(no title)
Snoozle | 2 years ago
1. The author posits the idea that we will become boring or unlikeable, even if we were not this way before. I personally don't see that take place in my surroundings. People's personalities don't tend to change too much, and barring some radical illness such as dementia (which the author mentions), I find it hard to believe that someone generally found as interesting would become boring after a certain amount of time.
2. The author points out the dichotomy between people wanting independence from community for most of their lives, while also wanting care when they are in need, but from my experience, people who desire independence strongly also desire it in times of weakness. I know many people in my extended family who have been independent and they continue to ask for nothing and want nothing even as their bodies fail.
I'm also a little confused as to the notion of people desiring independence from community. While I know many people that desired independence from local community microcosms, such as church, small rural towns, or disagreeable family, many of those people still want community. I really am not seeing the issue that this author refers to in the article of people essentially wanting to be independent and optional from all communities in order to maintain wealth. In my experience the main issue people are having is that we don't have ready made replacements to traditional communities and online communities are not fulfilling the social requirements of being a human.
tech_ken|2 years ago
Right I think the author correctly identifies some of the causes and contours of the decline of certain traditional community modes, but she has a massive blindspot for new models of community that have IMO risen in the last decades. For people in my milleu "found family" or other forms of less-local but equally-supportive community have become very popular.
She says:
> But there is a trade off. At a societal level, we can be rich, or we can be communitarian. I don’t think we can be both – at least, not for long.
But this seems too clean to me. I see the dynamic she's pointing out, but her account is only one strand in a larger cultural pattern.
phatskat|2 years ago
This in particularly strikes me as something I’d expect from a certain Jordan Balthazar Peterson: he often frames things like wealth inequality or patriarchy as immovable hierarchies; pitting left and right, rich and poor, gay and straight, as dichotomies that cannot coexist for long without one (guess which one) eventually becoming the dominant.
It’s a very defeatist attitude, and suggests “but what can be done?” and rarely offers solutions beyond sticking with the status quo. I think it’s absolutely possible to be rich and communitarian.
aidenn0|2 years ago
> 1. The author posits the idea that we will become boring or unlikeable, even if we were not this way before. I personally don't see that take place in my surroundings. People's personalities don't tend to change too much, and barring some radical illness such as dementia (which the author mentions), I find it hard to believe that someone generally found as interesting would become boring after a certain amount of time.
When you work 40+ hours a week and are raising kids, there's a limit to how boring and unlikable you can be just because you are inflicting yourself on others less often.
> 2. The author points out the dichotomy between people wanting independence from community for most of their lives, while also wanting care when they are in need, but from my experience, people who desire independence strongly also desire it in times of weakness. I know many people in my extended family who have been independent and they continue to ask for nothing and want nothing even as their bodies fail.
I think if you change "wanting care" to "needing care" then the dichotomy stands. I'm seeing it right now with my extended family.
> I'm also a little confused as to the notion of people desiring independence from community. While I know many people that desired independence from local community microcosms, such as church, small rural towns, or disagreeable family, many of those people still want community. I really am not seeing the issue that this author refers to in the article of people essentially wanting to be independent and optional from all communities in order to maintain wealth. In my experience the main issue people are having is that we don't have ready made replacements to traditional communities and online communities are not fulfilling the social requirements of being a human.
I agree that I don't see people "wanting to be independent ... in order to maintain wealth" but the concept that those who are more independent can build wealth faster seems believable. I do see people wanting to be independent because of the downsides of community (e.g. the proverbial "gossipy neighbors" who will make your communal life miserable if you do not placate them).
I also think that non-family community has been greatly demolished because people have found substitutes for many of the upsides of community; not just with wealth affording living alone, but with entertainment replacing various community activities; bowling leagues, fraternal organizations, even sitting at a bar drinking beer with friends have been in steady decline since the invention of the Television.
People aren't avoiding the pro-social behaviors pined about in the article to sit in the darkness, lonely twiddling their thumbs. They are playing video games, watching TV/videos, and doom scrolling.
jebarker|2 years ago
One way in which I see this is that people move away from parents/relatives or outsource their care so that they can focus on their careers in middle age.