbon footprint of their own.
Second, social animals that we are, a person's net total impact on the carbon footprints of others can be much larger than that person's individual, "direct" footprint. Raise your kid the right way and their footprint could, in a very real sense, be negative.
Third, there are some indications that the point in the future where we either solve climate change or fail catastrophically is near enough that it may have past before your kid reaches that damaging, adult phase.
Your kid would live to see the impacts of climate change, though. If we as a society would just put a price on carbon emissions and reimburse the externalized costs through a fee & dividend system, even that would not be a problem (in theory) because your kid would be compensated financially for any climate-change-induced hardship.
That is the single most negative comment I've seen in a while... I'm glad you aren't spreading your view to a new generation.
It is funny that the people who feel like this are actively working to ensure their ideas don’t survive into the future.
I also wonder if we’re no longer properly teaching evolution in school. There are a lot of key concepts people are missing.
I also wonder if we’re no longer properly teaching evolution in school. There are a lot of key concepts people are missing.
Seriously. The only reason I could justify having kids would be if I looked around, thought to myself "gee, there seems to be a shortage of people", and then I would replicate. Justifying replication for the sake of one's happiness is such a logical folly that it makes me die inside.
On that note, how funny is it to hear people discuss "invasive species" and how they need to be culled while our numbers are such that we're able to significantly (negatively) impact our planet in the span of 100 years.
Having children bestows the incomparable gift of life on other people (your children). Bestowing that gift is the part of having children that makes someone happy. It's not a self centered happiness; the day-to-day of raising children is frequently miserable.
Come on now.
Don't try to make out like your choice to have a child is because you want to 'spread happiness'.
It's a biological imperative to perpetuate your genetic code and is the single most selfish and egotistical thing you can do with your life.
Don't delude yourself that it is anything different than any other species procreating.
Don't try to make out like your choice to have a child is because you want to 'spread happiness'.
It's a biological imperative to perpetuate your genetic code and is the single most selfish and egotistical thing you can do with your life.
Don't delude yourself that it is anything different than any other species procreating.
Well most of those species don’t have egos so I wouldn’t say it’s egotistical.
Society is entirely composed of people who were given birth to. I don’t see how the very foundation of humanity (and all life on earth) could be viewed as “selfish”. You’re literally sustaining the human race.
Society is entirely composed of people who were given birth to. I don’t see how the very foundation of humanity (and all life on earth) could be viewed as “selfish”. You’re literally sustaining the human race.
> You’re literally sustaining the human race.
While true, that's not the reason people reproduce.
Most people are only truly concerned with their own offspring and their own bloodline.
That everybody in the world is primarily focused on their own legacy but just happens to contribute to the numbers of our species as a whole is an evolutionary mechanic, not a human one.
While true, that's not the reason people reproduce.
Most people are only truly concerned with their own offspring and their own bloodline.
That everybody in the world is primarily focused on their own legacy but just happens to contribute to the numbers of our species as a whole is an evolutionary mechanic, not a human one.
I don't think you can separate what's human and what's evolutionary. All human actions are a by product of evolution. We evolved to want to reproduce (for selfish reasons or not). Regardless, it seems pointless to assign negative moral worth to reproducing since it's an inevitable drive and very likely the only reason we exist at all.
We separate plenty of human concepts from evolution and nature already. Choosing not to do so here seems arbitrary.
And I wasn't so much casting a moral judgement on the selfishness of the act. I was just pointing it out as a selfish act as in, it is done primarily for you and your genes whether you realise or not. You are no different than any other mammal in this regard.
(I'm referring to the collective 'you' here, not you specifically.)
That's just life and evolution. I'm not admonishing anyone for it, but I can't accept the idea that having children is somehow an altruistic act done to spread the concept of happiness when the rest of the natural world and mounds of empirical data on the study of evolution and biology screams otherwise.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
You are a mammal. You will mate and reproduce to ensure the survival of your own genes. Those are your instinctual drives. This also strokes the ego if you're successful. You get to see little versions of the your own genetics populating the world.
Some of us choose not to participate in this willingly, others will delude themselves into thinking they are somehow separate from the rest of nature in terms of their biological drives.
And I wasn't so much casting a moral judgement on the selfishness of the act. I was just pointing it out as a selfish act as in, it is done primarily for you and your genes whether you realise or not. You are no different than any other mammal in this regard.
(I'm referring to the collective 'you' here, not you specifically.)
That's just life and evolution. I'm not admonishing anyone for it, but I can't accept the idea that having children is somehow an altruistic act done to spread the concept of happiness when the rest of the natural world and mounds of empirical data on the study of evolution and biology screams otherwise.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
You are a mammal. You will mate and reproduce to ensure the survival of your own genes. Those are your instinctual drives. This also strokes the ego if you're successful. You get to see little versions of the your own genetics populating the world.
Some of us choose not to participate in this willingly, others will delude themselves into thinking they are somehow separate from the rest of nature in terms of their biological drives.
But the original post we're replying to said:
> Having children bestows the incomparable gift of life on other people (your children). Bestowing that gift is the part of having children that makes someone happy. It's not a self centered happiness; the day-to-day of raising children is frequently miserable.
They're not saying they're making the world a better place, they're saying that the person they gave birth to would be happy to be alive and that happiness gives joy to the parent (in addition to satisfying base survival needs I suppose).
> Some of us choose not to participate in this willingly, others will delude themselves into thinking they are somehow separate from the rest of nature in terms of their biological drives.
I don't see anyone deluding themselves other than the people who think not having children is a moral position to take. It's a valid personal choice but nothing more.
> Having children bestows the incomparable gift of life on other people (your children). Bestowing that gift is the part of having children that makes someone happy. It's not a self centered happiness; the day-to-day of raising children is frequently miserable.
They're not saying they're making the world a better place, they're saying that the person they gave birth to would be happy to be alive and that happiness gives joy to the parent (in addition to satisfying base survival needs I suppose).
> Some of us choose not to participate in this willingly, others will delude themselves into thinking they are somehow separate from the rest of nature in terms of their biological drives.
I don't see anyone deluding themselves other than the people who think not having children is a moral position to take. It's a valid personal choice but nothing more.
> would be happy to be alive
That's debatable, honestly. You can't possibly know the child will be happy to be alive or will live a life without suffering, it's a gamble.
Most people alive on Earth today I would wager experience suffering more than they do happiness.
> happiness gives joy to the parent
Not denying that, but you can't deny that that is a selfish thing, wanting to bestow joy to yourself.
Don't wince in disgust at the word 'selfish'. People do selfish things all the time for mere survival. Again, I wouldn't admonish anyone for it.
> I don't see anyone deluding themselves other than the people who think not having children is a moral position to take
I never said anything of the sort.
That's debatable, honestly. You can't possibly know the child will be happy to be alive or will live a life without suffering, it's a gamble.
Most people alive on Earth today I would wager experience suffering more than they do happiness.
> happiness gives joy to the parent
Not denying that, but you can't deny that that is a selfish thing, wanting to bestow joy to yourself.
Don't wince in disgust at the word 'selfish'. People do selfish things all the time for mere survival. Again, I wouldn't admonish anyone for it.
> I don't see anyone deluding themselves other than the people who think not having children is a moral position to take
I never said anything of the sort.
> Not denying that, but you can't deny that that is a selfish thing, wanting to bestow joy to yourself.
It's only selfish if you disregard other people and/or hurt them in the process of enjoying yourself. There's nothing selfish about bestowing joy on yourself if it's also a net positive for everyone else.
I don't think your use of the world "selfish" in this debate (with me or the other commenters) has helped your argument. It implies something negative where having children is going to be viewed subjectively and objectively positive by most people. Maybe a better term would be satisfying? That covers that the individual parent benefits but also doesn't imply that having children is hurting others.
It's only selfish if you disregard other people and/or hurt them in the process of enjoying yourself. There's nothing selfish about bestowing joy on yourself if it's also a net positive for everyone else.
I don't think your use of the world "selfish" in this debate (with me or the other commenters) has helped your argument. It implies something negative where having children is going to be viewed subjectively and objectively positive by most people. Maybe a better term would be satisfying? That covers that the individual parent benefits but also doesn't imply that having children is hurting others.
FWIW, in my opinion, it's pretty gross to make parenting out to be this egotistical, self centered thing. You're shitting on the most consequential experience that most people have in their entire life.
And, aside from that, you're just plain wrong.
And, aside from that, you're just plain wrong.
> And, aside from that, you're just plain wrong.
Convincing argument.
Convincing argument.
You really set the tenor of this exchange with all the copious evidence you provided for your argument...
My evidence (as I explained above) is the entire field of evolutionary biology and the fact that we are still mammals with the same instinctual drives behind our reproduction.
What's yours, beyond a sense of disgust at the suggestion that you are still just an animal; and a desire to be seen as a paragon of virtue because you had sex and made little versions of yourself?
What's yours, beyond a sense of disgust at the suggestion that you are still just an animal; and a desire to be seen as a paragon of virtue because you had sex and made little versions of yourself?
Been busy, but my god you're a jackass. If you're going to cite evolutionary biology when examining people's motives, you should at least familiarize yourself with the proximate vs. ultimate cause dichotomy. It explains pretty clearly what you seem to be missing about why people have children.
Aside from eradicating the human race, any changes to climate will have to be driven by humans. Someone’s child will help solve the problem. It could be your’s.
There is no shortage of humans who want to have children. Not all 7 billion of us can have a family.
Indeed not everyone will reproduce but the future will be exclusively filled by people who’s parents did.
People who care deeply about the planet are exactly the people who should pass their sensibilities to the next generation.
[deleted]
> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it.
I say that when someone having extremely hard time doing something, he/she just doesn't need that something hard enough. Most of the people rarely have hard time eating or drinking or watching interesting movie or spending time with friends.
Before XX century it was extremely hard to live alone, unless one have stable source of income or an inheritance. For lay people family was just a question of survival. Children was the only recipe of aging in dignity.
It is still valid in XXI century, but now there are other ways to live one's life. Forties is not an age of retirement, but a most active age of reaping rewards and even starting a new ventures. There are other means of self realization besides family and children. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.
I say that when someone having extremely hard time doing something, he/she just doesn't need that something hard enough. Most of the people rarely have hard time eating or drinking or watching interesting movie or spending time with friends.
Before XX century it was extremely hard to live alone, unless one have stable source of income or an inheritance. For lay people family was just a question of survival. Children was the only recipe of aging in dignity.
It is still valid in XXI century, but now there are other ways to live one's life. Forties is not an age of retirement, but a most active age of reaping rewards and even starting a new ventures. There are other means of self realization besides family and children. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.
Good news is there are still people who get married and have kids. Bad news is they're definitely the less introspective (for lack of a less offensive word) than the ones that don't get married.
My interpretation is that we finally have the freedom from cultural norms to really do whatever we please, but with great freedom comes great responsibility, not just to society but to our own long-term selves. Perhaps these people you talk about have chosen poorly, very poorly indeed, with this freedom. Nothing to do but advise the ones who might listen, and build a moat (physical or mental) that can protect you and your loved ones from them when shit hits the fan.
My interpretation is that we finally have the freedom from cultural norms to really do whatever we please, but with great freedom comes great responsibility, not just to society but to our own long-term selves. Perhaps these people you talk about have chosen poorly, very poorly indeed, with this freedom. Nothing to do but advise the ones who might listen, and build a moat (physical or mental) that can protect you and your loved ones from them when shit hits the fan.
> I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and girls don't have time and don't want to commit to a stable long relation.
This could be selective though. If you're living in expat communities in global hubs, everyone knows people are there for only a short time, so its not worth investing in long term commitment.
This could be selective though. If you're living in expat communities in global hubs, everyone knows people are there for only a short time, so its not worth investing in long term commitment.
Pope Francis talks a lot about this in Amoris Laetitia[1] on the topic of Love in the Family. I've only finished the first two chapters but so far he has talked a lot about the same points you mentioned, and brought a lot of insights. My memory is failing me right now on specifics, but it's a very useful and insightful read for anyone who has a family, even if you're not Catholic.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations...
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations...
Sorry, but I call baloney.
I know you're just describing your personal impression and don't claim them to be universally true.
But allow me to present some evidence, er, anecdote to the contrary: I have also traveled the world and lived on three continents. I met lots of cool people and was lucky enough to make friends with some of them in all the places that I visited. I never observed the same as you apparently did, namely that they invested themselves in nothing but their career, traveling, parties, etc.
As a matter of fact, coming to think of it, a lot of the people I know (most of them college age) were also from abroad and made sure to stay involved with the family business back home as much as they could. Also, a lot of my friends were actually couples, showing that they cared for more than just work and individual leisure. Some of them got married since.
Of course, differences may be due to a number of reasons. What area of work you're in, for example. What geographical location you're in. And naturally, you probably tend to make friends with people that are to some degree similar in some respect. Also, there's varying degrees of peer pressure to like the same things if you want to be part of the in-crowd (or any crowd you like, really). Oh, and let's not forget: cultural background.
So I don't think you can generalize as much as you did in your post.
I know you're just describing your personal impression and don't claim them to be universally true.
But allow me to present some evidence, er, anecdote to the contrary: I have also traveled the world and lived on three continents. I met lots of cool people and was lucky enough to make friends with some of them in all the places that I visited. I never observed the same as you apparently did, namely that they invested themselves in nothing but their career, traveling, parties, etc.
As a matter of fact, coming to think of it, a lot of the people I know (most of them college age) were also from abroad and made sure to stay involved with the family business back home as much as they could. Also, a lot of my friends were actually couples, showing that they cared for more than just work and individual leisure. Some of them got married since.
Of course, differences may be due to a number of reasons. What area of work you're in, for example. What geographical location you're in. And naturally, you probably tend to make friends with people that are to some degree similar in some respect. Also, there's varying degrees of peer pressure to like the same things if you want to be part of the in-crowd (or any crowd you like, really). Oh, and let's not forget: cultural background.
So I don't think you can generalize as much as you did in your post.
Can you give examples of how people have become more intolerant of families flying with kids? Every flight I've been on where there was a kid crying the whole time, nobody so much as flinched. I think people understand that kids cry, and the situation is only worsened in a pressurized cabin. I'm curious what specific experiences you had that made you make that statement?
And on the child-parent relationship front, we are not doing much better. As a result, kid going to schools that make them fit in cutting out creativity. It is much more rewarding to home school your kids and spends time with them bith in terms of their success later on and emotional development.
A lot of people have kids _for themselves_. There are a lot of other endeavours one can pursue that will bring happiness. I think where we fail as a society, is in teaching ourselves how to find those pursuits, surround ourselves with friends, and avoid loneliness.
> The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40
Hrm, I question the circle of people you're surrounded by. Many millennials are struggling to afford the basics, let alone travel or have a family!
This is a contentious and potentially unpopular opinion, but I posit that having children borders on unethical at this point in history. We've wrecked the planet and have growing anti-intellectual culture.
I'm happy you're happy though.
> The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40
Hrm, I question the circle of people you're surrounded by. Many millennials are struggling to afford the basics, let alone travel or have a family!
This is a contentious and potentially unpopular opinion, but I posit that having children borders on unethical at this point in history. We've wrecked the planet and have growing anti-intellectual culture.
I'm happy you're happy though.
Adopt a child. They will have an environmental impact whether you adopt them or not; presumably you will provide them a better life than an orphanage, and you can experience the joys and pains of parenthood.
> and have growing anti-intellectual culture.
From this thread, it would appear to be baked-in as a function of self-selection.
One might argue intellectuals have an obligation to procreate.
From this thread, it would appear to be baked-in as a function of self-selection.
One might argue intellectuals have an obligation to procreate.
I think that intelligence is much more environmentally driven rather than genetic, though I don't have any proper references for that. I would argue that, in a properly functioning society, intellectualism, assuming it's strongly tied to wealth, wouldn't really be heritable beyond one generation.
Combating anti-intellectualism as a trend is probably more complicated than just trying to get the existing educated to have more children then the existing uneducated.
Combating anti-intellectualism as a trend is probably more complicated than just trying to get the existing educated to have more children then the existing uneducated.
> One might argue intellectuals have an obligation to procreate.
They already did and their kids are building the world's largest and most powerful surveillance and propaganda systems at Facebook and Google. Unfortunately the "G" in FAANG does not stand for "Greenpeace".
They already did and their kids are building the world's largest and most powerful surveillance and propaganda systems at Facebook and Google. Unfortunately the "G" in FAANG does not stand for "Greenpeace".
And whose tax money will be looking after you in your old age, when you have no family of your own to take care of you? The children of those ‘unethical’ people you tediously condescend so proudly up on your high horse.
And whose tax money is paying for the schools that are educating those children at the moment? Oh right...
This is a really bad argument. Especially in countries that have a lot more support for parents than the US.
This is a really bad argument. Especially in countries that have a lot more support for parents than the US.
Yes, exactly. Isn’t that precisely the point? Paying it forward, so in turn we will be supported when we reach old age?
edit: That seems a little extreme and defeatist IMO.
You even have movies promoting this lifestyle... La La Land anyone?
I believe what you described is called 'survivor bias'.
I think having kids is scientifically proven to make you unhappy and greatly increase your stress levels. It’s no wonder people just put off having kids until they can, or pass on having them altogether.
I have less than five kids, but more than one kid.
My kids cause me a lot of stress. The burden of knowing I have to deal with them and their energetic, ridiculous antics every day when I get home really drains me. I don't really have time to exercise anymore because from sun-up to sundown I am dealing with them, so I'm slightly overweight and out of shape in a way I was not before I had kids. My diet isn't as diverse as it was before I had kids either because I can't go to the same places I used to or take the time to prepare what I used to prepare. I've stayed in the job I have now for longer than I should just because I worry about keeping a steady salary, paying my bills, and caring for my kids more than I ever worried about those things before. I don't spend a lot of money on self-care or personal enjoyment anymore because I need to save it in case something goes wrong and I need to spend the money on them.
Am I less happy? YES. I am less happy than before.
But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. Not even for a millisecond. I don't know why and I really don't need to know why, but having kids is just better than being happy. I don't want to be happy, I want to be a good dad. It's true that being a parent makes you less happy, but it also makes happiness irrelevant (for the most part). It probably has something to do with evolution.
My kids cause me a lot of stress. The burden of knowing I have to deal with them and their energetic, ridiculous antics every day when I get home really drains me. I don't really have time to exercise anymore because from sun-up to sundown I am dealing with them, so I'm slightly overweight and out of shape in a way I was not before I had kids. My diet isn't as diverse as it was before I had kids either because I can't go to the same places I used to or take the time to prepare what I used to prepare. I've stayed in the job I have now for longer than I should just because I worry about keeping a steady salary, paying my bills, and caring for my kids more than I ever worried about those things before. I don't spend a lot of money on self-care or personal enjoyment anymore because I need to save it in case something goes wrong and I need to spend the money on them.
Am I less happy? YES. I am less happy than before.
But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. Not even for a millisecond. I don't know why and I really don't need to know why, but having kids is just better than being happy. I don't want to be happy, I want to be a good dad. It's true that being a parent makes you less happy, but it also makes happiness irrelevant (for the most part). It probably has something to do with evolution.
Well, you have to make time for things you want to do. What we have done raising our kids is that we have one parent going to the gym, the other one is taking care of kids. You can do it if you are committed. Do not give up!
Yes, it is rewarding to be a parent at the end of the day when they fall asleep. :)
Yes, it is rewarding to be a parent at the end of the day when they fall asleep. :)
Appears to be a personal choice.
My wife and I have two kids, we are both in the best shape of our lives, eat better than before, and our kids are quite healthy - participating in gymnastics, volleyball, and roller derby.
My wife and I have two kids, we are both in the best shape of our lives, eat better than before, and our kids are quite healthy - participating in gymnastics, volleyball, and roller derby.
It's a choice, but also not a choice.
I could pay for a nanny or childcare of some sort for portions of the day and allow myself to focus on things like food quality, exercise, etc. I prefer to sacrifice those things to be with my kids whenever I am not working because I think it is important for me to invest that time now when they are most impressionable. But that preference isn't something I seem to have much control over. It's what I think is right, so I do it. I guess I could choose to do what I think is wrong, but that doesn't seem like a choice as much as a character failure.
Also, my kids are very young. As they get older, I expect to have more time. The early years are the absolute hardest in terms of time. It does get better as they get older and have activities to participate in outside the home.
I could pay for a nanny or childcare of some sort for portions of the day and allow myself to focus on things like food quality, exercise, etc. I prefer to sacrifice those things to be with my kids whenever I am not working because I think it is important for me to invest that time now when they are most impressionable. But that preference isn't something I seem to have much control over. It's what I think is right, so I do it. I guess I could choose to do what I think is wrong, but that doesn't seem like a choice as much as a character failure.
Also, my kids are very young. As they get older, I expect to have more time. The early years are the absolute hardest in terms of time. It does get better as they get older and have activities to participate in outside the home.
Do not judge too harshly... it may not be personal choice.
Life is hard as parent but a variety of things can exacerbate problems such as: both husband and wife working, work place requires long travel, age gap between children, having children with special needs etcetra..
Life is hard as parent but a variety of things can exacerbate problems such as: both husband and wife working, work place requires long travel, age gap between children, having children with special needs etcetra..
> But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it.
There's a speech in the movie Parenthood [1] that expresses a lot of what you just said. With a kid (or kids), the highs are higher, the lows lower. Some want to be on a roller coaster, others are happier on a merry-go-round.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY
There's a speech in the movie Parenthood [1] that expresses a lot of what you just said. With a kid (or kids), the highs are higher, the lows lower. Some want to be on a roller coaster, others are happier on a merry-go-round.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY
The highs are higher, lows are lower idea seems right. And a lot of the value comes from that. Life in more real, more genuine when you aren't as insulated from pain and joy.
It's very complicated. Having kids at home makes you less happy (because they're work). But men who have had kids are significantly happier than men who never had kids once the kids are out of the house: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-...
> By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
"Happiness" is also not the right concept here. Having kids doesn't necessarily make you "happy." But it's something people almost universally want: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp....
By age 45, 86% of people have had kids, and only 6% of those wish they had not had kids. By contrast, out of those who didn't have kids, more than half wish they did. Even more remarkably, among all adults age 45+, as many people wish they had five or more kids as wish they had no kids (11%).
There is pretty much no other life choice (college, career, etc.) that almost every body does that almost nobody regrets.
> By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
"Happiness" is also not the right concept here. Having kids doesn't necessarily make you "happy." But it's something people almost universally want: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp....
By age 45, 86% of people have had kids, and only 6% of those wish they had not had kids. By contrast, out of those who didn't have kids, more than half wish they did. Even more remarkably, among all adults age 45+, as many people wish they had five or more kids as wish they had no kids (11%).
There is pretty much no other life choice (college, career, etc.) that almost every body does that almost nobody regrets.
> only 6% of those wish they had not had kids
It's very socially unacceptable to admit you regret having had your kids. Even to an anonymous stranger conducting a phone poll.
I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". From what I understand, having children is negatively correlated with happiness in those sorts of studies.
It's very socially unacceptable to admit you regret having had your kids. Even to an anonymous stranger conducting a phone poll.
I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". From what I understand, having children is negatively correlated with happiness in those sorts of studies.
> I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids".
Did you reply to the wrong comment? That's why the parent poster led with this quote from IFS:
> By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? That's why the parent poster led with this quote from IFS:
> By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
> fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
That part of the study is about the same fathers who are now aged 50-70 and whose children have generally left the house and are no longer children.
I guess if you see it as in investment for future happiness when you're old, you can interpret it as "children make you happy", but not if you prefer to be happy now and over the next ~18 years.
That part of the study is about the same fathers who are now aged 50-70 and whose children have generally left the house and are no longer children.
I guess if you see it as in investment for future happiness when you're old, you can interpret it as "children make you happy", but not if you prefer to be happy now and over the next ~18 years.
It isn't "an investment for ....when your old."
That's way too simplistic.
It's like saying college is an investment for when your old. You may have loved learning about new things, but still rather not have to do a bunch of meaningless homework assignments,
You can actually enjoy being a parent immediately and simultaneously not like all the sacrifices. IT's a deeper kind of commitment. For some people, it's the first time they have actually loved something more than themselves. It's hard to express.
That's way too simplistic.
It's like saying college is an investment for when your old. You may have loved learning about new things, but still rather not have to do a bunch of meaningless homework assignments,
You can actually enjoy being a parent immediately and simultaneously not like all the sacrifices. IT's a deeper kind of commitment. For some people, it's the first time they have actually loved something more than themselves. It's hard to express.
The "science" you're referring to shows that parenting makes people less "happy" in any given moment while doing it and more "content" overall, more "satisfied" in older age. Moreover, there are significant country-by-country differences in these stats that seem to be tied to availability of high-quality, low-cost childcare and healthcare. One place to look for some overview of some of these studies is https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/
It's the cost not the kids:
> Having children makes people happier—if they can afford it.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
> Having children makes people happier—if they can afford it.
* https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
Why did you put science in scare quotes?
Probably referencing the use of the phrase "scientifically proven" and doubting the assertion being made and that there is in fact "science" that backs it up.
I think the intention is a quote rather than a scare quote.
It's a little awkward to quote a single word like that. In that circumstance the following words "... you're referring to" serve the same function. But it does highlight the notion of "you were looking for science, here is science".
It's a little awkward to quote a single word like that. In that circumstance the following words "... you're referring to" serve the same function. But it does highlight the notion of "you were looking for science, here is science".
I feel as though having children will make a lot of people very happy. But there is also a significant part(>1%) of the population that would be miserable.
I believe a lot of the unhappiness is often from someone who was pressured into a choice they didn't critically think about or didn't want but caved in. Even if the pool of people is small the experience could be quite negative. Where as all the people who always wanted them will be happy.
I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.
I believe a lot of the unhappiness is often from someone who was pressured into a choice they didn't critically think about or didn't want but caved in. Even if the pool of people is small the experience could be quite negative. Where as all the people who always wanted them will be happy.
I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.
There are a lot of things I didn't enjoy as a child that I enjoy as an adult. Raising children is different than caring for siblings, no disrespect to your personal choice.
==I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.==
Being a parent is not the same as taking care of your siblings. Using the experience of one to justify your decisions in another is short-sighted.
How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
Being a parent is not the same as taking care of your siblings. Using the experience of one to justify your decisions in another is short-sighted.
How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
Plenty, my wife is a nurse and plenty of the women explain how they had one and then just never wanted another one after because of regret. The nurse closer to her age straight up says it. I got plenty of warnings from coworkers about having children and most of their wives pick up most of the slack. If you are gushing about your kids no one is going to open up about a taboo subject like that.
That is just one of the many reasons I don't want kids. I have plenty of functional health issues that make keeping on weight a chore never mind a pain free day and yet again that is just the tip of the iceberg.
That is just one of the many reasons I don't want kids. I have plenty of functional health issues that make keeping on weight a chore never mind a pain free day and yet again that is just the tip of the iceberg.
People with kids love to complain about how terrible it is to have kids. But when you poll older people who had kids and ask them if they’d “do it over again” nine out of them say they would. Meanwhile, more than half of people who never had kids wish they had at least one. (See the Pew polling I linked above.)
My original post agreed with the Pew data. Most people would most likely be happy having children.
I am aware of this bias. My Grandmother in law is blunt about never having wanted children where as lots of people are just complaining due to stress. That is why I give more weight to people who have fully raised children and are no longer stressed out by them. My anecdotal evidence is similar to Pew.
My boss complains all the time but I know he doesn't regret it even thought he looks like he got hit by a train some days.
I prefer to focus on regret rates among childless men with vasectomies who had their operation after the age of 31. I say this because not having children =/= not wanting them at 45. There could be a lack of money, a partner, fertility issue etc that could all lead to this situation.
I am aware of this bias. My Grandmother in law is blunt about never having wanted children where as lots of people are just complaining due to stress. That is why I give more weight to people who have fully raised children and are no longer stressed out by them. My anecdotal evidence is similar to Pew.
My boss complains all the time but I know he doesn't regret it even thought he looks like he got hit by a train some days.
I prefer to focus on regret rates among childless men with vasectomies who had their operation after the age of 31. I say this because not having children =/= not wanting them at 45. There could be a lack of money, a partner, fertility issue etc that could all lead to this situation.
==If you are gushing about your kids no one is going to open up about a taboo subject like that.==
This is true. Likewise, if you are explaining all the reasons you can't or don't want to have kids someone may be more likely to agree by saying "I wish I didn't have kids."
I don't disagree with what you have said, just know that taking care of your siblings is not the same as being the parent of a child (legally, emotionally, physically, etc.). When you compare them, it detracts from the broader point you have made.
This is true. Likewise, if you are explaining all the reasons you can't or don't want to have kids someone may be more likely to agree by saying "I wish I didn't have kids."
I don't disagree with what you have said, just know that taking care of your siblings is not the same as being the parent of a child (legally, emotionally, physically, etc.). When you compare them, it detracts from the broader point you have made.
So where's the line? If your niece lives with you while your sister is incarcerated does that "count" as being similar enough to parenthood to "justify" a choice to have or not have children? If you were a full time live-in nanny? If your dead beat uncle drops your baby cousin off at your house every day? Step-parent? Foster parent? Teacher?
It seems incredibly silly to completely discount all your life experience when making important decisions...
FWIW, I've known someone who very much wanted kids then she became a full time live in nanny. That changed her mind completely about having kids of her own. She still loves working with children, and she still works with kids, just not in a live-in situation. She'll probably work with children her whole (working) life.
>How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
My mother said those exact words to me every single day. Either that are similar stuff like "you ruin my life, I wish you were never born."
But, it's not something that is socially acceptable to say, so how many times you've heard is is completely irrelevant. I doubt my mother would say that to anyone else. It's like saying "how many times have you seen someone say 'I am sexually attracted to children?' None? Ok, now we can conclude pedophilia and childhood sexual abuse doesn't exist!"
It seems incredibly silly to completely discount all your life experience when making important decisions...
FWIW, I've known someone who very much wanted kids then she became a full time live in nanny. That changed her mind completely about having kids of her own. She still loves working with children, and she still works with kids, just not in a live-in situation. She'll probably work with children her whole (working) life.
>How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
My mother said those exact words to me every single day. Either that are similar stuff like "you ruin my life, I wish you were never born."
But, it's not something that is socially acceptable to say, so how many times you've heard is is completely irrelevant. I doubt my mother would say that to anyone else. It's like saying "how many times have you seen someone say 'I am sexually attracted to children?' None? Ok, now we can conclude pedophilia and childhood sexual abuse doesn't exist!"
> How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
More and more, now that the taboo is breaking down to some degree. This has been the subject of some recent press reporting.[0][1]
That said, it is disturbing to me, at least, how people’s having children might rewire their brains. They might like their new role only because of certain changes in brain chemistry that result from parenthood. Their fondness for being parents is therefore something forced on them in a way, it is not a matter of actual choice.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/09/love-re... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/11/breakin...
More and more, now that the taboo is breaking down to some degree. This has been the subject of some recent press reporting.[0][1]
That said, it is disturbing to me, at least, how people’s having children might rewire their brains. They might like their new role only because of certain changes in brain chemistry that result from parenthood. Their fondness for being parents is therefore something forced on them in a way, it is not a matter of actual choice.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/09/love-re... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/11/breakin...
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?...
"Our "psychological immune system" lets us feel truly happy even when things don't go as planned."
"Certain changes in brain chemistry" result in us adjusting to be approximately as happy as they always are even in situations which one would predict way less or way more happiness.
"Our "psychological immune system" lets us feel truly happy even when things don't go as planned."
"Certain changes in brain chemistry" result in us adjusting to be approximately as happy as they always are even in situations which one would predict way less or way more happiness.
By that standard, existence is something forced on you in a way, not a matter of actual choice.
Newsflash: you are your biology. Your biology demands its continuation. Defy nature at your own peril.
Newsflash: you are your biology. Your biology demands its continuation. Defy nature at your own peril.
I've heard a lot of parents say something along those lines, though usually softened a bit: "I love my kids but if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have had them."
They love their kids but they would have preferred that their kids never existed? That doesn't sound like love.
Well, this reaction explains why people don't like to say it.
> How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
I have heard a number of friends say this, though almost always indirectly. There is a real stigma associated with being unhappy with parenthood, but many people do not seem to enjoy the process.
From my own observations, eventually most parents adjust their own personal "bar" for happiness and more or less accept their lot. I'm sure they get something positive out of it, but it seems to be a tradeoff for other sources of happiness and life satisfaction which usually become unavailable to parents.
I have heard a number of friends say this, though almost always indirectly. There is a real stigma associated with being unhappy with parenthood, but many people do not seem to enjoy the process.
From my own observations, eventually most parents adjust their own personal "bar" for happiness and more or less accept their lot. I'm sure they get something positive out of it, but it seems to be a tradeoff for other sources of happiness and life satisfaction which usually become unavailable to parents.
==I have heard a number of friends say this, though almost always indirectly.==
Is it possible you are inferring it a certain way because of your bias? For instance, I complain about having kid all the time, but I wouldn't give him up for anything.
==There is a real stigma associated with being unhappy with parenthood, but many people do not seem to enjoy the process.==
This is something only a non-parent would say. Nobody enjoys the sleepless nights, dirty diapers or unexplained whining, but those are part of the same process that leads from laughing, to crawling, to walking, to speaking, to reasoning.
==From my own observations, eventually most parents adjust their own personal "bar" for happiness and more or less accept their lot. I'm sure they get something positive out of it, but it seems to be a tradeoff for other sources of happiness and life satisfaction which usually become unavailable to parents.==
Your wording implies that you have never actually asked a parent if they get anything out of it, but just make an assumption to fit your mental model. Everything in life is a trade-off, that isn't the same as wishing you didn't do something.
Is it possible you are inferring it a certain way because of your bias? For instance, I complain about having kid all the time, but I wouldn't give him up for anything.
==There is a real stigma associated with being unhappy with parenthood, but many people do not seem to enjoy the process.==
This is something only a non-parent would say. Nobody enjoys the sleepless nights, dirty diapers or unexplained whining, but those are part of the same process that leads from laughing, to crawling, to walking, to speaking, to reasoning.
==From my own observations, eventually most parents adjust their own personal "bar" for happiness and more or less accept their lot. I'm sure they get something positive out of it, but it seems to be a tradeoff for other sources of happiness and life satisfaction which usually become unavailable to parents.==
Your wording implies that you have never actually asked a parent if they get anything out of it, but just make an assumption to fit your mental model. Everything in life is a trade-off, that isn't the same as wishing you didn't do something.
> Is it possible you are inferring it a certain way because of your bias? For instance, I complain about having kid all the time, but I wouldn't give him up for anything.
Not being happy with parenting doesn't imply wanting to give up your child. It just means that you made a bad decision that you're now stuck with / making the best of.
It could be that I was simply reading into things, but I have been told directly by someone that it had been a bad choice. But as people do, they adapted and moved on, though their life is very different now and I barely recognize them anymore.
I've also known happy parents. It's just silly to say that parenting is automatically a happy event. Nothing in life is going to be enjoyable for every person.
Not being happy with parenting doesn't imply wanting to give up your child. It just means that you made a bad decision that you're now stuck with / making the best of.
It could be that I was simply reading into things, but I have been told directly by someone that it had been a bad choice. But as people do, they adapted and moved on, though their life is very different now and I barely recognize them anymore.
I've also known happy parents. It's just silly to say that parenting is automatically a happy event. Nothing in life is going to be enjoyable for every person.
[deleted]
Yeah, his experience taking care of kids in no way prepares him to take care of kids.
Having kids takes a lot of time and money. If you work till 5 you need to pay for childcare, which isn't cheap at all and might even be akin to doubling your rent. Mom is also working so you can't just unload domestic work and childcare to someone else to worry about. If you are entry level chances are you need to get there before the boss and stay there after if you ever want to not be entry level, and work weekends during busy season, so even that 40hr week can go up to 50-60. If you are a woman asking for maternity leave in an entry level job could jeopardize your entire career trajectory. Even in superficially liberal SF, VC firms have been known to discriminate against women entrepreneurs just from the possibility that they might be pregnant one day. People can scarcely keep housing costs below 30% of their net income.
People are waiting until they have more money and a job that actually gives them time to raise a family. The real reason why people are putting off having kids is that it's not 1950 anymore.
People are waiting until they have more money and a job that actually gives them time to raise a family. The real reason why people are putting off having kids is that it's not 1950 anymore.
Leaving aside the fact that you have not substantiated your claim, it could very well be that having kids in America makes you miserable, because the safety net is gutted or non-existent.
There is almost no maternal/paternal leave, health care costs are astronomical, so are child care costs, which are almost necessary, because the normal multi-generational family has been systematically destroyed over the last half-century, both with advertising and economic pressure. Not to mention the lack of compromising skills in both partners, which has been exacerbated by identity politics.
So yes, in context, maybe having kids is miserable*
*with caveats and not everywhere.
There is almost no maternal/paternal leave, health care costs are astronomical, so are child care costs, which are almost necessary, because the normal multi-generational family has been systematically destroyed over the last half-century, both with advertising and economic pressure. Not to mention the lack of compromising skills in both partners, which has been exacerbated by identity politics.
So yes, in context, maybe having kids is miserable*
*with caveats and not everywhere.
Anecdote; my kid is my greatest source of happiness.
That's a pretty general, sweeping claim to make without a source.
Current data suggests that net unhappiness is associated with raising children, but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
>but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves
that's the equivalent of saying "if I control for skin colour I observe no discrimination". The cost of raising children both financially and in time, is intrinsically linked to raising children.
It is often asserted that spousal relationships suffer from the routine chores that come with raising children, and that is not going away. Don't control for the thing you want to measure.
that's the equivalent of saying "if I control for skin colour I observe no discrimination". The cost of raising children both financially and in time, is intrinsically linked to raising children.
It is often asserted that spousal relationships suffer from the routine chores that come with raising children, and that is not going away. Don't control for the thing you want to measure.
It suggests that "children leads to unhappiness" is a property of how society is currently set up and not a universal truth.
i agree, i found this from quick search.. somewhat supports him/her. Havent delved into the studies wholly yet
https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyo...
https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyo...
If it's scientifically proven, there should be some research backing it up. Do you have a link to that research?
You cannot just say things like this without providing evidence.
You cannot just say things like this without providing evidence.
Wouldn't that also contradict the biological imperative to pass on our genes? If having children had an overall and prolonged negative impact on your stress levels, it would also impede humans' ability to effectively procreate since stress has a direct impact on life expectancy and fertility. I can understand that in the short-term, that might be the case, but over a longer period (say the last 10k years) it does not appear to be true.
The stronger "biological imperative" is to have sex; birth control is quite a recent invention. And once you had kids, it doesn't matter that your life expectancy or fertility drops a bit because your genes are already passed on.
There's no way to objectively measure happiness, so no that hasn't been proven.
Personally, I've found having a kid to be less stressful, less expensive, and more rewarding than my college/career experience. I'm happier now than I ever was before. Yeah it's hard sometimes, but what isn't?
Personally, I've found having a kid to be less stressful, less expensive, and more rewarding than my college/career experience. I'm happier now than I ever was before. Yeah it's hard sometimes, but what isn't?
IIRC, married couples with children have some of the highest happiness indexes of the entire world.
That's like saying it's scientifically proven that people who invest are poorer than people who hoard their cash (and don't invest). True in the short term, false in the long term.
That's the biggest crock I've ever read on HN. Where did this "science" come from? A bunch of self-obsessed journalists I'm sure or maybe /r/childfree?
The people who are unhappy with kids are the people who are unhappy, depressed and bitter to begin with, lacking all empathy. You have to be a pretty self-absorbed individual to not love the innocence and charm of children.
Every person I know with a family loves their children to death and are very content and happy. Happiness consists in pursuing the ultimate unchanging good and increasing in virtue, nothing passing in this life can give you ultimate everlasting happiness. It is a philosophical, metaphysical and theological question, not a question of children, free-time or money. Children are a good thing, but they're not the ultimate object whereby one becomes happy.
The people who are unhappy with kids are the people who are unhappy, depressed and bitter to begin with, lacking all empathy. You have to be a pretty self-absorbed individual to not love the innocence and charm of children.
Every person I know with a family loves their children to death and are very content and happy. Happiness consists in pursuing the ultimate unchanging good and increasing in virtue, nothing passing in this life can give you ultimate everlasting happiness. It is a philosophical, metaphysical and theological question, not a question of children, free-time or money. Children are a good thing, but they're not the ultimate object whereby one becomes happy.
Mm, a radical idea these days! :) Lately I have come to realise that searching for the “cultured, polished being” and the “ideal life” actually made me feel even more insecure and trapping myself to my comfort zone. Oh yes doing a marathon is really stretching me. So is trying out new food. Watching a horrific war drama ... from a sofa. They’re all things that _I_ want, that _I_ control. When I get thrown into something totally random, especially when it’s stupid — like why is that kid crying? It’s just a sticker! — it distresses me a lot. Which is silly! Life is meant to be full of all sorts of randomness and silliness! So bizarrely, I am trying to do more normal things now. Like cleaning the house manually, talking to the old man next door, falling in love. All feels uncomfortable, but I feel more alive too!
> I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids.
This alone would encourage me to fly with my kids as often as possible.
This alone would encourage me to fly with my kids as often as possible.
ecoled_ame(1)
The article is long and I skimmed a bit.
It appears to be one of these pieces that just covers so many topics and issues, I'm not sure which ones correlate to loneliness and which ones don't.
I'll tell you one thing, and this is a personal belief: the modern way of making a living and the modern relationship to my family is far preferable to me than "the old way."
For most of human history we've had to stick with our families and build a large set of children in order to perform labor and work around high mortality rates. Usually we were all subsistence farmers or perhaps running a family business.
In no way to I prefer that lifestyle to that of modern life. Old style families tie everyone into the extended family. For better or worse you're stuck with your blood relatives and you must continue the family farm, family business, or whatever it is. Your fate is determined from the day you are born, and you must stick with these people no matter how toxic they are.
Yes, it's possible to be lonely thanks to overwork, distance (physical or emotional) from family, or a number of other factors that have some kind of connection to modern life.
But also, I most definitely don't want to live with my parents, or with my children forever. I want them to have the luxury of living around whoever they choose, not who they're born into having a relationship with.
In the past, a lot of these choices were made for us because that's what our community and family expected from us. I would not trade that aspect of familial social pressure, lack of freedom, and predetermined expectations for some (rectifiable) modern day loneliness.
It appears to be one of these pieces that just covers so many topics and issues, I'm not sure which ones correlate to loneliness and which ones don't.
I'll tell you one thing, and this is a personal belief: the modern way of making a living and the modern relationship to my family is far preferable to me than "the old way."
For most of human history we've had to stick with our families and build a large set of children in order to perform labor and work around high mortality rates. Usually we were all subsistence farmers or perhaps running a family business.
In no way to I prefer that lifestyle to that of modern life. Old style families tie everyone into the extended family. For better or worse you're stuck with your blood relatives and you must continue the family farm, family business, or whatever it is. Your fate is determined from the day you are born, and you must stick with these people no matter how toxic they are.
Yes, it's possible to be lonely thanks to overwork, distance (physical or emotional) from family, or a number of other factors that have some kind of connection to modern life.
But also, I most definitely don't want to live with my parents, or with my children forever. I want them to have the luxury of living around whoever they choose, not who they're born into having a relationship with.
In the past, a lot of these choices were made for us because that's what our community and family expected from us. I would not trade that aspect of familial social pressure, lack of freedom, and predetermined expectations for some (rectifiable) modern day loneliness.
I think you're believing in a false dichotomy. You can have a full family experience without doing labor, or working a farm, or a family business. Look at immigrant families from certain parts of the world. When I lived in the Midwest, I interacted with them. Most of them were well educated, and not doing business or laborious work. They were spread apart in different cities, but mostly within driving distance. Culturally, they insisted on maintaining close social ties.
A coworker of mine who is in his 30's (PhD in engineering, doing tech work) is thinking he'll move back to the Midwest where his family is after 2-3 more years here (West coast). He loves it here (especially the weather), but all the niceties in culture and weather here don't compensate for the lack of having family and cousins nearby. His kids will grow up there, just as he did.
(Just in case anyone is wondering, he's not white, and so will be moving back to a much less diverse part of the country).
Having experienced both sides, there are definitely down sides to close family ties, but I view family as a wider spectrum. If your relatives are horrible (or way out of sync with your mindset), then it's much worse than the individualist mindset. But if you get along with them, it's way better than anything you can achieve as an individualist.
A coworker of mine who is in his 30's (PhD in engineering, doing tech work) is thinking he'll move back to the Midwest where his family is after 2-3 more years here (West coast). He loves it here (especially the weather), but all the niceties in culture and weather here don't compensate for the lack of having family and cousins nearby. His kids will grow up there, just as he did.
(Just in case anyone is wondering, he's not white, and so will be moving back to a much less diverse part of the country).
Having experienced both sides, there are definitely down sides to close family ties, but I view family as a wider spectrum. If your relatives are horrible (or way out of sync with your mindset), then it's much worse than the individualist mindset. But if you get along with them, it's way better than anything you can achieve as an individualist.
I see your point here.
On the other hand I wonder if we've prematurely jumped to this conclusion that non-immigrant Americans have this horribly individualist culture where we shun all our relatives once we have a professional job. Like, what actual evidence is pointing us to that? Is it just feelings, or is there some kind of metric we can look at?
I don't have an answer, just thinking about it.
On the other hand I wonder if we've prematurely jumped to this conclusion that non-immigrant Americans have this horribly individualist culture where we shun all our relatives once we have a professional job. Like, what actual evidence is pointing us to that? Is it just feelings, or is there some kind of metric we can look at?
I don't have an answer, just thinking about it.
My example of immigrants was not to imply anything about non-immigrants. I used them simply because they're easy to distinguish (yes, profiling, I guess).
I've definitely seen the same in non-immigrant families. Perhaps more likely from folks who do not come from major cities (I may be wrong). Definitely tend to see it more amongst LDS folks, but it's by no means limited to them.
I've definitely seen the same in non-immigrant families. Perhaps more likely from folks who do not come from major cities (I may be wrong). Definitely tend to see it more amongst LDS folks, but it's by no means limited to them.
I understand what you mean, I believe it was me who made that generalization first. It's hard to refrain from trying to make things follow a simple and explainable pattern.
Lots of choices are toxic and most people underutilise free will. Society will have to pay the cost in terms of poor mental health and related issues. Some people thrives alone while someone else in groups. Both should co-exist for functional society.
I think your first sentence is a great way to sum up what I was trying to say.
What we have now that we didn't use to have is an actual freedom to choose our path - at least, relative to what we had in the past pre-industrialization.
It is indeed very easy to make a lot of choices that result in loneliness or unhappiness. But at least more of us have those choices.
What we have now that we didn't use to have is an actual freedom to choose our path - at least, relative to what we had in the past pre-industrialization.
It is indeed very easy to make a lot of choices that result in loneliness or unhappiness. But at least more of us have those choices.
I think is just another example where we got a short term benefit from breaking societal norms but may suffer long term. Strong family bonds can be very confining so it's often liberating to weaken them. But then you also lose that support system which has big cost long term.
I think the job market has similar trends. It used to be that jobs were more stable and you had a direct path to retirement. But this was also restricting for young people. Now we have the opposite. Young people are the stars of the job market, job hopping is the only way to get ahead and the people who aren't millionaires by age of 50 are looking into a very insecure future.
I think the job market has similar trends. It used to be that jobs were more stable and you had a direct path to retirement. But this was also restricting for young people. Now we have the opposite. Young people are the stars of the job market, job hopping is the only way to get ahead and the people who aren't millionaires by age of 50 are looking into a very insecure future.
Actually one of the things my wife and I often discuss is how with our current society even what we consider our "nuclear family" is at most just a part time family.
For most of humanity a family group stayed together for the majority of each day. Children played with siblings, cousins and were usually within earshot of one of their parents or relatives. Certainly they would have found their way back when hungry. As they got older, they worked right beside their parents on the various chores and tasks.
In modern western society, the spouses are separated for the majority of their waking hours. (Even if one spouse chose to stay at home, the issue would still remain as the other spouse would have to go to work). The children spend either a significant or a major portion of their time in day care or school, also separated from their siblings. Then throw in the after school activities, projects and homework needed to create a modern "well rounded" child. (Don't even get me started on how un-affordable it is to have kids)
They do get to have a rushed breakfast together and hopefully a good dinner as well, but that is about it. A significant portion of the weekend is spent doing chores. Add in the American working culture of taking very few vacation days.
The decline of the family is because our culture has created an environment where we are working .. working constantly.. (either chasing a higher standard of living or running as fast as we can just to maintain our current standard of living (housing, education, healthcare), working so you can afford to have kids) and we work in an environment where we are disconnected from our family and friends. Often, if you are lucky, you make friends at work.. but almost always these aren't like the friends you made at high school, they aren't as meaningful and strong. Then People change jobs and you "stay in touch"... If you are lucky, you find the person you love at work, but work places romances are tricky as well.. sometimes (usually?) frowned upon.
We just have much less TIME to build those sorts of deep bonds. Visit a village or a small town in the developing world and observe how much more TIME people seem to have. How much more time they spend with each other.
For most of humanity a family group stayed together for the majority of each day. Children played with siblings, cousins and were usually within earshot of one of their parents or relatives. Certainly they would have found their way back when hungry. As they got older, they worked right beside their parents on the various chores and tasks.
In modern western society, the spouses are separated for the majority of their waking hours. (Even if one spouse chose to stay at home, the issue would still remain as the other spouse would have to go to work). The children spend either a significant or a major portion of their time in day care or school, also separated from their siblings. Then throw in the after school activities, projects and homework needed to create a modern "well rounded" child. (Don't even get me started on how un-affordable it is to have kids)
They do get to have a rushed breakfast together and hopefully a good dinner as well, but that is about it. A significant portion of the weekend is spent doing chores. Add in the American working culture of taking very few vacation days.
The decline of the family is because our culture has created an environment where we are working .. working constantly.. (either chasing a higher standard of living or running as fast as we can just to maintain our current standard of living (housing, education, healthcare), working so you can afford to have kids) and we work in an environment where we are disconnected from our family and friends. Often, if you are lucky, you make friends at work.. but almost always these aren't like the friends you made at high school, they aren't as meaningful and strong. Then People change jobs and you "stay in touch"... If you are lucky, you find the person you love at work, but work places romances are tricky as well.. sometimes (usually?) frowned upon.
We just have much less TIME to build those sorts of deep bonds. Visit a village or a small town in the developing world and observe how much more TIME people seem to have. How much more time they spend with each other.
As someone from village in a developing world (I don't work there but visit at least once a year) I totally concur with all your sentiments. One of the things that takes some getting used when I am back home is how loosely scheduled days can be. There no such things as invites for lunch of dinner. People just pitch up and a plan is made. Wake in the morning and we supposed to go check on the cows. A cousin arrives as we eating breakfast, next thing it is 12 noon. Its too late now, cows are out grazing. Shrug, tomorrow is another day. No one stressed and it was good to see my cousin. I am not naive enough to think this is how life should be but it is nice break from my city life. We need a balance and of both sorts of lives and we don't have that balance in the city.
Homeschooling gives at least one parent the opportunity to spend large amounts of time with their kids, and also gives the kids lots of time together.
Source: was homeschooled, starting to homeschool my own children (well, mostly my wife is, but I help where I can).
Source: was homeschooled, starting to homeschool my own children (well, mostly my wife is, but I help where I can).
I just skimmed the article and it all resonates with my experience as an immigrant in the US but I'm also going to point out that the way cities are built in the US plays a huge role in isolating people. In most american cities the spaces to aggregate without having to pay money (let's say a restaurant) are scarce or even absent. There's no benches on the side of the streets, because we fear that someone could sit on it and NOT SPEND MONEY at a nearby business (the horror!).
We build houses far, far away from stores and places of work, so everyone needs to drive to those places in their own motorized isolation box.
We built profoundly inhuman places to live, and the result is that nobody is happy and we're all dying of all kinds of preventable diseases.
I think this model of society has largely failed, and people in western countries are now struggling to figure out where do we go from here, a question we will probably not answer in my lifetime.
We build houses far, far away from stores and places of work, so everyone needs to drive to those places in their own motorized isolation box.
We built profoundly inhuman places to live, and the result is that nobody is happy and we're all dying of all kinds of preventable diseases.
I think this model of society has largely failed, and people in western countries are now struggling to figure out where do we go from here, a question we will probably not answer in my lifetime.
I'm not so sure about city planning being a large factor.
European cities are very different but we face similar problems. We have parks, you don't need to travel far (I grew up in a large city, now live in a small one right next to it, and have never had a car and never needed one) to get places, most people live in multi-family-homes and overly long commutes are the exception, not the rule.
I do agree with your last sentence though, and maybe it's the individualism that expresses itself more strongly in US cities because they are much younger, and more purpose built.
European cities are very different but we face similar problems. We have parks, you don't need to travel far (I grew up in a large city, now live in a small one right next to it, and have never had a car and never needed one) to get places, most people live in multi-family-homes and overly long commutes are the exception, not the rule.
I do agree with your last sentence though, and maybe it's the individualism that expresses itself more strongly in US cities because they are much younger, and more purpose built.
This has been on my mind for a while and it really bothers me. Everyone I know lives 10-20km away and the only time we meet up is at the pub where we spend a huge amount of money. There are very few public spaces in the city and they are all loud and unpleasant to be in due to the car traffic.
I honestly think the invention of cars is to blame for the loneliness issues. All the other things like social media are just background noise compared to the invention that made it very incontinent to just casually meet other people.
I honestly think the invention of cars is to blame for the loneliness issues. All the other things like social media are just background noise compared to the invention that made it very incontinent to just casually meet other people.
If anyone lives in Seattle and is feeling lonely hit me up! I'll grab coffee with you any time. I'm 35 & a few years ago my loneliness spiraled out of control and almost killed me. I had a lot of crap from my late teens -> late 20's and it led me to a dark place. I know what it's like to be in that place. I got sober and turned things around. Now I work remote and have a flexible schedule. Life is good! I love the goodness of humanity & meeting new people, so hit me up anytime, cheers!
My friend made an app for this, and it's live in Seattle - https://www.jointhaw.com/
Oh hi, I've seen your posters posted throughout Cap Hill.
I'm curious, with these kinds of apps, do you use it yourself? I've always wondered if dating as a Tinder/Grinder employee would be weird, and here I'm curious if it's weird in a more platonic world.
I'm curious, with these kinds of apps, do you use it yourself? I've always wondered if dating as a Tinder/Grinder employee would be weird, and here I'm curious if it's weird in a more platonic world.
ooh that looks sharp! nice design on the marketing page. I will have to try it out :D
I'll bite! If you update a way to contact in your description or something, I'll send a message your way. :)
sorry for late reply, added to profile :)
My own concerns are different. I'm in my 50s now, happily married for over 25 years, with a terrific social life. I'm not at all lonely or isolated.
It's my children that I worry about.
They're boy/girl twins, now 25. My daughter is in the process of breaking up with the boyfriend she's lived with for the past two years, and moving back home to re-settle her life. She has a career, and wants to get married and start a family sometime soon. Her boyfriend is a great person to be around and she adores him, but... he doesn't want kids (and is actually freaked out by them). He doesn't want marriage. And he can't keep himself organized enough to uphold his financial/personal responsibilities in cohabitation. So where is she going to find a potential partner who shares her social values, and wants a life partnership and a co-parent, who can uphold their responsibilities? She doesn't even know where to look.
Her brother lives at home, and probably always will. He doesn't have a real career and can't adult well enough to live on his own, even if he had to. He has never been on a date, even, and lives for video games. What happens if he looks around one day and suddenly feels lonely for a family other than his aging parents? With no financial substance or adulting skills and no romantic experience, he's not much of a catch for partners his age. He'll have to take more family/household responsibility as he gets older, and that's fine, but what happens when his parents finally pass away and he's an old man?
As a parent, these situations worry me greatly.
It's my children that I worry about.
They're boy/girl twins, now 25. My daughter is in the process of breaking up with the boyfriend she's lived with for the past two years, and moving back home to re-settle her life. She has a career, and wants to get married and start a family sometime soon. Her boyfriend is a great person to be around and she adores him, but... he doesn't want kids (and is actually freaked out by them). He doesn't want marriage. And he can't keep himself organized enough to uphold his financial/personal responsibilities in cohabitation. So where is she going to find a potential partner who shares her social values, and wants a life partnership and a co-parent, who can uphold their responsibilities? She doesn't even know where to look.
Her brother lives at home, and probably always will. He doesn't have a real career and can't adult well enough to live on his own, even if he had to. He has never been on a date, even, and lives for video games. What happens if he looks around one day and suddenly feels lonely for a family other than his aging parents? With no financial substance or adulting skills and no romantic experience, he's not much of a catch for partners his age. He'll have to take more family/household responsibility as he gets older, and that's fine, but what happens when his parents finally pass away and he's an old man?
As a parent, these situations worry me greatly.
Your son's situation sounds a lot like my own, but I am married and maybe am a bit more responsible than him. :)
So, we're a couple that doesn't want to / plan to have children and we've discussed the "getting old" thing before. What I regret about our American society is that it's no longer common to live together as an extended family. Why couldn't he live with his sister (or near her), after you're gone? What about other relatives?
I think it's possible that, in the future, we'll see more communal living situations because I have a feeling there's a lot of GenX and younger people who aren't going to end up having children. Communities can be remade if people make the effort to come back together and live around one another again. I'm thinking of communities like the elderly have in Florida, but maybe people will start living together at a younger age? Just some thoughts I've had.
I've seen the pain and the struggle around this (personally) and I'm hoping it's something that people start taking seriously soon.
So, we're a couple that doesn't want to / plan to have children and we've discussed the "getting old" thing before. What I regret about our American society is that it's no longer common to live together as an extended family. Why couldn't he live with his sister (or near her), after you're gone? What about other relatives?
I think it's possible that, in the future, we'll see more communal living situations because I have a feeling there's a lot of GenX and younger people who aren't going to end up having children. Communities can be remade if people make the effort to come back together and live around one another again. I'm thinking of communities like the elderly have in Florida, but maybe people will start living together at a younger age? Just some thoughts I've had.
I've seen the pain and the struggle around this (personally) and I'm hoping it's something that people start taking seriously soon.
I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up living with his sister someday. They're pretty close, really. We had a talk about wills with the kids last year, and one question was "What should we do about the house? Do you kids want to keep it, or sell it for the money?", and they were both adamant about keeping the house they grew up in.
In the meantime, part of my son's responsibility as we get older is taking care of his aging parents. Last summer, my wife had a serious knee injury that had her bedridden for a while and limited mobility for longer, and he had to step up then. We warned him that this was the first of many, and they'll get worse.
In the meantime, part of my son's responsibility as we get older is taking care of his aging parents. Last summer, my wife had a serious knee injury that had her bedridden for a while and limited mobility for longer, and he had to step up then. We warned him that this was the first of many, and they'll get worse.
[deleted]
What has your son been doing since turning 18? Did you try to lay out a foundation in teaching him life skills/weaning him off of financial support so he can learn the value of a dollar?
I understand disabilities and disorders can hold adult children back, if that isn't the case I'm curious where things went off the rails, as a soon to be first time dad myself. This stuff worries me, that regardless of all the investment and good parenting in the world, that my kid(s) can fail to thrive.
I understand disabilities and disorders can hold adult children back, if that isn't the case I'm curious where things went off the rails, as a soon to be first time dad myself. This stuff worries me, that regardless of all the investment and good parenting in the world, that my kid(s) can fail to thrive.
Pretty severe autism. The main reason we never just kicked him out is because he really can't function on his own. He'd suck at being homeless. That was hard for me to get used to, as I've been on my own since I was 18. And his sister moved out as soon as it was practical for her, although she lives just minutes away and we see her at least weekly.
And if there's one piece of parenting advice I can offer, it's this... your kids are their own people. Parents only have just so much control. (The flip side is also true; at a certain point, you can't just blame your parents for your own life.)
And if there's one piece of parenting advice I can offer, it's this... your kids are their own people. Parents only have just so much control. (The flip side is also true; at a certain point, you can't just blame your parents for your own life.)
> And if there's one piece of parenting advice I can offer, it's this... your kids are their own people. Parents only have just so much control. (The flip side is also true; at a certain point, you can't just blame your parents for your own life.)
My kids are still pretty young (<10) but this is something that I increasingly understand/believe the older they get. One of the most surprising things for me as a dad was seeing how different my kids are from each other, even when being raised in exactly the same environment. This has really reinforced to me the idea that people are really their own people, and there is only so much a parent can do to influence what they'll become later. (And yes, this has also given me reason to reflect on the idea that I can't hold my parents responsible for my life choices - definitely cuts both ways!)
My kids are still pretty young (<10) but this is something that I increasingly understand/believe the older they get. One of the most surprising things for me as a dad was seeing how different my kids are from each other, even when being raised in exactly the same environment. This has really reinforced to me the idea that people are really their own people, and there is only so much a parent can do to influence what they'll become later. (And yes, this has also given me reason to reflect on the idea that I can't hold my parents responsible for my life choices - definitely cuts both ways!)
I think you are so right.
Society seems to think that how children turn out is fully the result of the actions of parents. Whilst this is correct to some extent, in most cases from the early teens children are distinct individuals who will make their own decisions and mistakes. I think this is even more true now than it was when I was a child, the diversity of information and views they have access to pretty much ensures that there would view will diverge from that of their parents.
As a parent, you can provide an example of behaviour and whilst the child is young provide restrictions and discipline as necessary, but beyond a point, your work is done and it's up to them.
As a parent, you can provide an example of behaviour and whilst the child is young provide restrictions and discipline as necessary, but beyond a point, your work is done and it's up to them.
I might have one like that, unless you mean the non-verbal type. He has to go soon, probably age 20 at the end of summer. He did just barely manage an AA degree, so perhaps he is better off than yours. He is sometimes wildly inappropriate.
He has to go for lots of reasons. One is that I'll have 11 other kids to devote my resources to. Another is that a bit more of a push might get him to fly. Another is that I've seen my two youngest brothers still living with my parents, and it horrifies me. While one of my brothers has an excuse (needs watching for schizophrenia medication), the younger of the two has no excuse: over 30, has an MS in computer science, badly addicted to video games.
The video games really do provide an escape from activities that would require learning social skills. If your social skills are bad, you might want that escape, but that isn't making the situation any better.
He has to go for lots of reasons. One is that I'll have 11 other kids to devote my resources to. Another is that a bit more of a push might get him to fly. Another is that I've seen my two youngest brothers still living with my parents, and it horrifies me. While one of my brothers has an excuse (needs watching for schizophrenia medication), the younger of the two has no excuse: over 30, has an MS in computer science, badly addicted to video games.
The video games really do provide an escape from activities that would require learning social skills. If your social skills are bad, you might want that escape, but that isn't making the situation any better.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you get in the position of providing for 11 children? This sounds like a remarkable story.
It's not remarkable. I simply made them, with one wife, in the traditional way. In case you were asking about how I afford them:
I have a BS degree in computer science from UMass Lowell. I started the family, married, moved into a place of my own, and started an OS kernel developer job just a bit before finishing the degree. At that time, back in 1999, my starting pay of $48,000 ($73,628 in 2019 dollars) was more than my wife's parents made together. You can wait forever trying to get your life into a perfect state for starting a family, or you can just get on with it. Once we had two kids, my wife gave up on that same degree with 75% done.
I currently work for a government contractor, doing low-level software: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20088647
I mostly stick to living in small affordable cities like Melbourne, FL. The area I'm in now is just large enough to have commercial jet flights, 4 each way with Delta and 3 each way with American. Houses have a median price of about $150,000 here. I paid about double that to have a big house (3500 sq ft, 0.39 acre) less than a mile from the beach. I paid it off in 8 years.
Unless you count opportunity cost, there are no child care expenses. My wife does that. The kids are homeschooled, with dual-enrollment providing free AA degrees that have fully transferable credit to state universities. There is a scholarship that should cover the rest, except that we botched the application for the first two kids.
Food is the big expense. We seem to spend over $40,000 per year on it. About half the time we hit the out-of-pocket maximum for health insurance, which is something around $11,000 if I remember right. (skull fracture, major rib cage surgery, more rib cage surgery) After that I don't know, but it might be electricity or home insurance.
My state has no income tax. I don't really pay the federal one, due to the kids.
Maybe the important point is that I just went for it. Sensible career and expense choices help, but the main thing seems to be this: You can wait forever trying to get your life into a perfect state for starting a family, or you can just get on with it.
I have a BS degree in computer science from UMass Lowell. I started the family, married, moved into a place of my own, and started an OS kernel developer job just a bit before finishing the degree. At that time, back in 1999, my starting pay of $48,000 ($73,628 in 2019 dollars) was more than my wife's parents made together. You can wait forever trying to get your life into a perfect state for starting a family, or you can just get on with it. Once we had two kids, my wife gave up on that same degree with 75% done.
I currently work for a government contractor, doing low-level software: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20088647
I mostly stick to living in small affordable cities like Melbourne, FL. The area I'm in now is just large enough to have commercial jet flights, 4 each way with Delta and 3 each way with American. Houses have a median price of about $150,000 here. I paid about double that to have a big house (3500 sq ft, 0.39 acre) less than a mile from the beach. I paid it off in 8 years.
Unless you count opportunity cost, there are no child care expenses. My wife does that. The kids are homeschooled, with dual-enrollment providing free AA degrees that have fully transferable credit to state universities. There is a scholarship that should cover the rest, except that we botched the application for the first two kids.
Food is the big expense. We seem to spend over $40,000 per year on it. About half the time we hit the out-of-pocket maximum for health insurance, which is something around $11,000 if I remember right. (skull fracture, major rib cage surgery, more rib cage surgery) After that I don't know, but it might be electricity or home insurance.
My state has no income tax. I don't really pay the federal one, due to the kids.
Maybe the important point is that I just went for it. Sensible career and expense choices help, but the main thing seems to be this: You can wait forever trying to get your life into a perfect state for starting a family, or you can just get on with it.
Why did you decide to have so many children?
I didn't. The kids kept appearing! That damn stork...
Lots of little reasons add up. There was never a definite decision. I guess I got fond of having so many kids, and I got used to the chaos. I saw my wife's uncle fall apart after his only daughter died, so redundancy seems wise. My wife is hard-core Catholic. Making kids is fun. Maybe some will visit when I am old.
Lots of little reasons add up. There was never a definite decision. I guess I got fond of having so many kids, and I got used to the chaos. I saw my wife's uncle fall apart after his only daughter died, so redundancy seems wise. My wife is hard-core Catholic. Making kids is fun. Maybe some will visit when I am old.
Tip for a fellow traveler: you might want to check out the Autism Advantage program. They give job training specialized for autistic adults so they can work in the SV.
Is there any potential for a group home situation for him that he could eventually transition to?
Is it necessary? I don't mind him living at home; I just worry about what will happen to him when his parents are gone, especially if for some reason we die relatively young.
I meant as a long-term situation that would give him a social support structure for when you are gone or can no longer provide for him. I see now you mentioned in another comment you wouldn't be surprised if he ended up living with his sister at some point and that she lives close to you, so if he has that option that might be the best.
Sounds like the best thing he could do for his son is give him the first month's rent on an apartment and kick him out. He won't like it, but isn't being a parent about making the hard decisions?
You gotta kick them out. Unless they get cancer or are struck by lightning this kind of babysitting of 25 year olds does more damage than good. And with Mom and Dad around taking care of things there is zero motivation to make mistakes, learn from them and figure anything out.
If I may comment as a young(er) generation (I am early 30s now): I met who I wanted to marry when I was 29, and proposed to her at 30. I think she will be fine. I honestly think your daughter having to re-settle her life to find someone who shares the same wants in life out of her will lead to longer term happiness. When I was 25, I was dating someone long term whom it was kind of similar, I adored her, but ultimately we were not compatible. I am much happier now with the person I adore and am compatible with.
If it makes you feel better, I was still living with my parents at 24 and had never had a girlfriend and I am now happily married with two kids. Some people are late bloomers.
Moved from home early but didn't get a girlfriend until I got engaged somewhere after I was 25.
I've now been married for over a decade and we have more than two kids, - together ;-)
I've now been married for over a decade and we have more than two kids, - together ;-)
I am in similar marriage /w 3 kids, I have younger kids who I believe have values like your daughter but I also worry that it will be much harder for them to find serious partners.
My wife isn't worried, she believes things will work themselves out somehow.
I don't think people who don't have kids can understand how concerning shift in values and attitudes is and can be for parents.
My wife isn't worried, she believes things will work themselves out somehow.
I don't think people who don't have kids can understand how concerning shift in values and attitudes is and can be for parents.
Your son's issue may be exacerbated by video game addiction. As a game developer I know exactly how effective our methods are.
what are your thoughts on League of Legends?
Your son is 25. Shouldn't he have more responsibilities? Metaphorically speaking should you push him out of the nest? Or at least move towards that direction.
Seriously. With food and shelter always taken of, there's no incentive for him to get a job or "adult" at all.
That's a very shallow understanding of incentives.
Case in point - his twin sister moved out as soon as she got herself a steady income to live on. But she also chooses to stay in town, and spend time with us multiple times a week. Why is that? Why did she come out differently?
Case in point - his twin sister moved out as soon as she got herself a steady income to live on. But she also chooses to stay in town, and spend time with us multiple times a week. Why is that? Why did she come out differently?
That's American culture for you.
Capitalists force a narrative that everyone is inherently "lazy" and will be good for nothing if not for the jobs/existential crises they so conveniently provided by the capitalists.
I relate heavily to your description of your daughter (and am also the same age!). I have a great career by most standards and am independent but also prefer to be home and near my parents/extended family whenever I can. Why? Mostly because I enjoy their company, but even just being in the same house feels nice.
In contrast the girls I have dated do not understand how I prioritize/spend so much time with my family instead of anyone/everything else. :shrug:
Capitalists force a narrative that everyone is inherently "lazy" and will be good for nothing if not for the jobs/existential crises they so conveniently provided by the capitalists.
I relate heavily to your description of your daughter (and am also the same age!). I have a great career by most standards and am independent but also prefer to be home and near my parents/extended family whenever I can. Why? Mostly because I enjoy their company, but even just being in the same house feels nice.
In contrast the girls I have dated do not understand how I prioritize/spend so much time with my family instead of anyone/everything else. :shrug:
My daughter is actually one of my best friends. I'd hang out with her even if we weren't related. I sometimes joke that I diluted her mother's genes to perfection...
You're a wonderful person and you sound like a great parent. I have a good relationship with my parents today, especially my father. He and I are good friends. It's interesting, contrasted against the way he was raised and the relationship that he had with his father. Back then, the idea of a friendship wasn't even on the table.
Anyway, I have nothing to really add here. I just wanted to say... I'm on the cusp of becoming a father, we're expecting our twins this weekend. You've given me a lot to think about with your story in these comments. Thanks for that.
Anyway, I have nothing to really add here. I just wanted to say... I'm on the cusp of becoming a father, we're expecting our twins this weekend. You've given me a lot to think about with your story in these comments. Thanks for that.
Not to discredit what you’re saying (because I think it’s valid!) but I’ve dated people that have had difficult relationships with their parents and I think being away from them has overall been a more positive solution for everybody.
That said, I love spending time with my parents, but I know it’s not a one-relationship-model fits all for getting the most out of life.
That said, I love spending time with my parents, but I know it’s not a one-relationship-model fits all for getting the most out of life.
> people that have had difficult relationships with their parents and I think being away from them has overall been a more positive solution for everybody.
This describes me exactly.
My parents are just hideously broken people that passed their hang-ups and neuroses onto me in such a way that I was just a shell of a person until my early 20's when I realised what was wrong with me and made effo
This describes me exactly.
My parents are just hideously broken people that passed their hang-ups and neuroses onto me in such a way that I was just a shell of a person until my early 20's when I realised what was wrong with me and made effo
Of course, there are layers to everything! I just wanted to provide a perspective that reinforces the OP's point -- different strokes for different folks.
[deleted]
Your daughter is fine but unless your son is disabled / has other potential issues (like autism, severe depression) you need to get him on the right track. No 25 year old should be able to get away with the excuse of being unable to "adult well enough to live on his own". Your son of course has responsibility but that's really your problem to fix if he won't
He's pretty seriously autistic.
One thing having twins did for me was push me way over to the nature side of nature vs nurture. They're so different, and always have been. And I don't expect to have more control over their lives than my parents had over mine at that age.
One thing having twins did for me was push me way over to the nature side of nature vs nurture. They're so different, and always have been. And I don't expect to have more control over their lives than my parents had over mine at that age.
What do you mean by seriously autistic? You said in another post he does tasks around the house and took care of your wife when she fell ill. A seriously autistic person would not be able to do that. A seriously autistic person would require constant adult supervision.
Are you sure he's not just under-socialized and addicted to porn and video games? How does he spend his days? He might simply be a western hikikomori.
Are you sure he's not just under-socialized and addicted to porn and video games? How does he spend his days? He might simply be a western hikikomori.
Autistic enough to not function well in society. There's actually a middle ground between "just fine" and "has to wear a helmet".
I don't mean to pry, but I'm kinda curious. What do you mean by function well in society? Some people with down syndrome can still live a semi-normal life and be employed, are you saying your son is worse than that? Can he talk to people? Can he drive?
He still doesn't drive. He's resisted it (mostly passively) pretty hard. He even has his own car. But to him, it's an alien thing, something he doesn't want to do.
He can talk to people who share his interests at the moment, or in highly structured interactions (he works retail and is pretty good at it), but in free-form "polite conversation", he's basically paralyzed. I seriously worry about if he ever has to engage with the police, because I don't think he could obey their shouted orders.
He can talk to people who share his interests at the moment, or in highly structured interactions (he works retail and is pretty good at it), but in free-form "polite conversation", he's basically paralyzed. I seriously worry about if he ever has to engage with the police, because I don't think he could obey their shouted orders.
I see, in that case his dependence at this stage in life is understandable. Still I hope he's able to overcome the difficulties being autistic presents and figure things out.
Maybe he would enjoy games like factorio or Shenzhen I/O, those games are pretty fun and are good introductions to learning skills very similar to programming
Maybe he would enjoy games like factorio or Shenzhen I/O, those games are pretty fun and are good introductions to learning skills very similar to programming
[deleted]
Is the boyfriend 25? It took me until 25 to start being open to the idea of kids. I'm 27 now and actually open to the idea. I had never spent time with kids really. Having a niece and nephew helped a lot because I realized kids, while a lot of work, can bring a lot of joy.
That’s really interesting. What made you feel that your mind changed? When I was 25 I was much more open to children, but now at 27 I’m very sure I don’t want to have them.
Getting to know my niece and nephew. And talking to my brother in law as the kids grew up. I remember asking, "Doesn't the crying annoy you?" And he said something like, "You know I thought it would but when it's my kid it just sounds different. I don't get annoyed I just feel for them and want to do whatever I can to make them feel okay again."
Conversations like that and the emotional connection I have with their little ones made me realize it might be worth it.
At 27 I feel even more strongly. I'm still not ready to have kids but I feel a draw to it now.
Conversations like that and the emotional connection I have with their little ones made me realize it might be worth it.
At 27 I feel even more strongly. I'm still not ready to have kids but I feel a draw to it now.
Should consider looking into an F3 workout group. Totally free men’s group.
25 is very young. You’re not going to find many urban, college-educated 25 year olds willing to start a family that early.
If starting a family is the goal, I don't think "urban, college-educated 25 year olds" are what you'd look for. That gets you fewer kids and a moderately high disease risk.
Optimizing for the goal of a family, you'd look for suburban people who will be reaching your jurisdiction's marriage age within a year. Secondary to that you might look for ones who are smart, but they'd have to prioritize family.
Optimizing for the goal of a family, you'd look for suburban people who will be reaching your jurisdiction's marriage age within a year. Secondary to that you might look for ones who are smart, but they'd have to prioritize family.
Not as far as fertility is concerned. 25 means only a couple of years left at peak fertility.
What is "Peak fertility"? That's at least 10 more years for women before they even become higher risk.
The period during a woman's life when she is most likely to have the least difficulty conceiving a child. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility
I'm not sure what you mean by "higher risk". The risk of a woman being unable to conceive increases each year after ~27-30, depending on the study.
I'm not sure what you mean by "higher risk". The risk of a woman being unable to conceive increases each year after ~27-30, depending on the study.
It used to be a term used for women trying to conceive. Based upon your link it would seem to have gone out of style, which really is for the best. Even at 40 those aren't bad odds.
They are bad odds if having children is very important to you, and if you want multiple children.
You don't even know if you'd want multiple children.
I'll be having my 12th kid soon. That simply doesn't happen if you wait. At the start, I had no idea that I'd want so many kids. To allow for this possibility, you must start early. Ideally you'd start before age 20.
I'll be having my 12th kid soon. That simply doesn't happen if you wait. At the start, I had no idea that I'd want so many kids. To allow for this possibility, you must start early. Ideally you'd start before age 20.
That is impressive. Congratulations on your soon-to-be newest addition!
> Ideally you'd start before age 20.
In college? Or high school?
In college? Or high school?
Does it matter?
I think it is important to have some means of supporting a family, but that might not involve the educational path that has become our standard for the past 30 years. It only takes one good income, and paid child care is usually a terrible deal for big families, so there isn't a financial justification for paying for two expensive educations. If the degree costs time or money and wouldn't get used, why bother? Avoiding unneeded student loans is a sensible idea. The earlier you start, the larger your family can be.
The lines between college and high school are starting to blur. Dual enrollment (or equivalent) is offered in most states. This lets students take college classes early, getting credit for both high school and college. Here it can start in 6th grade. You can get a BS degree before completing high school.
The reasons to wait are legal (typically must be 16 to marry), medical (roughly similar), and the ability to find a suitable spouse. That last one is usually easier in college. It can be a challenge to get everything in order at a young age, but the payoff is huge.
I think it is important to have some means of supporting a family, but that might not involve the educational path that has become our standard for the past 30 years. It only takes one good income, and paid child care is usually a terrible deal for big families, so there isn't a financial justification for paying for two expensive educations. If the degree costs time or money and wouldn't get used, why bother? Avoiding unneeded student loans is a sensible idea. The earlier you start, the larger your family can be.
The lines between college and high school are starting to blur. Dual enrollment (or equivalent) is offered in most states. This lets students take college classes early, getting credit for both high school and college. Here it can start in 6th grade. You can get a BS degree before completing high school.
The reasons to wait are legal (typically must be 16 to marry), medical (roughly similar), and the ability to find a suitable spouse. That last one is usually easier in college. It can be a challenge to get everything in order at a young age, but the payoff is huge.
at least 10 more years
More like 20. Women are safely birthing children well into their 40's nowadays. The old "safe" age limits (generally up to 40) are no longer considered to be relevant.
More like 20. Women are safely birthing children well into their 40's nowadays. The old "safe" age limits (generally up to 40) are no longer considered to be relevant.
Some women can certainly conceive well into their 40's. Many cannot after 35. Each year after ~27-30 increases the chance that you will have difficulty conceiving.
Some can't conceive at all - the odds are still good well into their 40's, and no point scaring people into rushing into having kids when there's little evidence for it.
There is plenty of evidence that younger women (<35) get pregnant more easily, have easier pregnancies, and have lower risks of complications. After 27 or so, the odds of it all going well start to decline. After 35, which is about when women would be trying for #3 or #4 if they started in their late 20s, those odds start getting worse quickly. No point lying to people, unless for some reason you want the people listening to have smaller families.
Or, you know, you don't want to scare people into making poor life choices for themselves just to make sure they don't miss their "window".
Of course, but you also don't want to tell young women they have all the time in the world to settle down. If they want multiple children, and by the time they're 25 they still haven't found a man they expect to marry, they really need to get on that.
I guess we're thinking of children along separate lines - I see it as a potential outcome of a good, stable relationship, but you're defining it as a goal, where the getting a mate is a step in the progress towards said goal. It's just a different way of defining relationships and lives.
I think having kids is a goal for a lot of people, e.g. the girl that is the subject of this thread.
>She has a career, and wants to get married and start a family sometime soon. Her boyfriend is a great person to be around and she adores him, but... he doesn't want kids (and is actually freaked out by them).
>She has a career, and wants to get married and start a family sometime soon. Her boyfriend is a great person to be around and she adores him, but... he doesn't want kids (and is actually freaked out by them).
You're right - downs syndrome chance does increase with age, but yeah, there's a ton of fertile years left. 25 is not nearing the end of anything.
>there's a ton of fertile years left.
There might be, there might not be. There will likely not be many years left where the woman is most easily able to conceive a child.
There might be, there might not be. There will likely not be many years left where the woman is most easily able to conceive a child.
At age 35, there's still 84% odds over 5 years - that's still waayy in the majority of "going to have a baby".
A) 5 years is a looooong time to be trying to conceive. Trying unsuccessfully to conceive is quite stressful.
B) You can't tell when you're 25 whether you're going to be in that lucky group. If having children is very important to you, those odds are not great.
C) Many people want multiple children. They can't afford to wait until it's taking 5 years to conceive each child.
B) You can't tell when you're 25 whether you're going to be in that lucky group. If having children is very important to you, those odds are not great.
C) Many people want multiple children. They can't afford to wait until it's taking 5 years to conceive each child.
We’re not farm animals, peak fertility doesn’t matter.
It does if you're a woman who wants to have children. There are of course expensive ways to increase fertility after it has started to decline, but they're far from a guarantee.
The point, though, is that if a woman is still just looking for a husband at 25, when she is already nearing the end of her peak fertile years, she will likely be at the end of her peak fertile years when she gets married, so it's all downhill from the get-go.
The point, though, is that if a woman is still just looking for a husband at 25, when she is already nearing the end of her peak fertile years, she will likely be at the end of her peak fertile years when she gets married, so it's all downhill from the get-go.
25 is not young. I was married for 4 years (still married at 34 to the same woman), a one-year-old daughter, working as an air traffic controller for 7 years, deployed to the ME, stationed at three different bases, traveled to 12 countries (at the time), completed undergrad, and half-way through graduate school. The age appearing young is because society likes to make excuses on why people haven't gotten their act together.
"25 is not young"
really it depends on the person's fitness & genetics. its just a number. I know people who are 23-27ish, they either look like 17 year olds or 39 year olds.
really it depends on the person's fitness & genetics. its just a number. I know people who are 23-27ish, they either look like 17 year olds or 39 year olds.
Having a baby and getting married has nothing to do with getting your act together. If anything, having a baby before 25 is strongly correlated with not having your shit together.
Their mother had them when she was 24. It paused her finishing her master's degree for a semester. She went back to teaching college, then into IT, where she's a product owner for international e-commerce.
She's 25? I wouldn't be worried.
Your daughter will be ok. She can go anywhere and immediately find social groups and have no issues finding dates — if she gets online she can literally have hundreds or thousands of men ready to take her out. It’s completely opposite for most men — isolated and hard to find social circles.
It’s easy for women to find dates. Much harder to find competent potential life partners who want to start a family.
Well yeah, but... it's hard for men to find dates to begin with, and that's just the starting line for finding a competent potential life partner who want to start a family. I'm a parent of both a boy and a girl like OP, as well as a former single man - I do believe women have some disadvantages in modern society, but dating/romance is not one of them.
You’re making a fallacy here. You are saying “it’s easier for women to get 100 dates, therefore it’s easier for women to find what they want”.
Your OP is saying, it’s easy for women to get 100 dates but out of 100 dates only 1 will be a sensible life partner.
It may be harder for a man to get 10 dates than for a woman to get 100 but in those 10, half of them will be a sensible life partner.
It’s a little like an advertising funnel: women have a source for getting lots of clicks, but few will be well qualified for a sale.
Men have a harder time getting clicks, but generally when they do they are generally well qualified.
You’re just thinking about the clicks as if that’s the only equation that matters but it’s a multiplication of two conversion rates, not one.
Your OP is saying, it’s easy for women to get 100 dates but out of 100 dates only 1 will be a sensible life partner.
It may be harder for a man to get 10 dates than for a woman to get 100 but in those 10, half of them will be a sensible life partner.
It’s a little like an advertising funnel: women have a source for getting lots of clicks, but few will be well qualified for a sale.
Men have a harder time getting clicks, but generally when they do they are generally well qualified.
You’re just thinking about the clicks as if that’s the only equation that matters but it’s a multiplication of two conversion rates, not one.
You're assuming women are 50 times more likely to want to be a "sensible life partner" which isn't true, in my experience. Maybe it's just my age category (early 20s), but women and men alike aren't concerned with settling down.
Plus with the advent of online profiles, I don't have to go on 100 dates to figure out 50-90 of them won't work out. so if 1 out of every 10 dates I go on is a winner, and it takes me a week to set up those 10 dates, then it is still better than for a guy to spend a month setting up 10 dates, of which due to small sample size, there's a lower chance of the let's say 2-3 sensible life partners appearing.
Plus with the advent of online profiles, I don't have to go on 100 dates to figure out 50-90 of them won't work out. so if 1 out of every 10 dates I go on is a winner, and it takes me a week to set up those 10 dates, then it is still better than for a guy to spend a month setting up 10 dates, of which due to small sample size, there's a lower chance of the let's say 2-3 sensible life partners appearing.
I'm not sure how old you are, but among young men there is a big problem with sexlessness. I think I remember reading recently in the newspapers that 1/3rd of young men are incels nowadays.
Edit: found it https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
Edit: found it https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
In other words, women get a lot of "date spam".
Imagine a heterosexual relationship dating pool of 100 men and 100 women. 40 of the men are date-spammers, and 5 of the women are date-spammers. They will all attempt a first date with anyone with a pulse.
So each woman in the pool can easily get 40 dates, and each man in the pool can easily get 5 dates. These dates will likely not turn into long-term relationships, as the indiscriminate selection protocol does not correlate highly with sufficient investment into any particular relationship.
In short order, each non-spammer semi-pool will adapt compensation and filtering strategies to avoid the date-spammers. As the women have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (1.5) than the men (19), their filter will be more brutal, and block more false positives. The hookup bros make it harder for the normal men to find dates, as they increase the strength of women's filters, and then they profit more strongly from mimicry of non-spammers in order to defeat the filters.
With this hypothetical dating pool, the normal guys could cartelize, and join a dating site where men are only allowed a first date after a timeout interval of N days. New accounts have to wait N days before setting up a first date or accepting a date. While dating is in progress, the timeout clock stops at N days, communication with everyone else is suspended, and either person has to click on a "relationship ended" button--which notifies the other person--to start them up again. The ToS can penalize users with multiple accounts. It's rate-limiting dates, to stop the spammers.
Imagine a heterosexual relationship dating pool of 100 men and 100 women. 40 of the men are date-spammers, and 5 of the women are date-spammers. They will all attempt a first date with anyone with a pulse.
So each woman in the pool can easily get 40 dates, and each man in the pool can easily get 5 dates. These dates will likely not turn into long-term relationships, as the indiscriminate selection protocol does not correlate highly with sufficient investment into any particular relationship.
In short order, each non-spammer semi-pool will adapt compensation and filtering strategies to avoid the date-spammers. As the women have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (1.5) than the men (19), their filter will be more brutal, and block more false positives. The hookup bros make it harder for the normal men to find dates, as they increase the strength of women's filters, and then they profit more strongly from mimicry of non-spammers in order to defeat the filters.
With this hypothetical dating pool, the normal guys could cartelize, and join a dating site where men are only allowed a first date after a timeout interval of N days. New accounts have to wait N days before setting up a first date or accepting a date. While dating is in progress, the timeout clock stops at N days, communication with everyone else is suspended, and either person has to click on a "relationship ended" button--which notifies the other person--to start them up again. The ToS can penalize users with multiple accounts. It's rate-limiting dates, to stop the spammers.
That seems heavily female biased. It's more realistic that 1/100 men is right for a woman and 1/100 women is right for a man, but the woman will at least meet a 100 men whereas the man will only meet 10 women. It would explain the amount of sexless young men.
The OP (Rayiner?) wasn’t making a claim about “rightness” they made a claim about readiness for a family.
So yes, that group is female biased. That was the whole point of his comment.
The kinds of things men are typically looking for are also in short supply in the median woman who will go on a date with them, but that’s a separate point.
(I feel like a lot of people in this thread read some implied moralizing here, like single men are bad for not being family ready, that it’s some sort of female supremacy argument, but no one said that. It just is what it is.)
So yes, that group is female biased. That was the whole point of his comment.
The kinds of things men are typically looking for are also in short supply in the median woman who will go on a date with them, but that’s a separate point.
(I feel like a lot of people in this thread read some implied moralizing here, like single men are bad for not being family ready, that it’s some sort of female supremacy argument, but no one said that. It just is what it is.)
>It may be harder for a man to get 10 dates than for a woman to get 100 but in those 10, half of them will be a sensible life partner.
That's probably the point of disagreement, I don't see any reason to think this is true.
That's probably the point of disagreement, I don't see any reason to think this is true.
If your standards are too high, you'll find it tough to find "competent" life partners who want to start a family.
Secondly, if I told you that there was a > 20% chance you were going to get run over by a car, would you cross the road? Even the best partnerships (statistically) have a 20% chance of divorce. "Hey 'incompetent' life partner, do you want to take a 20-50% chance of losing 60-80% of the assets that you build up over the next 10 years? Oh, how about a similar chance that you'll lose the relationship with your children?"
Men are not upset (in general) that they are single. It's women that are upset.
Secondly, if I told you that there was a > 20% chance you were going to get run over by a car, would you cross the road? Even the best partnerships (statistically) have a 20% chance of divorce. "Hey 'incompetent' life partner, do you want to take a 20-50% chance of losing 60-80% of the assets that you build up over the next 10 years? Oh, how about a similar chance that you'll lose the relationship with your children?"
Men are not upset (in general) that they are single. It's women that are upset.
This is insane. I used to think this way in high school - "wow, girls have it so easy, every man wants sex and if girls want sex they just have to raise their hand, it's so hard for men!"
Then I lived in the real world and realized that, well, people don't actually want to have sex with anything that moves, and it's a gift to be a man who doesn't get dozens of sexual advances per day, and doesn't have to worry about what literally every person's intentions are.
Then I lived in the real world and realized that, well, people don't actually want to have sex with anything that moves, and it's a gift to be a man who doesn't get dozens of sexual advances per day, and doesn't have to worry about what literally every person's intentions are.
> people don't want to have sex with anything that moves
> gift to be a man and not get dozens of advances a day
> gift to be a man and not get dozens of advances a day
I am not sure if that’s true. Both my female cousins fit the description above, except they’re in their late 30s by now and still aren’t able to find partners for life. Sometimes I think maybe that’s the way it’s always been and that’s why there were forced marriages, which you might not have liked but in the end they made you happy through the family you’d usually had around you as you grow older. Don’t know
I've had some Indian co-workers in arranged marriages who think it's great, and are totally baffled by people who only marry for love.
Well of course, a woman's sexual value plummets after her mid 30s (also known as "hitting the wall"). However, 25 is still young and a 25 year old girl has an almost unlimited amount of options if she tries online dating.
>if she gets online she can literally have hundreds or thousands of men ready to take her out
Women have to actually filter out the serial killers you know. That's what they're doing on the dating thing.
Women have to actually filter out the serial killers you know. That's what they're doing on the dating thing.
I'm sorry to say this, but the tone in your voice towards your son sounds more detached than it should in my opinion. I mean, why would you let him slip into that bleak future you're describing for him? Shouldn't you be the one to wake him up, especially if he lives under your roof.
I get it if you don't believe in discipline, but I think that's what is required here (or at least fatherly guidance).
I'm usually the biggest advocate for personal responsibility, reaping what you sow, etc. but I think you may be being too hard on the parent. For one thing, parents lose a lot of power as kids age-- how exactly do you punish a 25 year old living at home? Send him to bed without dinner? Take away his Nintendo Switch?
Also, reading between the lines of parent's post, I'm wondering if the son is depressed. Maybe suicidal? Trying to "light a fire under his ass" could drive him deeper within himself, and if someone wants to die, there isn't much you could threaten them with anyway.
I certainly appreciate the destructive feedback loop: failure contributes to depression, depression and idleness cause further failure. That lifestyle probably causes obesity, making everything worse. Then there's the datelessness, etc. But breaking the cycle requires, among other things, that the kid want to get better-- I mean really want it more than he's wanted anything in his life. Short of that, and unless you're willing to toss him out on the street and hope for the best, the options are not great.
Also, reading between the lines of parent's post, I'm wondering if the son is depressed. Maybe suicidal? Trying to "light a fire under his ass" could drive him deeper within himself, and if someone wants to die, there isn't much you could threaten them with anyway.
I certainly appreciate the destructive feedback loop: failure contributes to depression, depression and idleness cause further failure. That lifestyle probably causes obesity, making everything worse. Then there's the datelessness, etc. But breaking the cycle requires, among other things, that the kid want to get better-- I mean really want it more than he's wanted anything in his life. Short of that, and unless you're willing to toss him out on the street and hope for the best, the options are not great.
A caring father can hurt the child's development by making him feel too comfortable. You can show that you care by putting boundaries. I'm not sure the age matters here. You can cut down the internet, or make him pay rent. You can be hard, and at the same time give him options. Show him somehow that the reality could hit him in the face really hard, if he doesn't change.
There always could be depression behind things, so one has to be careful. Maybe arrange therapy, if necessary. For a young guy to be able to open up to his father could be really hard, especially if he's in a pinch, but acting as if you were a bystander isn't the solution.
(It seems the kid has autism according to the father, so it changes things quite a bit.)
There always could be depression behind things, so one has to be careful. Maybe arrange therapy, if necessary. For a young guy to be able to open up to his father could be really hard, especially if he's in a pinch, but acting as if you were a bystander isn't the solution.
(It seems the kid has autism according to the father, so it changes things quite a bit.)
If they are mid-twenties they have probably heard it a million different times in a million different ways, what do you do?
Kick him out. Having my parents cut off financial support to me was the kick in the ass I needed to get into shape. Best thing that ever happened to me.
[deleted]
You talk to him. Drag him out to sit in the yard and talk for an hour. Demand he ride with you to the grocery store.
You listen to his reality. You ask him about what games he is playing and how they work. You ask him about what he wishes for more of. You respect him and love him and build trust.
You tell him hard truths, gently, when he needs to hear them.
You accept that he will need to wander in the desert to find his own truth, and might end up somewhere other than you.
You reach back out when you miss him.
You expect him to know things you don’t, and you take joy in discovering new things about him you didn’t know were there.
You tell him when he is hurting you, draw the line on abusive behaviors. Explain why his behaviors are wrong and describe what you need from him to feel great about the relationship.
You tell him about your own struggles and weaknesses. You talk about your hopes for improvement. You are self deprecating.
You laugh at his jokes. You are playful. You try to make him laugh even if he doesn’t appreciate your humor.
You treat him the same way you treat the adults that you love and respect most, so that he grows into one.
You listen to his reality. You ask him about what games he is playing and how they work. You ask him about what he wishes for more of. You respect him and love him and build trust.
You tell him hard truths, gently, when he needs to hear them.
You accept that he will need to wander in the desert to find his own truth, and might end up somewhere other than you.
You reach back out when you miss him.
You expect him to know things you don’t, and you take joy in discovering new things about him you didn’t know were there.
You tell him when he is hurting you, draw the line on abusive behaviors. Explain why his behaviors are wrong and describe what you need from him to feel great about the relationship.
You tell him about your own struggles and weaknesses. You talk about your hopes for improvement. You are self deprecating.
You laugh at his jokes. You are playful. You try to make him laugh even if he doesn’t appreciate your humor.
You treat him the same way you treat the adults that you love and respect most, so that he grows into one.
[deleted]
I know people like this - what's the solution? Do you just cut them loose and make them figure it out?
Tough love is sometimes the best form of love. Be prepared to be resented; be prepared for the child to cut you out of their life.
Accept it's their choice. You're probably giving them more choice than you ever have before. And it's scary for both of you. But it's literally the only way that some people can learn how to grow up.
Accept it's their choice. You're probably giving them more choice than you ever have before. And it's scary for both of you. But it's literally the only way that some people can learn how to grow up.
[deleted]
Yeah can't you just... kick him out?
Sometimes dudes need something to 'flip' them into activity, saying this as a dude myself, so I can't speak for the ladies.
A family member of mine smoked pot and lived in a van a skiied the backtrails for 10 years (!!!) and then poof got his CA way late in life and is not 'caught up' in his career.
Another peer worked in marketing, hated it, went to work stoned. Then one day 'poof' he got serious, was a manager (it was a rapidly growing company), Director then VP within a few years.
Sometimes I think 'guys need a reason', and for many it just comes along.
If your kids are safe, healthy, decent people and not in existential trouble with the law etc., consider yourself fortunate in a way, it could be much worse.
'20's are the new teens' anyhow. 25 is still very young.
A family member of mine smoked pot and lived in a van a skiied the backtrails for 10 years (!!!) and then poof got his CA way late in life and is not 'caught up' in his career.
Another peer worked in marketing, hated it, went to work stoned. Then one day 'poof' he got serious, was a manager (it was a rapidly growing company), Director then VP within a few years.
Sometimes I think 'guys need a reason', and for many it just comes along.
If your kids are safe, healthy, decent people and not in existential trouble with the law etc., consider yourself fortunate in a way, it could be much worse.
'20's are the new teens' anyhow. 25 is still very young.
Yeah. In a way, I really admire his focus. His life has everything he cares about, and he ruthlessly ignores everything that doesn't actually matter to him. And he's smart, capable of incredible focus, and can interact with people in structured ways (he works in retail and is actually good at it).
Maybe someday he'll decide to aim it somewhere else.
Maybe someday he'll decide to aim it somewhere else.
Sounds to me like your son needs to learn a trade.
graycat(3)
I'm a boy, 24, and willing to have many kids, your daughter sounds like a girl I'd like to have.
The Great Lakes have surpassed the 'high-water-level' record set 33 years ago.
Therefore, High-Water levels in the Great Lakes cause loneliness.
Correlation != Causation
If you are looking for things "to blame" don't forget about:
-decline in religious-group (church) participation
-stagnate wage increases for 20 years while cost of living increases (result: less of an ability to afford "going out") Also related: more people needing 2+ jobs
-increased internet access/duration/interaction
All of these equate to less 'recreational' time available. Lack of recreation time = less chance to participate in social settings = more loneliness
Correlation != Causation
If you are looking for things "to blame" don't forget about:
-decline in religious-group (church) participation
-stagnate wage increases for 20 years while cost of living increases (result: less of an ability to afford "going out") Also related: more people needing 2+ jobs
-increased internet access/duration/interaction
All of these equate to less 'recreational' time available. Lack of recreation time = less chance to participate in social settings = more loneliness
Strange, I always thought the epidemic of loneliness in post-industrial countries was attributable to alienation from culture and community, because we'd replaced self-sufficiently interesting forms of life with meaningless jobs in equally meaningless service stores built in meaningless communities by faceless multinational conglomerates, sold with lifestyle ads bundled with meaningless mass entertainment to people lacking a cultural immune response to the siren song of shallow mass culture.
The nuclear suburban household is a manifestation of the soulless, profit-driven mass culture that we've been actively fleeing from ever since we woke up to find ourselves isolated amongst our acquaintances. Every generation in the West since the 1950s has engaged in a desperate scramble to find meaning and connection, because, spoilers, there's something hauntingly awful about eating microwave dinners in front of the television with your family after working 10 hours doing supply chain managment for WhateverCo. with a spouse with whom you never learned to communicate with and children whose only job is to stay on the rails and not get any strange ideas about life.
I don't even think that loneliness is intrinsically a bad thing. Pain is a signal that forces you to adapt.
The nuclear suburban household is a manifestation of the soulless, profit-driven mass culture that we've been actively fleeing from ever since we woke up to find ourselves isolated amongst our acquaintances. Every generation in the West since the 1950s has engaged in a desperate scramble to find meaning and connection, because, spoilers, there's something hauntingly awful about eating microwave dinners in front of the television with your family after working 10 hours doing supply chain managment for WhateverCo. with a spouse with whom you never learned to communicate with and children whose only job is to stay on the rails and not get any strange ideas about life.
I don't even think that loneliness is intrinsically a bad thing. Pain is a signal that forces you to adapt.
I look at so many of my single friends who are achingly lonely (late 30s to early 40s) and they all have a particular trait in common: they obsess about the possibilities the future may hold yet don’t acknowledge the hard work it would take to get there. There’s also a sort of collective delusion that if you wait around long enough, your dream partner will show up and that if a relationship takes any work at all that it should be scrapped because it interferes with “just being an individual”.
The longer people put off pairing up, the harder it seems to accomplish.
I think mainstream media has really warped a couple of generations of people’s priorities. Extended adolescence and chasing hedonism is now the norm.
My friends who eschewed that in favor of more traditional long term relationships, compromise and building family over Instagram followers are decidedly more content and less anxious.
I suspect as my generation ages these effect will amplify.
The longer people put off pairing up, the harder it seems to accomplish.
I think mainstream media has really warped a couple of generations of people’s priorities. Extended adolescence and chasing hedonism is now the norm.
My friends who eschewed that in favor of more traditional long term relationships, compromise and building family over Instagram followers are decidedly more content and less anxious.
I suspect as my generation ages these effect will amplify.
If these people are actually your friends, maybe you should show them more respect and stop assuming that the reason they are single is that they are less mature than you and chose to “chase hedonism” and “Instagram followers” over long term relationships. Despite what you might believe, it isn't easy for every person to find a long term partner, and not everyone wants to do it at the same point in their lives.
I’m not assuming anything, they’re friends I’ve know for many years and I’ve been there with them as they’ve made these choices. I’d like for them to be happy but there’s only so much you can do.
I think the problem I’m describing is pretty common amongst gen x and millennials.
I think the problem I’m describing is pretty common amongst gen x and millennials.
You mean, a totally self-centered outlook on life leaves you lonely? Who knew?
Sure, but I think peoples' definition or image of self-centeredness has been obscured by societal norms. At least here in the US, it feels like one of our cultural hallmarks is the ideal of the "self made individual". If it is normalized to see oneself as apart from others, it becomes very difficult indeed to sacrifice anything for another person (and news flash, that's a big part of familial relationships).
i like your style of thinking, can you put down 5-10 bullet points of knowledge you think we should all know or sources of knowledge we should investigate.
Sure, the best place to start is The Century of The Self:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
It’s a great look at the rise of marketing, individualism and hedonism in the 20th century.
Democracy In America is another great source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America
It’s an extremely prescient, outsider’s look at the tyranny of the masses.
I would also suggest studying the context of the 20th century, especially the lead up with the industrial revolution and both world wars. It’s often lost on people that Western life as defined by American sitcoms was an anomaly powered in large part by the rest of the first world being nearly obliterated. This leads ultimately into global recovery and globalism which I see as a normalization of life after WWI and WWII.
Post-modernism is good to learn about as well. I feel like a lot of people mistake modernism and post-modernism. Post-modernism can actually include a lot of things modernism rejects, such as traditional family structures. It just does it piecemeal framed in a totally different (non-religious) context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
It’s a great look at the rise of marketing, individualism and hedonism in the 20th century.
Democracy In America is another great source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America
It’s an extremely prescient, outsider’s look at the tyranny of the masses.
I would also suggest studying the context of the 20th century, especially the lead up with the industrial revolution and both world wars. It’s often lost on people that Western life as defined by American sitcoms was an anomaly powered in large part by the rest of the first world being nearly obliterated. This leads ultimately into global recovery and globalism which I see as a normalization of life after WWI and WWII.
Post-modernism is good to learn about as well. I feel like a lot of people mistake modernism and post-modernism. Post-modernism can actually include a lot of things modernism rejects, such as traditional family structures. It just does it piecemeal framed in a totally different (non-religious) context.
The number of people I know who advocate that “blood is thicker than water” and then spend most of our outings at a bar complaining about one or another of those blood relatives...
For years I’ve felt like I’m supposed to report in to my family (my mother in particular) because otherwise I’m assumed dead. It was never reasonable, I was always safe and happy (and not engaged in anything crazy like CIA wetwork, just traveling around the US by myself), but I finally had to do away with it and issue an ultimatum.
For me it was not family vs loneliness. It was family vs lonerness (and happiness). They were “stuck in the mud” and expected me to be the same... when I wasn’t it was out of their comfort zone and they didn’t know how to handle that.
Several months in now I’m happier than I’ve ever been... purely because I don’t have to worry about anyone’s happiness except my own and the people I actually choose to be with.
For years I’ve felt like I’m supposed to report in to my family (my mother in particular) because otherwise I’m assumed dead. It was never reasonable, I was always safe and happy (and not engaged in anything crazy like CIA wetwork, just traveling around the US by myself), but I finally had to do away with it and issue an ultimatum.
For me it was not family vs loneliness. It was family vs lonerness (and happiness). They were “stuck in the mud” and expected me to be the same... when I wasn’t it was out of their comfort zone and they didn’t know how to handle that.
Several months in now I’m happier than I’ve ever been... purely because I don’t have to worry about anyone’s happiness except my own and the people I actually choose to be with.
I actually had a similar(ish) situation to yours. I read a book called "boundaries" and that's made my relationships with my family much better.
This all came about when I was getting married.
This was about 10 years ago now. Fast forward to wife + kids and I did something I never thought I'd do. I moved home to be close to family again.
I'm still fully self reliant but my kids get to grow up near gma and gpa which is amazing.
It wasn't until I entered into the group of my friends with kids that I realized there's a fair amount of isolation there.
Anyway, I followed a similar path. I moved across the country to get away from my family man, and now that I've learned to set boundaries I'm back and happy with our new relationship. Maybe that'll work for you and your family and maybe it wont.
We did have friends who were family where we used to live. The kind of friends you call when you're going into labor and they pick your kid up from daycare after driving for an hour. I miss them more than almost anyone else in the world. So, while you can make it work with family and it might be great, you can also make it work without them. That's just what I chose to do.
This all came about when I was getting married.
This was about 10 years ago now. Fast forward to wife + kids and I did something I never thought I'd do. I moved home to be close to family again.
I'm still fully self reliant but my kids get to grow up near gma and gpa which is amazing.
It wasn't until I entered into the group of my friends with kids that I realized there's a fair amount of isolation there.
Anyway, I followed a similar path. I moved across the country to get away from my family man, and now that I've learned to set boundaries I'm back and happy with our new relationship. Maybe that'll work for you and your family and maybe it wont.
We did have friends who were family where we used to live. The kind of friends you call when you're going into labor and they pick your kid up from daycare after driving for an hour. I miss them more than almost anyone else in the world. So, while you can make it work with family and it might be great, you can also make it work without them. That's just what I chose to do.
I suppose my problem is that I’ve tried to set limitations. The people I’m setting them upon don’t agree.
So that leaves us at a crossroads. I either grit my teeth and continue to put up with what I see as unacceptable behavior, or I enforce the ultimatum and refuse to engage.
This is hardly the first time I have ever had this kind of argument with any of the people involved. It goes, as many family arguments tend to, along a predictable and repeatable pattern: argument, agreement, repetition.
Eventually I had to realize that this has happened dozens of times and if I don’t change any variables we will just continue to repeat the cycle for the rest of my life.
All of that said, I don’t have kids. I don’t really want them, but I assume at some point it’ll happen. I do realize that having grandma and grandpa there is valuable. You’ve got a free babysitter and the family roots. If it came down to compromising my ultimatum and not having that connection... I would absolutely, 100%, without any question, tell my mother to F off again.
The whole thing ends up being exactly what you said - sometimes family are a blessing and built in friends, but sometimes they aren’t and you find other friends to fill in that gap.
I just can’t stand it when people say that family is all that matters.
So that leaves us at a crossroads. I either grit my teeth and continue to put up with what I see as unacceptable behavior, or I enforce the ultimatum and refuse to engage.
This is hardly the first time I have ever had this kind of argument with any of the people involved. It goes, as many family arguments tend to, along a predictable and repeatable pattern: argument, agreement, repetition.
Eventually I had to realize that this has happened dozens of times and if I don’t change any variables we will just continue to repeat the cycle for the rest of my life.
All of that said, I don’t have kids. I don’t really want them, but I assume at some point it’ll happen. I do realize that having grandma and grandpa there is valuable. You’ve got a free babysitter and the family roots. If it came down to compromising my ultimatum and not having that connection... I would absolutely, 100%, without any question, tell my mother to F off again.
The whole thing ends up being exactly what you said - sometimes family are a blessing and built in friends, but sometimes they aren’t and you find other friends to fill in that gap.
I just can’t stand it when people say that family is all that matters.
Is it just the family, or is it also community institutions?
I'm thinking specifically about the decline in church attendance. Regardless of your beliefs, church congregations (not mega-churches, but small congregations of at most a few hundred) provided a built-in community that could provide support, companionship, activities, etc. So far I haven't seen anything that really replicates all those communities had to offer.
I'm thinking specifically about the decline in church attendance. Regardless of your beliefs, church congregations (not mega-churches, but small congregations of at most a few hundred) provided a built-in community that could provide support, companionship, activities, etc. So far I haven't seen anything that really replicates all those communities had to offer.
That's one of my fears as well.
I'm 25, and recently started studying at university where most of my peers are 18-20. After getting to know them for a bit, from everything I've gathered most of them have not been in youth groups of any kind (that topic recently came up during lunch), and are also not involved in any other communities at the moment. Also no bands. The contrast to my friends from high school at that age is crazy.
The difference might be more pronounced due to other factors: They are mostly straight A students vs. I was basically the opposite (though my friends did well in school). They mostly grew up in metropolitan areas vs. us in a semi-rural setting.
But even if those are significant factors, that doesn't make the outlook any better, with more and more pressure being put on children to perform well in school and more and more people moving to big cities.
I'm 25, and recently started studying at university where most of my peers are 18-20. After getting to know them for a bit, from everything I've gathered most of them have not been in youth groups of any kind (that topic recently came up during lunch), and are also not involved in any other communities at the moment. Also no bands. The contrast to my friends from high school at that age is crazy.
The difference might be more pronounced due to other factors: They are mostly straight A students vs. I was basically the opposite (though my friends did well in school). They mostly grew up in metropolitan areas vs. us in a semi-rural setting.
But even if those are significant factors, that doesn't make the outlook any better, with more and more pressure being put on children to perform well in school and more and more people moving to big cities.
>I'm thinking specifically about the decline in church attendance.
This is an often repeated point but I don't see how it has any credence. Most people who attend churches may talk with each other for just a few hours -- and personally I've found most churches don't really foster a socially-healthy atmosphere. And that's fine, that's not the goals of churches, never has been and most likely never will be.
Churches if anything have never played a role in a healthy community -- and to this day if we map church attendance to social ills there's a pretty good correlation between the two: steady church attendance in areas tends to correlate with heavy drug problems, domestic abuse, and suicide.
However you want to dice that up, good or bad, it simply means one thing: church attendance and socially healthy communities probably aren't really related, and if they are, it probably doesn't have the effect you think it does given the available evidence.
This is an often repeated point but I don't see how it has any credence. Most people who attend churches may talk with each other for just a few hours -- and personally I've found most churches don't really foster a socially-healthy atmosphere. And that's fine, that's not the goals of churches, never has been and most likely never will be.
Churches if anything have never played a role in a healthy community -- and to this day if we map church attendance to social ills there's a pretty good correlation between the two: steady church attendance in areas tends to correlate with heavy drug problems, domestic abuse, and suicide.
However you want to dice that up, good or bad, it simply means one thing: church attendance and socially healthy communities probably aren't really related, and if they are, it probably doesn't have the effect you think it does given the available evidence.
I'm not big on churches, but I'll share a specific anecdotal perspective about a subset of church-related communities: youth groups.
When I grew up, I was an alter boy in our local catholic church. Out of the big 4 youth group options (3 religion related ones + boyscouts) available, it was probably the one with the biggest religious involvement, but that still wasn't much. I was never really that religious and also managed to stay away from most of the church service pretty sucessfully. Anyway, being in that youth group has shaped my social skills a lot, and I've made many great friends through that. I think the same goes for most of the ~15% percent of the local youth between 12-18 that were in one of those youth groups. So I would say for the young people that was at least part of their healthy communities.
Over the last ~7 years all 4 of those groups drastically reduced in member size (1/5 of what they were back then), with nothing comparable taking their place. Whether that in the end turns out to be a good or bad thing, I don't know.
When I grew up, I was an alter boy in our local catholic church. Out of the big 4 youth group options (3 religion related ones + boyscouts) available, it was probably the one with the biggest religious involvement, but that still wasn't much. I was never really that religious and also managed to stay away from most of the church service pretty sucessfully. Anyway, being in that youth group has shaped my social skills a lot, and I've made many great friends through that. I think the same goes for most of the ~15% percent of the local youth between 12-18 that were in one of those youth groups. So I would say for the young people that was at least part of their healthy communities.
Over the last ~7 years all 4 of those groups drastically reduced in member size (1/5 of what they were back then), with nothing comparable taking their place. Whether that in the end turns out to be a good or bad thing, I don't know.
I cannot speak for all churches and I do not have data (though I would love to see a source for the correlation you mention in drug problems/abuse/suicide).
What I can offer is an anecdote: the church my grandparents went to was the center of their social life. The church had donuts and coffee after service in the basement. The whole community would stay and chat. It may have only been for an hour or so, but it allowed for people to get to know their neighbors and would lead to other things. They would organize fundraising and volunteering activities for the community.
Obviously this is just an anecdote, but I don't think it's an anomaly.
I personally am not very religious, and would not consider attending a church even for all these things. I agree that churches often push ideas that are harmful, but I think saying they never served the purpose of creating community is untrue.
What I can offer is an anecdote: the church my grandparents went to was the center of their social life. The church had donuts and coffee after service in the basement. The whole community would stay and chat. It may have only been for an hour or so, but it allowed for people to get to know their neighbors and would lead to other things. They would organize fundraising and volunteering activities for the community.
Obviously this is just an anecdote, but I don't think it's an anomaly.
I personally am not very religious, and would not consider attending a church even for all these things. I agree that churches often push ideas that are harmful, but I think saying they never served the purpose of creating community is untrue.
I would disagree with this dismissal.
Church attendance is correlated with higher self esteem and better mental health. And the studies I have seen show decreases in suicide and drug use with religion (Though I suppose you can find a study to “prove” anything).
In my experience, church is very much correlated with social health and can help provide the missing elements in a persons life when dealing with the decline of the family. There is a a reason people always talk about their “church family”.
Church attendance is correlated with higher self esteem and better mental health. And the studies I have seen show decreases in suicide and drug use with religion (Though I suppose you can find a study to “prove” anything).
In my experience, church is very much correlated with social health and can help provide the missing elements in a persons life when dealing with the decline of the family. There is a a reason people always talk about their “church family”.
I agree, the article puts really heavy emphasis on the nuclear family which I find questionable.
Long term cohabitation is dismissed because it is not marriage.
The idea that historically people (especially women) where UNHAPPILY stuck together because of societal norms is dismissed.
Attributing the cause of the decline of marriage and all the negative effects to the pill strikes me a especially strange. The alternative of forcing people into a family they didn't want because of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't seem better for people's mental well-being.
While they are brought up, the article seems to downplay the decline of the community institutions like the church as you mention. It also seems to downplay economic forces like 24 hour work culture and stagnating wages.
I think there's some truth and good ideas in the article, but I find some of the choices strange.
Long term cohabitation is dismissed because it is not marriage.
The idea that historically people (especially women) where UNHAPPILY stuck together because of societal norms is dismissed.
Attributing the cause of the decline of marriage and all the negative effects to the pill strikes me a especially strange. The alternative of forcing people into a family they didn't want because of an unexpected pregnancy doesn't seem better for people's mental well-being.
While they are brought up, the article seems to downplay the decline of the community institutions like the church as you mention. It also seems to downplay economic forces like 24 hour work culture and stagnating wages.
I think there's some truth and good ideas in the article, but I find some of the choices strange.
Luis CK once said the choice between marriage and staying single is like the choice between being frustrated and being lonely.
As someone originally from a second-world country I can say that I feel people have it good these days in terms of their basic needs for survival. When you're not fighting for something, it's easy to feel like you're not fulfilled and it's hard to rally with others who are fighting for basic needs.
As someone originally from a second-world country I can say that I feel people have it good these days in terms of their basic needs for survival. When you're not fighting for something, it's easy to feel like you're not fulfilled and it's hard to rally with others who are fighting for basic needs.
I've been lonely for so long, I'm almost numb to it. I'm 28, and sometimes I don't even feel human. I can go weeks where the only words I utter to other humans are during the 10-20 minute catch-ups with my parents who live 2000 miles away. My only consistent communication is with a group of ~5 guys on Discord, where we mostly discuss the game we play together via text. I have
never so much as cuddled with another person, much less kissed/held hands/etc. I'm so starved for physical human contact that it's almost painful.
Anyway, I recently went back to school to finish a CS bachelor's. I have zero friends, shitty grades, no internship experience, a criminal record (technically expunged), and a GitHub profile that's essentially empty; supposed to be graduating next week and finding a job.
I don't know why I'm writing this here. Despite the fact that I'm graduating next week, I'm somehow at an all-time-low in my life. And unbelievably lonely. Like I can't even express how lonely I am, it's just a pit. Basically been in this state for 10 years now. My 20's down the fucking drain.
Anyway, I recently went back to school to finish a CS bachelor's. I have zero friends, shitty grades, no internship experience, a criminal record (technically expunged), and a GitHub profile that's essentially empty; supposed to be graduating next week and finding a job.
I don't know why I'm writing this here. Despite the fact that I'm graduating next week, I'm somehow at an all-time-low in my life. And unbelievably lonely. Like I can't even express how lonely I am, it's just a pit. Basically been in this state for 10 years now. My 20's down the fucking drain.
Do you live anywhere near LA? You mention you surf? If so hit me up at [email protected] and let's hang out. I'm 26 and still figuring stuff out too...don't worry, everyone is constantly trying to figure it out...
Hey I feel for you stranger. I don't know what to say really because I don't have it figured out, but try not to worry about wasting time. I guess it's all sort of pointless in the end so might as well gamble with yourself? Do something unusual, try to meet people with similar interests. Maybe go to a bar or a park? You're not a failure for not having experienced those things you listed.
I appreciate the sympathy. I think you're right about everything being sort of pointless. When I think about the scale of the universe and my place within it, my insecurities are kinda humorous. But even with that realization, my stupid brain is still depressed. Humans just aren't mean to be solitary like I am, I guess.
great username! to solve your problem, go volunteer at ANYTHING. whether its a marathon handing out water, a soup kitchen, habitat 4 humanity, bartender at a skatepark, ticket / usher guy at theatre or sports event. so many places need volunteers and its a great way to do something that brings you above your ego.
Have you tried meeting or just talking to anyone on Okcupid or Tinder? Or tried chatting with folks on Twitch?
Yeah, I met some women (mostly on OKC) a couple years ago. Went on about 5 dates with 5 different women. Only clicked with one; we setup a second date, and she cancelled on me last minute to say that she was getting back together with her ex.
Honestly though, as much as I want to be with someone -- I don't know if it's the best time. I'm basically a depressed man-child, living on grant money and parental support. My self-esteem is ridiculously low, and I'm actually terrified of the physical aspect of dating. I have ZERO experience, and it's going to be obvious. That's gotta be a red flag for most women my age.
Honestly though, as much as I want to be with someone -- I don't know if it's the best time. I'm basically a depressed man-child, living on grant money and parental support. My self-esteem is ridiculously low, and I'm actually terrified of the physical aspect of dating. I have ZERO experience, and it's going to be obvious. That's gotta be a red flag for most women my age.
I would say make it a priority to do a small thing every single day to make yourself feel better. Eating healthy, exercising, and sleeping well. Maybe even see a Dr. to get anti-depressants. I went on anti-depressants a while ago and it allowed me get my life to a place where I no longer need them and feel the best I've ever felt. It just takes time. I don't think experience will matter to a girl that likes you. It just takes time to find the right girl but you need to keep going on dates. I probably went on 40+ dates.
Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate it. My diet is fine, and I surf often for a bit of exercise, but my sleep patterns are definitely not optimal as a student. Unfortunately, I've tried just about every SSRI on the market and they're not for me. Was up to 30-40mg of Prozac a few years ago; it replaced my feelings of hopelessness with extreme apathy, which was not good in retrospect (plus the weight gain). I've been diagnosed with dysthymia since like middle school.
But yeah, I'll probably retry the online dating scene when I get a source of income that's not from school/family. In the meantime, my dream is to be stable enough to have a dog.
But yeah, I'll probably retry the online dating scene when I get a source of income that's not from school/family. In the meantime, my dream is to be stable enough to have a dog.
A dog sounds cool.
The first step of solving the problem of being "a depressed man-child, living on grant money and parental support" is to recognize the problem. You did that.
Fixing the income source will help. Note that the women will be looking at long-term prospects, so being on a path to near-future graduation with a viable degree is about as good as actually having a good job. Since you are "supposed to be graduating next week", you are probably have a decent status right now. The better ones are wondering if you can reliably support a family for decades, not if you can buy them toys today.
There isn't much physical aspect of dating for most of the people who are serious about starting a family. For those people, that stuff still waits for after the wedding. Suggesting otherwise would be a red flag for them, and you might want to view it the same way. If you can get yourself to honestly view it that way, then you have a legit answer to any questions they may have about your experience.
Fixing the income source will help. Note that the women will be looking at long-term prospects, so being on a path to near-future graduation with a viable degree is about as good as actually having a good job. Since you are "supposed to be graduating next week", you are probably have a decent status right now. The better ones are wondering if you can reliably support a family for decades, not if you can buy them toys today.
There isn't much physical aspect of dating for most of the people who are serious about starting a family. For those people, that stuff still waits for after the wedding. Suggesting otherwise would be a red flag for them, and you might want to view it the same way. If you can get yourself to honestly view it that way, then you have a legit answer to any questions they may have about your experience.
I'm well aware of and willing to admit my problems, so that's sorted out. The job situation is a major source of anxiety for me, as I don't look good on paper, and I'm not confident in my abilities to do technical interviews. Furthermore, though I'll have a CS B.S. from a high ranking public uni come next week -- my GPA is terrible, I have no internship experience, almost no personal projects, and a criminal record in another state. Since I transferred to this uni, I became more reclusive and depressive; it's a miracle I'll even get the stupid degree.
As for the dating thing. I have no interest in starting a family, and I specifically don't want to date women who are adamant about that kind of life. There are a lot of things I want to do, and having children would destroy my chances (at least the way I see it).
As for the dating thing. I have no interest in starting a family, and I specifically don't want to date women who are adamant about that kind of life. There are a lot of things I want to do, and having children would destroy my chances (at least the way I see it).
I would love to hear more about this: "lot of things I want to do, and having children would destroy my chances"
I assume you really just mean that those things would be irresponsible if you had kids. I can make a few guesses, but I'd like to hear it from you. My guesses...
1. secret agent for the CIA
2. wingsuit BASE jumping
3. test pilot for Blue Origin, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Boom Technology, Virgin Galactic, or Reaction Engines Limited
4. ebola nurse
5. Scientologist
6. judge, in northern Mexico
7. Christian missionary in Saudi Arabia
8. Mars explorer
I assume you really just mean that those things would be irresponsible if you had kids. I can make a few guesses, but I'd like to hear it from you. My guesses...
1. secret agent for the CIA
2. wingsuit BASE jumping
3. test pilot for Blue Origin, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Boom Technology, Virgin Galactic, or Reaction Engines Limited
4. ebola nurse
5. Scientologist
6. judge, in northern Mexico
7. Christian missionary in Saudi Arabia
8. Mars explorer
Oh.
In that case, head over to rural Nevada and make a 100% legal cash transaction for physical activity. This satisfies you without improperly taking advantage of anybody who is looking for a family man.
In that case, head over to rural Nevada and make a 100% legal cash transaction for physical activity. This satisfies you without improperly taking advantage of anybody who is looking for a family man.
I think the increase in ostracization, bullying, and shallow celebrity reality shows has caused people to feel like they can barely do anything without being shamed, criticized, or ridiculed for showing a bit of difference from the established TV/movie/politically-correct norm. The divisiveness in owner/worker rich/poor and politician/voter has only sprayed fuel on the fire. Nevermind stagnating wages causing young folks to hold out on having children giving them less incentive to marry.
I don't know how many times I've heard about people not even being able to have conversations at the dinner table because of some stupid hot-button political issue that people feel they have to go hard-line on or take to the extreme just to get a little bit of gloat over things that are trumped-up in the mainstream/YouTube media. If you're the head of the household or workplace or friend group and you don't lay down the law about this kind of divisiveness, then you're letting the people you love tear each other apart.
I don't know how many times I've heard about people not even being able to have conversations at the dinner table because of some stupid hot-button political issue that people feel they have to go hard-line on or take to the extreme just to get a little bit of gloat over things that are trumped-up in the mainstream/YouTube media. If you're the head of the household or workplace or friend group and you don't lay down the law about this kind of divisiveness, then you're letting the people you love tear each other apart.
I tend to be more the loner, harder now that i'm married with kids, but I've moved a few times to places where I knew absolutely no one. So, frankly if your in this boat don't do the studio apartment, and definitely don't got home and turn on the TV/computer.
Get a two bedroom, and advertise for a roommate, and be creative for joining organizations/activities where you will interact with the same group of people repeatedly, volunteering, team sports, workout groups, adult learning classes, church, etc. Something will stick as long as you smile at people and start random conversations. I might even suggest the bar, but again you need to find a more neighborhoody/dive bar and go there enough to see the same people. Then find out what there interests are and invite them to do something with you,
The point is get the fsck out of the house. Loner activities can even work if you strike up conversations with the people you meet while out running/etc and then invite them for a coffee/beer/etc.
Invite your coworkers to lunch, happy hour, etc.
Now at that said, a big part of this is making sure your friendly and positive, and act interested in people. Start acting negative, or self centered and people won't want to go hang out again.
Get a two bedroom, and advertise for a roommate, and be creative for joining organizations/activities where you will interact with the same group of people repeatedly, volunteering, team sports, workout groups, adult learning classes, church, etc. Something will stick as long as you smile at people and start random conversations. I might even suggest the bar, but again you need to find a more neighborhoody/dive bar and go there enough to see the same people. Then find out what there interests are and invite them to do something with you,
The point is get the fsck out of the house. Loner activities can even work if you strike up conversations with the people you meet while out running/etc and then invite them for a coffee/beer/etc.
Invite your coworkers to lunch, happy hour, etc.
Now at that said, a big part of this is making sure your friendly and positive, and act interested in people. Start acting negative, or self centered and people won't want to go hang out again.
One thing to keep in mind is city-journal.org / manhattan institute is a conservative think-tank (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy... ).
The author makes a lot of fair points I agree with but doesn't go into the positive situations - the change where people may have more ability now to get out of toxic families (or at least distance themselves), questioning how we can move beyond just religious congregations of community (perhaps congregation more around bioregionalism?). Or if awareness of resource limitations in the future may be causing less developed-world birth than earlier.
Finally, to quote David Chapman - ""Just as there are mental states only possible in crowds, there are mental states only possible in privacy."
Loneliness epidemic—or a golden age of privacy?"
https://mobile.twitter.com/Meaningness/status/97139760655443...
The author makes a lot of fair points I agree with but doesn't go into the positive situations - the change where people may have more ability now to get out of toxic families (or at least distance themselves), questioning how we can move beyond just religious congregations of community (perhaps congregation more around bioregionalism?). Or if awareness of resource limitations in the future may be causing less developed-world birth than earlier.
Finally, to quote David Chapman - ""Just as there are mental states only possible in crowds, there are mental states only possible in privacy."
Loneliness epidemic—or a golden age of privacy?"
https://mobile.twitter.com/Meaningness/status/97139760655443...
The author had a lot of interesting things to say, but I wish they were a lot more open about their biases. It's pretty clear that they are starting from the position that marriage and "traditional" family values are important, and therefore hard to tell whether or not they are glossing over or ignoring conflicting evidence.
Decline of the family? How about decline of the entire Homo Sapien social structure ...
I’m looking out my window, and I see houses of neighbors I’ve never met, and the rest are owned by people with whom I have nothing in common. So, needless to say, I spend a lot of time at work. Work has sadly become my “new family”. Yet, I trust none of them. So, no wonder my Homo Sapien brain is flipping out.
I’m looking out my window, and I see houses of neighbors I’ve never met, and the rest are owned by people with whom I have nothing in common. So, needless to say, I spend a lot of time at work. Work has sadly become my “new family”. Yet, I trust none of them. So, no wonder my Homo Sapien brain is flipping out.
As someone who is single and "kinless," reading this hit pretty hard. I have had a total of probably less than 12 hours of IRL human contact over the past year. I work 100% remotely, so I suppose this isn't surprising. Dating was incredibly frustrating, so I stopped. Moved to a new city, no friends, etc.
Lately I find myself dreaming of the incredibly mundane -- like sitting and having a conversation with a friend, holding hands with made-up humans, etc.
Lately I find myself dreaming of the incredibly mundane -- like sitting and having a conversation with a friend, holding hands with made-up humans, etc.
Have you thought about seeing a therapist? In any case, hang in there and I wish you good luck.
Join an adult spots league or other club. This behavior isn't healthy in the long term.
Hypothesis:
Up until recently, you only needed a so-so amount of interest in settling down and having children, in order to pass on your genes. Some people did, but others didn't, and while this was not entirely genes it wasn't entirely NOT genes either. But, since everyone got more or less pushed into marrying and starting a family anyway, by strong social pressures, there was no strong evolutionary advantage to a strong desire for family.
For about one generation now, the people who WANT kids, and are willing to be half of a committed couple in order to have more of them, are the ones having more kids. Others, either don't have any children, or only have one.
In a couple generations, they will look back at this time and wonder why people back then were so (relatively) uninterested in family.
Just a hypothesis. Could happen relatively quickly, though. Which would mean, in only a few generations.
For about one generation now, the people who WANT kids, and are willing to be half of a committed couple in order to have more of them, are the ones having more kids. Others, either don't have any children, or only have one.
In a couple generations, they will look back at this time and wonder why people back then were so (relatively) uninterested in family.
Just a hypothesis. Could happen relatively quickly, though. Which would mean, in only a few generations.
I hear a lot of people admit to depression, anxiety, OCD but rarely do I hear mention of loneliness. I don't have a close circle of friends and my primary social interaction comes from local meetups. I run two, one of which is focused on mental health topics. I've met a lot of people through it and never once heard mention of loneliness.
There's a subreddit, r/foreveralone, where I sometimes go seeking validation that others feel the same way. Are there others who received amazing information but have no one to share it with? I only find those stories on the internet. Do we need more celebrities coming out about their loneliness for it to become more socially acceptable to ask of someone: "I'm feeling really lonely, do you want to grab lunch?".
It's not so much that I'm not around people, I just don't have meaningful relationships with any of them. If I were to suddenly get married, aside from my mother, I don't know who else to invite to my wedding. The relationships feel superficial, career focused or just spur of the moment interactions.
I also fear that maybe I'm overly romanticising friendships and family. Is the image portrayed on tv the basis for what constitutes a meaningful relationship? Maybe it's ok to live life like this, with only passing interactions. Then I read something like this:
> Public-health researchers have known for a long time that unmarried men and women are at higher risk of early death from a variety of diseases
And wonder.
There's a subreddit, r/foreveralone, where I sometimes go seeking validation that others feel the same way. Are there others who received amazing information but have no one to share it with? I only find those stories on the internet. Do we need more celebrities coming out about their loneliness for it to become more socially acceptable to ask of someone: "I'm feeling really lonely, do you want to grab lunch?".
It's not so much that I'm not around people, I just don't have meaningful relationships with any of them. If I were to suddenly get married, aside from my mother, I don't know who else to invite to my wedding. The relationships feel superficial, career focused or just spur of the moment interactions.
I also fear that maybe I'm overly romanticising friendships and family. Is the image portrayed on tv the basis for what constitutes a meaningful relationship? Maybe it's ok to live life like this, with only passing interactions. Then I read something like this:
> Public-health researchers have known for a long time that unmarried men and women are at higher risk of early death from a variety of diseases
And wonder.
(my baseless rant with no scientific proof)I think people who move a lot are lonelier as opposed to those who never left the place they grew up. I have a few childhood friends in my home town that even if i meet after years still share a bond.
I feel that it must be easier for women to make friends. It is very hard to make guy friends as most guys who are not in a relationship tend to focus on finding/hooking up. Also, we are a bit conditioned by pornography and also are a bit delusional. Everyone thinks too highly of themselves.. no one wants to settle. The women/men who can settle don't as their mischief(fucking around) catches on to them. Nothing wrong with that but there are consequences.
We half of us are lonely and don't want to be. Can't we all just get along and be nice to each other and build genuine relationships? No. For that first we need to accept that conditioning is messing up with our heads.. Change our habits and slow but surely we will meet like minded people
We half of us are lonely and don't want to be. Can't we all just get along and be nice to each other and build genuine relationships? No. For that first we need to accept that conditioning is messing up with our heads.. Change our habits and slow but surely we will meet like minded people
I moved around as a kid and had to change schools, it definitely made keeping in touch with people hard. I can't do "What's up" with people who aren't near as it gets tiring after a while and I prefer hanging out with people in person. So, most of the friends I have now are either from uni or people who I met in my first job.
Though moving around did help me in one thing. Despite being an introvert, it forced me to try to talk to new people.
Though moving around did help me in one thing. Despite being an introvert, it forced me to try to talk to new people.
> Cohabiting couples break up faster and more often than marrieds.
I find the distinction between cohabiting and married couples a bit weird. I mean, aren't most couples cohabiting before they marry? Which in turn would mean that married couples have, on average, a more mature relationship? No wonder that those relationships are more stable than the mixed group, from fresh couples to equally mature couples, which is called 'cohabiting couples'.
Feels a bit like apples and oranges and I wonder what the message behind those facts should be.
I find the distinction between cohabiting and married couples a bit weird. I mean, aren't most couples cohabiting before they marry? Which in turn would mean that married couples have, on average, a more mature relationship? No wonder that those relationships are more stable than the mixed group, from fresh couples to equally mature couples, which is called 'cohabiting couples'.
Feels a bit like apples and oranges and I wonder what the message behind those facts should be.
For those that can spare some cash. Get yourself a vacation for a couple weeks to Greece or Turkey, meet some locals there. Even better, try living abroad there or other nations that are known for their social culture. Believe me you will change. You get to experience a new culture and learn a thing or two about yourself.
There are other ways of solving the loneliness problem than economically castrating more than half the population in an attempt to return to an idealized past that never actually was. The world is different now than it was in the 1950s, and we're going to have to find different ways to get our necessary face-time, and luckily we have more tools to better take responsibility for our social health than we did even 10 years ago.
Are there anyone here outside the straight, white (or white-adjacent), male demographic who would like to return to having less economic opportunity?
Are there anyone here outside the straight, white (or white-adjacent), male demographic who would like to return to having less economic opportunity?
I think that could be part of the problem: a necessary reliance on "tools" to take care of our social health. Whereas before a cohesive family or social group took care of the need for it's members' social well-being, now we have a toxic culture of individuality which impels a person to solve all their own problems, aided by a synthetic tool that first off incurs an altogether new cognitive fatigue while at the same time being tuned to turn a profit for someone else.
I would argue that the decline of the family is directly linked to feminism, or better stated, the liberation of women from the home and from conservative sexual values. The two forces behind that are birth control and women entering the work force. These two are magnified by online dating and social media. I am not saying at all that these are bad things, just that we have yet to see the true effects of feminism on society. Again, I am not asserting that feminism is a bad thing, just that when modes and patterns of societal interaction break down after hundreds of years (or more) of existence, we should take a step back and think about what is really happening.
It's too early to tell how this will play out, but we as a society have underestimated the effects and consequences of rapid change. It may be another one hundred years before we can look back and understand what we are currently going through.
It's too early to tell how this will play out, but we as a society have underestimated the effects and consequences of rapid change. It may be another one hundred years before we can look back and understand what we are currently going through.
At the risk of wading into deeply controversal territory, I'll add some personal observations. One of the harsh realities I have seen is that it's very difficult for women to "have it all" meaning a fulfilling personal, family, and professional life, especially in the most competitive fields. Yet for many years this idea has persisted in a mythical sense as broadly achievable. I am now in my late 30s. I've watched my female friends and classmates have productive and inspiring careers, but often at the cost of their personal lives. The writing is on the wall that many of these women will likely never end up having biological children due to declining fertility. It makes me sad because while they are awesome entrepreneurs, physicians, lawyers and so on, they would have been awesome mothers as well. And at the societal level, from a selection standpoint, these are the type of genes we should want to pass on. I'm not sure what the answer is, but we should at least be honest about discussing the reality of what people wrestle with and why and how.
> It makes me sad because while they have awesome professional accomplishments, they would have been awesome mothers and parents as well.
I just wanted to point out politely how strange this language reads to me. It's ultimately the decision of each person whether to have kids or not. This being "sad" for them is an overreach, morally, IMO--and part of the fight feminism led was to carve out a space for women in society not to be mothers, if that is their choice.
I just wanted to point out politely how strange this language reads to me. It's ultimately the decision of each person whether to have kids or not. This being "sad" for them is an overreach, morally, IMO--and part of the fight feminism led was to carve out a space for women in society not to be mothers, if that is their choice.
I have many female friends in their mid-30s and early 40s, and the ones without kids are almost always sad/regretful about it themselves. Some won't admit it, but some will, especially in more intimate settings. I've had one cry on my shoulder - she is very successful professionally, but feels she missed out on the opportunity for motherhood.
Whether it was her "choice" is hard to say. Very few people get the chance to engineer their lives the way they want. Most people instead play the cards they are dealt. And now that there are many more different types of possible cards in the deck for women, they are coming to the understanding that it is possible to be dealt a bad hand, and not realize it until it is too late.
Whether it was her "choice" is hard to say. Very few people get the chance to engineer their lives the way they want. Most people instead play the cards they are dealt. And now that there are many more different types of possible cards in the deck for women, they are coming to the understanding that it is possible to be dealt a bad hand, and not realize it until it is too late.
The issue is that there's no objectivity here. Are these women actually sad because they truly wanted to experience motherhood, or is it more because of pressure (even unconscious pressure) from family and friends to have kids? Or just the built-in feelings due to upbringing that having kids is "just what you're supposed to do".
I wonder, though, if these same women did have kids, and sacrificed their career for it, would they look back and have regrets in that regard, too.
So maybe it's just... given a multitude of options where we can't choose them all, perhaps humans will just naturally have some regrets around the path(s) not taken?
As counterpoint, I know women in their 40s and older who are very pleased with their decision to not have kids.
I wonder, though, if these same women did have kids, and sacrificed their career for it, would they look back and have regrets in that regard, too.
So maybe it's just... given a multitude of options where we can't choose them all, perhaps humans will just naturally have some regrets around the path(s) not taken?
As counterpoint, I know women in their 40s and older who are very pleased with their decision to not have kids.
Maybe there needs to be widespread childcare and maternity leave programs so these woman can have both fulfilling career and a family
I didn't reference sadness as a moral projection but rather out of empathy as some of these friends will share fears, doubts, and regrets from time to time. If a woman (or man) doesn't want to be a parent, then more power to them and we should all support that.
From knowing several in that case, they do feel having missed out on something.
I think the idea of sadness is that choice were not made with relatively few externally imposed restrictions from a place of independence. Rather the decisions were taken from a set of choices made in a context of a society that imposes restrictions than necessary based on somewhat arbitrary traditions, or genderism, or biased, or at least questionable economic restrictions.
Making a choice properly requires having knowledge about the particular options. Fertility education particularly in regard to age is not part of the sexual education curriculum in the UK [1] nor in international guidance documents [2,3] (just Ctrl-F "fertility"). And a recent poll in the US showed that 77% of women did not properly understand the relationship between age and fertility [4]. At some point this stops being choices made with appropriate knowledge and starts being a massive and tragic policy failure.
[1] https://www.raconteur.net/healthcare/fertility-education-sch...
[2] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260770
[3] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70501/WHO_R...
[4] https://modernfertility.com/modern-state-of-fertility-2019/
[1] https://www.raconteur.net/healthcare/fertility-education-sch...
[2] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260770
[3] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70501/WHO_R...
[4] https://modernfertility.com/modern-state-of-fertility-2019/
The statement you reference is "77% of women do not know that when a woman is 35+, her age is a better indicator of her fertility than her overall health." As a women in her 30s, I'll say that every damn woman in America has heard of a biological clock by her 20s, and is quite aware, and many are getting calls from Auntie every two weeks about whether she's getting on it yet.
>At the risk of wading into deeply controversal territory, I'll add some personal observations. One of the harsh realities I have seen is that it's very difficult for women to "have it all" meaning a fulfilling personal, family, and professional life, especially in the most competitive fields.
This is perfectly possible. Imagine your stereotypical 1950s head of household. Fulfilling job, family is provided for, hangs out with friends on the weekend, etc. Now imagine them being female.
The fact of the matter is that this life doesn't exist for just about anyone anymore. It just never existed at all for women because back when it was possible for large numbers of people to do this they weren't part of the well paid workforce. (It didn't exist for non-whites for similar reasons but I digress)
Part of the problem is that our definition of "having it all" comes from times when circumstances were different. Now, I don't think just giving up and saying we'll never have it that good again and people have to choose between family, work and friends is a good solution but it sure seems more tractable in the short term than recreating that level of prosperity.
This is perfectly possible. Imagine your stereotypical 1950s head of household. Fulfilling job, family is provided for, hangs out with friends on the weekend, etc. Now imagine them being female.
The fact of the matter is that this life doesn't exist for just about anyone anymore. It just never existed at all for women because back when it was possible for large numbers of people to do this they weren't part of the well paid workforce. (It didn't exist for non-whites for similar reasons but I digress)
Part of the problem is that our definition of "having it all" comes from times when circumstances were different. Now, I don't think just giving up and saying we'll never have it that good again and people have to choose between family, work and friends is a good solution but it sure seems more tractable in the short term than recreating that level of prosperity.
I have a serious question for you, curious on your answer.
Can men “have it all”? Is “having it all” different for men than women?
My experience is that men are able to “have it all” often at the cost of their spouse making sacrifices to stay at home, with the implicit idea that this is the way things are meant to be.
If both people in a relationship try to “have it all”, some sacrifices do have to be made (speaking from experience), but I am not sad about these choices since trade offs are an inevitable part of life :)
Can men “have it all”? Is “having it all” different for men than women?
My experience is that men are able to “have it all” often at the cost of their spouse making sacrifices to stay at home, with the implicit idea that this is the way things are meant to be.
If both people in a relationship try to “have it all”, some sacrifices do have to be made (speaking from experience), but I am not sad about these choices since trade offs are an inevitable part of life :)
I mentioned women since I was replying to a specific observation in the parent comment. It's difficult for men to "have it all" also. An advantage men generally have is more time to reproduce. They can spend a couple decades checking off the "professional career" box and then settle down in their 40s and have a family, and scale back work (or leverage prior accomplishments and position for forward autonomy and flexibility) at the same time to accommodate this new life. Although society is much more supportive of male parents than female parents in the workforce, when it comes down to it a man is no more capable of working (some obscene number of) hours/week professionally and "having it all" than a woman is. Workaholic men with stay at home spouses may appear to have more than they do, when in reality they may be guests in their own homes. You always have to sacrifice something.
> An advantage men generally have is more time to reproduce.
While men have longer time, the probability that a man does reproduce is significant lower than a woman. This makes the comparison a bit more complex.
While men have longer time, the probability that a man does reproduce is significant lower than a woman. This makes the comparison a bit more complex.
> Although society is much more supportive of male parents than female parents in the workforce
Really? I'm curious how one can justify this statement.
Really? I'm curious how one can justify this statement.
Not the parent, and I don't have sources handy, but just from some things I've read:
When hiring decisions are made, hiring managers will often prefer men with families, because they will generally stick with the company longer because it's riskier to change jobs with a family to support. This doesn't work for women; hiring managers will be less likely to want to hire a woman of child-bearing age because they're afraid she'll get pregnant and suffer productivity losses as well as take maternity leave. They also assume that a woman with children will be less attentive to work due to child care duties. They assume that men will be less affected by this because, while things are indeed changing, the default assumption is that men will prioritize career over child-rearing, while women will choose the opposite.
When hiring decisions are made, hiring managers will often prefer men with families, because they will generally stick with the company longer because it's riskier to change jobs with a family to support. This doesn't work for women; hiring managers will be less likely to want to hire a woman of child-bearing age because they're afraid she'll get pregnant and suffer productivity losses as well as take maternity leave. They also assume that a woman with children will be less attentive to work due to child care duties. They assume that men will be less affected by this because, while things are indeed changing, the default assumption is that men will prioritize career over child-rearing, while women will choose the opposite.
I guess, as a man, I feel the expectation is quite the opposite. Namely, that a female in my position would be excused more often to take care of child duties, while my employer would think I'm just being lazy if I told them I wanted to take extra time to care for my child.
In my mental model (note: this is not what I would do, but what I imagine others would do), a woman saying she needs to go home because her baby needs her would be seen as a responsible woman, because a baby needs breastmilk and its mother provides that, whereas, if a man said he needed to go home consistently, the boss would think he's irresponsible, because -- as a man -- his baby doesn't strictly need him, and thus he is better serving his family at work.
But I understand your viewpoint; it just didn't occur to me. It seemed obvious to me that men, due to male biology, were more likely to be forced to work longer hours in order to be seen as being as responsible as an otherwise equivalent woman. Although, I guess today, formula is quite popular. Well regardless, I'm not always the best at understanding how others would react to things.
In my mental model (note: this is not what I would do, but what I imagine others would do), a woman saying she needs to go home because her baby needs her would be seen as a responsible woman, because a baby needs breastmilk and its mother provides that, whereas, if a man said he needed to go home consistently, the boss would think he's irresponsible, because -- as a man -- his baby doesn't strictly need him, and thus he is better serving his family at work.
But I understand your viewpoint; it just didn't occur to me. It seemed obvious to me that men, due to male biology, were more likely to be forced to work longer hours in order to be seen as being as responsible as an otherwise equivalent woman. Although, I guess today, formula is quite popular. Well regardless, I'm not always the best at understanding how others would react to things.
Why do people want so much? I love minimalism, owning hardly nothing, saving, having no friends or acquaintances. After reading this thread I feel like everybody else is greedy.
I sometimes wonder, too. I'm not quite in your boat: I have quite a few close friends, and many acquaintances, and find they all enrich my life in many ways. But I never understood the "keeping up the joneses" mentality. I have my well-worn furniture, a practical amount of kitchen stuff, some plants, a small amount of art, some tech gadgets, and a 15 year old car, and I just don't feel the need to own more than that, or to constantly "upgrade" all my existing stuff to things that are more expensive but don't actually make me any happier.
> I'm not sure what the answer is
Better support for working parents.
Better support for working parents.
Absolutely. The conversation here, centered around biological determinism, is a grand distraction.
This isn’t a uniquely female phenomenon. The expectation has always been for men to trade time with family for time at work.
Feminism is not solely focused on females, it includes trying to fight the negative impact of gender roles on males as well.
I wasn't criticizing feminism in my comment; I also wasn't saying there was anything expressly wrong with the status quo (men trading off on work so women could have more family time)--I'm sure it works well for many families. I was only pointing out that there's nothing inherently female about "not having it all" with the exception of the notion that women should be able to have it all--there has never been a broad movement that lamented that men can't have it all, after all.
I don’t see a reason to be sad because I think it’s a wonderful thing more people have a choice now. Whether I end up making perfect decisions or not I wouldn’t trade anything for that.
What a condescending comment... My wife and I are childfree. Should I tell her that her accomplishments in the workplace or even getting a good education and graduating from university mean nothing because having kids should be her top priority?
This is the problem with people who think they know better. You think people should have more kids, what do you propose? Are you going to pay for the diapers, the education, the bigger house, the bigger car, the childcare? Do you want to become our live-in nanny?
After all, you seem so eager for people to have kids, surely you must be volunteering every night to help kids from low socio-economic areas get better grades and break the cycle of poverty or maybe you have adopted 5 unwanted kids already?
My wife and I don't need your sadness and your condescension. Thank you.
This is the problem with people who think they know better. You think people should have more kids, what do you propose? Are you going to pay for the diapers, the education, the bigger house, the bigger car, the childcare? Do you want to become our live-in nanny?
After all, you seem so eager for people to have kids, surely you must be volunteering every night to help kids from low socio-economic areas get better grades and break the cycle of poverty or maybe you have adopted 5 unwanted kids already?
My wife and I don't need your sadness and your condescension. Thank you.
> I'm not sure what the answer is,
Drop the implicit assumption that only the mother needs to give up her career to raise a child.
For some reason, nobody sheds tears over successful entrepreneur, lawyer, and doctor men who are unable to make that work with raising children.
A pregnancy lasts 9 months. Raising a child takes ~200 months.
Drop the implicit assumption that only the mother needs to give up her career to raise a child.
For some reason, nobody sheds tears over successful entrepreneur, lawyer, and doctor men who are unable to make that work with raising children.
A pregnancy lasts 9 months. Raising a child takes ~200 months.
Maybe the implicit assumption is that society and work culture shouldn’t punish parents so harshly?
There's two implict assumptions.
1. If you're a working mother, you're currently assumed to either be a bad worker, or a bad mother. (Sad corollary: If you're a working father, most people don't assume this about you.)
2. If you're a professional man, and you want children, your wife is expected to compromise her career, to raise them.
Both of these are, of course, complete bullshit.
1. If you're a working mother, you're currently assumed to either be a bad worker, or a bad mother. (Sad corollary: If you're a working father, most people don't assume this about you.)
2. If you're a professional man, and you want children, your wife is expected to compromise her career, to raise them.
Both of these are, of course, complete bullshit.
I like to look at this from the perspective of "how are we going to organize society given further technological advancement in the far future" and how do we get there.
Ignoring the endgames that come after the cessation of traditional human existence - either robotics replacing organics completely or mastery of genetics leading to the engineering of super-intelligent custom lifeforms to replace us - we are almost always either going to go extinct or refine our genetics to optimized templates. Eventually, we will be manufacturing humans with mathematically weighed balances between genetic diversity for disease resistance and optimized traits and features to make people live longer, stronger, and smarter. Probably going to be codified to be obedient to authority and not deviate from the social order as well, because that just honestly seems borderline unavoidable.
These humans will eventually be manufactured in artificial wombs in automated facilities meant to produce the population because in practice its severely debilitating and economically inefficient to take the females out of operation for so long to reproduce with such high biological risks associated. Cloned gametes from engineered templates grown in factories. The children would probably be mentally implanted with knowledge via brain-computer interfaces and taught everything virtually. Their biology would accelerate their development as much as is possible within our genetic profile. Years of research would have gone into optimizing their environments, interactions (if necessary, organic ones), and development to yield the most potential.
When you start stepping back from there, the closest bridge to that reality is going to be the institutionalization of child rearing. Before we have automated facilities breeding engineered templates we will almost certainly have public institutions dedicated to population replacement - in the optimistic scenario, women would simply "major" in parenting and live their careers as mothers. We will probably already be using engineered gametes by then because the technology is already mostly available, so these women would just have children and raise them as their full time career. Given current understanding of developmental psychology there would probably also be men assigned to play paternal roles in upbringing in full employment at such facilities as well.
I don't think at all this evolution in child rearing would ever happen overnight and its very likely in the same way you can still ride a horse today over owning a car or in the future how some will still drive manual cars in the age of autonomous vehicles some couples will do it "the old fashioned way" because they can. But it will probably, almost certainly, happen a lot less often.
And honestly from my perspective its for the best. Historically raising children is an absolutely full time job. Living on a farm, despite "working" in the fields at all hours of the day, still lets you keep the children at hand and raise them. You are never separated and the family is always together. That seems to be, barring abusive relationships, the optimal way human children develop. We have constructed employment institutions that make that impossible and try to both put pressure on laborers to reproduce but then also to somehow "do the job" of parenting at their own expense and economic disadvantage. It costs tremendous amounts of time to raise children, even more to actually do it well, and its never priced into the economy.
For now, this isn't a problem, and it likely won't be for a long time. We just get the collateral damage of mentally and physically harmed children from parental negligence that society pushes them towards. Eventually the economic pressure not to reproduce drives enough people not to that replacement becomes impossible and then such professional parenting institutions need to start being taken seriously. When it happens, its likely to be a very good thing - children raised by people paid to raise them, whose job is to be the best parent possible, and who will have comprehensive education in the hugely complex fields surrounding human development will be a substantial boon to the first children raised under it. Its just the cost of basically privatizing reproduction has to justify the investment, both culturally and economically, to make it happen.
For now the best thing to do would be to reduce the economic burden of life on adults to let them be more recreational and social and thus less lonely. Trying to force people back into a mold that was already broken to begin with is a violation of liberty with no real corresponding benefit - we aren't going to go back that way ever again, because truthfully we can do much better. We just have to choose to.
Ignoring the endgames that come after the cessation of traditional human existence - either robotics replacing organics completely or mastery of genetics leading to the engineering of super-intelligent custom lifeforms to replace us - we are almost always either going to go extinct or refine our genetics to optimized templates. Eventually, we will be manufacturing humans with mathematically weighed balances between genetic diversity for disease resistance and optimized traits and features to make people live longer, stronger, and smarter. Probably going to be codified to be obedient to authority and not deviate from the social order as well, because that just honestly seems borderline unavoidable.
These humans will eventually be manufactured in artificial wombs in automated facilities meant to produce the population because in practice its severely debilitating and economically inefficient to take the females out of operation for so long to reproduce with such high biological risks associated. Cloned gametes from engineered templates grown in factories. The children would probably be mentally implanted with knowledge via brain-computer interfaces and taught everything virtually. Their biology would accelerate their development as much as is possible within our genetic profile. Years of research would have gone into optimizing their environments, interactions (if necessary, organic ones), and development to yield the most potential.
When you start stepping back from there, the closest bridge to that reality is going to be the institutionalization of child rearing. Before we have automated facilities breeding engineered templates we will almost certainly have public institutions dedicated to population replacement - in the optimistic scenario, women would simply "major" in parenting and live their careers as mothers. We will probably already be using engineered gametes by then because the technology is already mostly available, so these women would just have children and raise them as their full time career. Given current understanding of developmental psychology there would probably also be men assigned to play paternal roles in upbringing in full employment at such facilities as well.
I don't think at all this evolution in child rearing would ever happen overnight and its very likely in the same way you can still ride a horse today over owning a car or in the future how some will still drive manual cars in the age of autonomous vehicles some couples will do it "the old fashioned way" because they can. But it will probably, almost certainly, happen a lot less often.
And honestly from my perspective its for the best. Historically raising children is an absolutely full time job. Living on a farm, despite "working" in the fields at all hours of the day, still lets you keep the children at hand and raise them. You are never separated and the family is always together. That seems to be, barring abusive relationships, the optimal way human children develop. We have constructed employment institutions that make that impossible and try to both put pressure on laborers to reproduce but then also to somehow "do the job" of parenting at their own expense and economic disadvantage. It costs tremendous amounts of time to raise children, even more to actually do it well, and its never priced into the economy.
For now, this isn't a problem, and it likely won't be for a long time. We just get the collateral damage of mentally and physically harmed children from parental negligence that society pushes them towards. Eventually the economic pressure not to reproduce drives enough people not to that replacement becomes impossible and then such professional parenting institutions need to start being taken seriously. When it happens, its likely to be a very good thing - children raised by people paid to raise them, whose job is to be the best parent possible, and who will have comprehensive education in the hugely complex fields surrounding human development will be a substantial boon to the first children raised under it. Its just the cost of basically privatizing reproduction has to justify the investment, both culturally and economically, to make it happen.
For now the best thing to do would be to reduce the economic burden of life on adults to let them be more recreational and social and thus less lonely. Trying to force people back into a mold that was already broken to begin with is a violation of liberty with no real corresponding benefit - we aren't going to go back that way ever again, because truthfully we can do much better. We just have to choose to.
This is the plot of Brave new World. The rise of the welfare state naturally replaces the biological family.
A big part of that story was that even knowing of a world outside the members of Huxley's theoretical future society choose to stay in it.
Why would child rearing be limited to women?
What makes you think these people even wanted kids?
Not feminism, the establishment of the discrete nuclear family as a social and labor unit divorced from kinship groups. When you've already pared down the web of fundamental relations to 2-5 person cells, your already only a step away from complete individual social collapse.
That doesn't even touch on the breakdown of community organizations (churches, fraternal orders, what have you).
That doesn't even touch on the breakdown of community organizations (churches, fraternal orders, what have you).
Arguably this all comes down to economics/capitalism.
Unpaid favors to family aren't measured in GDP and can't be taxed. Breaking down extended family into individual workers is good for the economy. Having stay-at-home moms work while sending their kids to group childcare is also more economically efficient.
What's good for the economy may not be good for individual humans though. We aren't homo economicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
Unpaid favors to family aren't measured in GDP and can't be taxed. Breaking down extended family into individual workers is good for the economy. Having stay-at-home moms work while sending their kids to group childcare is also more economically efficient.
What's good for the economy may not be good for individual humans though. We aren't homo economicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
Surprised you were downvoted. This is a very good point: unpaid labor still exists, it's just not counted, either for taxation or economic statistics purposes. That means that everyone who has an incentive to optimize these metrics (meaning most people within the for-pay, capitalistic economy) has an incentive to favor policies that replace unpaid labor with paid labor that makes the transfer of value explicit.
You see this trend in other areas as well: the gift economy of the early Internet became the advertising economy of today, the open-source economy of the early 90s now has Github etc. offering rewards for creators, the karma economy of early social media contributors is replaced by the Patreon model today, the idea of driving a drunk friend home is replaced by calling them an Uber, the practice of quietly giving a family in need money is replaced by GoFundMe, and so on.
There are pluses and minuses to this: it's certainly been good for the economy, and generates liquidity where previously there was none, but it's done a lot to destroy social relationships and trust.
You see this trend in other areas as well: the gift economy of the early Internet became the advertising economy of today, the open-source economy of the early 90s now has Github etc. offering rewards for creators, the karma economy of early social media contributors is replaced by the Patreon model today, the idea of driving a drunk friend home is replaced by calling them an Uber, the practice of quietly giving a family in need money is replaced by GoFundMe, and so on.
There are pluses and minuses to this: it's certainly been good for the economy, and generates liquidity where previously there was none, but it's done a lot to destroy social relationships and trust.
I think you're right that it comes down to economics/capitalism. But I doubt it's a conspiracy to boost GDP and tax revenue, as you allude by saying "is good for the economy". I think you're closer to the mark with "economically efficient" -- what seems a more likely explanation to me is comparative advantage:
Sure, grandpa might be a great primary caregiver while mom and dad are at work, but he might also not be. Chances are low he has any training in early childhood education, though he may have raised his own kids -- but he's tautologically not as young as he used to be. But he might have training in law, or medicine, and might plausibly be very valuable as a consultant for the hours that he's instead watching little Ephra.
The licensed daycare in the neighborhood, by contrast, is set up to care for children, and -- depending on grandpa's hourly rate -- might do so at a lower cost. The folks there are (maybe?) trained in early childhood education, and have years of experience handling 1-2 year olds, or 2-3 year olds, or 3-4 year olds, at least compared with grandpa who might only have a year or two of experience with each.
Sure, grandpa might be a great primary caregiver while mom and dad are at work, but he might also not be. Chances are low he has any training in early childhood education, though he may have raised his own kids -- but he's tautologically not as young as he used to be. But he might have training in law, or medicine, and might plausibly be very valuable as a consultant for the hours that he's instead watching little Ephra.
The licensed daycare in the neighborhood, by contrast, is set up to care for children, and -- depending on grandpa's hourly rate -- might do so at a lower cost. The folks there are (maybe?) trained in early childhood education, and have years of experience handling 1-2 year olds, or 2-3 year olds, or 3-4 year olds, at least compared with grandpa who might only have a year or two of experience with each.
[deleted]
> the establishment of the discrete nuclear family as a social and labor unit divorced from kinship groups.
Where has the nuclear family ever been divorced from kinship groups. A nuclear family is by definition part of an extended network, because mom and dad are both parents of one nuclear family as well as children of two others. Without a strong nuclear family there is no kinship, and all nuclear families imply extended kin groups, by definition. I will never understand where this nonsense dichotomy of nuclear family v 'kin' has come from.
Where has the nuclear family ever been divorced from kinship groups. A nuclear family is by definition part of an extended network, because mom and dad are both parents of one nuclear family as well as children of two others. Without a strong nuclear family there is no kinship, and all nuclear families imply extended kin groups, by definition. I will never understand where this nonsense dichotomy of nuclear family v 'kin' has come from.
When people talk about the nuclear family, they're talking about the setup post-industrialization and particularly post-war spurred by the birth of modern civil engineering and the simultaneous spread of the highway system - where the term nuclear family came from.
Many societies and cultures have large extended families living together. That is definitely not the norm in the U.S. and Canada, nor is it the case in most of Northern Europe (from what I understand).
It is not the norm today, but it certainly was in the heyday of 'nuclear' family, in the sense that grandparents, aunts and uncles, would be living nearby.
Could you be reversing the roles? It could just as well be the case that it's the "liberation of men from the home and from conservative sexual values" that is the explanation. There's not a lot of real data on what people actually want in terms of relationships. But some attitudes have been quite stable over the last 50 years. For example, women's ideal number of kids has been stable at about 2.5 since the 1970s: https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women-want. Anecdotally, it seems like it's usually men that are less interested in settling down, not women.
This is a really good point, and may also tie back to the role of American capitalism (to differentiate how it's done here from pure capitalism as an economic system). The "decline of the family" in the US has a lot to do with people not getting married or delaying marriage, and a lot of that has to do with how men see their role in a marriage. Men are delaying marriage in part because they want to be "economically settled" first -- they want to be able to provide for a family -- but changes in our economy have really impacted that ability.
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not :) The paradox is that people have the ideals of the past but react in a way that produces the opposite result ("I want to be conservative, but I can't do it so I'll enjoy myself in the meantime").
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or not :) The paradox is that people have the ideals of the past but react in a way that produces the opposite result ("I want to be conservative, but I can't do it so I'll enjoy myself in the meantime").
Feminism has brought about a lot of changes, but I don't think we can lay this one at the feet of women trying to escape their compulsory reliance on unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men.
Most people are alone because they don't prioritize the families they already have (parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, etc). They graduate high school, attend college in another state, move to another city far away for work, etc. Those are choices and they carry consequences. It's not good by default to follow your dreams if the only way to follow your dreams is to be alone and isolated in a strange place. Career is only a portion of our lives and it is far from the best way to draw meaning and purpose for ourselves. It's much better to draw meaning from something that is more permanent and guaranteed, like your identity and your home, not the job you just so happen to be doing at that moment.
There are exceptions to every rule, but it should be understood that when people graduate from high school, they should pick a trade school or university that is close by, not far away. When they choose a focus/major, they should ask what jobs exist in their area, not what kinds of jobs exist in the whole world. When they graduate college, they should be looking for work near their home, not on the other side of the country. Work and career is unreliable and people fail a lot. It's not the thing you should rely on to make you happy or satisfied.
It's better to have less of a career and more of a family than less of a family and more of a career. Your career accomplishments are not as important or valuable as they seem. If you didn't do them, someone else very probably would, and you will also very probably be forgotten quickly after you retire or quit or die. But more humane pursuits like family, home, faith, and community will always be there if you invest in them.
Most people are alone because they don't prioritize the families they already have (parents, siblings, grandparents, cousins, etc). They graduate high school, attend college in another state, move to another city far away for work, etc. Those are choices and they carry consequences. It's not good by default to follow your dreams if the only way to follow your dreams is to be alone and isolated in a strange place. Career is only a portion of our lives and it is far from the best way to draw meaning and purpose for ourselves. It's much better to draw meaning from something that is more permanent and guaranteed, like your identity and your home, not the job you just so happen to be doing at that moment.
There are exceptions to every rule, but it should be understood that when people graduate from high school, they should pick a trade school or university that is close by, not far away. When they choose a focus/major, they should ask what jobs exist in their area, not what kinds of jobs exist in the whole world. When they graduate college, they should be looking for work near their home, not on the other side of the country. Work and career is unreliable and people fail a lot. It's not the thing you should rely on to make you happy or satisfied.
It's better to have less of a career and more of a family than less of a family and more of a career. Your career accomplishments are not as important or valuable as they seem. If you didn't do them, someone else very probably would, and you will also very probably be forgotten quickly after you retire or quit or die. But more humane pursuits like family, home, faith, and community will always be there if you invest in them.
I don't think we can lay this one at the feet of women trying to escape their compulsory reliance on unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men
That's begging the question. Of course, one cannot, "blame the victims of villains," to paraphrase. The vast majority of people are just imperfect, normal people trying to get by. It's the aggregate actions of everyday people we should be looking at, not such outliers.
Most people are alone because they don't prioritize the families they already have
It's like the "Thanksgiving arguments" are engineered precisely to create a rift between generations.
That's begging the question. Of course, one cannot, "blame the victims of villains," to paraphrase. The vast majority of people are just imperfect, normal people trying to get by. It's the aggregate actions of everyday people we should be looking at, not such outliers.
Most people are alone because they don't prioritize the families they already have
It's like the "Thanksgiving arguments" are engineered precisely to create a rift between generations.
> It's like the "Thanksgiving arguments" are engineered precisely to create a rift between generations.
Isolation is a self-perpetuating thing. People hate going home for Thanksgiving and arguing with their relatives because they don't actually know their relatives (their own fault) and they don't belong at home anymore (also their own fault). They isolate themselves, then become indignant when the result is disconnection and conflict. It's absurd.
They're all brainwashed by capital into thinking there should be no negative consequences from following the path that maximizes career success. The idea that we can leave our homes, chase money, and live separate lives without destroying our relationships is the greatest enemy of the traditional family.
Isolation is a self-perpetuating thing. People hate going home for Thanksgiving and arguing with their relatives because they don't actually know their relatives (their own fault) and they don't belong at home anymore (also their own fault). They isolate themselves, then become indignant when the result is disconnection and conflict. It's absurd.
They're all brainwashed by capital into thinking there should be no negative consequences from following the path that maximizes career success. The idea that we can leave our homes, chase money, and live separate lives without destroying our relationships is the greatest enemy of the traditional family.
They're all brainwashed by capital into thinking there should be no negative consequences from following the path that maximizes career success.
The ideology that permeates higher education also teaches this.
The ideology that permeates higher education also teaches this.
A lot of people aren't leaving home to "follow their dreams", they're leaving home because there just aren't any jobs there anymore. Jobs of any sort are scarce outside urban areas.
A lot of people are, though. I realize there are people who have no choice because life sucks and work is hard to find, but I'm not criticizing them. I'm criticizing the ones that choose to leave when they don't need to. We are all uprooted sometimes, but the goal should be to place those roots back in the ground and rebuild what was lost, not float around from place to place with no sense of identity or home.
[deleted]
Feminism is a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the commoditization of humans into productivity and consumption units in a post-industrial environment where the state and corporations dominate. Corporations want to extract every bit of production and consumption out of individuals. A woman taking time off for pregnancy or deciding to become a stay-at-home mom is a drain on corporate productivity. And every state has to some degree tried to diminish the role of parents and family in order to sap every ounce of allegiance from an individual to the state. In totalitarian states, the head of the state becomes the father of the people and the state becomes its family. It's easier to control and manipulate individuals with weak family ties. And it's easier for entities to inject themselves into a controlling family role with individuals with weak family ties. It's why pimps and madams target runaways and make themselves into paternal or maternal figures.
Society and culture doesn't grow organically. They are created and manufactured by the people with wealth and power. For the time being, those with wealth and power have decided that the breakdown of the family is in their interest. But it could shift quickly if the people in charge want it to. An extreme example is china where they encouraged women to have lots of children in order to strengthen their country. And not too long after that, they had a change of heart and encouraged the complete opposite - one child policy. Now it seems like they are backing off of it after a few decades of one child policy.
Society and culture doesn't grow organically. They are created and manufactured by the people with wealth and power. For the time being, those with wealth and power have decided that the breakdown of the family is in their interest. But it could shift quickly if the people in charge want it to. An extreme example is china where they encouraged women to have lots of children in order to strengthen their country. And not too long after that, they had a change of heart and encouraged the complete opposite - one child policy. Now it seems like they are backing off of it after a few decades of one child policy.
Agreed. A large part of american culture has been engineered consciously or unconsciously to be some sort of productivity/materialistic porno. It is completely unbalanced. The american values nowadays all go towards trying to create an "Übermensch".
> Society and culture doesn't grow organically. They are created and manufactured by the people with wealth and power.
BS. You give them way too much credit. The world is too complex and dynamic for a queen ant to "create and manufacture" the efficiency of the ant hill.
BS. You give them way too much credit. The world is too complex and dynamic for a queen ant to "create and manufacture" the efficiency of the ant hill.
I didn't credit them with creating the world. I credited them with creating society, culture, etc. It isn't really a matter of debate. It's well understood the elites create societies and the institutions underlying them. The masses didn't create the US government or any of the systematically important institutions. A handful of elites did. This is pretty much true of every country/society on earth throughout history.
Notable mention for flat/declining wages since the average cost of raising kids probably doesn't get cheaper as time goes on.
Imaging paying your you and your spouse's student loans, then having two kids and paying their student loans or putting that debt on their shoulders. Much easier before tuition skyrocketed.
Healthcare prices are a consideration too.
Imaging paying your you and your spouse's student loans, then having two kids and paying their student loans or putting that debt on their shoulders. Much easier before tuition skyrocketed.
Healthcare prices are a consideration too.
Better technology and a doubling of the potential workforce probably had more to do with stagnating wages than anything else.
Real wages, wages adjusted for inflation, have been flat. So people arent exactly getting poorer (on average) in the US. You're right to point some stuff out, medical care and housing have inflated at disproportionately high rates. Higher education as well, but that's elective. Problem is even in countries, like several European states, that offer state incentives or support or regulation to take the load off parents, birthrates are still low among the educated and well to do natives. In fact I'm pretty sure that's a general trend across the world, the poor and less educated are typically more likely to have kids than people who should be financial more capable of supporting kid, at least up to a certain level.
So economics is probably a weak explanation. Personal freedoms, especially for women, is probably the root cause of low birthrates.
So economics is probably a weak explanation. Personal freedoms, especially for women, is probably the root cause of low birthrates.
I always felt that my mother, as a traditional housewife, seemed rather lonely, and that she blossomed once she started working outside the home. But the social support she provided for my dad and us kids took a hit. I would argue the net effect was still a positive one for the family.
These are all anecdotes though. My mother -- who wanted to be a traditional housewife -- but, as a migrant to this country, was forced to work to support our family seemed incredibly depressed that she couldn't be at home. Once she started staying at home (by becoming a teacher, and thus getting some months off with us), she became so much happier and it was a net positive for my family. Once she retired early, it became even better, and she was just a much happier person.
Granted, my father also took a job that let him stay home most of the day, because he hated working too, so I guess we're one of the few families which seems unaffected by marketing, and instead seek what we actually want. Why in the world would literally anyone want to work a job? I feel only someone who's never worked could want to do it
Granted, my father also took a job that let him stay home most of the day, because he hated working too, so I guess we're one of the few families which seems unaffected by marketing, and instead seek what we actually want. Why in the world would literally anyone want to work a job? I feel only someone who's never worked could want to do it
> Why in the world would literally anyone want to work a job?
I'm a big proponent of financial independence & early retirement. It's mind-boggling to me how many people I've talked to about this that thing it's "unnatural" to stop working so early. Some have reasonable questions/concerns about meeting financial needs later in life, and others give an envious/sarcastic "must be nice" sort of response, but by far the majority of negative reactions I get are from people who can't even fathom the concept of not going to work every day.
And then there's always the "won't you get bored?" argument, which... honestly, if I ever get chronically bored in this amazing, rich world we have, simply because I don't have a job, I will consider that a huge personal failing.
I'm a big proponent of financial independence & early retirement. It's mind-boggling to me how many people I've talked to about this that thing it's "unnatural" to stop working so early. Some have reasonable questions/concerns about meeting financial needs later in life, and others give an envious/sarcastic "must be nice" sort of response, but by far the majority of negative reactions I get are from people who can't even fathom the concept of not going to work every day.
And then there's always the "won't you get bored?" argument, which... honestly, if I ever get chronically bored in this amazing, rich world we have, simply because I don't have a job, I will consider that a huge personal failing.
> I've talked to about this that thing it's "unnatural" to stop working so early. Some have reasonable questions/concerns about meeting financial needs later in life, and others give an envious/sarcastic "must be nice" sort of response, but by far the majority of negative reactions I get are from people who can't even fathom the concept of not going to work every day.
Right. Literally, every one of my family members in the United States retired early. They came to this country with nothing -- at the time they emigrated, their country did not allow migrants to take currency over the border. The oldest one to come was almost 45-50, and they retired before most Americans, and have just made do with less, but are otherwise happy.
I cannot fathom the obsession some people have. Even my mother-in-law had a lot of consternation when she decided to quit the job she hated (they have more than enough money to retire). Luckily, that's over now. I do actually get working until you die if you love your job. Most of us are not so lucky though.
At the end of the day, most people (not all though -- some people truly have difficult circumstances) choose to not be wealthy (in the sense of being able to live off their savings), not because circumstance forces them to, but because they are afraid to, for some reason.
Right. Literally, every one of my family members in the United States retired early. They came to this country with nothing -- at the time they emigrated, their country did not allow migrants to take currency over the border. The oldest one to come was almost 45-50, and they retired before most Americans, and have just made do with less, but are otherwise happy.
I cannot fathom the obsession some people have. Even my mother-in-law had a lot of consternation when she decided to quit the job she hated (they have more than enough money to retire). Luckily, that's over now. I do actually get working until you die if you love your job. Most of us are not so lucky though.
At the end of the day, most people (not all though -- some people truly have difficult circumstances) choose to not be wealthy (in the sense of being able to live off their savings), not because circumstance forces them to, but because they are afraid to, for some reason.
we as a society have underestimated the effects and consequences of rapid change
That's the fundamental bias of human beings. Alvin Toeffler and other authors have been banging on about that since the 60's and 70's. Vernor Vinge used to talk about this. (He helped popularize the "Singularity.")
we should take a step back and think about what is really happening
Do this, if you want to grab hold of a piece of intelligence which is invisible to the general public. This is something of a corollary to, "What you can't say."
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
If one has tried to talk about evolution to an anti-evolutionist, one is familiar with the depth and surprising strength of mental defenses working against evidence. If one wants to have an awareness beyond the ordinary, one has to do self analysis at this level. (While not succumbing even more to one's deeply held biases.)
That's the fundamental bias of human beings. Alvin Toeffler and other authors have been banging on about that since the 60's and 70's. Vernor Vinge used to talk about this. (He helped popularize the "Singularity.")
we should take a step back and think about what is really happening
Do this, if you want to grab hold of a piece of intelligence which is invisible to the general public. This is something of a corollary to, "What you can't say."
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
If one has tried to talk about evolution to an anti-evolutionist, one is familiar with the depth and surprising strength of mental defenses working against evidence. If one wants to have an awareness beyond the ordinary, one has to do self analysis at this level. (While not succumbing even more to one's deeply held biases.)
There's imo a stronger argument that economic/financial factors are far more significant than "feminism." The closing in the employment gap in the 1980s was driven by hyperinflation and consumer debt - everyone had to work to pay the bills.
Similarly, contraceptives aren't the reason people have fewer children. It's the fact we can't afford childcare and housing for a family.
Similarly, contraceptives aren't the reason people have fewer children. It's the fact we can't afford childcare and housing for a family.
These are big factors. I'm also struck, though, by the short historical view most of these comments have. Back in the day, many people "stayed at home", where that means tending the gardens and fields, tending the cows and pigs, hunting for additional protein, gathering for additional carbs and sugars, doing the washing and getting the water. Pre-Industrial Revolution, this whole "men go to work and earn a wage while women stay home" thing did not exist the way it does now. Servants lived in the houses of the people they served, merchants operated as families, and rural people all devoted significant amounts of time to food production. And there was no real choice "not to work" unless you were rich.
I mean I don't think you're wrong, I just think talking about pre industrial society isn't particularly helpful when trying to understand factors behind trends in our current lifestyles.
In other words, yes current state is a function of all past states, but recent history has a far higher influence on next state than the far past. At a certain point you have to assume its influence to be close to zero.
In other words, yes current state is a function of all past states, but recent history has a far higher influence on next state than the far past. At a certain point you have to assume its influence to be close to zero.
In terms of influence, I agree. But in terms of imagining alternatives, I think it's useful to look at history. In finance people often do stress testing for portfolios by looking at periods of historical downturn. I'm proposing doing that for ideas here.
In my own family, the American half reproduced earlier and had many more children than the "old country" half, due to economic distress and war. People in my father's generation were not directly affected by World War II, but the economic contractions that gripped Europe in the 1970s really show when you look at the reproductive choices my "old country" family made compared to my US family (which supports your previous post).
It's just weird that this longer conversation posits either idealized 1950s suburban America or an individualist society. Especially as employment configurations evolve, we should be aware that those are not the only options.
In my own family, the American half reproduced earlier and had many more children than the "old country" half, due to economic distress and war. People in my father's generation were not directly affected by World War II, but the economic contractions that gripped Europe in the 1970s really show when you look at the reproductive choices my "old country" family made compared to my US family (which supports your previous post).
It's just weird that this longer conversation posits either idealized 1950s suburban America or an individualist society. Especially as employment configurations evolve, we should be aware that those are not the only options.
Well, doubling the labor supply made wages go down so women HAD to work. They no longer had the freedom to choose.
I believe it's not really feminism so much as a societally pernicious type of individualism.
Certainly liberated women may be part of the cause, but there are also no shortage of boy-men who are incapable of sacrifice, hard work and the drudgery of responsibility.
The social structures that enforced all that appear to have broken down. And that's not all together a bad thing but certainly it causes societal problems in the short term until things adjust (hopefully better than what they were before).
Certainly liberated women may be part of the cause, but there are also no shortage of boy-men who are incapable of sacrifice, hard work and the drudgery of responsibility.
The social structures that enforced all that appear to have broken down. And that's not all together a bad thing but certainly it causes societal problems in the short term until things adjust (hopefully better than what they were before).
There's a recent review essay of Houellebecq's work by a Dutch populist that goes into this topic a little bit. Well worth a read IMO, even if his conclusions are quite extreme.[0]
I would say it's important to look beyond simple labels of "good" and "bad" and think of the situation in terms of trade offs. Feminism has greatly helped some portions of the population and cost others greatly as well. Just like with any other culture or ideology, there really is no free lunch.
[0] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/houellebecqs-unfi...
I would say it's important to look beyond simple labels of "good" and "bad" and think of the situation in terms of trade offs. Feminism has greatly helped some portions of the population and cost others greatly as well. Just like with any other culture or ideology, there really is no free lunch.
[0] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/houellebecqs-unfi...
Feminism is surely related, but I’m not sure if it is a cause or a consequence (or maybe both?) to the decline of family.
An important factor to consider is the nature and place of work: Men used to inherit their families business or work in the same town. Big families and relatives lived close to each other, so women could use help from other women in the family for child rearing and house chores. Nowadays you have to move to capitals/big cities to find work which deprived women from the assistance they found in extended families. I think this had an impact on gender roles and the increase of feminism and nuclear families.
An important factor to consider is the nature and place of work: Men used to inherit their families business or work in the same town. Big families and relatives lived close to each other, so women could use help from other women in the family for child rearing and house chores. Nowadays you have to move to capitals/big cities to find work which deprived women from the assistance they found in extended families. I think this had an impact on gender roles and the increase of feminism and nuclear families.
> Men used to inherit their families business or work in the same town.
Few men got to inherit a business but if your father worked a trade then you would probably find going into that trade to be a natural path. The latter part is still very true today.
Few men got to inherit a business but if your father worked a trade then you would probably find going into that trade to be a natural path. The latter part is still very true today.
By the way, this might seem revolutionary, but there are plenty of societies ( in history) that didn't have rule by Men and an awakening of feminism.
The studies I'm familiar with didn't mention loneliness, but rather the social responsibility.
The studies I'm familiar with didn't mention loneliness, but rather the social responsibility.
I have heard this argument before, and think it is extremely overstated. Our current version of feminism has expanded across almost all of the west. Technologies like birth control and economies/technologies that allow for women to be in the workforce at mass scale were simply impossible in the past. It's really an apples to oranges comparison, and is an intellectually dishonest one at that.
please name a few - i am curious to read about these
If you're referring to societies that aren't ruled by men, The Mosuo people are a matriarchy that you may be interested in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
Can you please provide examples. Birth control has only been available for a short period of history, so its not obvious to most of us what societies you are talking about and how their liberation of women actually affected the society.
>Birth control has only been available for a short period of history,
If you are talking about the pill sure, but there are forms of birth control that date to ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, And China. Not to say these methods were effective and the book of Genesis did regress things a little with God slaying Onan for practicing the old pull out method, teaching that procreation is for reproduction only.
If you are talking about the pill sure, but there are forms of birth control that date to ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, And China. Not to say these methods were effective and the book of Genesis did regress things a little with God slaying Onan for practicing the old pull out method, teaching that procreation is for reproduction only.
They also had some really awful condoms (animal intestine) and spermicides (acidic juices, etc.).
That's a fair critique adding birth control.
But look up Matriarchy. There are lots of shades.
But look up Matriarchy. There are lots of shades.
I feel you've said more or less the same thing the article is saying, just in more casually dismissive and incendiary terms. TFA refers to many of these factors as being driven by the second demographic transformation. Yes, feminism is a very important part of the SDT, but one needs to be careful with cause and effect. Did feminism cause the SDT? Unlikely. Did the SDT cause feminist ideas to become attractive to more people? That seems far more likely. If that's the case then I wouldn't necessarily lay this (more old people living/dying alone) at feminism's feet. Feminism may provide an ideological argument in favor of certain relationships, but we are the ones choosing to live and die alone, and when we choose we do so for myriad reasons.
Also, women haven't been liberated from the home [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/0c9f068c-711f-11e9-bf5c-6eeb83756...
Also, women haven't been liberated from the home [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/0c9f068c-711f-11e9-bf5c-6eeb83756...
> the liberation of women from the home and from conservative sexual values.
Everyone is unhappy, married people on average are happier than unmarried, religious people are on average happier than unreligious people.
The sexual and feminist revolution got some 'splainin to do.
Of course, my view, the answer isn't "liberating women from the bonds of motherhood and family" but empowering women and supporting them in arguably the most powerful and most important thing one human can actually do in this world: bring new life into it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/happiness-...
Everyone is unhappy, married people on average are happier than unmarried, religious people are on average happier than unreligious people.
The sexual and feminist revolution got some 'splainin to do.
Of course, my view, the answer isn't "liberating women from the bonds of motherhood and family" but empowering women and supporting them in arguably the most powerful and most important thing one human can actually do in this world: bring new life into it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/happiness-...
Feminism was motivated by the minority of women that wanted a job in 1950, and their legitimate frustration with how the system was trying to stop them from doing that. Somehow that got switched around into a society where almost every woman is required to have an income. It's like we went from oppressing half of all women to oppressing the other half of all women.
It's a form of prisoners dilemma. "Cooperating" with traditional society meant being a single-income couple. "Defecting" is being a dual-income couple. Once enough couples start defecting, they're so much more competitive that other couples have to defect to survive.
What about the right to vote? That was a pretty big feminist movement. Or the right to own property/have a bank account without a male cosigner?
There have been several "feminisms" in history, each with their own motivations, supporters and attitudes.
Seems a bit circular to me. If the most important thing a human can do is bring life, then that life also has as its most important mission to bring some more life into the mix and so on. You end up with an endless chain of causation and no real answer as to what makes the entire thing worthwhile.
I'm pretty sure reproduction/biological success is considered the prime biological directive of any species. There's no romantic explanation for it be worthwhile.
I'd say the idea of a directive is also a romantic explanation, since it implies a some sort of planning. The reality is more tautological. The current crop of beings is there... because they made it to this point. There is no deeper reason or value to be assigned to their survival.
A being doesn't want to reproduce in itself, it wants to fulfill needs that compel it to reproduce. A desire for sex, for companionship, for a social role, etc. It's possible to be highly attracted to someone who is infertile because we chase the signs of procreation rather than its actual occurrence. We can rationally plan to make procreation happen but even in this case it is an illusion, we are still chasing some state of mind that leads to procreation.
On the contrary, I am trying to dispel the romanticism here and the hidden additional romantic layer that anthropomorphizes the process of evolution itself by giving it some sort of direction.
A being doesn't want to reproduce in itself, it wants to fulfill needs that compel it to reproduce. A desire for sex, for companionship, for a social role, etc. It's possible to be highly attracted to someone who is infertile because we chase the signs of procreation rather than its actual occurrence. We can rationally plan to make procreation happen but even in this case it is an illusion, we are still chasing some state of mind that leads to procreation.
On the contrary, I am trying to dispel the romanticism here and the hidden additional romantic layer that anthropomorphizes the process of evolution itself by giving it some sort of direction.
> You end up with an endless chain of causation and no real answer as to what makes the entire thing worthwhile.
There are many reasons I don't want children, but this one in particular has stood out in my mind most of my adult life as the perfect reason not to.
There are many reasons I don't want children, but this one in particular has stood out in my mind most of my adult life as the perfect reason not to.
"An endless chain of causation" isn't circular, that's more or less the definition of life. What's the alternative, a task that a species must complete so that it can then go extinct?
Perhaps a chain of loop-de-loops would be a better mental image: a series of circles rather than just the one. If the importance of any life is justified by its relation to other lives that are themselves justified by other lives, you end up with no core importance. There's no meat inside the loops.
I don't have a definite answer to your question but looking at most of what has happened in history I do wonder if developing opposable thumbs and a frontal cortex was worth it.
I don't have a definite answer to your question but looking at most of what has happened in history I do wonder if developing opposable thumbs and a frontal cortex was worth it.
You broke the first rule of fight club.
Is bringing another being into the world the most important thing one can actually do? I'm not sure if you've noticed but we're getting pretty full. And we're living longer. Feels to me like the bus is getting full.
Not saying that it's the most important thing one can do, but it's at least as important as making money for other people as some career schmuck. Which is what most work outside the home boils down to.
Well procreation is essential for all self reproducing organisms. If you don't prioritize it, then congrats, people like you won't influence future too much.
Also bus isn't getting full. The issue is two fold: chain smokers in first rows and overcrowding in back rows.
Also bus isn't getting full. The issue is two fold: chain smokers in first rows and overcrowding in back rows.
Each person is free to choose their own destiny, including unhappiness.
Feminism isnt the search for happiness, its for equity.
Feminism isnt the search for happiness, its for equity.
In my experience & observation feminism and women working has nothing to do with the inability to sustain a rich family or romantic life. My grandmothers worked, my mom worked, the women I’ve dated have great careers.
It is absolutely possible to have a career and be a phenomenal wife and mother with a happy family. If a person’s priority is family, it may limit career opportunities but that is true of both men’s and women’s careers (for example rejecting a promotion that requires a geographic move to keep kids in the same school or live near relatives will impact both partners).
It is absolutely possible to have a career and be a phenomenal wife and mother with a happy family. If a person’s priority is family, it may limit career opportunities but that is true of both men’s and women’s careers (for example rejecting a promotion that requires a geographic move to keep kids in the same school or live near relatives will impact both partners).
It seems a stretch to blame feminism when economics has thinned most workers wages to the point that multi income households are a requirement to eke out a life.
Doubling the workforce would surely put downward pressure on wages due to supply and demand.
While there was feminism involved there, I think one should question how independent the political movement was from economic pulls at the same time. You can't for example, take large amounts of single women into factories as workers in the industrial age, without some form of practical feminist changes in how women were treated.
You see similar modern pulls today in nations like China and India. It's really difficult to separate which came first - the economic pull or feminism. I lean to the economics of factory owners wanting low cost labor being a leading phenomenon of the cycle, and that induces the question of the rights of women who now have income, and practical freedoms going to work and working, and that independence inducing a desire for wider rights.
Once industry gets access to that labor though, they'll pay the minimum amount possible, and that practical acceptable minimum lowers if there are multiple people in the household making income.
You see similar modern pulls today in nations like China and India. It's really difficult to separate which came first - the economic pull or feminism. I lean to the economics of factory owners wanting low cost labor being a leading phenomenon of the cycle, and that induces the question of the rights of women who now have income, and practical freedoms going to work and working, and that independence inducing a desire for wider rights.
Once industry gets access to that labor though, they'll pay the minimum amount possible, and that practical acceptable minimum lowers if there are multiple people in the household making income.
I agree, economics, politics and philosophy are all intertwined. I think now that we have a surplus of labor, automation and globalization that we’re due for another shift in all of the above. The loneliness discussed in the OP seems like a symptom of larger societal and technological change.
My theory is that we have a labor surplus because the rules of capitalism were formed when we had a shortage of capital, now that we have basically enough capital, we’re still constraint managing capital, causing underuse of human labor.
Feminism can't avoid taking some of the blame for the economics.
If some households are multi-income, then they can pay more for housing.
This bids up the cost of housing. More households decide to become multi-income in order to pay for housing. This of course makes the housing price go up even more.
It's an arms race.
If some households are multi-income, then they can pay more for housing.
This bids up the cost of housing. More households decide to become multi-income in order to pay for housing. This of course makes the housing price go up even more.
It's an arms race.
I think the shift to eschew "traditional" gender roles plays a part, certainly, but I don't think it's the dominating factor.
I'd say the strongest factors, at least in the US:
1. Work/career is #1 priority. Career has always been a big deal in the US, but I feel like it's become more extreme in my generation (nearing 40) than it was for my parents or their parents. For them, it was more about putting food on the table and providing a better life for their children than what they had. For us it seems more about intangible things like "being successful".
2. Geographic barriers have broken down a lot. In the mid-/late-1900s, you'd likely grow up in the same place, and more often than not would find a job or go to college nearby, and stick around as an adult. You'd probably meet your future partner through family, local, or church events, and after marriage would probably still live in or near your original hometown. Nowadays, it's much more likely to move hundreds or even thousands of miles from your hometown, often to chase job opportunities (see #1). New adults going to college far from home also makes them realize that living near your hometown isn't the only option.
3. And yes, changing gender norms fit into this: women have caught the bug of #1, and we are still struggling with the "having it all" mentality of women having a strong, ambitious career, but also raising children. I personally don't think there's a universal solution to this; there are only so many hours in a day and so much energy to go around. Child care is expensive and a stretch or out of reach for many couples, even with dual incomes (and the jury's still out as to whether or not pervasive third-party child care is a detriment to early childhood development). In heterosexual couples, many men still resist taking an equal part in child-rearing duties, but I'm not convinced that would completely solve the problem anyway (again, only so many hours in a day); it would just make it more equitable as to bearing the responsibility.
Definitely agree that it may be another few generations before we fully understand the effects of all these societal changes. Some of it may be bad, even if the overall changes are good.
I'd say the strongest factors, at least in the US:
1. Work/career is #1 priority. Career has always been a big deal in the US, but I feel like it's become more extreme in my generation (nearing 40) than it was for my parents or their parents. For them, it was more about putting food on the table and providing a better life for their children than what they had. For us it seems more about intangible things like "being successful".
2. Geographic barriers have broken down a lot. In the mid-/late-1900s, you'd likely grow up in the same place, and more often than not would find a job or go to college nearby, and stick around as an adult. You'd probably meet your future partner through family, local, or church events, and after marriage would probably still live in or near your original hometown. Nowadays, it's much more likely to move hundreds or even thousands of miles from your hometown, often to chase job opportunities (see #1). New adults going to college far from home also makes them realize that living near your hometown isn't the only option.
3. And yes, changing gender norms fit into this: women have caught the bug of #1, and we are still struggling with the "having it all" mentality of women having a strong, ambitious career, but also raising children. I personally don't think there's a universal solution to this; there are only so many hours in a day and so much energy to go around. Child care is expensive and a stretch or out of reach for many couples, even with dual incomes (and the jury's still out as to whether or not pervasive third-party child care is a detriment to early childhood development). In heterosexual couples, many men still resist taking an equal part in child-rearing duties, but I'm not convinced that would completely solve the problem anyway (again, only so many hours in a day); it would just make it more equitable as to bearing the responsibility.
Definitely agree that it may be another few generations before we fully understand the effects of all these societal changes. Some of it may be bad, even if the overall changes are good.
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether the traditional nuclear family is the "optimal" mode of human society?
Is the unhappiness that we may be observing with the decline of family a product of this transition period from traditional family structure to individualism? Is our current society just not well equipped yet to handle this mode of living? Maybe in 50 years, this will become the norm and people who choose to live alone will have alternative sources of happiness.
Is the unhappiness that we may be observing with the decline of family a product of this transition period from traditional family structure to individualism? Is our current society just not well equipped yet to handle this mode of living? Maybe in 50 years, this will become the norm and people who choose to live alone will have alternative sources of happiness.
I really doubt the traditional nuclear family is natural and hence "optimal" although I guess that depends on your goal. I think as an extension or outcome, perhaps the purpose of civilization, nuclear families provide safety and security rather than producing the best offspring for the species as a whole. What's better, people of every level of fitness and intelligence pairing off to produce God knows what sort of mutants that will be protected on some level by society, or a handful of males who are naturally predisposed to good health, fitness, and intelligence, turbo Chads if you will, seeding large groups of females.
I'm not saying one is better for than the other overall, but one is surely better than the other for certain outcomes. Do we want an equitable society where low status individuals, but particularly males, have a better shot at reproduction and may contribute more to building a society that propagates that "culture" of safety and equity? Or do we go with what is probably more natural? I mean i can guess why and how religions of old and civilizations formed and why they were patriarchal
I'm not saying one is better for than the other overall, but one is surely better than the other for certain outcomes. Do we want an equitable society where low status individuals, but particularly males, have a better shot at reproduction and may contribute more to building a society that propagates that "culture" of safety and equity? Or do we go with what is probably more natural? I mean i can guess why and how religions of old and civilizations formed and why they were patriarchal
I don’t know if it’s optimal, but it sure is intimate and stable.
Your spouse will never move to another city for a new job w/o you. Your kids won’t leave the nucleus, at least not until they’re college ready.
Unlike family, different kinds of arrangements between people result in relationships that are less committed and less durable.
So maybe if you take stability and intimacy into account, it might as well be optimal.
I guess it begs the question, what are we optimizing for? And on what time scale?
What might seem optimal for the time being, could unleash a series of unforeseen circumstances in the future.
But I guess we can keep an open mind, allow people to choose for themselves and then report back after 2-3 generations the consequences of different paths taken.
Your spouse will never move to another city for a new job w/o you. Your kids won’t leave the nucleus, at least not until they’re college ready.
Unlike family, different kinds of arrangements between people result in relationships that are less committed and less durable.
So maybe if you take stability and intimacy into account, it might as well be optimal.
I guess it begs the question, what are we optimizing for? And on what time scale?
What might seem optimal for the time being, could unleash a series of unforeseen circumstances in the future.
But I guess we can keep an open mind, allow people to choose for themselves and then report back after 2-3 generations the consequences of different paths taken.
Given the divorce rate and the number of single-parent families in the US (and much of the West?), I don't think I'd call the nuclear family "stable".
Stability rates vary over time. But in the context of this discussion, I meant stable relative to other social arrangements.
Thus relative to the current divorce rates, I would wager that “divorce” rates among friends and other social structures are even greater.
Thus relative to the current divorce rates, I would wager that “divorce” rates among friends and other social structures are even greater.
It's interesting that you consider the nuclear family as "traditional", while it's actually a fairly recent phenomenon. And in many places in the world it's still common for a family to consist of multiple generations and often aunts/uncles/cousins/etc. living in the same household.
I suspect that it is the best model we have found so far. I also wonder whether monogamy is the cause of modern society rather than a result of it.
There seems to be a pretty good correlation between which countries are most dominant today and those that encouraged monogamy in the recent past.
Maybe the differences in IQ seen between different groups are caused by how well those societies manage to mix up genes and not down to skin colour.
There seems to be a pretty good correlation between which countries are most dominant today and those that encouraged monogamy in the recent past.
Maybe the differences in IQ seen between different groups are caused by how well those societies manage to mix up genes and not down to skin colour.
I'd say it is a natural way of living, but maybe you have been unlucky in not experiencing it for yourself. This debate is pretty old, Plato's Republic hinting at the disappearance of the family echoes much of the current western culture. He figured out you could not impose a totalitarian state while having people's allegiance lie on their family.
Social media and not feminism is the likely root cause of the decline in families. Families are declining world wide including in repressive societies. Social media itself is likely the root cause.
Before social media people had to meet face-to-face in order to date and they had to break up face-to-face in order to end a relationship. This forced people to develop social skills at a young age that are required to form a family.
Now people can date someone they never met and break up by ghosting. They can get to a preliminary relationship without acquiring social skills. There are also online equivalents of a mate that seem good enough if you don't understand the benefits of family.
I try to avoid social media and it makes my life much more sane. It forces me to go out and socialize with people.
Before social media people had to meet face-to-face in order to date and they had to break up face-to-face in order to end a relationship. This forced people to develop social skills at a young age that are required to form a family.
Now people can date someone they never met and break up by ghosting. They can get to a preliminary relationship without acquiring social skills. There are also online equivalents of a mate that seem good enough if you don't understand the benefits of family.
I try to avoid social media and it makes my life much more sane. It forces me to go out and socialize with people.
We do know how it will play out. Like all evolutionarily maladaptive traits, this one will decline in prevalence over the space of a few generations.
It can also be linked to the rise of individualism, an essential part of the capitalist ideology.
There's an opposite political argument that the decline of the family, especially among the poor, was due to government benefits replacing the need to maintain social networks and interdependent families. In the 1800s and early 1900s, at the height of the industrial revolution and in the absence of any welfare state, poor Americans of every ethnicity had incredibly close-knit communities and extended families.
Life was harder, but you could lean on friends, family, and congregation. That's where the classic trope of rich people being lonely and surrounded by fake acquaintances while poor people have authentic community comes from. Maybe now that every level of society is relatively richer we're all that much lonelier.
Life was harder, but you could lean on friends, family, and congregation. That's where the classic trope of rich people being lonely and surrounded by fake acquaintances while poor people have authentic community comes from. Maybe now that every level of society is relatively richer we're all that much lonelier.
In the words of my LTR (a gorgeous and professionally successful woman)
"Feminism was the worst thing that happened to women."
I am curious how do you and your LTR define feminism. Nobody is forcing anyone to choose career over family. That would be anti-feminist.
I never viewed feminism as mutually exclusive of having a family or a career. I might just be more mellow than everyone else. Feminism just means that men and women deserve equal opportunity and respect. Why is this the worst thing?
I might have an advantage over everyone else since my parents grew up in the great depression. All of the women in my family worked often because of hardship. One grandmother married a very bad man and ended up becoming a hairdresser and opening a salon to support my mother. Another grandmother had a sick husband and had to take over his business. My father also had an illness and although he continued to work they both agreed that my mother needed to finish her education and go back to work. Nobody made such a big deal about it since the women were also supporting the family. In fact, in most societies the women support the family working or not. This is the norm.
When my husband and I got married we I was still in school so our whole life was ahead of us. We agreed that I would finish school first only because I was only a year from graduation. Then he finished school. We both agreed that having a family was important so we both prioritized children. We both had awesome careers, but I never let go of the fact that family is more important than career. My husband and I are still feminists.
In my daughters case she decided to stay at home with her three boys. Her awesome husband is still very much involved with his boys. They are both still feminists.
I never viewed feminism as mutually exclusive of having a family or a career. I might just be more mellow than everyone else. Feminism just means that men and women deserve equal opportunity and respect. Why is this the worst thing?
I might have an advantage over everyone else since my parents grew up in the great depression. All of the women in my family worked often because of hardship. One grandmother married a very bad man and ended up becoming a hairdresser and opening a salon to support my mother. Another grandmother had a sick husband and had to take over his business. My father also had an illness and although he continued to work they both agreed that my mother needed to finish her education and go back to work. Nobody made such a big deal about it since the women were also supporting the family. In fact, in most societies the women support the family working or not. This is the norm.
When my husband and I got married we I was still in school so our whole life was ahead of us. We agreed that I would finish school first only because I was only a year from graduation. Then he finished school. We both agreed that having a family was important so we both prioritized children. We both had awesome careers, but I never let go of the fact that family is more important than career. My husband and I are still feminists.
In my daughters case she decided to stay at home with her three boys. Her awesome husband is still very much involved with his boys. They are both still feminists.
I'm sure feminism plays a role. As the article said, women can now more freely leave abusive husbands. That's one example of how it would increase divorce rates.
However, I don't think it is the sole reason. For example, why then are wealthy people more likely to have families, as the article describes? The fact that wealthier people have families more seems to support the idea that it is at least partially caused by neoliberalism.
However, I don't think it is the sole reason. For example, why then are wealthy people more likely to have families, as the article describes? The fact that wealthier people have families more seems to support the idea that it is at least partially caused by neoliberalism.
Sad times we live in that you have to say it twice that you don't oppose feminism, otherwise you know your comment will get flagged, which means your opinion will simply be hidden away. That is the state of the debate, if we can even call it a debate.
Yeah, to be honest, I would like to elaborate more but I don't want my account banned. Best we can do is hint at our opinions and hope that it fosters some thought and debate
Can you define what you see as the debate here?
Can you define what you see as the closed argument here?
What is a closed argument? I don’t know how to parse your comment.
Sorry, I misunderstood you thinking you were saying there is no debate, i.e. case closed. I think that's the word I was looking for
I would surmise that we can solve the loneliness problem without going back to having larger families which would only place more stress on the environment hastening our eventual extinction. The crux of the matter is having opportunities for meaningful social interactions daily. While this may have been provided by family in the past, there is no reason this has to be so as far as I can tell. If we can't solve the problem I would still rather have people able to choose their own paths in the world rather than have some arbitrary and oppressive system imposed upon them.
I’ve been feeling a pretty intense sort of depression and loneliness for the last month or so.
The feelings of “you’re a white male and you work in tech and you are wealthy you are a SATAN” is just becoming too much :(.
I volunteer a tremendous amount in education, where I’m the only male I generally even see in my field, and I constantly have to listen to my coworkers gleefully talk about how excited they are at how few young boys show up to our events. I hear them blatantly express disdain when a couple do.
Its so, so sad. I try getting away from the news, but then it creeps into my life anyway.
I’m not some devil because of my genitals, my sexual orientation, or the color of my skin. I volunteer so much of my time specifically to the homeless and less fortunate, I give so much money to charity, I do so much stuff in my community...and yet I just have to hear almost constantly that I am everything wrong with the world because I am an evil, cis, white, monogamous, straight male. I tick every single box of bad guy it seems like there is, and I don’t want to be the bad guy. I actually try really hard to be a nice guy.
It just makes me so so sad :(. And if I ever do even mention that, it just makes it even worse, hence the throwaway account.
The feelings of “you’re a white male and you work in tech and you are wealthy you are a SATAN” is just becoming too much :(.
I volunteer a tremendous amount in education, where I’m the only male I generally even see in my field, and I constantly have to listen to my coworkers gleefully talk about how excited they are at how few young boys show up to our events. I hear them blatantly express disdain when a couple do.
Its so, so sad. I try getting away from the news, but then it creeps into my life anyway.
I’m not some devil because of my genitals, my sexual orientation, or the color of my skin. I volunteer so much of my time specifically to the homeless and less fortunate, I give so much money to charity, I do so much stuff in my community...and yet I just have to hear almost constantly that I am everything wrong with the world because I am an evil, cis, white, monogamous, straight male. I tick every single box of bad guy it seems like there is, and I don’t want to be the bad guy. I actually try really hard to be a nice guy.
It just makes me so so sad :(. And if I ever do even mention that, it just makes it even worse, hence the throwaway account.
Don't beat yourself up over it. I myself am transgender and I am still regularly banned from LGBTQ+ online communities simply because I am not an activist and caution against extremism.
For many people, it is a cultural war. You are either "with us" or "against us".
Online media and online narratives are written in such a way that anyone outside your own group is perceived as evil. The filtering bubble effect of closed communities ("safe spaces") often aggravates the situation. I have seen people with balanced positions turn to the far right and others to the far left in knee jerk reactions to negative experiences.
What you hear is the loud minority of a minority. Racism and sexism against white males do exist. The people who hold those values are just as bigoted as any other racist or sexist individuals.
Most well rounded and balanced humans won't tell you that any demographic is "evil". In fact, most people just want to spend their days without thinking about others.
For many people, it is a cultural war. You are either "with us" or "against us".
Online media and online narratives are written in such a way that anyone outside your own group is perceived as evil. The filtering bubble effect of closed communities ("safe spaces") often aggravates the situation. I have seen people with balanced positions turn to the far right and others to the far left in knee jerk reactions to negative experiences.
What you hear is the loud minority of a minority. Racism and sexism against white males do exist. The people who hold those values are just as bigoted as any other racist or sexist individuals.
Most well rounded and balanced humans won't tell you that any demographic is "evil". In fact, most people just want to spend their days without thinking about others.
> Most well rounded and balanced humans won't tell you that any demographic is "evil".
This. We must break down own issues and barriers to truly connect to others.
This. We must break down own issues and barriers to truly connect to others.
Just a piece of advice: try to take a step back and listen more carefully to the complaints you're hearing. When people talk about dismantling the patriarchy, or about racial privilege, they are not actually talking about any one particular person. You are fully able to be white, male, privileged, and still be an ally to those who do not benefit as much from the power structures in our society.
Instead of feeling personally attacked when you hear these issues discussed, try to remember we are all on the same team, fighting to tackle problems that are bigger than just one individual.
Instead of feeling personally attacked when you hear these issues discussed, try to remember we are all on the same team, fighting to tackle problems that are bigger than just one individual.
Take for example a comment from this very thread: "Feminism has brought about a lot of changes, but I don't think we can lay this one at the feet of women trying to escape their compulsory reliance on unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men."
How should we take a step back and listen more carefully to this? How are we to interpret that other than as an attack on all men?
How should we take a step back and listen more carefully to this? How are we to interpret that other than as an attack on all men?
Pay attention to the syntax, it's not an attack on all men. It's quite specifically an attack on "unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men."
These men do exist, and these men have historically used societal norms to trap women in marriages or work that was unfair. It's great that we are working toward a society which recognizes that this is harmful and allows these women to seek better opportunity for themselves!
These men do exist, and these men have historically used societal norms to trap women in marriages or work that was unfair. It's great that we are working toward a society which recognizes that this is harmful and allows these women to seek better opportunity for themselves!
The syntax looks like just wailed hatred, just like all other wailed hatred.
People are not against immigrants, just the illegal ones that murder, rape and steal. People are also not against Muslims, just the extremists.
If we follow syntax there are no racists in the world and we can simply accuse people of not paying attention. I think that is wrong way to view it. If we talk about "unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate immigrants" then what people will read is that all immigrants are bad. That just how that kind of language get interpreted, and the assumption is that the speaker is aware of it and thus intended it.
I have a simple test. When in doubt I do a word for word replacement and replace the word "men" with "immigrants" and "women" with "natively born". If that make a sentence or article sound like a racist, then it is wailed hate. If it sounds perfectly fine regardless who is targeted then it is not.
People are not against immigrants, just the illegal ones that murder, rape and steal. People are also not against Muslims, just the extremists.
If we follow syntax there are no racists in the world and we can simply accuse people of not paying attention. I think that is wrong way to view it. If we talk about "unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate immigrants" then what people will read is that all immigrants are bad. That just how that kind of language get interpreted, and the assumption is that the speaker is aware of it and thus intended it.
I have a simple test. When in doubt I do a word for word replacement and replace the word "men" with "immigrants" and "women" with "natively born". If that make a sentence or article sound like a racist, then it is wailed hate. If it sounds perfectly fine regardless who is targeted then it is not.
But in this case the original author proposed that the liberation of women and feminism was contributing to loneliness and that was the reply. So i.e. feminism makes women less dependent on unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men so that is not the cause of loneliness.
Let us say someone would say that the increased loneliness instead came from the rise of online gaming/porn/communities and that men in larger degree become less interested in meeting women and making an effort.
If someone then answered that "Men avoiding unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate women by online gaming is not a problem" you would probably see that statement as misogynistic. Even if that description does match some women.
(I fully agree with the liberation of women (and men) from many of the traditional gender roles.)
Let us say someone would say that the increased loneliness instead came from the rise of online gaming/porn/communities and that men in larger degree become less interested in meeting women and making an effort.
If someone then answered that "Men avoiding unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate women by online gaming is not a problem" you would probably see that statement as misogynistic. Even if that description does match some women.
(I fully agree with the liberation of women (and men) from many of the traditional gender roles.)
I can kind of understand people having such a knee-jerk reaction to the original article. The first part reads like someone like Jordan Peterson preaching the return to a family lifestyle according to "Judeo-Christian values" while ignoring all the reasons society changed. I nearly dropped the article there as well. The remaining part got a lot better, though it still feels like only describing problems and leaving the task of imagining solutions up to the reader, with an implied direction.
Agreed about the beginning of the article. It started to feel like the author’s value judgements were slipped in there, but later when they acknowledged “some might not see this as all bad” I felt a little better about it.
I'm with you on the syntax and I'll point out (as people may forget) that the "compulsory reliance" part is the real stickler. It's only in 1974 that the US passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; before that, a man was required to cosign for any loan or credit a woman applied for (if you were unmarried for any reason, including widowed, you'd have to find a guy somewhere). Before the 1960s, in the US women could be required to have a male attached to any bank account they opened, or could be denied the opportunity to open a bank account.
It's not that men are terrible. It's that if you have to find a man to avoid homelessness, sometimes you are stuck with terrible men, as polygamy is illegal.
It's not that men are terrible. It's that if you have to find a man to avoid homelessness, sometimes you are stuck with terrible men, as polygamy is illegal.
> before that, a man was required to cosign for any loan or credit a woman applied for (if you were unmarried for any reason, including widowed, you'd have to find a guy somewhere
Guess what, there was a reason for that (sort of): namely, back then it was the women who were commonly - indeed, almost universally - stereotyped as "unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate", and thus as bad credit risks. Again, it just goes to prove that character smears are wrong in the first place. It's not a convincing defense of parent's attitude, at all.
Guess what, there was a reason for that (sort of): namely, back then it was the women who were commonly - indeed, almost universally - stereotyped as "unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate", and thus as bad credit risks. Again, it just goes to prove that character smears are wrong in the first place. It's not a convincing defense of parent's attitude, at all.
No, it was not about character, it was about not having an income because women were not a large part of the formally paid labor force. It was quite legal and in fact the norm to pay women less than men, and it was in general required that women leave their jobs once they got married or once they got pregnant.
> It's quite specifically an attack on "unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate men."
That's one very generous way to read it. The other is that men are unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate, which is pretty much what I've heard over the past 5 years from most people that identify as feminist.
That's one very generous way to read it. The other is that men are unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate, which is pretty much what I've heard over the past 5 years from most people that identify as feminist.
... and the principal of charity suggest that, instead of automatically engaging outrage mode, you should try to interpret it in the most charitable way possible.
Sure, there are certainly some women who say things like this who are also misandrists, but the majority of them are not, and just want to call out the men who are actually a problem. If you're not a problem, then you're not being called out. That's been my experience. Either you've somehow managed to speak only to the most cynical and hateful of feminists, or -- more likely -- you're getting defensive over something for no good reason.
The ironic bit is that you're falling into the same trap: you're accusing "every" feminist of believing that all men are evil, based on your interactions with a few.
Sure, there are certainly some women who say things like this who are also misandrists, but the majority of them are not, and just want to call out the men who are actually a problem. If you're not a problem, then you're not being called out. That's been my experience. Either you've somehow managed to speak only to the most cynical and hateful of feminists, or -- more likely -- you're getting defensive over something for no good reason.
The ironic bit is that you're falling into the same trap: you're accusing "every" feminist of believing that all men are evil, based on your interactions with a few.
Pretty disingenuous of you to put the word "every" in quotation marks when the person you're responding to used the word "most".
In the principal of charity I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
In the principal of charity I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
> ... and the principal of charity suggest that, instead of automatically engaging outrage mode, you should try to interpret it in the most charitable way possible.
I didn't engage "outrage mode", I pointed out that you were missing/leaving out an alternative way to parse that message, one that I consider likely to be correct.
> Sure, there are certainly some women who say things like this
Let me make that clear: I explicitly wrote feminist, not women. Sex/Gender isn't involved, it's ideology, and many of the most atrocious things I've heard came from male feminists (coincidentally, those I found very reasonable among them were exclusively women). Please don't put words into my mouth by implying I talked about women in general.
> If you're not a problem, then you're not being called out.
That sounds like "I'm with them, so I don't mind that". Sure, cool for you, I'm not. "Men are scum" doesn't sit right with me, and I don't believe that I'm overly defensive for no good reason or should just "listen more carefully to the complaints".
> you're accusing "every" feminist of believing that all men are evil
No, I'm not (again with the words). I'm stating what I've heard & read from feminists. I haven't talked to most or all feminists on the planet, obviously. But of the ones I did talk to, most went right down that path. As soon as I've gotten around to talking to those that I haven't yet, I'm going to update my comment and extend it to inform about my experiences with all feminists.
I didn't engage "outrage mode", I pointed out that you were missing/leaving out an alternative way to parse that message, one that I consider likely to be correct.
> Sure, there are certainly some women who say things like this
Let me make that clear: I explicitly wrote feminist, not women. Sex/Gender isn't involved, it's ideology, and many of the most atrocious things I've heard came from male feminists (coincidentally, those I found very reasonable among them were exclusively women). Please don't put words into my mouth by implying I talked about women in general.
> If you're not a problem, then you're not being called out.
That sounds like "I'm with them, so I don't mind that". Sure, cool for you, I'm not. "Men are scum" doesn't sit right with me, and I don't believe that I'm overly defensive for no good reason or should just "listen more carefully to the complaints".
> you're accusing "every" feminist of believing that all men are evil
No, I'm not (again with the words). I'm stating what I've heard & read from feminists. I haven't talked to most or all feminists on the planet, obviously. But of the ones I did talk to, most went right down that path. As soon as I've gotten around to talking to those that I haven't yet, I'm going to update my comment and extend it to inform about my experiences with all feminists.
Ah, but what about "unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate" women? Are we "allowed" to attack them or is that 'sexist'? Everyone agrees that being unreliable, selfish and inconsiderate is not great, but using this as a character smear directed towards one single gender is just wrong, whether it's "men" or "women".
Are you an unreliable, selfish, and inconsiderate man? If the answer is yes, then it's an attack on you ... if however you work to be reliable, selfless, and considerate, then it's not an attack on you.
Surely, you have to acknowledge that throughout history, men have been quite terrible to women ... and yes, some of that exists still today. So that being the case, you _must_ understand that for many women out there, it's still a struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by some men.
Surely, you have to acknowledge that throughout history, men have been quite terrible to women ... and yes, some of that exists still today. So that being the case, you _must_ understand that for many women out there, it's still a struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by some men.
Men have been more terrible to other men. And women have also been terrible to other women, and to men. A lot of men have lived with spouses that have made their lives incredibly shitty but it was not acceptable for them to leave either.
And it is not like the traditional gender roles means "Men has it ok and women's lives are worse".
And it is not like the traditional gender roles means "Men has it ok and women's lives are worse".
"Surely, you have to acknowledge that throughout history, men have been quite terrible to women"
Yes of course but what I don't understand is why you're choosing to focus exclusively on one narrow aspect of the entire history of human cruelty. Men have been at least as terrible to other men as they have ever been to women. And women are not without the ability to be cruel either. Are you suggesting that it's OK for men to be terrible to other men but women should be a proctected group? That is already largely the case according to my understanding of western Judeo-Christian tradition.
"You _must_ understand that for many women out there, it's still a struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by some men.
Again, why focus on such a narrow aspect of the problem? The vast majority of men also struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by 'some men'.
Yes of course but what I don't understand is why you're choosing to focus exclusively on one narrow aspect of the entire history of human cruelty. Men have been at least as terrible to other men as they have ever been to women. And women are not without the ability to be cruel either. Are you suggesting that it's OK for men to be terrible to other men but women should be a proctected group? That is already largely the case according to my understanding of western Judeo-Christian tradition.
"You _must_ understand that for many women out there, it's still a struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by some men.
Again, why focus on such a narrow aspect of the problem? The vast majority of men also struggle to live their life in a way that is not negatively influenced by 'some men'.
Well, surely being either reliable, unselfish, or considerate will suffice. Fortunately, as someone notoriously unreliable and selfish, being considerate seems to be enough.
IMO complaints like this, and modern feminism aren’t about “men are bad” they’re about s lack of power that women have relative to men in the existing system, which leads to an inability to determine their futures and live free.
[deleted]
But people are not agreeing about the causes of the problems or the solutions. So if you say "Yeah, but I'm not talking about all white people" you should be able to exchange that to "black" instead and still not be racist for it not to be racist for example.
People are very similar. It is nice to find a common enemy and it is nice to generalize. So on 4chan people analyze and find that black people are the problem and generalize about black people and in certain groups people find that white men are the problem and tend to generalize about white men.
People are very similar. It is nice to find a common enemy and it is nice to generalize. So on 4chan people analyze and find that black people are the problem and generalize about black people and in certain groups people find that white men are the problem and tend to generalize about white men.
Miner49er(3)
> I volunteer a tremendous amount in education, where I’m the only male I generally even see in my field, and I constantly have to listen to my coworkers gleefully talk about how excited they are at how few young boys show up to our events. I hear them blatantly express disdain when a couple do.
How is this different than someone saying "I think feminists are trash, and feminists who disagree with me should take time to understand what I mean."
In other words, do you understand why what you are saying is victim blaming?
In other words, do you understand why what you are saying is victim blaming?
Miner49er(1)
bendbro(1)
I mean, you're not even wrong as far as that goes, but you might just be missing the point. "Racial privilege" is the latest variation on "bourgeois privilege", and we all know how toxic that idea was. Maybe he doesn't want to play on the Maoist team, or be its "ally". That's okay too. No one should be forced to deal with that kind of toxic, negative messaging.
Where do you live that has this attitude? Perhaps you could relocate to someplace more friendly. I live in the southern U.S., volunteered in a majority womens group and never heard comments approaching anything like what you described. Everyone was very welcoming and nice. Try a different industry or location. You don’t have any obligation to put up with being insulted.
You live in Seattle, don't you? The reason I ask is because I feel more or less the same way.
I wake up at 6 am so that I can volunteer as a teaching assistant for public school CS classes.
I work with a dog rescue, spending weekends cleaning poop out of kennels and walking dogs.
And yet, native Seattleites will still accuse me of ruining "their" city. I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community. They just sit on their asses and complain on social media.
I wake up at 6 am so that I can volunteer as a teaching assistant for public school CS classes.
I work with a dog rescue, spending weekends cleaning poop out of kennels and walking dogs.
And yet, native Seattleites will still accuse me of ruining "their" city. I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community. They just sit on their asses and complain on social media.
> And yet, native Seattleites will still accuse me of ruining "their" city.
If you listen to them, their complaints are likely not that "there's too much dog poop" and "kids these days just don't know enough cs" but rather "money is making the city unlivable for those not connected to tech".
> I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community. They just sit on their asses and complain on social media.
You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of. Besides, effort is a really poor metric for measuring the effect you have on the world.
If you listen to them, their complaints are likely not that "there's too much dog poop" and "kids these days just don't know enough cs" but rather "money is making the city unlivable for those not connected to tech".
> I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community. They just sit on their asses and complain on social media.
You're literally doing the same thing you're accusing them of. Besides, effort is a really poor metric for measuring the effect you have on the world.
> If you listen to them, their complaints are likely not that "there's too much dog poop" and "kids these days just don't know enough cs" but rather "money is making the city unlivable for those not connected to tech".
These same people rail against the inequality and exclusivity of the tech industry, and the borders which are drawn around socioeconomic, racial, and gender lines. I am making a significant personal sacrifice to mitigate this issue for future generations by providing the exact CS mentorship and guidance that these people are (rightfully) complaining that they lack. I have directly seen the effects of my efforts on these kids, including a few who have gone on to gasp study CS! In a few short years, they may even be my co-workers, and have completely broken out of the cycle of poverty.
Knowing the positive impact I have had on other peoples lives, and my community at large is a beautiful thing, and I am certain that it outweighs however much my presence is "driving up housing prices" (I live on the east side anyway, so it's a moot point regardless).
Your reflexive dismissal of this not-insignificant contribution and refusal to acknowledge the point being made here is unfortunate. But way to try to reduce this to "there's too much dog poop". You've provided HN readers with a prime example of manipulative framing and intellectual dishonesty.
These same people rail against the inequality and exclusivity of the tech industry, and the borders which are drawn around socioeconomic, racial, and gender lines. I am making a significant personal sacrifice to mitigate this issue for future generations by providing the exact CS mentorship and guidance that these people are (rightfully) complaining that they lack. I have directly seen the effects of my efforts on these kids, including a few who have gone on to gasp study CS! In a few short years, they may even be my co-workers, and have completely broken out of the cycle of poverty.
Knowing the positive impact I have had on other peoples lives, and my community at large is a beautiful thing, and I am certain that it outweighs however much my presence is "driving up housing prices" (I live on the east side anyway, so it's a moot point regardless).
Your reflexive dismissal of this not-insignificant contribution and refusal to acknowledge the point being made here is unfortunate. But way to try to reduce this to "there's too much dog poop". You've provided HN readers with a prime example of manipulative framing and intellectual dishonesty.
> I am making a significant personal sacrifice to mitigate this issue for future generations by providing the exact CS mentorship and guidance that these people are (rightfully) complaining that they lack.
I'm sure the people being displaced by tech workers are warmed by this thought. If I am being reductive and manipulative, it is at least as reductive and manipulative to compare the problem of diversity in tech to the problem of capital rapidly gentrifying and displacing people.
I am grateful you provide to the community, but this attitude of "I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community." is incredibly toxic and narcissistic.
I'm sure the people being displaced by tech workers are warmed by this thought. If I am being reductive and manipulative, it is at least as reductive and manipulative to compare the problem of diversity in tech to the problem of capital rapidly gentrifying and displacing people.
I am grateful you provide to the community, but this attitude of "I doubt that most of these people make a fraction of the amount of effort that I do to contribute to the community." is incredibly toxic and narcissistic.
>And yet, native Seattleites will still accuse me of ruining "their" city.
When?
Do they come up to you and point fingers and blame you?
Are they your friends or just strangers?
Why do you care what they think at all?
When?
Do they come up to you and point fingers and blame you?
Are they your friends or just strangers?
Why do you care what they think at all?
Everyone has to deal with the particular voices in their head. Women, men, genderqueer, whatever color; the voices in our head tailor themselves to attack our own particular worries, because they're part of us.
You have a part of you that is aware of the random lucky breaks you've gotten in life, which might not have been lucky in other times or places. That's a fine thing -- it's useful. But then you've got a part of you that takes that further and makes you feel undeserving, or makes you pick up and amplify on comments that resonate with that feeling of attack. Why?
To go back to the article, etc., do you have countervailing messages in your life, from family for instance?
I'm someone currently organizing a bunch of STEM outreach events for the summer, and I truly value my white dude allies who are volunteering, connecting me with speakers using their networks, asking their corporate overlords to fund us, and so on.
There is a ton of negativity in the world, as you alluded to, and we all pick up on the messages that are designed to hit us. This is a human problem, and you're not alone.
You have a part of you that is aware of the random lucky breaks you've gotten in life, which might not have been lucky in other times or places. That's a fine thing -- it's useful. But then you've got a part of you that takes that further and makes you feel undeserving, or makes you pick up and amplify on comments that resonate with that feeling of attack. Why?
To go back to the article, etc., do you have countervailing messages in your life, from family for instance?
I'm someone currently organizing a bunch of STEM outreach events for the summer, and I truly value my white dude allies who are volunteering, connecting me with speakers using their networks, asking their corporate overlords to fund us, and so on.
There is a ton of negativity in the world, as you alluded to, and we all pick up on the messages that are designed to hit us. This is a human problem, and you're not alone.
> Everyone has to deal with the particular voices in their head.
The "voices in their head" that are other people's voices?
The "voices in their head" that are other people's voices?
You pick up on some of them. How often do you feel bad about your thigh gap, or lack thereof? It's someone else's comment that you amplify or don't based on your circumstances. How often do you worry about the quality of the embroidery for your trousseau? Guessing not, because it's just not a thing today. How often do you worry that you're evil because you're a white male? How often do you worry that you're a slut and will go to hell?
You're probably not affected by the ads for skin-whitening creams aimed at dark-skinned women. You probably are more affected by the ads that insinuate your pecs aren't big enough. We amplify the negative messages from outside that hit us where we live.
You're probably not affected by the ads for skin-whitening creams aimed at dark-skinned women. You probably are more affected by the ads that insinuate your pecs aren't big enough. We amplify the negative messages from outside that hit us where we live.
> You pick up on some of them
Sure. My question was more to the point that the parent post wasn't about an unhealthy internal monologue, but about other people.
Letting your internal voice run wild with negative emotions is a problem, but it's very different from dealing with the words of other people. A black woman listening to people around her saying that black women are worthless and that it's a blessing that fewer of them are around nowadays doesn't have a problem with her inner voice amplifying insecurities, she has a problem with actually existing racists around her.
Sure. My question was more to the point that the parent post wasn't about an unhealthy internal monologue, but about other people.
Letting your internal voice run wild with negative emotions is a problem, but it's very different from dealing with the words of other people. A black woman listening to people around her saying that black women are worthless and that it's a blessing that fewer of them are around nowadays doesn't have a problem with her inner voice amplifying insecurities, she has a problem with actually existing racists around her.
Absolutely. These voices have been called "the superego" but lately you might also hear "the voices of inner critics". In some traditions they are referred to as "the adversary", "the liar", "the devil", "the oppressor". People who fall into the void of schizotypal disorders often hear these voices very literally, and are unable to recognize them as their own inner projections of societal judgements. These internalized voices usually miss the point of what external critics are actually saying. They are echos of other peoples voices, cast in the form of our deepest, most ruthless fears and doubts.
That's not to say that people don't go around actually saying awful bigoted things. They do. They have forever. It's up to each of us to sort through them, to listen to them with courage, to protect and care for ourselves in spite of them. And if we truly care about stopping this pain, it's up to each of us to learn how to avoid reacting to external hate with our own flagrant shit.
People of color and poor people have been listening to bigoted lies and hatred for a long time now.
If you want to learn how to care for yourself in the face of internalized hatred, there are so many leaders who have led the way. Martin Luther King helped me. I've also found a lot of understanding from Krista Tippett's podcast "On Being."
'White people' are now compelled to hear a kind of racialized hatred that many have been largely insulated from until now. Maybe it's the internet? Maybe it's the politics? Either way, hate is out here in force right now and it spares no one, not even white people.
That's not to say that people don't go around actually saying awful bigoted things. They do. They have forever. It's up to each of us to sort through them, to listen to them with courage, to protect and care for ourselves in spite of them. And if we truly care about stopping this pain, it's up to each of us to learn how to avoid reacting to external hate with our own flagrant shit.
People of color and poor people have been listening to bigoted lies and hatred for a long time now.
If you want to learn how to care for yourself in the face of internalized hatred, there are so many leaders who have led the way. Martin Luther King helped me. I've also found a lot of understanding from Krista Tippett's podcast "On Being."
'White people' are now compelled to hear a kind of racialized hatred that many have been largely insulated from until now. Maybe it's the internet? Maybe it's the politics? Either way, hate is out here in force right now and it spares no one, not even white people.
Where the hell do you live that you not only experience this but experience it enough that it affects your mental health. I've lived in multiple states, worked for multiple companies and I've yet to experience either the extreme SJW, or the extreme bigotry/racism side of things.
It's not a problem for you, and therefore not a problem, amiright?
which is why i'm asking him where he lives...
If you feel that these voices are stupid or even callous, why can't you just see that as that, and prompty ignore them? You're not the problem, they are.
It's more problematic if you're depressed at the state of the world, i.e. that so many people voice wrong and hurtful convictions - that I can somewhat sympathise with.
It's more problematic if you're depressed at the state of the world, i.e. that so many people voice wrong and hurtful convictions - that I can somewhat sympathise with.
Don't try to win over people by appeasing them, it won't work and you'll hate yourself in the end. Helping those in need is great, but you need to do it in a way that doesn't burn you out. It sounds like that's the route you're on.
>I constantly have to listen to my coworkers gleefully talk about how excited they are at how few young boys show up to our events. I hear them blatantly express disdain when a couple do.
This is not appropriate behavior. There’s no excuse for discriminating against children.
It’s okay to be bothered by this. It’s okay to call people out when they do this. In practice you need to be extremely polite and patient, and offer measured criticisms.
This is not appropriate behavior. There’s no excuse for discriminating against children.
It’s okay to be bothered by this. It’s okay to call people out when they do this. In practice you need to be extremely polite and patient, and offer measured criticisms.
Rise up over that bs. Something is wrong with the world, not with you.
> I am everything wrong with the world because I am an evil, cis, white, monogamous, straight male.
Maybe work on the part about being evil. The rest of the the things you listed grant you an advantage in life even today.
Maybe work on the part about being evil. The rest of the the things you listed grant you an advantage in life even today.
Who calls you a devil? Can you name any explicit times when people have mentioned or acted in a way regarding your sexuality/gender/profession?
Go to a different volunteer place. This one sounds kinda fun by assholes.
Find some people that appreciate you, and leave the ungrateful ones to rot in their own venom. Life is too short to give the time of day to people that just want to tear you down. Like the horse in Animal Farm, if you give more, they'll take more, until you are nothing but a bitter, worn out husk.
where do you live ? why are you satan because you work in tech ?
Yes but are you able to say you have a friendship on an equal ground with trust going on with any of the homeless you help out? To the extent that you use euphemisms to explain their homeless situation?
Stick with it, there are rewards, if one of your homeless friends cooks you a meal or takes you out for your birthday or even lends you money then I think you can re-evaluate this 'helping' thing.
Also try and do things with money more as personal philanthropy, not through a structured charity. You would be surprised at how that works out. People do get back on their feet at they do pay you back. It can be important for them to do so because you were that person there for them when nobody else was.
It is possible to be white, male, cis-gendered, educated, able to earn money and still be treated as a world citizen. Intellect is universally appreciated, but it has to come with listening and willingness. People of all walks of life from all over the globe should be able to sense a happiness and peace that you have deep within, to get this within seconds of meeting you.
You could be spending your time with the upwardly mobile, going places crowd. Or you could give up your time to be best buddies with that elderly guy who can't remember what he did two minutes ago. Or some homeless local. In normal upwardly mobile society that would be a shameful thing to do - waste time on the 'weak'. Your rotten coworkers are stuck in this paradigm.
So you have to do things for your own motivations and ignore the crowd. There also has to be some reward in it for you. Seeing someone get their health back and their sense of being back is pretty good, particularly if you can look back on it and not be able to take any credit, with them having done it all themselves. Same in the educational setting, you should be able to reflect and realise they did whatever it was.
There is a difference between 'help' and 'enabling'. Receiving is also important, if your homeless buddy makes you something or pays you back (when some random grandparent dies) then that is more like it. Obviously you cannot take gifts from senile old folk because they don't know what they are doing!!!
Sometimes the personal philanthropy budget can grow rather than shrink. This is not a given, but people do get insurance payouts, fluffy animals can turn out to be insured and people do move on in their lives to not need the same material stuff. The more audacious you are with transformative sums with zero strings attached then the more likely it is that you will get calls out the blue with random Christmasesque paybacks.
You talk of feeling depressed and lonely, if you were to be realistic about the world then you could think that this is actually a fair and realistic sentiment.
I think you will feel a lot happier if you move from formal charity things to personal philanthropy projects. Long term commitment to two people at a time is more the idea rather than turning up once a year at Christmas time to dole out sub standard food to the 'less fortunate'. (Not saying you do that conscience-buying charidy thing).
Right now you could take on some co-worker's loser teenage child and give them some data entry work and the space to grow a bit. Give it time and they could be the child your co-worker is most proud of, to go on to get the exams and everything. With one of your homeless buddies you could put together a single page website for their dog walking business, doing the SEO and picking up useful skills in design that would not be allowed in the day job. Just apply the hacker mentality.
Stick with it, there are rewards, if one of your homeless friends cooks you a meal or takes you out for your birthday or even lends you money then I think you can re-evaluate this 'helping' thing.
Also try and do things with money more as personal philanthropy, not through a structured charity. You would be surprised at how that works out. People do get back on their feet at they do pay you back. It can be important for them to do so because you were that person there for them when nobody else was.
It is possible to be white, male, cis-gendered, educated, able to earn money and still be treated as a world citizen. Intellect is universally appreciated, but it has to come with listening and willingness. People of all walks of life from all over the globe should be able to sense a happiness and peace that you have deep within, to get this within seconds of meeting you.
You could be spending your time with the upwardly mobile, going places crowd. Or you could give up your time to be best buddies with that elderly guy who can't remember what he did two minutes ago. Or some homeless local. In normal upwardly mobile society that would be a shameful thing to do - waste time on the 'weak'. Your rotten coworkers are stuck in this paradigm.
So you have to do things for your own motivations and ignore the crowd. There also has to be some reward in it for you. Seeing someone get their health back and their sense of being back is pretty good, particularly if you can look back on it and not be able to take any credit, with them having done it all themselves. Same in the educational setting, you should be able to reflect and realise they did whatever it was.
There is a difference between 'help' and 'enabling'. Receiving is also important, if your homeless buddy makes you something or pays you back (when some random grandparent dies) then that is more like it. Obviously you cannot take gifts from senile old folk because they don't know what they are doing!!!
Sometimes the personal philanthropy budget can grow rather than shrink. This is not a given, but people do get insurance payouts, fluffy animals can turn out to be insured and people do move on in their lives to not need the same material stuff. The more audacious you are with transformative sums with zero strings attached then the more likely it is that you will get calls out the blue with random Christmasesque paybacks.
You talk of feeling depressed and lonely, if you were to be realistic about the world then you could think that this is actually a fair and realistic sentiment.
I think you will feel a lot happier if you move from formal charity things to personal philanthropy projects. Long term commitment to two people at a time is more the idea rather than turning up once a year at Christmas time to dole out sub standard food to the 'less fortunate'. (Not saying you do that conscience-buying charidy thing).
Right now you could take on some co-worker's loser teenage child and give them some data entry work and the space to grow a bit. Give it time and they could be the child your co-worker is most proud of, to go on to get the exams and everything. With one of your homeless buddies you could put together a single page website for their dog walking business, doing the SEO and picking up useful skills in design that would not be allowed in the day job. Just apply the hacker mentality.
0815test(1)
>The feelings of “you’re a white male and you work in tech and you are wealthy you are a SATAN” is just becoming too much :(.
Yeah this literally doesn't happen.
Yeah this literally doesn't happen.
My biggest take away after reading this thread is that almost everyone seems to agree that there is a very significant problem, while at the same time there seems be a complete lack of universal agreement about cause(s) or cure(s). Sort of unsatisfying that way. :-|
The problem is, as far as the causes go, everyone is right and no one thinks they're wrong. My experience of the world has taught me that people shy away from complexity in favor of simple explanations. So if everyone mentioning a possible cause is, to a degree, correct, then we need to figure out what underlying systems are connecting and driving those causes.
I have a fiance and a healthy family but even then I notice I didn't have quite as many friends outside my online social chats.
My fiance became friends with a couple that i became friends with, and the husband on the other side introduced me to Disc Golf. I loved the sport, but something I found there was a community, a pretty tight one.
Disc Golf communities are local, and they build clubs around their local courses. People go out regularly to play, weekly rounds that are rated to have a friendly leaderboard, $5 to be included in the leaderboard and to add to the Ace pot. If someone gets an ace thats part of it, wins the pot. People cheer and are excited for other's great shots, aces, and so on. Its the person against the course, and everyone is supporting each other through it.
At the same time, I found new friends. I now go outside regularly into parks, hiking areas, and golf courses to play with them and meet new people.
Disc golf might not be your jam, but the little story is to say that sports, clubs, hobbies can be a huge way to reduce loneliness.
Especially the more casual sports. Bowling, Disc Golf, tennis, ball golf, etc.
You can join a local sewing club if you are into that. Book club. Barnes & Noble now hosts some run by local employees and people in the community.
Look into your hobbies, and see if you can find like minded individuals to make friends over it.
If you are a coder and thats your passion and you want to be more social, go to meetups, dev events, etc. At least here in SF there is many daily, some are reoccuring with a usual crowd.
My fiance became friends with a couple that i became friends with, and the husband on the other side introduced me to Disc Golf. I loved the sport, but something I found there was a community, a pretty tight one.
Disc Golf communities are local, and they build clubs around their local courses. People go out regularly to play, weekly rounds that are rated to have a friendly leaderboard, $5 to be included in the leaderboard and to add to the Ace pot. If someone gets an ace thats part of it, wins the pot. People cheer and are excited for other's great shots, aces, and so on. Its the person against the course, and everyone is supporting each other through it.
At the same time, I found new friends. I now go outside regularly into parks, hiking areas, and golf courses to play with them and meet new people.
Disc golf might not be your jam, but the little story is to say that sports, clubs, hobbies can be a huge way to reduce loneliness.
Especially the more casual sports. Bowling, Disc Golf, tennis, ball golf, etc.
You can join a local sewing club if you are into that. Book club. Barnes & Noble now hosts some run by local employees and people in the community.
Look into your hobbies, and see if you can find like minded individuals to make friends over it.
If you are a coder and thats your passion and you want to be more social, go to meetups, dev events, etc. At least here in SF there is many daily, some are reoccuring with a usual crowd.
Is the implication of this article that people should be having kids to avoid loneliness? Because that's a bit of a twisted reason to have kids IMHO.
"Low on friends? Have kids! They're pretty much required to be your friends." Yikes.
"Low on friends? Have kids! They're pretty much required to be your friends." Yikes.
I think what's helped me a lot are teachings by Ajahn Brahm on YouTube that touch on loneliness and how to be at peace with oneself. I've learned that I'm always with a friend - myself. Learning to be friends with oneself also helps one be friends with others for example by being generally happier and much less critical.
My life is currently more chaotic and exhausting than ever, with three young daughters and a wife in the house with me. There's not much time for doing things because I want to do them. I sometimes think about the man who was my favorite uncle growing up. He's nearly 80 now, never married, no kids. Did whatever he wanted in his 30s and 40s (and 50s and 60s for that matter) I'm sure. My mom and her sister go stay with him for a week every year.
Not saying that I couldn't end up alone at his age, but I'd like to think my kids will be around some. My mom told me once that when their mother died she (my grandmother) told my mom "Take care of your brother. He doesn't have anyone who loves him more than anyone else." Even without putting it that way, I've never regretted the chaotic, noisy, exhausting life (of sacrifice? Yeah I think so) that I've chosen.
Not saying that I couldn't end up alone at his age, but I'd like to think my kids will be around some. My mom told me once that when their mother died she (my grandmother) told my mom "Take care of your brother. He doesn't have anyone who loves him more than anyone else." Even without putting it that way, I've never regretted the chaotic, noisy, exhausting life (of sacrifice? Yeah I think so) that I've chosen.
I moved for a job that I found entirely agreeable, and after a year I still have no strong ties as a 28 y/o man. No prospects of friendship, not to mention a relationship. Participating in local boards, playing fiddle music weekly with a community group, and actively participating in my workplace’s social scene.
Beginning to come to terms with the fact that the only option I have is to move to a place where I can grow emotionally and find people that I belong with, since that’s obviously not happening here. This is a shame, since my work aligns with prime ESG metrics and although it doesn’t pay well, I have a five minute commute and access to trails, nature, camping, hunting etc. which I thoroughly take advantage of..
This is an enormous public health crisis. I feel it from the center of my being.
Beginning to come to terms with the fact that the only option I have is to move to a place where I can grow emotionally and find people that I belong with, since that’s obviously not happening here. This is a shame, since my work aligns with prime ESG metrics and although it doesn’t pay well, I have a five minute commute and access to trails, nature, camping, hunting etc. which I thoroughly take advantage of..
This is an enormous public health crisis. I feel it from the center of my being.
What's wrong with being alone? The only problem I see is for people who can't handle a certain burden (X) _being_ alone.
Perhaps a right balance can be struck, but often times it is better to be alone (X) than to be around people you have to make a certain amount of effort (Y) to be with.
Perhaps a right balance can be struck, but often times it is better to be alone (X) than to be around people you have to make a certain amount of effort (Y) to be with.
Most worthwhile things require some amount of effort.
I had this problem a few years ago but I think all my friends reached the realization at the same time as me so now we hang out all the time.
That plus MDMA every now and then and going to shows with my friends has pretty much dealt with my last few issues with socialization.
That plus MDMA every now and then and going to shows with my friends has pretty much dealt with my last few issues with socialization.
"The SDT began emerging in the West after World War II. As societies became richer and goods cheaper and more plentiful, people no longer had to rely on traditional families to afford basic needs like food and shelter. They could look up the Maslovian ladder toward “post-material” goods: self-fulfillment, exotic and erotic experiences, expressive work, education."
I think there's one more cause for the Second Demographic Transition: The majority of jobs are now in the service sector. After spending the day negotiating and putting up with others, people may want some solitude.
I think there's one more cause for the Second Demographic Transition: The majority of jobs are now in the service sector. After spending the day negotiating and putting up with others, people may want some solitude.
I don't know that it's family alone, technology is helping. You can live vicariously through your palm today by holding on to a phone. We see it when people are out and about and peering deeply into their phone as if it's the end of the world. Most people spend more time looking into their phone than talking to others. In some ways it connects us to those far away but disconnects us from those closest to us. In Japan, the hikikomori sometimes have family and yet are lonely, and lock themselves up in their room and just live through black mirrors.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell had an excellent research report as video summarizing loneliness, published earlier this year [0] with sources linking to the facts in the video [1].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA
[1]: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesloneliness/startseite
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA
[1]: https://sites.google.com/view/sourcesloneliness/startseite
I'm only 22, and moving back into my mom's house has made my life a lot better, especially while living the startup life; it's better to have somebody around who loves you unconditionally, and it's okay to be at home when you're reeel young (as long as you know you don't have to be there).
I now know it'll important to organize and integrate my next local community when I move out, or I'll probably end up lonely.
Go meet your neighbours!
I now know it'll important to organize and integrate my next local community when I move out, or I'll probably end up lonely.
Go meet your neighbours!
If anybody wants to talk/tell jokes/bullshit, hit me up: [email protected].
This is the only way we get out of this mess: take initiative as individuals to start connecting with others again. Even when (especially) we have differing opinions.
The old rules of "don't discuss religion and politics" need to be reintroduced to the social contract—step up to the plate and call others out for bringing up these topics (no matter how enticing).
This is the only way we get out of this mess: take initiative as individuals to start connecting with others again. Even when (especially) we have differing opinions.
The old rules of "don't discuss religion and politics" need to be reintroduced to the social contract—step up to the plate and call others out for bringing up these topics (no matter how enticing).
I think this has very little to do with some "decline of the family" whatever that means and more to do with the dilution of social norms.
In the past it was expected that people would attend the local church/sports club/dance/get together and everybody did it even if they didn't really want to, because it was expected and the default behaviour.
These days, there is more acceptance that the members of your community may not share your interests, so the expectation of conformance has diminished and with it the obligation to attend community events.
This is great for those of us who have a social group that they identify with, as these fill the gap. Unfortunately for those of use who's social group is online, distant or non existent then there is no option for physical world socialisation. I would expect that as each interest group becomes more focused, the tolerance for divergent attitudes within those groups is reduced.
This leaves those of us who's socialisation would have been through these default activities with the choice of doing nothing and potentially being lonely, or having to make an effort to find a group we can fit in with and who will accept us.
In the past it was expected that people would attend the local church/sports club/dance/get together and everybody did it even if they didn't really want to, because it was expected and the default behaviour.
These days, there is more acceptance that the members of your community may not share your interests, so the expectation of conformance has diminished and with it the obligation to attend community events.
This is great for those of us who have a social group that they identify with, as these fill the gap. Unfortunately for those of use who's social group is online, distant or non existent then there is no option for physical world socialisation. I would expect that as each interest group becomes more focused, the tolerance for divergent attitudes within those groups is reduced.
This leaves those of us who's socialisation would have been through these default activities with the choice of doing nothing and potentially being lonely, or having to make an effort to find a group we can fit in with and who will accept us.
Yeah. We can of course live our life in solitude. We have that choice. But the truth is that we are made so that we find someone, our SO, our life partner, so that we can grow together, love one another, help one another with the path of life, create a life together. It's not merely social conventions, it's deeply engrained in ourselves. Some will disagree of course, but to live alone is to miss on life imo.
Guys, just start reading fiction. It's like having a conversation with someone super smart and super relatable. You'll get hooked once you find something that fits your subconscious, but don't settle until you do. (I've been really digging Richard Yates and Thomas Mann lately, so maybe start there if you need inspiration. Murakami is also a famously great read if you need a companion.)
I think it's not uncommon for people to experience loneliness because of the insularity of certain conventional styles of family (especially nuclear family, but even of extended family). Various forms of chosen family are too often taboo or devalued against more exclusive "proper" forms of family. In spite of this article's allusion, nuclear family has such strong privilege over alternative, less biologically immediate forms of kinship and community, and it's so easy for it to wipe them out altogether.
From my point of view, intensely idealized, exclusive biological family models are inherently lonely, as too often they marginalize and preclude opportunities for us to explore deeply our broader human kinship with one another.
My experience has been that various organic communities have given me some of the most wonderful joy. My own nuclear family wouldn't have survived, time and time again, if it weren't for each of our larger chosen families, and for our acceptance of each others' chosen families.
From my point of view, intensely idealized, exclusive biological family models are inherently lonely, as too often they marginalize and preclude opportunities for us to explore deeply our broader human kinship with one another.
My experience has been that various organic communities have given me some of the most wonderful joy. My own nuclear family wouldn't have survived, time and time again, if it weren't for each of our larger chosen families, and for our acceptance of each others' chosen families.
> Lonely-death cleaning companies promise to be a good investment in Japan. The culture’s legendary filial piety has gone the way of the samurai; children and grandchildren are often too busy or far away for regular visiting
Me and my partner have to divide our time between visiting four different families since our parents were both single parents. We usually take a summer vacation and a winter vacation, so that means each family really only gets to be visited by us once every two years.
When it comes time to care for them as "old folks" I have no idea what we're going to do. We're basiclly the only people in our family with the financial capacity to support our parents and/or siblings... And I'm not alone in this, there's millions of Americans in the same position. I guess we better start removing systems that support traditional families (e.g. support for single family homes over apartments / co-living) and instead create "syntehtic" families that will be easier to subsidize.
Me and my partner have to divide our time between visiting four different families since our parents were both single parents. We usually take a summer vacation and a winter vacation, so that means each family really only gets to be visited by us once every two years.
When it comes time to care for them as "old folks" I have no idea what we're going to do. We're basiclly the only people in our family with the financial capacity to support our parents and/or siblings... And I'm not alone in this, there's millions of Americans in the same position. I guess we better start removing systems that support traditional families (e.g. support for single family homes over apartments / co-living) and instead create "syntehtic" families that will be easier to subsidize.
Maybe the decline of family is an effect, rather than a cause, of loneliness. It's the loss of community that's our real problem.
The individualism of the Enlightenment and the sexual revolution has gutted the meaning-making institutions of Western society. We threw out the baby with the bathwater, and are by-&-large culturally programmed to pursue individual freedom & self-actualization, while abandoning the truth that humans are tribal creatures.
This is one of the reason I married into a (liberal) middle eastern family: while we have enough room for our own when we need it, the traditional family ties are so strong that it is impossible to get sick from loneliness. I'd rather be stressed from too many people around me than being alone, western style.
From what I've seen, there're 3 kind of people that deal with loneliness differently:
1) The average social people, they had grown up in social contexts, more or less, given as granted, so loneliness is more of a pain point.
2) The socially disconnected people by choice or experience, they had grown up like 1) people but after an event or experience they disconnected(implicitly or explicitly) their minds from the social/cultural/(and sometimes identity) contexts that they got used through their lifetime, so loneliness is, more or less, painless, because at this point your deeper existential self is on spot.
3) The socially disconnected people born with clinical syndromes that physically make their minds, really hard or impossible, achieve a basic perception task as connecting/learning from social clues, through a lifetime.
I'm from the 2nd kind.
1) The average social people, they had grown up in social contexts, more or less, given as granted, so loneliness is more of a pain point.
2) The socially disconnected people by choice or experience, they had grown up like 1) people but after an event or experience they disconnected(implicitly or explicitly) their minds from the social/cultural/(and sometimes identity) contexts that they got used through their lifetime, so loneliness is, more or less, painless, because at this point your deeper existential self is on spot.
3) The socially disconnected people born with clinical syndromes that physically make their minds, really hard or impossible, achieve a basic perception task as connecting/learning from social clues, through a lifetime.
I'm from the 2nd kind.
Yup, sounds about right, decry the death of the multi generational home then decry boomerang kids then decry people living alone.
Multigenerational housing is all fun and games until you're somehow nonconforming enough for it to be palpable. I feel like people aching for multigenerational housing really don't know the downsides of those arrangements.
Yeah the people pushing all these different ideologies basically engineered a culture to be like this. With various ideologies replacing religion (which are themselves really modern religions) that don't really work out the implications of their ideas in any sort of consistent system... instead down with this and down with that, and sure individually those things might be bad but they form some sort of coherent system and when you get rid of a part of that system the whole thing falls apart.
My experience was that established religions got hungry for tithing and thus optimized their messages with new ideas that ignore tolerance and abuse pluralism. Former adherents are more than excused to dissociate with groups that lack transparency, foster cultures of abuse, or otherwise require rigid in-/out-group splits.
The new world views you refer to that former religious adherents adopt aren't usually terribly radical, and it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions or even spirituality. Much improvement over the new cults of the 1970s.
The new world views you refer to that former religious adherents adopt aren't usually terribly radical, and it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions or even spirituality. Much improvement over the new cults of the 1970s.
> My experience was that established religions got hungry for tithing and thus optimized their messages with new ideas that ignore tolerance and abuse pluralism.
Monotheism is against pluralism where polytheism was not. That was there from the monotheist revolution.
> it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions
No it's not. Just go listen to what Harari says in his book Sapiens. Ideologies like Feminism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, etc, are all parts of a modern syncretic religion and their adherents are syncretic believers that mix and match different ideologies to fit their tastes. It's just a bald faced lie that these things are so much different from the stuff they replaced. Buddhism has no necessary Gods as don't some forms of Hinduism.
https://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/
Monotheism is against pluralism where polytheism was not. That was there from the monotheist revolution.
> it's a thought-terminating pitfall to call them religions
No it's not. Just go listen to what Harari says in his book Sapiens. Ideologies like Feminism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Humanism, etc, are all parts of a modern syncretic religion and their adherents are syncretic believers that mix and match different ideologies to fit their tastes. It's just a bald faced lie that these things are so much different from the stuff they replaced. Buddhism has no necessary Gods as don't some forms of Hinduism.
https://www.ynharari.com/topic/science-and-religion/
Respectfully, I disagree with Harari's broad classification(s). As one who has left a high-demand religion in adulthood, I'm keenly aware what the exercise of dogma as a worldview looks and feels like.
A high-demand religion I would guess would be some sort of fringe cult? If so within every one of the modern religions/ideologies there are similar fringe cults that are hate-filled with dogma for everyone else not in line with their ideology. Some feminists hate all men, some communists hate all Capitalists and everything must be done according to Communist dogma even when it's clear that it does not work... etc. The mainstream is usually not what the experience of a fringe cult within that ideology is.
> high-demand religion I would guess would be some sort of fringe cult?
Typically less fringe than you may think. Quoting "Visualizing the Transition Out of High-Demand Religions":
> Subjects include disaffiliated Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Protestants
Typically these groups express many of the same characteristics as "mainstream" religions due to their age, and share the same elements driving religious decline.
Typically less fringe than you may think. Quoting "Visualizing the Transition Out of High-Demand Religions":
> Subjects include disaffiliated Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Protestants
Typically these groups express many of the same characteristics as "mainstream" religions due to their age, and share the same elements driving religious decline.
calling ideologies religions is such a blanket statement that it makes no sense once you actually think about it.
Humans, not thinking abut the ramifications of their actions since, well, forever. Could these changes and fractures be compared to past religious reformation movements? Reformers always like denouncing things.
Luckily for future generations humans are fairly adaptable and I'm sure the rich will be just fine.
Luckily for future generations humans are fairly adaptable and I'm sure the rich will be just fine.
I don't think it's a very good analogy. Martin Luther didn't blame early Christians that medieval Catholicism failed to look sufficiently like early Christianity; however, that's roughly what we see today--third-wave feminism wants something that looks very alike chivalry (esp with regard to sexual purity, women as inherently moral and men as inherently immoral, deference to women, etc) and blames traditionalists (not first-wave feminists) that we live in a less chivalrous world. I'm sure this observation will be unpopular; hopefully it at least sparks some interesting debate.
Analogies are never that great and I think it only works as a reminder that we have and, are continuing to evolve and change in many facets as a global cooperative group of individuals.
The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals. Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
'we live in a less chivalrous world'
chivalrous - adjective - (of a man or his behavior) courteous and gallant, especially toward women
Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals. Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
'we live in a less chivalrous world'
chivalrous - adjective - (of a man or his behavior) courteous and gallant, especially toward women
Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
> The observation does nothing to further the debate because it assumes a broad unified opinion about a group of individuals
These objections are exhausting. Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization. Generalizations are the only way we can reasonably describe large groups of people. In this case, the individuals in question are more or less defined by this shared opinion, so it's definitely a fair, constructive observation.
> Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
I don't know what a "third wave lesbian" is. Also, to be clear, I doubt any third-wave feminist would say they want chivalry; but when you look at the things they advocate for ("believe all women", etc) and how they treat each gender, it looks like chivalry taken to extremes.
> Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview. Note that this isn't a criticism of any particular worldview.
> Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
Sure. I'm only making observations about different worldviews, not prescribing any particular worldview.
These objections are exhausting. Yes, there are exceptions to every generalization. Generalizations are the only way we can reasonably describe large groups of people. In this case, the individuals in question are more or less defined by this shared opinion, so it's definitely a fair, constructive observation.
> Do third wave lesbians want chivalry?
I don't know what a "third wave lesbian" is. Also, to be clear, I doubt any third-wave feminist would say they want chivalry; but when you look at the things they advocate for ("believe all women", etc) and how they treat each gender, it looks like chivalry taken to extremes.
> Could just live in a more courteous and gallant world and leave out the gendered nonsense?
Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview. Note that this isn't a criticism of any particular worldview.
> Also the idea that a specific gender is inherently moral / immoral is also ridiculous generalization and shouldn't be made my anyone.
Sure. I'm only making observations about different worldviews, not prescribing any particular worldview.
It is exhausting, but isn't not an objection, it is fact. You have to meet people where they are if you ever hope to know them. Using a single label, in this case 'third-wave', to describe someone is so incomplete and I would disabuse you of thinking about people this way.
"believe all women" is a slogan. Slogans are handy because they save time. They are easy to chant. They build unity. If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
> Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview.
I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
"believe all women" is a slogan. Slogans are handy because they save time. They are easy to chant. They build unity. If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
> Sure we can, but it's not consistent with a traditional or third-wave-feminist worldview.
I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
> It is exhausting, but isn't not an objection, it is fact. You have to meet people where they are if you ever hope to know them. Using a single label, in this case 'third-wave', to describe someone is so incomplete and I would disabuse you of thinking about people this way.
"Generalization" doesn't mean that you believe the observation is true for exactly every individual in the group. That a generalization doesn't hold for every individual in the group doesn't imply that generalization isn't useful. Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?
> If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
Many variations of the same theme.
> I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
"Generalization" doesn't mean that you believe the observation is true for exactly every individual in the group. That a generalization doesn't hold for every individual in the group doesn't imply that generalization isn't useful. Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?
> If you were to ask 100 'feminists' what does believe all women mean to you, there would be many answers.
Many variations of the same theme.
> I never said I wanted a traditional or a third wave world, just kinder; there are other options.
You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
> Now can we be done errantly nitpicking well-established semantics?
These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.
> Many variations of the same theme.
Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
> You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
I thought you were suggesting that only one or the other could exist, or that I needed to choose one.
These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.
> Many variations of the same theme.
Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
> You're agreeing with me rather aggressively. I didn't claim or imply that you wanted any particular kind of world.
I thought you were suggesting that only one or the other could exist, or that I needed to choose one.
> These semantics are mental shortcuts that are harmful in this case to actually solving the problems we face. They frame the issue narrowly, which leads to a single viewpoint coloring the entire population.
The population is largely defined by that fairly narrow viewpoint. Generalizing isn’t harmful for people who understand the term, and I won’t pander to those who don’t.
> Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
I disagree with the central theme—that gender is useful and perhaps even primary for establishing credibility and/or guilt. Theoretically some women may have used the slogan to mean “pizza is delicious”, in which case I would have to agree, but this falls well outside of the normal parameters of communication and sentiment (which have regrettably been challenged too often already over the course of this conversation).
The population is largely defined by that fairly narrow viewpoint. Generalizing isn’t harmful for people who understand the term, and I won’t pander to those who don’t.
> Do you agree/disagree with all of them?
I disagree with the central theme—that gender is useful and perhaps even primary for establishing credibility and/or guilt. Theoretically some women may have used the slogan to mean “pizza is delicious”, in which case I would have to agree, but this falls well outside of the normal parameters of communication and sentiment (which have regrettably been challenged too often already over the course of this conversation).
This is why I've never lived alone. I always either lived with family, lived with roommates, or recently, lived with my girlfriend. I'm not the most proactively social person and if I didn't live with people then I know I'd definitely get too lonely.
I'm moving to an entirely different city for the first time in my life, moving into an apartment for the first time in my life (not including student studios as I am incredible fortunate with my parents). I look at it both ways:
On the one hand, in my mind I have to take every possible opportunity that presents itself. You're not living when you say no to everything and I'm pretty easy to convince when my friends are going places. Last night I asked whether someone was up for getting something to eat, planning on returning and studying after again. Though I ended up staying and meeting a dozen new people. You're never going to discover life when you don't leave your comfort bubble.
Then on the other hand I am afraid. I barely know anyone where I'm going, those I do know are older than me so I'm not really inclined on "hanging" with them like I "hang" with my people of my age (early twenties). (I hate the verb to hang, but eh.) In my mind I'll figure it out and get some new friends. Ever since I moved to a student apartment/room I've changed significantly. I've made it a habit to cook for new people I know: at the start of the year I invite everyone over for dinner or I playfully mention to some new people I know that they should come over someday and I'll cook for them, most of them are very much inclined to say yes. It'll be harder in the big city where I'm going to be living as I'm currently living in a much smaller city where I bike everywhere and there is a huge amount of students. I'm in multiple student unions or clubs so I get to meet new people that way as well.
So in the end I feel like the best moments in life is when you're afraid. It means you're actually living, taking on what is to come. Most of my good memories are because I'm afraid and it turns out great. When I don't overcome that fear and don't go out for example, I almost always regret it and then I've missed out. So in the end, I'm very excited to move to an entirely new city as well :).
For those who are wondering, I'm moving to London.
On the one hand, in my mind I have to take every possible opportunity that presents itself. You're not living when you say no to everything and I'm pretty easy to convince when my friends are going places. Last night I asked whether someone was up for getting something to eat, planning on returning and studying after again. Though I ended up staying and meeting a dozen new people. You're never going to discover life when you don't leave your comfort bubble.
Then on the other hand I am afraid. I barely know anyone where I'm going, those I do know are older than me so I'm not really inclined on "hanging" with them like I "hang" with my people of my age (early twenties). (I hate the verb to hang, but eh.) In my mind I'll figure it out and get some new friends. Ever since I moved to a student apartment/room I've changed significantly. I've made it a habit to cook for new people I know: at the start of the year I invite everyone over for dinner or I playfully mention to some new people I know that they should come over someday and I'll cook for them, most of them are very much inclined to say yes. It'll be harder in the big city where I'm going to be living as I'm currently living in a much smaller city where I bike everywhere and there is a huge amount of students. I'm in multiple student unions or clubs so I get to meet new people that way as well.
So in the end I feel like the best moments in life is when you're afraid. It means you're actually living, taking on what is to come. Most of my good memories are because I'm afraid and it turns out great. When I don't overcome that fear and don't go out for example, I almost always regret it and then I've missed out. So in the end, I'm very excited to move to an entirely new city as well :).
For those who are wondering, I'm moving to London.
A contrarian opinion to this narrative of loneliness:
While the American dream has likely contributed to the epidemic of loneliness, it has also introduced many more options for reversing the trend: - Large amount of wealth and high level of safety to make it easier to raise families - High mobility and communication technology allows for individuals to easily group together, while more easily maintaining distant relationships - Many foster care and adoption options for those who cannot or do not wish to have biological children
Additionally, all of our freedom allows us to solve the loneliness epidemic is a highly humanitarian manner, such as through foster care and adoption, and freedom to form families.
While the American dream has likely contributed to the epidemic of loneliness, it has also introduced many more options for reversing the trend: - Large amount of wealth and high level of safety to make it easier to raise families - High mobility and communication technology allows for individuals to easily group together, while more easily maintaining distant relationships - Many foster care and adoption options for those who cannot or do not wish to have biological children
Additionally, all of our freedom allows us to solve the loneliness epidemic is a highly humanitarian manner, such as through foster care and adoption, and freedom to form families.
Someone posted in another similar thread on loneliness that volunteering was a great cure. Build social connections, shift to 'other' focus, contribute to something outside of yourself. Seemed like a perfect solution.
Going in the opposite direction, this means it's generally becoming more likely for the people you meet (even if you meet very briefly) to not have any real close friends, people to hang out with, etc. Therefore, if you're feeling lonely yourself, it sounds like a great idea to ask a bunch of people you meet to all hang out together. It might give everyone some relief.
I've been on the fence about trying to put together a friend group and see who fits at my new workplace, since I started with a bunch of other newbies that seemed relatively nervous. I think I'll ask them if they wanna hang out.
I've been on the fence about trying to put together a friend group and see who fits at my new workplace, since I started with a bunch of other newbies that seemed relatively nervous. I think I'll ask them if they wanna hang out.
I used to get a bit lonely. For 10 years I tried to get a girlfriend. It took forever, but eventually I finally succeeded. anyways, we eventually got married and even had a kid. Now, I never feel lonely.
Question to the HN crowd: How do you feel about choosing one's own family, as is a common phenomenon among the LGBTQIA+ community (who are more at risk of family rejecting them?)
True. But it's great for the economy.
When a family splits, that means 2x everything (e.g., sofa, dishes, TV, etc.) Same goes for the social "norm" that adults above 25 y/o (?) should live alone (if they're not married).
The issue is, not only is this counter to long-established human (emotional) needs, but it is resource intensive as well. Put another way, we're bringing Mother Nature to her knees, and we're too depressed about ourselves to care about her.
What could go wrong?
When a family splits, that means 2x everything (e.g., sofa, dishes, TV, etc.) Same goes for the social "norm" that adults above 25 y/o (?) should live alone (if they're not married).
The issue is, not only is this counter to long-established human (emotional) needs, but it is resource intensive as well. Put another way, we're bringing Mother Nature to her knees, and we're too depressed about ourselves to care about her.
What could go wrong?
Also with both parents working the labor pool has essentially doubled over the last 50-60 years. And people wonder why their parents could raise a family on one income but they cannot. Obviously there are many factors at play of which this phenomenon is just one.
True. But I think a big factor is housing. The home I grew up in (only my father drew a salary) is small by today's standards. But again, get a bigger home today, and then fill it with more shit.
People (read: their egos) are their own worst enemy. If you resist the status quo and "the Jones" it's not as bad. Perhaps not the same as before, but not as bad who tend to live beyond their means.
People (read: their egos) are their own worst enemy. If you resist the status quo and "the Jones" it's not as bad. Perhaps not the same as before, but not as bad who tend to live beyond their means.
I still just don't find the appeal of married family life yet. Maybe itll change but if it doesn't I dont care. My creative output and need to learn have so far been part of a journey I find near orgasmic in enjoyment when I look back on how far I've come. Yes I'm an introvert but not the shy kind just the kind that needs two hours alone for every hour with people.
I live in a cabin in the woods. I rarely talk to my family, maybe once or twice a year. My kids have grown up and moved out. I only talk to coworkers when I have to, and until recently I worked remotely. I can go days without vocalizing except to the dog (who does talk back, just in dog). Life is great.
I think society is coming along nicely in the right direction.
I think society is coming along nicely in the right direction.
As convert of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints I can attest to this.
'Mormon' families do everything together, I'm amazed weekly at this 14ish years in.
Take dinner. Dinner for me growing up, until my father died just before I turned 13, would be my mother in one room - me in another - my father in a third eating dinner while we did our own things.
In jr and sr high school most Fridays it was "here's pizza money, I'll be back Sunday afternoon" (I'm not faulting my mother here, she'd call and check and was 10-15 minutes away in traffic, I was fine with her being gone so my friends and I didn't have to censor ourselves not that we'd be home other than to sleep anyway once one of us had a license) yet even back then you'd have never seen something like that with an LDS family. You'd have them eating most or all of their meals together, studying scripture together, doing activities together.
Even when kids grow up and marry they still, unless they move quite far away, often do things with their parents and siblings and it isn't uncommon to see those that have moved a state or two away to regularly drive home for long weekends, holidays, vacations etc.
These types are generally extremely happy and pleasant and will bend over backwards to help even strangers. Sure there is depression in the community but if you take them as a whole it's Ned Flanders and a bunch of my generation that doesn't have a strong family bond are an army of Eeyores.
Even if you just look at social media, for most it is "look at me, look at what I did, look at how cool I want you to think I am, give me your approval, give me your likes, give me your commons, comment and click to subscribe!" but with most LDS it is "here are a few family photos, I'm so proud of my distant relation/friend for doing thing/everyone congratulate THEM, we got a new used couch would anyone like our old one, it'd be great for a young couple?, we will be at so and so park playing a pickup game if anyone would like to bring their families and come join us".
They stress family, and appear genuinely happy more oft than not.
For me and my friends, family were people you were related to my blood and had to tolerate until you could go out on your own. A lot of my friends have unhealthy relationships and regularly seek therapy, I and my friends carefully curate our online presences to try and show our best not our normal, we sit around staring at Netflix or Hulu thinking "man, this sucks, I'm lonely, is it time to die yet, ugh I want to go get food but I don't want to eat alone... forget it I'll just order in".
When a family invites me over for FHE or dinner or to an activity, I genuinely don't want to go because it feels so foreign and I'm afraid I'll seem like more of a freak than I am. I'm so lonely that I'm afraid of being in social settings because I simply don't know what normal family dynamic is like and it just feels so alien. People have inside jokes with family members, they have fun stories and memories, they talk to their family...
My father's father was in the hospital on life support and no one told us, I found out when a friend that worked there noticed I hadn't visited and violated law by even talking to me about it and without them I'd have not even known. After his funeral a few weeks later I asked his brother some genealogy questions... he didn't even know his mother's maiden name or either of his grandmothers first names despite having known them for decades until their deaths... a few years later he died and neither of his adult children told us, I tried calling him one day to catch up and the number was disconnected and I found his obit. He lived 3~ miles from me. After my father's death, his father would only come to visit at Christmas despite living about 15 BLOCKS away and one of my father's brothers lived even closer and never came at all, I've seen him exactly twice since my father's funeral 21 years ago... worse, he had a diabetic episode a few years ago and laid on his floor for several days until a co-worker went to his house concerned that he hadn't come to work and his daughter had no idea he was even flippin' diabetic! It is no surprise to me most of my family, on both sides, had substance abuse problems and varying levels of depression, now they're nearly all dead.
My mother's mother went on life support and my mother's sisters took her off and never even told my mom she went on. This happened over a couple of days. My mother started receiving facebook messages from cousins and second cousins "so sorry for your loss"... this is how she found out her mother was dead... AFTER the funeral. Then in the same calendar year they repeated it when her father passed! Can you imagine that, you're in your 60's and your parents die and your sisters try and hide it from you, two different times mom barely got out of bed for weeks each time. Crying, depressed, feeling wholly abandoned. All because her side of the family was as dysfunctional as my father's.
When I tell this to my fellow members of the Church the look at me in horror, like I'm an alien that just landed on their lawn and ate one of their children and asked for a coke to wash them down because they value family and while they also have bad moments in life they are on average far far happier than me and my non-member friends.
'Mormon' families do everything together, I'm amazed weekly at this 14ish years in.
Take dinner. Dinner for me growing up, until my father died just before I turned 13, would be my mother in one room - me in another - my father in a third eating dinner while we did our own things.
In jr and sr high school most Fridays it was "here's pizza money, I'll be back Sunday afternoon" (I'm not faulting my mother here, she'd call and check and was 10-15 minutes away in traffic, I was fine with her being gone so my friends and I didn't have to censor ourselves not that we'd be home other than to sleep anyway once one of us had a license) yet even back then you'd have never seen something like that with an LDS family. You'd have them eating most or all of their meals together, studying scripture together, doing activities together.
Even when kids grow up and marry they still, unless they move quite far away, often do things with their parents and siblings and it isn't uncommon to see those that have moved a state or two away to regularly drive home for long weekends, holidays, vacations etc.
These types are generally extremely happy and pleasant and will bend over backwards to help even strangers. Sure there is depression in the community but if you take them as a whole it's Ned Flanders and a bunch of my generation that doesn't have a strong family bond are an army of Eeyores.
Even if you just look at social media, for most it is "look at me, look at what I did, look at how cool I want you to think I am, give me your approval, give me your likes, give me your commons, comment and click to subscribe!" but with most LDS it is "here are a few family photos, I'm so proud of my distant relation/friend for doing thing/everyone congratulate THEM, we got a new used couch would anyone like our old one, it'd be great for a young couple?, we will be at so and so park playing a pickup game if anyone would like to bring their families and come join us".
They stress family, and appear genuinely happy more oft than not.
For me and my friends, family were people you were related to my blood and had to tolerate until you could go out on your own. A lot of my friends have unhealthy relationships and regularly seek therapy, I and my friends carefully curate our online presences to try and show our best not our normal, we sit around staring at Netflix or Hulu thinking "man, this sucks, I'm lonely, is it time to die yet, ugh I want to go get food but I don't want to eat alone... forget it I'll just order in".
When a family invites me over for FHE or dinner or to an activity, I genuinely don't want to go because it feels so foreign and I'm afraid I'll seem like more of a freak than I am. I'm so lonely that I'm afraid of being in social settings because I simply don't know what normal family dynamic is like and it just feels so alien. People have inside jokes with family members, they have fun stories and memories, they talk to their family...
My father's father was in the hospital on life support and no one told us, I found out when a friend that worked there noticed I hadn't visited and violated law by even talking to me about it and without them I'd have not even known. After his funeral a few weeks later I asked his brother some genealogy questions... he didn't even know his mother's maiden name or either of his grandmothers first names despite having known them for decades until their deaths... a few years later he died and neither of his adult children told us, I tried calling him one day to catch up and the number was disconnected and I found his obit. He lived 3~ miles from me. After my father's death, his father would only come to visit at Christmas despite living about 15 BLOCKS away and one of my father's brothers lived even closer and never came at all, I've seen him exactly twice since my father's funeral 21 years ago... worse, he had a diabetic episode a few years ago and laid on his floor for several days until a co-worker went to his house concerned that he hadn't come to work and his daughter had no idea he was even flippin' diabetic! It is no surprise to me most of my family, on both sides, had substance abuse problems and varying levels of depression, now they're nearly all dead.
My mother's mother went on life support and my mother's sisters took her off and never even told my mom she went on. This happened over a couple of days. My mother started receiving facebook messages from cousins and second cousins "so sorry for your loss"... this is how she found out her mother was dead... AFTER the funeral. Then in the same calendar year they repeated it when her father passed! Can you imagine that, you're in your 60's and your parents die and your sisters try and hide it from you, two different times mom barely got out of bed for weeks each time. Crying, depressed, feeling wholly abandoned. All because her side of the family was as dysfunctional as my father's.
When I tell this to my fellow members of the Church the look at me in horror, like I'm an alien that just landed on their lawn and ate one of their children and asked for a coke to wash them down because they value family and while they also have bad moments in life they are on average far far happier than me and my non-member friends.
Good story, and good point.
I always find when I move to a new city (or perhaps become a bit despondent) a new bit of energy emerges from Meetups. Go to a few, find some interesting people, maybe learn a skill or two and enjoy the new diverse group of people. Cheers
Formerly: The decline of being single has unleashed an epidemic of claustrophobia.
I find the HN comments on an article like this fascinating. So many people that admit to not having kids who think they are experts on what it means or is like to have kids.
Coming from India, one of the things I deeply cherish about our culture is the deep family bonds we have here. Ironically, it was when I came to the US that I realized the importance of it!
JFC what do people want from life? They long for something they don't have. Ever seen a big family, full of back stabbing? Not all families are great. Be alone, enjoy the void, wtf.
One of the most inclusive, satisfying social activities - which serves as a cure for so many of a technologist's ills - is one most likely to be dismissed out-of-hand.
This activity is:
* physical and active - you're required to 'get in' your body, which for HN head-types is very healthy
* extremely inclusive: your age, height, weight, athleticism, looks, coordination, social skills, background, race, gender, sexuality are all irrelevant to participation
* social, but not social: you have to interact to some degree, but it's not necessary to be a hyper-social extrovert at all. Participants can be introverted, suffer social anxiety, or fall somewhere on a spectrum and still be a part of this community
* global: once you master it to some degree, it's easy to drop-in to many cities and towns across the world and have an instant community to interact with
* intellectual, but in a different context: it's possible to 'switch off' from your day-job problem solving, but still explore and enjoy solving in a different, 3-dimensional space
Partner dancing is predictably dismissed by so many - particularly males - as they immediately self-identify as a non-dancer with 'two left feet.'
That's a shame because, in the case of the males, the gender ratios are often reversed compared to the tech sector: there's usually always women in classes and at socials standing out waiting for the next available lead to dance with.
Also, while 'meeting someone' is possible (as in any social activity involving multiple people) if that's part of your loneliness problem, it's not the primary focus for most dance scenes, and the requirement to continually learn a skill to a level of competence quickly filters out people who misunderstand the primary focus of the community.
Those that come with the right intentions and are single do often end up 'finding someone', but that's as a secondary side-effect (and remember the filter means they don't have to deal with a scene of predatory competitors)
It's really worth stressing the inclusivity bit too: is there a more inclusive group activity than partner dancing? Nothing comes to mind. Some of the most popular dancers in communities I've been involved in have been very heavy-set, or old, or not 'good looking'.
There are so many scenes to pick from depending on your musical tastes: Brazilian Zouk, Kizomba, West Coast Swing, Tango, Salsa, Bachata, Rock N Roll and many more.
As a non-dancer who dived in a few years ago, I wish I'd given it a go a decade or two ago.
Highly recommended.
This activity is:
* physical and active - you're required to 'get in' your body, which for HN head-types is very healthy
* extremely inclusive: your age, height, weight, athleticism, looks, coordination, social skills, background, race, gender, sexuality are all irrelevant to participation
* social, but not social: you have to interact to some degree, but it's not necessary to be a hyper-social extrovert at all. Participants can be introverted, suffer social anxiety, or fall somewhere on a spectrum and still be a part of this community
* global: once you master it to some degree, it's easy to drop-in to many cities and towns across the world and have an instant community to interact with
* intellectual, but in a different context: it's possible to 'switch off' from your day-job problem solving, but still explore and enjoy solving in a different, 3-dimensional space
Partner dancing is predictably dismissed by so many - particularly males - as they immediately self-identify as a non-dancer with 'two left feet.'
That's a shame because, in the case of the males, the gender ratios are often reversed compared to the tech sector: there's usually always women in classes and at socials standing out waiting for the next available lead to dance with.
Also, while 'meeting someone' is possible (as in any social activity involving multiple people) if that's part of your loneliness problem, it's not the primary focus for most dance scenes, and the requirement to continually learn a skill to a level of competence quickly filters out people who misunderstand the primary focus of the community.
Those that come with the right intentions and are single do often end up 'finding someone', but that's as a secondary side-effect (and remember the filter means they don't have to deal with a scene of predatory competitors)
It's really worth stressing the inclusivity bit too: is there a more inclusive group activity than partner dancing? Nothing comes to mind. Some of the most popular dancers in communities I've been involved in have been very heavy-set, or old, or not 'good looking'.
There are so many scenes to pick from depending on your musical tastes: Brazilian Zouk, Kizomba, West Coast Swing, Tango, Salsa, Bachata, Rock N Roll and many more.
As a non-dancer who dived in a few years ago, I wish I'd given it a go a decade or two ago.
Highly recommended.
What if the invite is to something you really don't enjoy, and saying yes results in your sacrificing doing things that bring you joy? Is the yes rule reciprocated?
The fixation on the nuclear family and its supposed decline, is transparently reactionary ideology. The term "nuclear family" was first used in 1947 and didn't even become the most common form of household until the 1960s or so.[1] Prior to that (and still today in many less-industrialized cultures), cohabitation with extended family and communal parenting arrangements were much more common.
You could just as easily blame capitalism for making people lonely by concentrating lucrative employment opportunities in just a few cities and encouraging young people to uproot their lives and relocate for work.
[1] https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-nuclear-families/
You could just as easily blame capitalism for making people lonely by concentrating lucrative employment opportunities in just a few cities and encouraging young people to uproot their lives and relocate for work.
[1] https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-nuclear-families/
Was very lonely in my twenties, now desperate for alone time. Suppose that’s comforting or the opposite. In any case, things change so give yourself a break.
Probably the biggest draw for city life. I have an awesome huge social circle centered around performing artists (I’m a DJ on the side).
Get a social hobby and mean it!
Get a social hobby and mean it!
I legit created this app to cure all of this http://foxie.cool
The family has declined in no small part due to the increasing portion of living costs that housing has occupied for many people.
i wonder how much work life balance plays a role in this. Since we're at a point of record low work life balance maybe people simply aren't making enough time to enjoy themselves in groups? Imagine if we live in a world where people only worked 6 hours a day and spent the other 2 socializing with peers? would it make a difference?
'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (Jesus, John 13:35)
Always happy to meet strangers from the internet in Seattle (particularly downtown).
Love nerding out with fellow nerds. :)
Love nerding out with fellow nerds. :)
To me this is just another symptom of our hyper-individualistic libertarian culture. (Yes, political party fortunes aside, modern culture is increasingly libertarian:
- every person for herself
- selfishness is a virtue
- everything she does, good or bad, is all on her (meritocracy rules!, you have no one to blame but yourself)
- whatever the market pays is what she earned, even if it is 100 or 1000 times what other hard workers get (government, keep your stinking hands off MY money)
- life is transactional. (sure i can do that. what's in it for me?)
- every person for herself
- selfishness is a virtue
- everything she does, good or bad, is all on her (meritocracy rules!, you have no one to blame but yourself)
- whatever the market pays is what she earned, even if it is 100 or 1000 times what other hard workers get (government, keep your stinking hands off MY money)
- life is transactional. (sure i can do that. what's in it for me?)
Also rivalry is favored over collaboration in our not species-appropriate economy and society.
[deleted]
Wow, that was a sobering piece.
Better to be lonely sometimes than to be divorced ever IMO.
My first wife might agree with you, me? Not so much.
I'm not the same person I was 10 years ago, so why would I expect her to be the same women I fell in love with 10 years ago?
It's not a crime to change, grow, evolve; so why punish the person you are with?
I'm not the same person I was 10 years ago, so why would I expect her to be the same women I fell in love with 10 years ago?
It's not a crime to change, grow, evolve; so why punish the person you are with?
See... But I agree with you.
Which is why I'm voting to not get married ever. So far.
Which is why I'm voting to not get married ever. So far.
I'm currently on wife #2 and unsure if I am going to continue it.
I'm unhappy alone, I'm unhappy married.
Do the benefits of being married (real food) outweigh the down-side?
I don't know. I don't know if this was the right choice, I don't know if I'm destined to be miserable forever. This really sucks.
I don't know. I don't know if this was the right choice, I don't know if I'm destined to be miserable forever. This really sucks.
The fact that the only mentioned benefit of being married that you decided to name was "real food" is a giant red flag to me, lol. Sounds like you're not interested in your second wife just a vessel who can provide you things you want.
the observation
I only mean to point out that, under some circumstances that comment probably is only a result of current sentiment... which is far kinder than what i've heard from other 'happily married' folks from time to time...
I like loneliness. You avoid to listen to bullshit.
[deleted]
if you look at various surveys comparing countries outside of north america countries with no rapid colonization and urbanization like in the America, or East-Asia, people report feeling happier and less isolated. But difference between NA and EA is that NA had that European style "settling"--move out, claim your land, start a family, or divorce, repeat.
Our social DNA built for human connection, sense of belonging and family, centered around agriculture was quickly snuffed out in the West with the oncoming of Industrial Revolution, and the countries that subscribed to this model. Basically genders ended up being divided into a binary class of workers with one clearly a 2nd citizen and subsequently their social status. It used to be that women were largely limited to taking care of home and kids but with WW2's end, this has increasingly been changing.
Women from 1920s vs 2020 have drastically different liberties in socio,sexual, and economic areas. The erosion of domestic manufacturing industries through implementation of "free market" ideals where the invisible hand that moves jobs is capital itself, the cheapest and the best producer retains the capital until it cannot maintain this low cost of production, mainly through political suppression and threat of paramilitary forces of dictator. Women are repeatedly underpaid compared to men according to statistical findings, its more so that they are undervalued unconsciously by society due to its period of rapid industralization and "splitting" of genders. (fun fact: FDR used to crossdress).
Yet the latter situation with countries that has reached rapid urbanization through industrialization, this is not unique thing to North America, people in Korea and Japan are killing themselves, people are isolating themselves in urban areas, very much like the North Americas.
This social void-via-capital (jobs, capital move to cheapest cost of operations) or void-via-automation (really the same thing since automation is dirt cheap labor that gets cheaper by several folds every few years) leads to the deviation from traditional family operated around agriculture and rapid urbanization that followed high-capital industries with overseas outsourcing of manufacture, has changed the roles of the Mother or Father. This can be found in most democratic capitalist of a major economy. So is the entrance of women the culprit? If that was the case then why is it that in the Philippines, ppl aren't reporting on surveys as being less miserable or isolated as say a Brit, where many husband takes the role of rearing children while the Filipino women contribute to being the world's highest remittance destinations? Clearly it was never to do with gender being fundamentally destined for specific roles, but rather the presence of one of the parent in a child's formative years, relatively compared to absence or non-biological substitute caretakers due to unavailability of both parents due to both working or not working, has produced an increasingly self-isolated, self-caring, self-obsessed, self-exhibitionist society distracting itself through material possessions and entries in a database somewhere with arbitrarily valued "digital scores" that creates the illusion of tribal hierarchy and belonging? Or how about that we are largely rewarded for creating/contributing to products to increase the pace of this isolation?
I don't know what the solution is. But people from small town are often spooked by people not saying hello when passing by in large cities. I can feel the difference being in downtown vs rural areas. People outside of North America seem tightly integrated with their families and communities. I'm talking the super taboo thing in north america, being an adult and living with parents. Yet, its practiced in many parts of the world. I know I've been trying to get my ass out the door but honestly my addiction issues and struggling with complex post traumatic stress disorder has been crippling. Writing this probably isn't good for my job prospects. I can only hope that my SaaS makes money when it launches on Monday, so I can move out, be alone. Life is fucked and I can only hope to unfuck it a little bit at a time.
Our social DNA built for human connection, sense of belonging and family, centered around agriculture was quickly snuffed out in the West with the oncoming of Industrial Revolution, and the countries that subscribed to this model. Basically genders ended up being divided into a binary class of workers with one clearly a 2nd citizen and subsequently their social status. It used to be that women were largely limited to taking care of home and kids but with WW2's end, this has increasingly been changing.
Women from 1920s vs 2020 have drastically different liberties in socio,sexual, and economic areas. The erosion of domestic manufacturing industries through implementation of "free market" ideals where the invisible hand that moves jobs is capital itself, the cheapest and the best producer retains the capital until it cannot maintain this low cost of production, mainly through political suppression and threat of paramilitary forces of dictator. Women are repeatedly underpaid compared to men according to statistical findings, its more so that they are undervalued unconsciously by society due to its period of rapid industralization and "splitting" of genders. (fun fact: FDR used to crossdress).
Yet the latter situation with countries that has reached rapid urbanization through industrialization, this is not unique thing to North America, people in Korea and Japan are killing themselves, people are isolating themselves in urban areas, very much like the North Americas.
This social void-via-capital (jobs, capital move to cheapest cost of operations) or void-via-automation (really the same thing since automation is dirt cheap labor that gets cheaper by several folds every few years) leads to the deviation from traditional family operated around agriculture and rapid urbanization that followed high-capital industries with overseas outsourcing of manufacture, has changed the roles of the Mother or Father. This can be found in most democratic capitalist of a major economy. So is the entrance of women the culprit? If that was the case then why is it that in the Philippines, ppl aren't reporting on surveys as being less miserable or isolated as say a Brit, where many husband takes the role of rearing children while the Filipino women contribute to being the world's highest remittance destinations? Clearly it was never to do with gender being fundamentally destined for specific roles, but rather the presence of one of the parent in a child's formative years, relatively compared to absence or non-biological substitute caretakers due to unavailability of both parents due to both working or not working, has produced an increasingly self-isolated, self-caring, self-obsessed, self-exhibitionist society distracting itself through material possessions and entries in a database somewhere with arbitrarily valued "digital scores" that creates the illusion of tribal hierarchy and belonging? Or how about that we are largely rewarded for creating/contributing to products to increase the pace of this isolation?
I don't know what the solution is. But people from small town are often spooked by people not saying hello when passing by in large cities. I can feel the difference being in downtown vs rural areas. People outside of North America seem tightly integrated with their families and communities. I'm talking the super taboo thing in north america, being an adult and living with parents. Yet, its practiced in many parts of the world. I know I've been trying to get my ass out the door but honestly my addiction issues and struggling with complex post traumatic stress disorder has been crippling. Writing this probably isn't good for my job prospects. I can only hope that my SaaS makes money when it launches on Monday, so I can move out, be alone. Life is fucked and I can only hope to unfuck it a little bit at a time.
[deleted]
Move to another city. Leave your small-town life. Chase your dream. Live alone. Pay more per capita to landlords. Pay more per capita for basic services, for staple foods. Pay businesses to do the household chores that you can't handle alone when you're also working a full-time job, and don't have a family to spread them out among.
Buy more stuff to fill that emotional hole. Consume.
Live in an apartment. Never see your neighbors. Wonder why you can't make friends.
Fly home once or twice a year to watch your parents slowly die of loneliness in the small town you left. And to watch them slowly become strangers to you; what do you have in common? Their only friends now are the talking heads on Fox News and you're a big-city liberal.
Eventually, fly home to bury one of them. Probably the other one in anywhere from a few months to a year.
It's the American dream.
Buy more stuff to fill that emotional hole. Consume.
Live in an apartment. Never see your neighbors. Wonder why you can't make friends.
Fly home once or twice a year to watch your parents slowly die of loneliness in the small town you left. And to watch them slowly become strangers to you; what do you have in common? Their only friends now are the talking heads on Fox News and you're a big-city liberal.
Eventually, fly home to bury one of them. Probably the other one in anywhere from a few months to a year.
It's the American dream.
Don't move. Stay in your small town. Narrow the scope of your dreams, dial down your ambition to something more reasonable. Jettison idealistic principles, come to terms with self-imposed limits on your potential using elaborate rationalizations. Opt-out of the status game by creating a new I-don't-need-status game.
Struggle to find opportunity in a stagnant or declining economy. Struggle to find a compatible partner in a significantly smaller dating pool. Earn less. Pay less for lower quality food from chain restaurants. Pay less for housing with limited access to natural or cultural wonders of any kind. Explore and experience less. Settle. Compromise.
Make some friends. Go to your friends' funerals when they die from opioid overdoses. Make some new friends. Go to the local bar with them, listen to the same songs. Every weekend.
Your parents die anyway.
It's the American dream.
(I don't think either of these depictions are helpful or accurate).
Make some friends. Go to your friends' funerals when they die from opioid overdoses. Make some new friends. Go to the local bar with them, listen to the same songs. Every weekend.
Your parents die anyway.
It's the American dream.
(I don't think either of these depictions are helpful or accurate).
Leave the small town attitudes and pervasive small town social control. Live in close contact with people of many backgrounds and experiences. Learn to be your own person. Earn substantially more in the city, so pay a smaller percent of your wages for basic services and staple foods. Have access to a set of services which are unsupportable in sparse populations. Have your parents become assholes as they are propagandized into xenophobia by a giant foreign corporation.
[deleted]
> Pay more per capita to landlords.
If you run the numbers, no one should want to be a landlord. Atrocious ROI. Homes are horrific investments if you live in them and still terrible even if you rent them out. I would encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to model this out for any major city/region to convince themselves.
Renting is a great deal. You pay less, get better ROI on what would have been the downpayment by investing it elsewhere, and there's someone contractually obligated to deal with most things that can go wrong. And if you're in California, chances are you benefit from a lot of regulations that protect tenants as well.
If you run the numbers, no one should want to be a landlord. Atrocious ROI. Homes are horrific investments if you live in them and still terrible even if you rent them out. I would encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to model this out for any major city/region to convince themselves.
Renting is a great deal. You pay less, get better ROI on what would have been the downpayment by investing it elsewhere, and there's someone contractually obligated to deal with most things that can go wrong. And if you're in California, chances are you benefit from a lot of regulations that protect tenants as well.
If you live as a renter in California, you are almost certainly not getting "a great deal", and the regulations that benefit you are probably only in the form of being protected from meaningless eviction and substandard living conditions. If you're an owner of property in California, OTOH, you're likely taking advantage of a tax rate that was calculated on your property's value 39 years ago.
I would strongly encourage you to look closely at the numbers. There are so many involved that nothing short of an actual model of all involved factors is enough to demonstrate the true return profile.
I might post mine here for reference when I get home later. It unequivocally demonstrates that it is far better to be a California renter than a California homeowner (at least for LA/SF). And yes I accounted for a locked in property tax rate. It’s still not even a close contest.
I will note however that the Case-Schiller index is at historical highs atm and this is a substantial driving factor in the current calculation around homeownership. That may change with a correction in the real estate market.
I might post mine here for reference when I get home later. It unequivocally demonstrates that it is far better to be a California renter than a California homeowner (at least for LA/SF). And yes I accounted for a locked in property tax rate. It’s still not even a close contest.
I will note however that the Case-Schiller index is at historical highs atm and this is a substantial driving factor in the current calculation around homeownership. That may change with a correction in the real estate market.
This is exactly what I struggle with every day as I work in the city at 27. It's just a bunch of experiences usually without true depth because of the devaluation of one to one connections in the big hustle and bustle.
Then my parents get older and older and I think is this it, will I just work here until they pass away and also my good friends in other cities or towns aren't as good friends anymore because I can't feasibly visit them all every few months.
So I end up with like 300k, mid 30's, and not many close connections.
Then my parents get older and older and I think is this it, will I just work here until they pass away and also my good friends in other cities or towns aren't as good friends anymore because I can't feasibly visit them all every few months.
So I end up with like 300k, mid 30's, and not many close connections.
for many it's too expensive to start families or to socialise
I'd like to point out that this is a radically right-wing source, published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
Which is why they keep talking about traditional families as if they were the only thing standing between us and the collapse of civilization.
Which is why they keep talking about traditional families as if they were the only thing standing between us and the collapse of civilization.
> Do you know what loneliness means? Some of you may be unfamiliar with that word, but you know the feeling very well. You try going out for a walk alone, or being without a book, without someone to talk to, and you will see how quickly you get bored. You know that feeling well enough, but you don't know why you get bored, you have never inquired into it. If you inquire a little into boredom you will find that the cause of it is loneliness. It is in order to escape from loneliness that we want to be together, we want to be entertained, to have distractions of every kind: gurus, religious ceremonies, prayers, or the latest novels. Being inwardly lonely we become mere spectators in life; and we can be the players only when we understand loneliness and go beyond it.
> After all, most people marry and seek other social relationships because they don't know how to live alone. Not that one must live alone; but, if you marry because you want to be loved, or if you are bored and use your job as a means of forgetting yourself, then you will find that your whole life is nothing but an endless search for distractions. Very few go beyond this extraordinary fear of loneliness; but one must go beyond it, because beyond it lies the real treasure.
> You know, there is a vast difference between loneliness and aloneness. Some of the younger students may still be unaware of loneliness, but the older people know it: the feeling of being utterly cut off, of suddenly being afraid without apparent cause. The mind knows this fear when for a moment it realizes that it can rely on nothing, that no distraction can take away the sense of self-enclosing emptiness. That is loneliness. But aloneness is something entirely different; it is a state of freedom which comes into being when you have gone through loneliness and understand it. In that state of aloneness you don't rely on anyone psychologically because you are no longer seeking pleasure, comfort, gratification. It is only then that the mind is completely alone, and only such a mind is creative.
> All this is part of education: to face the ache of loneliness, that extraordinary feeling of emptiness which all of us know, and not be frightened when it comes; not to turn on the radio, lose oneself in work, or run to the cinema, but to look at it, go into it, understand it. There is no human being who has not felt or will not feel that quivering anxiety. It is because we try to run away from it through every form of distraction and gratification - through sex, through God, through work, through drink, through writing poems or repeating certain words which we have learnt by heart - that we never understand that anxiety when it comes upon us.
> So, when the pain of loneliness comes upon you, confront it, look at it without any thought of running away. If you run away you will never understand it, and it will always be there waiting for you around the corner. Whereas, if you can understand loneliness and go beyond it, then you will find there is no need to escape, no urge to be gratified or entertained, for your mind will know a richness that is incorruptible and cannot be destroyed.
> All this is part of education. If at school you merely learn subjects in order to pass examinations, then learning itself becomes a means of escape from loneliness. Think about it a little and you will see. Talk it over with your educators and you will soon find out how lonely they are, and how lonely you are. But those who are inwardly alone, whose minds and hearts are free from the ache of loneliness - they are real people, for they can discover for themselves what reality is, they can receive that which is timeless.
—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think on These Things, Chapter 23. The Need to Be Alone
> After all, most people marry and seek other social relationships because they don't know how to live alone. Not that one must live alone; but, if you marry because you want to be loved, or if you are bored and use your job as a means of forgetting yourself, then you will find that your whole life is nothing but an endless search for distractions. Very few go beyond this extraordinary fear of loneliness; but one must go beyond it, because beyond it lies the real treasure.
> You know, there is a vast difference between loneliness and aloneness. Some of the younger students may still be unaware of loneliness, but the older people know it: the feeling of being utterly cut off, of suddenly being afraid without apparent cause. The mind knows this fear when for a moment it realizes that it can rely on nothing, that no distraction can take away the sense of self-enclosing emptiness. That is loneliness. But aloneness is something entirely different; it is a state of freedom which comes into being when you have gone through loneliness and understand it. In that state of aloneness you don't rely on anyone psychologically because you are no longer seeking pleasure, comfort, gratification. It is only then that the mind is completely alone, and only such a mind is creative.
> All this is part of education: to face the ache of loneliness, that extraordinary feeling of emptiness which all of us know, and not be frightened when it comes; not to turn on the radio, lose oneself in work, or run to the cinema, but to look at it, go into it, understand it. There is no human being who has not felt or will not feel that quivering anxiety. It is because we try to run away from it through every form of distraction and gratification - through sex, through God, through work, through drink, through writing poems or repeating certain words which we have learnt by heart - that we never understand that anxiety when it comes upon us.
> So, when the pain of loneliness comes upon you, confront it, look at it without any thought of running away. If you run away you will never understand it, and it will always be there waiting for you around the corner. Whereas, if you can understand loneliness and go beyond it, then you will find there is no need to escape, no urge to be gratified or entertained, for your mind will know a richness that is incorruptible and cannot be destroyed.
> All this is part of education. If at school you merely learn subjects in order to pass examinations, then learning itself becomes a means of escape from loneliness. Think about it a little and you will see. Talk it over with your educators and you will soon find out how lonely they are, and how lonely you are. But those who are inwardly alone, whose minds and hearts are free from the ache of loneliness - they are real people, for they can discover for themselves what reality is, they can receive that which is timeless.
—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Think on These Things, Chapter 23. The Need to Be Alone
I don't think the decline of the family is the primary issue today. My own perspective is that the "epidemic of loneliness" has more to do with the prevalance of, and addiction to, social media in its various forms.
It is easier than ever to form and maintain all your relationships, acquaintences, friends, and family, online via social media. You can see what people are up to, even "participate" to some degree via commentary/messaging, and it leaves people feeling like they've done their part in keeping the relationship alive. My observation is that because relationships kept this way are increasingly normalized, people are less interested in getting together in the physical world because it takes a lot more effort, and requires a much more significant investment in time.
On the plus side, it means you can keep relationships alive across great distances, and even during times where life is so busy that you have limited spare time.
But the problem is that forming meaningful relationships becomes an increasingly difficult task, to the point where you can begin to wonder if there is something wrong with you due to not being able to form those relationships. Further, you feel increasingly disconnected and isolated, when you have a lot of skin-deep relationships, but none which are truly meaningful.
I consider myself lucky to have a wonderful wife, and her company is more than enough to sustain me even when nobody else is around; but both of us still feel the isolation when we are unable to get together with friends for too long. We moved away from my home state, and she immigrated from another country, so both of us have left friendships behind, and been trying to form new relationships near where we live. It has been harder than expected, and I think it is in part due to people finding it really easy to blow off getting together in person when there is even the slightest inconvenience, especially knowing that they don't have to actually meet in person to keep the relationship alive.
As a result, my pet peeve these days is when people, when asked why they keep blowing off getting together, say "I've been so busy". For one, it is a meaningless statement, most people are busy, it is just the nature of having to work at least one full-time job and then fit in the other activities you want to do in the time left over. Most people still find time to get together with friends at least once in awhile. Thanks to the perpetual need to post everything on social media, it is usually evident that the "busy" person is not really actually busy, and instead what they really meant was "I've been too busy doing things I value more than our friendship, but am too uncomfortable to tell you that".
I don't know if it is related or not, but in my experience, the detachment derived from social media seems to go hand in hand with avoiding anything that is perceived as unpleasant, such as being honest with someone when it is a hard truth, e.g. "hey, my life is full, I'd like to keep in touch, but I'm not in a position to add new friendships right now".
This probably comes off as a rant against social media, but I'm not really anti-social media, I just think the way we find ourselves using it has real, detrimental effects on human relationships, in a way that we don't really understand and are only really starting to see the impact of.
It is easier than ever to form and maintain all your relationships, acquaintences, friends, and family, online via social media. You can see what people are up to, even "participate" to some degree via commentary/messaging, and it leaves people feeling like they've done their part in keeping the relationship alive. My observation is that because relationships kept this way are increasingly normalized, people are less interested in getting together in the physical world because it takes a lot more effort, and requires a much more significant investment in time.
On the plus side, it means you can keep relationships alive across great distances, and even during times where life is so busy that you have limited spare time.
But the problem is that forming meaningful relationships becomes an increasingly difficult task, to the point where you can begin to wonder if there is something wrong with you due to not being able to form those relationships. Further, you feel increasingly disconnected and isolated, when you have a lot of skin-deep relationships, but none which are truly meaningful.
I consider myself lucky to have a wonderful wife, and her company is more than enough to sustain me even when nobody else is around; but both of us still feel the isolation when we are unable to get together with friends for too long. We moved away from my home state, and she immigrated from another country, so both of us have left friendships behind, and been trying to form new relationships near where we live. It has been harder than expected, and I think it is in part due to people finding it really easy to blow off getting together in person when there is even the slightest inconvenience, especially knowing that they don't have to actually meet in person to keep the relationship alive.
As a result, my pet peeve these days is when people, when asked why they keep blowing off getting together, say "I've been so busy". For one, it is a meaningless statement, most people are busy, it is just the nature of having to work at least one full-time job and then fit in the other activities you want to do in the time left over. Most people still find time to get together with friends at least once in awhile. Thanks to the perpetual need to post everything on social media, it is usually evident that the "busy" person is not really actually busy, and instead what they really meant was "I've been too busy doing things I value more than our friendship, but am too uncomfortable to tell you that".
I don't know if it is related or not, but in my experience, the detachment derived from social media seems to go hand in hand with avoiding anything that is perceived as unpleasant, such as being honest with someone when it is a hard truth, e.g. "hey, my life is full, I'd like to keep in touch, but I'm not in a position to add new friendships right now".
This probably comes off as a rant against social media, but I'm not really anti-social media, I just think the way we find ourselves using it has real, detrimental effects on human relationships, in a way that we don't really understand and are only really starting to see the impact of.
Recipe for solving loneliness and increasing the odds of "successful marriages" (which is really what this article seems focused on conveying as a problem).
Build a successful community:
Japan's "nuisance" based zoning is better (#1), if a project fits within an area's limits and passes environmental/other planning review it can be done. Their transit structure is also partly funded by the "taxes" involved with the rail companies also owning the land around the stations (which ends up falling in to the higher end of the nuisance classes and gets the shopping centers, hotels, and denser apartments built on it); but that could happen here too if we actually had civic planning, taxes, and open book accountability that could tie taxes to spending and involved politicians/companies in people's minds.
I'm also in favor of a //long term// plan for establishing an expanding zone of high quality (Japanese subway/rail style) transit that has frequent, on time, predictable service. This would spread out from city centers over time and would involve interface and storage silos (for cars, and big stuff). Critically this should start with first improving transit, then adding the interface silos that adapt legacy infrastructure to the city-core infrastructure, and only then getting the cars out of the city; entirely. Aside from maybe an underground network for deliveries and emergency transport.
Finally, because the market is so screwed up with respect to available housing in the areas that need it, emergency remediation should be instituted and reviewed until the crisis is resolved. That would probably start with a short-table evaluation of rezoning, and even loans if at least 70% of the units were intended for median in the state's population income and at least 10% for those making "minimum wage" (the lesser of state and city values).
A land-value based tax should also be instituted to encourage the evolution of a zone over time rather than keeping historic single dwelling housing just because it made sense 50-100 years ago.
#1 http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html #1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
Build a successful community:
* Enough housing, at reasonable cost
* Enough jobs to "employ" all adults
* Good jobs, fitting the skills of workers
* Stable jobs, that aren't a gig or contract
* Career jobs, with a future in the area
* Good transit mesh
* More diverse third places / third spaces
Japan's "nuisance" based zoning is better (#1), if a project fits within an area's limits and passes environmental/other planning review it can be done. Their transit structure is also partly funded by the "taxes" involved with the rail companies also owning the land around the stations (which ends up falling in to the higher end of the nuisance classes and gets the shopping centers, hotels, and denser apartments built on it); but that could happen here too if we actually had civic planning, taxes, and open book accountability that could tie taxes to spending and involved politicians/companies in people's minds.
I'm also in favor of a //long term// plan for establishing an expanding zone of high quality (Japanese subway/rail style) transit that has frequent, on time, predictable service. This would spread out from city centers over time and would involve interface and storage silos (for cars, and big stuff). Critically this should start with first improving transit, then adding the interface silos that adapt legacy infrastructure to the city-core infrastructure, and only then getting the cars out of the city; entirely. Aside from maybe an underground network for deliveries and emergency transport.
Finally, because the market is so screwed up with respect to available housing in the areas that need it, emergency remediation should be instituted and reviewed until the crisis is resolved. That would probably start with a short-table evaluation of rezoning, and even loans if at least 70% of the units were intended for median in the state's population income and at least 10% for those making "minimum wage" (the lesser of state and city values).
A land-value based tax should also be instituted to encourage the evolution of a zone over time rather than keeping historic single dwelling housing just because it made sense 50-100 years ago.
#1 http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html #1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
Great explanation on why we should simply treat loneliness like a symptom of being hungry. As you form healthier habits in general around socializing, the person becomes more whole and in doing so you grant yourself additional opportunities to meet people, engage in conversation, and increase the probability of friendships and relationships.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA
The other thought process I've been subscribing to lately is the idea that you have to actually become the kind of person that "can socialize" or that "can be friendly" before you suddenly find yourself in: a friendship, a relationship, a marriage, a solid social network. None of these things come over night and they certainly don't come easy for people who are stricken with the habit of isolation. Once you make decisions and form actual habits around trying to be friendly to other people:
- put yourself in a situation where you have the opportunity at all to socialize (a store, a coffeeshop, a restaurant, a club, a meetup). Socializing doesn't mean you have to be friends with the person, it seems to be about just being the kind of person who is even able at all to be friendly
- make an observation (the weather, the environment around you, the place you're at, something someone is wearing, a pin, a shoe, an outfit, a drink, a dog... whatever - just make any observation at all and comment on it)
- listen (observe how the other person make the same or differing observations; listen to any other observation other people make, internalize and actually listen - don't be thinking of the next thing to say after they are done talking. Listen so you can understand them in some way and what they are actually saying)
- ask questions (if you discovered something work asking, or maybe the observation involved a question like "where did you get those cool shoes?" "what do you recommend here?" "what is your favorite item?" "can you help explain something to me?"). It's great to ask questions that involve help because it invites the other person into a social situation where you can trust them to give you advice or knowledge. People try this with neighbors for instance, such as borrowing a tool or something like this.
- receive feedback, or give feedback based on the questions
- it is usually the case that questions lead to other questions, you can develop a conversation from here most of the time
- repeat observation, listen, ask questions, feedback, communicate something you enjoy/relevant to conversation
Once you've internalize a process for being friendly and you take action to actually make it a habit, you become the kind of person that can be friendly. It doesn't actually matter if you don't necessarily know whether you will want to be friends with a person, it's that you are showing yourself that you can be friendly. Most importantly, you are practicing and making it a habit.
Once it is a habit, it becomes natural. Being friendly turns into developing actual friendships and opening yourself up to the world to trying new experiences. Some of those experiences may lead to forming friendships and those friendships may end up being relationships.
It also seems to me that you must understand that social networks are precisely that. you don't know whether one person might invite you to something where you meet another person. The same is true the other way around, inviting a neighbor, or other people over creates the possibility that you might extend, reinforce or cause you to re-evaluate your social network. By allowing yourself the time to be uncomfortable with this sort of unpredictability you can avoid remaining stagnant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Xv_g3g-mA
The other thought process I've been subscribing to lately is the idea that you have to actually become the kind of person that "can socialize" or that "can be friendly" before you suddenly find yourself in: a friendship, a relationship, a marriage, a solid social network. None of these things come over night and they certainly don't come easy for people who are stricken with the habit of isolation. Once you make decisions and form actual habits around trying to be friendly to other people:
- put yourself in a situation where you have the opportunity at all to socialize (a store, a coffeeshop, a restaurant, a club, a meetup). Socializing doesn't mean you have to be friends with the person, it seems to be about just being the kind of person who is even able at all to be friendly
- make an observation (the weather, the environment around you, the place you're at, something someone is wearing, a pin, a shoe, an outfit, a drink, a dog... whatever - just make any observation at all and comment on it)
- listen (observe how the other person make the same or differing observations; listen to any other observation other people make, internalize and actually listen - don't be thinking of the next thing to say after they are done talking. Listen so you can understand them in some way and what they are actually saying)
- ask questions (if you discovered something work asking, or maybe the observation involved a question like "where did you get those cool shoes?" "what do you recommend here?" "what is your favorite item?" "can you help explain something to me?"). It's great to ask questions that involve help because it invites the other person into a social situation where you can trust them to give you advice or knowledge. People try this with neighbors for instance, such as borrowing a tool or something like this.
- receive feedback, or give feedback based on the questions
- it is usually the case that questions lead to other questions, you can develop a conversation from here most of the time
- repeat observation, listen, ask questions, feedback, communicate something you enjoy/relevant to conversation
Once you've internalize a process for being friendly and you take action to actually make it a habit, you become the kind of person that can be friendly. It doesn't actually matter if you don't necessarily know whether you will want to be friends with a person, it's that you are showing yourself that you can be friendly. Most importantly, you are practicing and making it a habit.
Once it is a habit, it becomes natural. Being friendly turns into developing actual friendships and opening yourself up to the world to trying new experiences. Some of those experiences may lead to forming friendships and those friendships may end up being relationships.
It also seems to me that you must understand that social networks are precisely that. you don't know whether one person might invite you to something where you meet another person. The same is true the other way around, inviting a neighbor, or other people over creates the possibility that you might extend, reinforce or cause you to re-evaluate your social network. By allowing yourself the time to be uncomfortable with this sort of unpredictability you can avoid remaining stagnant.
I relocated out of the bay area in 2016-2017 and it was the happiest year of my adult life. I think Silicon Valley has a zero sum culture and having returned here for personal reasons but otherwise against my best judgment, I cannot wait to GTFO for keeps.
I am really really good (perhaps top 10 or so worldwide) at one thing, and pretty good at a couple other things. If I didn't have that, I think I would feel utterly worthless in 2019. If I extrapolate to most of America, wow, I get why they elected who they elected.
Something has gone very wrong here. And I am stymied as to how to fix it because neither political party, which gets to set the agenda every 4 years, seems to grasp what has gone wrong.
But when I travel abroad, I am happy. I see can-do cultures that have far less than western nations, but are so inspiringly optimistic to do more, that I don't want to come back to America. I want to set down roots and help them knock it out of the park. And I am getting close to doing exactly that. Doing so would shatter my personal life, but I suspect if 2020 continues what we started in 2016, I will follow through on what my inner voice is telling me to do.
I am really really good (perhaps top 10 or so worldwide) at one thing, and pretty good at a couple other things. If I didn't have that, I think I would feel utterly worthless in 2019. If I extrapolate to most of America, wow, I get why they elected who they elected.
Something has gone very wrong here. And I am stymied as to how to fix it because neither political party, which gets to set the agenda every 4 years, seems to grasp what has gone wrong.
But when I travel abroad, I am happy. I see can-do cultures that have far less than western nations, but are so inspiringly optimistic to do more, that I don't want to come back to America. I want to set down roots and help them knock it out of the park. And I am getting close to doing exactly that. Doing so would shatter my personal life, but I suspect if 2020 continues what we started in 2016, I will follow through on what my inner voice is telling me to do.
> I am really really good (perhaps top 10 or so worldwide) at one thing, and pretty good at a couple other things. If I didn't have that, I think I would feel utterly worthless in 2019.
With the internet, our kind of global culture and the kind of "attention economy" that we have, there is a bit of a culture where if you're not the best at something, and the first to do it, you're irrelevant. The world has changed, and so have we. A lot of the people leading the tech field today were kids in the 1980s and 1990s, just playing with computers for fun. In the pre-internet days, you couldn't just publish code online and immediately get a lot of attention for it. Sure, you'd be proud of yourself if you did something cool, but showing people might involve getting someone to come to your house.
I struggle with this too. When I work on a personal project, I want it to have impact, to be world class if possible. That creates pressure. I sometimes forget to just try and have fun. Over a year ago, I had to abandon my main open source project because it was reaching about 8 regular contributors, and just reviewing pull requests after coming home from work felt like another job on top of my job and I was like... Fuck no, I can't do this, when I come home from work, I actually need to rest and have a life of my own.
With the internet, our kind of global culture and the kind of "attention economy" that we have, there is a bit of a culture where if you're not the best at something, and the first to do it, you're irrelevant. The world has changed, and so have we. A lot of the people leading the tech field today were kids in the 1980s and 1990s, just playing with computers for fun. In the pre-internet days, you couldn't just publish code online and immediately get a lot of attention for it. Sure, you'd be proud of yourself if you did something cool, but showing people might involve getting someone to come to your house.
I struggle with this too. When I work on a personal project, I want it to have impact, to be world class if possible. That creates pressure. I sometimes forget to just try and have fun. Over a year ago, I had to abandon my main open source project because it was reaching about 8 regular contributors, and just reviewing pull requests after coming home from work felt like another job on top of my job and I was like... Fuck no, I can't do this, when I come home from work, I actually need to rest and have a life of my own.
I'm not a fan of "who they elected" myself, but I don't really see what politics has to do with any of this
yeah, the solution comes from individuals, not from politicians
The term “third world” does not mean something like “third rate.” The first world is the Western bloc, under the influence of the USA. The second world is the Eastern bloc, under the influence of the USSR. The third world is everyone else.
I think we should stop using these terms.
I think we should stop using these terms.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20118799 and marked it off-topic.
No, this is no longer what these terms mean in common parlance.
(There is no arbiter of language; words are imbued with meaning through usage. People use "first world" and "third world" quite differently now than during the Cold War.)
(There is no arbiter of language; words are imbued with meaning through usage. People use "first world" and "third world" quite differently now than during the Cold War.)
These words are no longer used in common parlance at all.
Now people use "developing nation" and "developed nation," and "second world" never evolved to mean "somewhere less poor than dirt-floor huts but less rich than London". About once a year I see someone make that mistake; it's not common, just a mistake.
But agreed, there's no arbiter of language for English, and we all understood the original poster, which is really the important part.
Now people use "developing nation" and "developed nation," and "second world" never evolved to mean "somewhere less poor than dirt-floor huts but less rich than London". About once a year I see someone make that mistake; it's not common, just a mistake.
But agreed, there's no arbiter of language for English, and we all understood the original poster, which is really the important part.
> These words are no longer used in common parlance at all.
> it's not common, just a mistake.
What's the difference between "common use" and "mistaken use" exactly? I've heard phrases like "third-world [pejorative]" thrown around here and there over the years. Is that a mistake or a change in common use over time?
What's the difference between "common use" and "mistaken use" exactly? I've heard phrases like "third-world [pejorative]" thrown around here and there over the years. Is that a mistake or a change in common use over time?
First/second/third world stopped being used by academics and journalists, oh gosh, maybe a decade or two ago? After the fall of the Soviet union, but I don't remember how long after. Developed/developing nation replaced them.
As someone else pointed out, "second world" always referred to the Eastern Bloc countries (the soviet states and those allied with them). It never meant "somewhere in between first and third world, in terms of quality of life". That's the mistake.
The language shift was from first/second/third world to developed/developing nation, the mistake is using second world to mean something other than an eastern bloc country; you'd probably be understood, but that meaning was not ever in widespread use.
As someone else pointed out, "second world" always referred to the Eastern Bloc countries (the soviet states and those allied with them). It never meant "somewhere in between first and third world, in terms of quality of life". That's the mistake.
The language shift was from first/second/third world to developed/developing nation, the mistake is using second world to mean something other than an eastern bloc country; you'd probably be understood, but that meaning was not ever in widespread use.
Well you mentioned that professionals stopped. I’m asking about common use as opposed to proper terminology.
An academic using that phrasing would certainly be wrong, but a layman?
An academic using that phrasing would certainly be wrong, but a layman?
Literally once every 4 or 5 years I've heard a layman say "second world" referring to "poorer than America, richer than Ethiopia"; the lay usage is probably still first/third world, but people are slowly cottoning onto developed/developing nation.
I think even in common use, that use of "second world" is still "wrong," as far as anything in English can be wrong. Ted Cruz referred to it as a "basketball ring" and we all had a laugh, but we also all understood what he was talking about; is that wrong?
I'm mostly reluctant to tell anyone that their use of English is wrong, because it's such a fluid and ever-changing language; but when something like "second world" comes up and not in reference to the Soviet countries, it still jumps out at me as "well, that's not how people always used to use that phrase"...
I think even in common use, that use of "second world" is still "wrong," as far as anything in English can be wrong. Ted Cruz referred to it as a "basketball ring" and we all had a laugh, but we also all understood what he was talking about; is that wrong?
I'm mostly reluctant to tell anyone that their use of English is wrong, because it's such a fluid and ever-changing language; but when something like "second world" comes up and not in reference to the Soviet countries, it still jumps out at me as "well, that's not how people always used to use that phrase"...
It was invented in the 50s in france and literally is translated to 1/3rd world (tiers monde.) third (as in third place) would translate to troisieme. Poor translation basically.
That ship sailed long ago. Like the use of ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively’, words mean what they are frequently used to mean. Fighting it is futile.
I agree in principle but you should still literally slap anyone that says they “could care less” when they mean they couldn’t
As it’s used, “I could care less” works as a sarcastic statement much better than “I couldn’t care less” as a literal one. Generally it’s possible for me to care less about some minute difference, but in absolute terms I don’t care enough for it to matter.
That sounds like a poor justification for simply using the wrong phrase. I've never heard it used sarcastically, just incorrectly.
You damn! I felt that slap ;) :P
'literally' is often used figuratively to mean 'figuratively', that doesn't change it's literal meaning :D
I disagree, almost everyone understands the colloquial usage of the term and it's rather pendantic and useless to complain about it
<comment reiterating that word usage changes and being a stickler for "right" definitions is a waste of time>
just because you think a term should be used one way or another doesn't mean your opinion is at all valuable. it's more useful to go with the wave of society rather than trying to imbue change on an obscure web forum.
just because you think a term should be used one way or another doesn't mean your opinion is at all valuable. it's more useful to go with the wave of society rather than trying to imbue change on an obscure web forum.
I agree those terms are antiquated, and I suggest "developed" and "developing" instead.
I think developed and developing is also strange. It implies an universal direction countries have to follow where reality is way more complex. We should instead stop trying to simplify countries and segregating them into categories.
Developed and developing are also terms that are arbitrary. Human Development Indices of some countries that are considered developing today exceed those of developed countries when these terms were first used.
In common use it implies a strict hierarchy in rather simplistic terms.
In common use it implies a strict hierarchy in rather simplistic terms.
Should not stagnant/stagnating also be added to that list? And also a negative term (staganation is neutral)? Not every undeveloped country is developing.
As someone who grew up in a third world country, I actually think it's a very apt descriptor of certain patterns and problems that continually occur across seemingly unrelated cultures.
And they are called crackers, not hackers!!! /s
[deleted]
> Especially now that Uber has a STFU option
I never understood why people are so against talking to the people that give them a ride. I once was in a very rough spot in my life and talking with taxi-drivers almost daily about the most trivial stuff (weather, politics, traffic) used to give me a very healthy reprieve from the black thoughts I used to have.
I never understood why people are so against talking to the people that give them a ride. I once was in a very rough spot in my life and talking with taxi-drivers almost daily about the most trivial stuff (weather, politics, traffic) used to give me a very healthy reprieve from the black thoughts I used to have.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20117510.
As a woman, there are definitely times I don't want to deal with a driver hitting on me. It happens annoyingly frequently, and it's this delicate social situation that requires more mental effort to negotiate than I want to give it.
Friendly conversation (with men and women both) is fine and I've engaged in plenty. But if a driver is too busy telling me just how beautiful I am and as a result drives me to the cargo part of the airport rather than the passenger terminal and makes me late... and I have to sort of humor him and not just say wtf because that's the social contract? Or if I have to for some reason convince him I'm an engineer and not a dancer in spite of my long legs? Yeah, I'll pass on that.
In other situations I can thank them for the compliment and go somewhere else, but with a driver I'm stuck for quite a while. And sometimes I'm really not in the mood. I've complained before there really needs to be a "please don't hit on me" option, and STFU is a decent alternative.
Friendly conversation (with men and women both) is fine and I've engaged in plenty. But if a driver is too busy telling me just how beautiful I am and as a result drives me to the cargo part of the airport rather than the passenger terminal and makes me late... and I have to sort of humor him and not just say wtf because that's the social contract? Or if I have to for some reason convince him I'm an engineer and not a dancer in spite of my long legs? Yeah, I'll pass on that.
In other situations I can thank them for the compliment and go somewhere else, but with a driver I'm stuck for quite a while. And sometimes I'm really not in the mood. I've complained before there really needs to be a "please don't hit on me" option, and STFU is a decent alternative.
> and it's this delicate social situation that requires more mental effort to negotiate than I want to give it
I understand what you're saying, and I recognize the blessing/curse that comes with attracting people.
However, as I've become an adult with a career and have left essentially all my friends behind, I've realized that making new friends is incredibly difficult. Even worse is trying to find dating partners. Lately I've been resorting to just talking to strangers and seeing if I can start a conversation.
Not to excuse the behavior of your drivers, but you should understand that men are having a difficult time with approaching women these days. We feel really inadequate and sort of aimless. The dating world is seriously dangerous right now and to be honest, there isn't a lot of guidance from women.
I've experienced a range of rejections and the least painful are always honest and upfront. Maybe you could try that?
I understand what you're saying, and I recognize the blessing/curse that comes with attracting people.
However, as I've become an adult with a career and have left essentially all my friends behind, I've realized that making new friends is incredibly difficult. Even worse is trying to find dating partners. Lately I've been resorting to just talking to strangers and seeing if I can start a conversation.
Not to excuse the behavior of your drivers, but you should understand that men are having a difficult time with approaching women these days. We feel really inadequate and sort of aimless. The dating world is seriously dangerous right now and to be honest, there isn't a lot of guidance from women.
I've experienced a range of rejections and the least painful are always honest and upfront. Maybe you could try that?
>Not to excuse the behavior of your drivers, but you should understand that men are having a difficult time with approaching women these days. We feel really inadequate and sort of aimless. The dating world is seriously dangerous right now and to be honest
Are you in the US? Leave it. Seriously, I encourage all men to become expats if they don't already have children in the US that they are trying to raise. Just completely abandon a system and society that is failing to meet your needs. If you feel inadequate, ask yourself A) by whose metrics? and B) why?. Go to the gym, dress better. Have goals in your life (outside of dating) that you aggressively pursue. The US dating scene is increasingly insane, and men don't even realize it because they aren't exposed to kind, helpful, friendly, feminine women that are simply abundant in other cultures (or even in Flyover states, if you look there).
And finally:
> there isn't a lot of guidance from women
The more women you date, the more you will realize that most dating "guidance" from women is absolutely useless. The cognitive dissonance most of them have will blow your mind when you witness it first-hand. And women don't want a man that they have to "guide" anyway. They want to attach themselves to a guy who's got his sh*t together and knows what he wants.
Are you in the US? Leave it. Seriously, I encourage all men to become expats if they don't already have children in the US that they are trying to raise. Just completely abandon a system and society that is failing to meet your needs. If you feel inadequate, ask yourself A) by whose metrics? and B) why?. Go to the gym, dress better. Have goals in your life (outside of dating) that you aggressively pursue. The US dating scene is increasingly insane, and men don't even realize it because they aren't exposed to kind, helpful, friendly, feminine women that are simply abundant in other cultures (or even in Flyover states, if you look there).
And finally:
> there isn't a lot of guidance from women
The more women you date, the more you will realize that most dating "guidance" from women is absolutely useless. The cognitive dissonance most of them have will blow your mind when you witness it first-hand. And women don't want a man that they have to "guide" anyway. They want to attach themselves to a guy who's got his sh*t together and knows what he wants.
I do live in the US, and I really enjoy my area. There's an abundance of nearby outdoor rock climbing and snowboarding, both of which I'm very skilled at. I have a well-paying tech job, no debt, not much baggage, blue eyes. I think my biggest deterrent for women is that I'm somewhat short and have a slight receding hairline, which is apparently enough to detract from all my positives.
I've lived in the Midwest before and it's worse there, partly because I couldn't practice my sports which kept me out of shape, partly because it was even harder finding like-minded friends, in part because I don't like regular sports. I would definitely consider moving out of country if that opportunity ever came up.
> And women don't want a man that they have to "guide" anyway. They want to attach themselves to a guy who's got his sh*t together and knows what he wants.
This leads into what I consider unrecognized female privilege. From what I can tell, women have a pretty big list of superficial expectations from their partners, and are really quick to dismiss those who don't fall into place. They also gave an abundance of interested suitors who they can sort through until they find they one they way. Me on the other hand, I'm lucky to find someone interested in me who even passes my most basic tests.
Equality in dating doesn't exist and it's highly skewed in favor of women.
I've lived in the Midwest before and it's worse there, partly because I couldn't practice my sports which kept me out of shape, partly because it was even harder finding like-minded friends, in part because I don't like regular sports. I would definitely consider moving out of country if that opportunity ever came up.
> And women don't want a man that they have to "guide" anyway. They want to attach themselves to a guy who's got his sh*t together and knows what he wants.
This leads into what I consider unrecognized female privilege. From what I can tell, women have a pretty big list of superficial expectations from their partners, and are really quick to dismiss those who don't fall into place. They also gave an abundance of interested suitors who they can sort through until they find they one they way. Me on the other hand, I'm lucky to find someone interested in me who even passes my most basic tests.
Equality in dating doesn't exist and it's highly skewed in favor of women.
There's not really a humble way to say this. As an attractive man who has his shit together and makes good money, I have zero issues with dating and if anything I feel more in control of the situation than the women I meet.
The issue is likely that you're not very attractive or you're setting your standards too high for the women you pursue.
The issue is likely that you're not very attractive or you're setting your standards too high for the women you pursue.
I'm convinced it's mostly my height and lack of friends. I'm not particularly handsome but I'm definitely not ugly.
As for standards, why should we settle for less than an equal version of ourselves? Same height, education, looks, strength, ability, finances, etc.? In my experience, women almost exclusively "date up".
As for standards, why should we settle for less than an equal version of ourselves? Same height, education, looks, strength, ability, finances, etc.? In my experience, women almost exclusively "date up".
My unkind but honest assessment given the evidence is you're over rating how attractive you are, both physically and socially. The good news you can fix both a lot. Hit the gym, get jacked, make a lot of friends. Most anyone can do it. Also if your hair sucks just embrace it and shave it off and grow an awesome beard. And accept that any woman taller than you is probably not interested.
I appreciate the help, and you're not wrong about many things. However I think I'm fairly aware of my attractiveness, I'm just sad the country uses shallow metrics for attraction. This country is keen on glorifying narcissism and exclusion rather than humility and inclusion, and that's not now I grew up. I'd rather give my love away than play stupid social games.
I'm athletically fit and don't have any intentions of bulking up. I'm at the climbing gym a few times a week, and climb outdoors a few times a month. Multi-pitch, trad, free-solo, whatever.
The biggest challenge, and the entire reason I started commenting here, is that finding friends is hard. Chatting someone up is easy, but getting a new person to take time out of their schedule to hang out with you is really difficult.
I'm athletically fit and don't have any intentions of bulking up. I'm at the climbing gym a few times a week, and climb outdoors a few times a month. Multi-pitch, trad, free-solo, whatever.
The biggest challenge, and the entire reason I started commenting here, is that finding friends is hard. Chatting someone up is easy, but getting a new person to take time out of their schedule to hang out with you is really difficult.
Also, as my username combined with what else I've said might imply, I'm a transgender woman. I really thought dating women as a woman would be harder after transitioned, because most women are straight.
But the confidence benefits were huge enough that my dating life is actually a lot better. I only online dated before then, and after, I can go to (queer) bars and pick up girls and bring them home. I still have the problem that I mentioned in my other reply, that it's really hard to get people to stay (I say "people will go to bed with me, but they won't wake up with me")
I don't think you're transgender (and if you are, that's a separate discussion), but the lesson I draw from this is that you are better off if you maximize the things that naturally interest you rather than trying to be someone you're not. Snowboarding and rock climbing are both great contexts to meet people in. If you are confident and in your element there, you'll probably attract people much better than if you put a lot of effort into trying to be someone you're not.
I also have the somewhat receding hairline which is a lot more unsightly on a woman than a man. I had a couple consults over the last couple weeks about hair transplants, actually. Usually I wear berets. But nobody else is as bothered about it as I am; the hat always comes off when I bring someone home.
If you put a certain energy and intensity into the world, people will see it and not the other more minor things. If you're reserved and unconfident then they'll see more of the rough details. If you feel "aimless" as you've said you are, people won't see the energy you put towards the things you love, they'll see that instead.
Some people are born confident and attractive and never had much reason to question it. Some of us really had to work for it. But the answer wasn't PUA stuff (I spent a decade trying that), but transitioning and really embracing who I am.
But the confidence benefits were huge enough that my dating life is actually a lot better. I only online dated before then, and after, I can go to (queer) bars and pick up girls and bring them home. I still have the problem that I mentioned in my other reply, that it's really hard to get people to stay (I say "people will go to bed with me, but they won't wake up with me")
I don't think you're transgender (and if you are, that's a separate discussion), but the lesson I draw from this is that you are better off if you maximize the things that naturally interest you rather than trying to be someone you're not. Snowboarding and rock climbing are both great contexts to meet people in. If you are confident and in your element there, you'll probably attract people much better than if you put a lot of effort into trying to be someone you're not.
I also have the somewhat receding hairline which is a lot more unsightly on a woman than a man. I had a couple consults over the last couple weeks about hair transplants, actually. Usually I wear berets. But nobody else is as bothered about it as I am; the hat always comes off when I bring someone home.
If you put a certain energy and intensity into the world, people will see it and not the other more minor things. If you're reserved and unconfident then they'll see more of the rough details. If you feel "aimless" as you've said you are, people won't see the energy you put towards the things you love, they'll see that instead.
Some people are born confident and attractive and never had much reason to question it. Some of us really had to work for it. But the answer wasn't PUA stuff (I spent a decade trying that), but transitioning and really embracing who I am.
One of my complaints is sending what I consider very obvious "I'm not interested" signals - like putting in earbuds - still doesn't stop them. There's something that stops me from just saying "I'm not interested"; for one thing it labels what they're doing as hitting on me and they might argue back with me ("Hey, I'm just giving you a compliment!") and/or get upset. It's usually easier to just nod, mumble, and act much more interested in my phone than them and hope they get the hint.
What do you mean about the dating world being dangerous?
I'm a lesbian anyway, but I think regardless of gender or identity it's tough because people (including myself) are very emotionally guarded. Whether you have trouble finding dates or not, every relationship is at arms length, every plan can be dropped when a better one comes along, you "don't want to catch feelings", etc. Nobody wants to firmly commit to a time for lunch, let alone a relationship (even without monogamy).
That kind of sucks, but in terms of it being dangerous, it usually only feels physically so if you get involved with men. Emotionally though, it does feel dangerous... it sort of feels like a race to the bottom where whoever cares the least wins. I kind of miss really caring about the people I date; but they usually don't care about me, and if I do care about them, often as not that scares them off.
It's certainly a weird dating world these days.
What do you mean about the dating world being dangerous?
I'm a lesbian anyway, but I think regardless of gender or identity it's tough because people (including myself) are very emotionally guarded. Whether you have trouble finding dates or not, every relationship is at arms length, every plan can be dropped when a better one comes along, you "don't want to catch feelings", etc. Nobody wants to firmly commit to a time for lunch, let alone a relationship (even without monogamy).
That kind of sucks, but in terms of it being dangerous, it usually only feels physically so if you get involved with men. Emotionally though, it does feel dangerous... it sort of feels like a race to the bottom where whoever cares the least wins. I kind of miss really caring about the people I date; but they usually don't care about me, and if I do care about them, often as not that scares them off.
It's certainly a weird dating world these days.
I don't think anyone should accept that someone who's paid to provide a service is entitled to expect their client to be available for dating.
I think a bigger statement here is that nobody is _entitled_ to anything.
We have an informal agreement that you shouldn't hit on service workers because essentially they can't escape the situation gracefully, but that agreement is not bilateral because as a customer you generally do have the freedom to be up front or let it pass.
Obviously there are shades of grey to everything, and by no means am I excusing all behaviour, but the power dynamic is in favour of the client not the worker, and if you're respectful of the individual then I don't see why it should be stigmatic to approach someone.
For context I've had waitresses give me their number, and that was just nice, no expectation that I have to reply and no repercussions if I didn't (as-in, they didn't have a means to berate me for not replying). But, yeah, shades of grey.
We have an informal agreement that you shouldn't hit on service workers because essentially they can't escape the situation gracefully, but that agreement is not bilateral because as a customer you generally do have the freedom to be up front or let it pass.
Obviously there are shades of grey to everything, and by no means am I excusing all behaviour, but the power dynamic is in favour of the client not the worker, and if you're respectful of the individual then I don't see why it should be stigmatic to approach someone.
For context I've had waitresses give me their number, and that was just nice, no expectation that I have to reply and no repercussions if I didn't (as-in, they didn't have a means to berate me for not replying). But, yeah, shades of grey.
Even though I was a professional software engineer at the time, I was also a part time fitness instructor for over a decade. I even taught at women’s only gyms. I was really careful about not approaching anyone in my class - for the most part, women do not want to be approached at the gym - especially a women’s only gym, they go there specifically not to be bothered.
On a slightly tangential note women only gyms are the only place where some observant Muslim women could work out in comfortable clothing.
On a slightly tangential note women only gyms are the only place where some observant Muslim women could work out in comfortable clothing.
In the context of a lyft/uber it's a bit different; it would not only be socially awkward but also usually make me late (and possibly even dangerous) to stop the ride halfway through and exit.
It's not the case (thankfully) that I've felt my safety is in danger in these situations... it's just annoying.
It's not the case (thankfully) that I've felt my safety is in danger in these situations... it's just annoying.
Dating is all about risk. If you can't hit on your client, then what about the person at the grocery store? What about at the DMV? What about on the street?
If we eliminate flirting from all the places it's unacceptable, then there wouldn't be any more flirting at all. Considering it's generally the man's responsibility to initiate (cultural standards, not my own, I would love if women took this responsibility), this really just negatively affects men and not women, furthering the inequality in dating.
If we eliminate flirting from all the places it's unacceptable, then there wouldn't be any more flirting at all. Considering it's generally the man's responsibility to initiate (cultural standards, not my own, I would love if women took this responsibility), this really just negatively affects men and not women, furthering the inequality in dating.
Some places you should not flirt. I’m not flirting with a client. They are there to conduct business. Like I said above, I was a part time fitnesses instructor and occasional personal trainer. I would never even think about flirting with a client when I was single. I definitely wouldn’t flirt with a subordinate.
I always told myself not to flirt with a coworker (don’t mess where you eat), but I met my now-wife at my job, but by the time we started dating I knew the company was on its last leg so I said what the heck?
It was slightly hard dating in my 20s, it was even harder in my mid 30s after being divorced, I can’t imagine dating at 40+ if I were single again.
I always told myself not to flirt with a coworker (don’t mess where you eat), but I met my now-wife at my job, but by the time we started dating I knew the company was on its last leg so I said what the heck?
It was slightly hard dating in my 20s, it was even harder in my mid 30s after being divorced, I can’t imagine dating at 40+ if I were single again.
Flirting with a co-worker is still very inappropriate though, to some people. It's risky and there are no clear rules, which really sucks for men if they're expected to initiate.
In my case, what was the worse that could happen? They were going to fire me? I was doing presentations for potential buyers of the company. I knew we didn’t have more than two month’s runway left. If I had thought I was risking a long career at the company I might have been more careful.
> Not to excuse the behavior of your drivers, but...
Because for some people talking to strangers is hard. Literally - like for some people carrying a 50 lbs bag might be hard, so can be talking to a stranger. Can I take this 50 lbs bag and walk with you for a mile or two because you think it'd be fun for you? Yes, I can. Do I want to? Maybe, if you're my friend or I feel like working out or just in the mood. Or maybe not, because I don't feel like doing this work now. Maybe I just want to rest and be alone with my thoughts right now. Not for the whole life - but right now, in this moment.
People have different needs and different informational metabolism. Some like conversing with strangers, some - not really.
People have different needs and different informational metabolism. Some like conversing with strangers, some - not really.
Reading this felt like you've been observing me at the gym and documenting my behaviour. I've been trying to establish an exercise habit and at some point I'd like to become comfortable again talking to strangers. It used to be a skill that I practiced unknowingly when I was young and could talk to anyone. Now there are days when I'm done working out and it takes all the effort just to make eye contact with someone and mutter something like "hey, how was your class?"
Don't get me wrong - many introverts can talk to strangers just fine if they need it (just as I can lift 50 lbs if I need it), it's just something they don't particularly enjoy doing. It's work. If it needs to be done, it will be done, but if it can be avoided - it will be avoided. I am not sure one needs some training to change that - if I don't enjoy doing something, why waste time on doing it if I could instead do something I already enjoy doing?
for an ice-breaker, dont go with an emotional check-in lol. much easier to say something humorous like 'fukin weights, bastards are gonna kill me rather than make me fit'
Being silent in the absence of anything noteworthy to talk about is exactly the healthy reprieve some people are looking for. I personally find it absolutely taxing to talk about the weather or the traffic because I just don't enjoy talking for the sake of talking and I shouldn't be pressured to meet an arbitrary social expectation I have no interest in.
For that case, perhaps there should be an option to tick as you order the Uber.
> why people are so against talking to the people that give them a ride.
I'm an ethnic minority where I live, but I'm white. Do I want to be dragged into some racist conversation fuelled by Nigel Farage on talk-radio and by made-up stories in The Sun? Nope. Even if I did, would it change anything? Nope - a 20-min cab ride is not enough time to dispel all the crap accumulated over decades of disinformation.
If I had a STFU button for regular cabs, most of the time I would hit it hard. But there isn't one, so I put earphones up, send all the social signals I can think of that say "leave me alone", and tip well if they do exactly that.
I'm an ethnic minority where I live, but I'm white. Do I want to be dragged into some racist conversation fuelled by Nigel Farage on talk-radio and by made-up stories in The Sun? Nope. Even if I did, would it change anything? Nope - a 20-min cab ride is not enough time to dispel all the crap accumulated over decades of disinformation.
If I had a STFU button for regular cabs, most of the time I would hit it hard. But there isn't one, so I put earphones up, send all the social signals I can think of that say "leave me alone", and tip well if they do exactly that.
base698(2)
> I never understood why people are so against talking to the people that give them a ride.
I'm not always against talking to people, but there are definitely drivers who don't know how to read the mood in the car and will drag you into conversations you don't care about. Particularly if you're on a 4:30 am ride to the airport, you might just want to be left alone.
I'm not always against talking to people, but there are definitely drivers who don't know how to read the mood in the car and will drag you into conversations you don't care about. Particularly if you're on a 4:30 am ride to the airport, you might just want to be left alone.
>I never understood why people are so against talking to the people that give them a ride.
Its frequently one of the few times during the day where I do not have to interact with someone, especially when traveling for work. Sometimes I just want 10 minutes to myself to think.
Its frequently one of the few times during the day where I do not have to interact with someone, especially when traveling for work. Sometimes I just want 10 minutes to myself to think.
Ideally that’s a two way street, with driver that really want to talk to clients not accepting silent drives and vice versa.
Otherwise, just as talking to people seem to have helped you a lot, for other people not having to talk is also a godsend. I think it’s fine to not understand everyone’s motives or functionning, as long as their needs are met somehow.
Otherwise, just as talking to people seem to have helped you a lot, for other people not having to talk is also a godsend. I think it’s fine to not understand everyone’s motives or functionning, as long as their needs are met somehow.
I like talking with the person on the wheel on my Uber rides, unless I am busy with something important. Even when I am in a new place and don't know the local language well, I try to talk to them. It just gives a different perspective to what I usually get from my social circle and makes the time go by so fast.
I've never been interested in talking to my taxi driver.
I will if they initiate conversation just to be polite, but I'd really rather just be left alone to stare out the window and think.
I will if they initiate conversation just to be polite, but I'd really rather just be left alone to stare out the window and think.
My suggestion is to keep a few close friends for these times. I don't find it hard, but I genuinely enjoy my friends.
Similarly, if you don't have bread, my suggestion is to eat cake.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/conten...
Key take away:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Key take away:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Please don't take HN threads in this direction, however helpful your intention. It can only lead to a flamey mess.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This view was a major building block of civilization for thousands of years. Weird how willingly people throw it away these days and then wonder why family is collapsing and mental illness is widespread and increasing
One could argue that any period of change, be it personal or societal, involves a period of anxiety and tumult, which is often an unavoidable part of growth/progress. Could we not be in exactly such a period?
What say they of matriarchal societies that thrive? Did the divine designer's magic fingers slip while assembling those?
Dude, you’re their parents! Take some responsibility!
Aggressive, unsubstantive comments about personally intimate situations... please don't.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20118297 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20118297 and marked it off-topic.
Yes, I'd like to read a "I must have messed up somewhere". That would be a good starting point to "what can I do about it".
that's a bad attitude to take and leads to a lot of unnecessary guilt about something you have little control over. parents cannot do much to shape the personality and ability of their children in adulthood.
Guilt is unnecessary, agreed. And so is blame. Taking responsibility is. Without, you can't fix your mistakes.
And yes, personality and ability of children are definitely shaped by the parents. Of course, now that the kid is an adult, things are much harder to fix. But that doesn't mean the parents have no role in it.
And yes, personality and ability of children are definitely shaped by the parents. Of course, now that the kid is an adult, things are much harder to fix. But that doesn't mean the parents have no role in it.
Yes I would say the mistake was made 20 years ago
The daughter seems to be doing fine and we don't know the cause behind why is son is behaving the way he does.
* edited for good reason
Personal attacks aren't ok here.
I'm sure your intention is good, but the gruff tough-love approach which just maybe, if you have a good connection, can work sometimes in person—and even then is probably too harsh to do anything but cause pain—doesn't come across at all well in an internet comment. The genre is much too low-information and distant.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20118297 and marked it off-topic.
I'm sure your intention is good, but the gruff tough-love approach which just maybe, if you have a good connection, can work sometimes in person—and even then is probably too harsh to do anything but cause pain—doesn't come across at all well in an internet comment. The genre is much too low-information and distant.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20118297 and marked it off-topic.
symlinkk(5)
burntoutcase(3)
[deleted]
[deleted]
o10449366(1)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
lol the hacker news relationship advice this spawned
I'm going to propose a critical point of view, but stay with me.
I feel that the only people that are lonely choose loneliness up on them selves. In this day and age You can do so many things. Why only job, home, whine, repeat?
You can join a dance class, go to meetups, do volunteering, try yoga (acro Yoga my favourite), go to group gym classes, organize treks, events, hikes, meetups, go hitchhiking or go to Asia.
It's up to You to either spend Your days alone or with other people. Just say "hi, how are You doing?" to people in events. Everybody is looking for someone to bond with.
Unless You are really shy or only care about Your job and making money.
I feel that the only people that are lonely choose loneliness up on them selves. In this day and age You can do so many things. Why only job, home, whine, repeat?
You can join a dance class, go to meetups, do volunteering, try yoga (acro Yoga my favourite), go to group gym classes, organize treks, events, hikes, meetups, go hitchhiking or go to Asia.
It's up to You to either spend Your days alone or with other people. Just say "hi, how are You doing?" to people in events. Everybody is looking for someone to bond with.
Unless You are really shy or only care about Your job and making money.
City Journal is such conservative bullshit I can't even.
There is a lot of loneliness- as there has always been for humans, who have unique capabilities in migration and adaptation. Humans can survive loneliness.
There is a higher measure of divorce, which of course is often painful at the time, but it increasingly leads to improved "family" dynamics down the road.
Levels of acceptance for kids who are "different", while still suboptimal, are so much greater now than ever before. To be a gay kid in the City Journal's golden age for families- no thank you.
Opportunities to facilitate human connection through digital means have never been greater.
City Journal is garbage. Doesn't deserve HN attention.
There is a lot of loneliness- as there has always been for humans, who have unique capabilities in migration and adaptation. Humans can survive loneliness.
There is a higher measure of divorce, which of course is often painful at the time, but it increasingly leads to improved "family" dynamics down the road.
Levels of acceptance for kids who are "different", while still suboptimal, are so much greater now than ever before. To be a gay kid in the City Journal's golden age for families- no thank you.
Opportunities to facilitate human connection through digital means have never been greater.
City Journal is garbage. Doesn't deserve HN attention.
Opinion vs opinion driven by marketing. At the end of the day, the mom who chose to breast feed her baby using formula will argue that breast milk lack essential nutrients as opposed to scientifically researched formula and and the cross-fit practitioner will tell you their regime is safe and sound for the human body. Who wins at the end of the day? Me. The one selling you the dream with frequently purchased items such as products and services to improve your chosen lifestyle.
Solution? Build a family that consists of blood relation and friends that are not fickle like your aunt Judy. People who can show genuine support and encouragement when you talk to them about life. If the "family" doesn't show goodwill, boot them. You want absolute loyalty. Fuck high school drama.
Otherwise, you will grow old, grumpy and lonely like your uncle Jerry. Mom and dad are dead; best friend settled down with a family; old Henry broke off with you; and a trip to the Land of Smiles isn't so happy anymore when no one visits you, but elementary kids during their field trips to your retirement home.
Jokes aside, have a family or don't. People like me are the real winners...you're just a by-product of our secret marketing. With that said, how do you feel about our latest product we know can improve your lifestyle immediately without any side effects in less than 7 days for as little as $0.25 a day (ps: your friend probably uses it too, no wonder he's always better than you).
Solution? Build a family that consists of blood relation and friends that are not fickle like your aunt Judy. People who can show genuine support and encouragement when you talk to them about life. If the "family" doesn't show goodwill, boot them. You want absolute loyalty. Fuck high school drama.
Otherwise, you will grow old, grumpy and lonely like your uncle Jerry. Mom and dad are dead; best friend settled down with a family; old Henry broke off with you; and a trip to the Land of Smiles isn't so happy anymore when no one visits you, but elementary kids during their field trips to your retirement home.
Jokes aside, have a family or don't. People like me are the real winners...you're just a by-product of our secret marketing. With that said, how do you feel about our latest product we know can improve your lifestyle immediately without any side effects in less than 7 days for as little as $0.25 a day (ps: your friend probably uses it too, no wonder he's always better than you).
Going home feels so meh... I can watch more Sherlock Holmes videos (Jeremy Brett!), rewatch Parks and Rec or The Office, or work on music or art, but there is no one to share with, no one to quip with, no one to engage with on my passions. I just kinda laze about without more contact and stimulus.
And I do have a better social circle now than I have since I left home at age 18...minus the daily familial, non-work interaction. I can't wait to hit the phase of life with a partner and/or family living with me.
If anyone in Providence, RI wants to hang, let me know!