[fleddr]

The parent comment is pointless intellectualism.

I'm really quite sure that people can grasp that when you put a fish on dry land, it's not made for that. And that similarly, we're not made for social isolation, living indoors, extreme overstimulation of the senses, non-stop negativity, lack of cognitive breaks, etc.

[bluefirebrand]

Conflating working from home with social isolation is a pretty big reach though.

Maybe people actually just have social lives outside of work, and probably that's healthier for them.

[slothtrop]

Anecdotally, it doesn't seem to be the case. For those who have their spouse and children (if they've reached that point), and in a WFH situation it's possible not to encounter a single other person in the day during the week, until running errands.

If you're living alone, then it's trivially possible not to socialize at all for days at a time (and beyond) - you now have to rearrange your life to meet people in your leisure time. You have to join meetups, sports, clubs, after working all day because work is devoid of watercooler talk, of idle chit-chat. And so is your home. The precedence of having made friends in formative years and keeping them helps, but they're busy too - you won't see them every day.

So now you're looking at spending real $ just to meet an adequate threshold of social time every week.

[devenvdev]

I agree that the parent comment kinda misses the point that social isolation is bad for you. But "we're not designed to process the information avalanche of the modern age" does make me squint.

My intuition tells me that cavemen probably had worse quality of life (experience-wise) than modern humans.

Information input risen drastically long time ago, what was it, three thousand years from "here, this is a knife, you cut here" to a full blown education system?

I think our brain elasticity is good enough to handle much much more before it overloads (or whatever are the consequences of "unnatural" amount of information).

[reflexco]

"My intuition tells me that cavemen probably had worse quality of life (experience-wise) than modern humans."

That's a very suggestive judgment. It's likely they felt incredibly more in line with their body, emotions and environment. They were probably experiencing states of "flow" for the majority of their active hours, and frequent genuine happiness and sadness. But then it's impossible to measure things like fulfillment and happiness from bone remnants and fragments of DNA, so we wouldn't know for sure.

[9935c101ab17a66]

> The parent comment is pointless intellectualism.

Someone posts a thoughtful and polite reply, with links to back up their statements, and this is your response? This isn't appropriate at all.

As to your argument in general — well, I'll just include this section from the Wikipedia article 'Criticism of Evolutionary Biology' because I think every one of the criticisms discussed below could be applied to your comments:

> Critics of evolutionary psychology accuse it of promoting genetic determinism, pan-adaptationism (the idea that all behaviors and anatomical features are adaptations), unfalsifiable hypotheses, distal or ultimate explanations of behavior when proximate explanations are superior, and malevolent political or moral ideas.