40 years since Thatcher, Reagan and the rest of the world started tearing down everything communal, and community, giving individual "choice" instead. You'll buy a service, seek a product, but you won't know your neighbour.
Seems to be working as intended.
With hindsight, we should have stopped after about 10 years of those reforms.
What specific reforms are you referring to as the cause of loneliness in Canada? Why do you name two foreign politicians and no Canadian politicians? I presume you're upset with Brian Mulroney, but it's still unclear exactly why.
The picture painted by the article seems very comparable to the picture painted in many other countries. It picks out church and community as a mitigating factor. The common factor has been the destruction, intentionally or otherwise, of other group resources that gave friendship and interaction. Those have been mostly replaced by individuals acting individually, without the community and interaction benefit. Isolation is a very unsurprising consequence, even if it was unintended.
I name the two I did as they, famously, started the neoliberal revolution that the world has been trying the last few decades. That came a few years later to Canada as Trudeau was in power in the early 80s.
I'm no sociologist, but I suspect changes in the nature of work had a more sizable effect on loneliness. Nothing fuels teamwork like a shared experience of adversity, which makes sense considering how humans used to live in small bands where they had to toil together to solve life or death problems.
But there isn't a whole lot of that anymore - unless Trump goes to war with China and starts WWIII :(
This "captalism or communism" false dichotomy is really preventing society from considering useful alternatives. There are plenty of other systems we could develop.
I know people that lived under communism, and what you describe is false. The leaders were incentivized to spread distrust of neighbor to keep power. My friends who grew up that way remember the fear of neighbors that would turn you into the police.
Canada, the USA, UK, and others were not communist in the fifties and sixties, but did have many community group amenities that have mostly been lost in the 80s and beyond. Sharing stuff in groups is not communist or even require people be in communes. Communism generally had little to share anyway.
I'm not sure how that is a counterpoint other than attempted wordplay.
Too communal approach and you're looking at ossified society with no innovation and no efficiency - communism (socialism really) demonstrated it. My UK friend told me that UK was already heading somewhat dangerously in that direction right before Thatcher stepped in - it saw little economic growth, unions blocking entire industries etc. I don't know the full brunt of the situation back then, but it looks like people were tired enough to try a different approach, and elected Thatcher.
The seventies was indeed chaos on many levels. Know why? The 1973 oil crisis. Most everything else of the dysfunctional, high inflation seventies stemmed from that. I remember once getting 15% on a savings account! Below inflation, of course.
Too much union power, and their political aspiration aggravated that rather than caused it. As the economy faltered they continued to seek above inflation pay rises driving inflation higher. Strikes could have one industry supporting another via sympathetic strikes. Until the oil crisis and rest of the seventies it hadn't mattered much, and no one much cared that some union had elected an extremist. The chaos that led to Thatcher and Reagan being necessary came from 73.
None of this related in the slightest to the many community, but not communist, town clubs, amenities, work social clubs, social care and countless other things that died or deformed in the reforms. Which helped push to the little or no community we see today. Thatcher once said something like "there's no such thing as society, just individuals".
Which is why I think the early changes were helpful, especially putting some constraint on unions, but not neutering them completely. The other 30 odd years of going in the same direction have been as damaging as those long fixed seventies problems, so I haven't been especially surprised at the global crises of mental health, loneliness and isolation we've ended up with.
The elderly are particularly vulnerable. I'm a Canadian and I'd like to plug an international charitable movement called Cycling Without Age[1]. In helping found a local chapter, I've really started to see how common social isolation is, independent of health and wealth and even in urban density. But I've also seen how even a single short social connection can have enduring benefit. Unlike some afflictions of aging, loneliness is a relatively solvable problem.
Take care of your older friends and family and neighbours, and maybe even offer to connect with a stranger once in a while. It's good for everyone! :-)
Well a few decades ago people used to go to church weekly and now people don’t, and hey, loneliness and lack of companions for people is cropping up all over the news lately (observation).
That leaves an opportunity for organizations who bring people together without propagating silly beliefs. Sunday Assembly is one example of this model.
I'm not sure how I feel about this line of argument, but food for thought:
Is the authoritarianism and coercion a necessary part of church? Clearly left to their own devices, people aren't self-organizing into social groups very well. And perhaps the silly beliefs are an important marker or side effect of social coercion, and can't easily be abandoned. Even if they're not causal, they are a great indicator that you are truly allied with the group.
>Is the authoritarianism and coercion a necessary part of church
Speaking about religion in genera:
Authoritarianism, no. I don't see how that's related. You can have a cohesive group without being a dick to everyone who doesn't conform to the exact letter of every little thing.
Coercion is required on some level but unless you really don't conform to any of the social norms of the group you should be fine. A religion can always structure itself to have a bare minimum amount of conformity and accept anyone above that. Being able to conform to group social norms or at leas minimize when you can't is part of being human.
> Authoritarianism, no. I don't see how that's related. You can have a cohesive group without being a dick to everyone who doesn't conform to the exact letter of every little thing.
I might have used a poor word. I certainly didn't mean for authoritarianism to mean "being a dick to everyone." I suppose I meant hierarchical structure, pressure, and control.
As a corollary, imagine the sort of social cohesion you see in the military. With regard to the values the military cares about, there's a high degree of coercion and authoritarianism. So, counterpoints about how you can be whatever religion, creed, political party etc aren't really valid in my mind. You can Muslim or Christian, but you can't ignore a salute, or a command, etc. The values the military wishes to coerce are nonnegotiable.
There can be no doubt that the military is good at systematically building cohesion in troops. I'm just wondering how well social cohesion can work without any of these aspects. In other words, does strict individualism harm social cohesion.
We also used leaded gas a few decades ago. What’s your point? Just because people go to church less doesn’t mean that’s why people are lonely, it just means that people are lonely and they’ve also stopped going to church as much. There’s no causal link there.
Plus, it’s 100% possible to have community without church.
Clearly church was a common source of community for people, and the OP makes the point that maybe we haven't found a good replacement for it yet. I wouldn't just dismiss that out of hand, it's a reasonable hypothesis on the surface.
Church services require people to be in the same place at the same time, for the same purpose.
Few other activities gather the same people regularly. I can immediately think of narrow social networks (like obscure subreddits), and online games, though.
Although those activities lack the factor of physical presence. For a lot of people in modern society the only time they are around others is at work or in public places neither of which have a primary focus on community and fellowship like a church congregation. We desperately need to add more community gatherings that don't exclude people based on skill or ability.
Isn't the potential connection obvious? If you remove the main source of community and making friendships outside school/college and your workplace, that could definitely lead to loneliness.
As a child who was abused by religion I find this offensive. It may as well be technology, the effects of the economy, and or social change from stress with competition being higher than ever.
Sorry to hear that. Unfourtunately the idea that this could happen wasn’t widely publicised and hence the correct cautions were never put in place (for example, now to serve as a minister you need to be on a register, hold an ID card and undergo regular police checks). Of course that doesn’t solve the issue in its entirety, but hopefully it helps you appreciate that people are thinking about the issue.
Actually it doesn't help. I don't appreciate how the victims aren't compensated and what should only be considered a business is allowed to continue operating. Nobody goes to jail or anything. Wish I was born into a society that didn't have religion. Also the downvotes make me think I'm right to assume religious people are just narcissists that care so much about their views to ignore others that were severely wronged.
You're not wrong, but, there's so much things wrong with religious institution - think indoctrination, contradicting views (love thy neighbour unless they're gay, or had an abortion, or they vote Democrats, or they're black, but give extra love to young boys which is totally fine unlike extramarital relationships and condoms)
I didn’t experience the social aspect and was just tortured. I’m not going to consider anything where people are gathered as a social experience unless there is real events that made it social for everyone.
The part where it shows the responses with regard to social interaction with neighbours is a huge part of this. A lot of my friends have been neighbours or people I met out and about. If you do not have social interactions with complete strangers, and your family is disappearing from your life, you will probably be alone.
Social time, no go back to your roommate filled apartment with an one & half hour commute one way to work to be downsized, underpaid, under trained, miss manged, and pension sold off to pay for your boss kids' toys.
Why would anyone in Canada feel isolated or lonely?
This seems like a micro-version of whats happening in Japan. Looks like most civilisations have a curve of social development. Japan is post-prosperity.
The idea is that all you need is money, business, and technology are not true... but don't tell people that because they have adopted these as virtues of some sort of new syncretic religion.
One prosaic explanation for social isolation in Canada in particular would be its relatively harsh winters which make being outside uncomfortable and unpleasant (i.e., cold, wet, dark) for much of the year, especially if you're old. If you're cooped up inside your house you're much less likely to have chance encounters with your neighbours or strangers.
Another major issue is immigration. You have lots of people living together that don't share any sort of social cultural connection... and then you have work which occupies most people's existence most of the time therefore there is almost no time to build a new culture outside of work... and no one even knows what that would look like to strive towards something like that. Modern capitalist man is one dimensional isolated man whose sense of self is more or less based on providing for him or herself and the things that they care about whether that be people, pets, or the material things which own them such as their financial obligations to the banks for their housing and their employers.
Before that in the Middle Ages, Westerners in the upper classes who had any sort of wealth were much more social living very much like people in the so-called third world live today where they would throw parties to show their wealth and took pride in showing off their children and their accomplishments. When that culture was bulldozed, people forgot that it even existed... and perhaps it never did in the frontier like Canada like it did in old Europe. The immigrants were always busy working to be productive and industrious and always not closely related to the people they lived near.
Well liberation came through technology and politics where women who were quite dependent on men became no longer dependent on men economically or in fear of being impregnated by them. You could not escape that reality before, and so single families proliferated alongside a legal system which encouraged that rather than the patriarchy which forced people to stay together for the kids even if they could no longer stand each other -- or one party was abusive towards the other.
An alternative theory, and I think much larger reason for the destruction of the family unit is that individualism was heavily marketed by mainstream media through the 20th century. People shifted their wants and desires in marriage from one of creating a family unit to that of finding personal enlightenment.
The excellent documentary The Century of the Self covers the evolution of marketing, the baby boomers and the psychology behind individualism:
I've seen ethnic groups and seniors mitigate this by turning malls into their communal places. Malls with lots of natural sunlight coming in, lots of seating inside and outside of the food court and have a "loop" structure that mimic an indoor track seem to do well to attract this.
Maybe we should be looking at the existing “cow paths” and figuring out how to make them more welcoming to the idea of being a shared communal space during the winter.
My mom hasn't driven in 40 years (she's 90). She's not a shut-in. Lives in an apartment with 100 other older, independent people. Took the bus until just recently. Goes to lunch with her kids several times each week.
And with the advent of the internet, we want to talk shutins, we want to talk young people online most of their waking moments?
Social isolation is probably the result of too much wealth. Y Combinator should have it on their request for startup list. Snapchat is doing something in this space.
Friends as a service, ha :) Naturally money can pretty easily promote companionship but I’m guessing people might need a few hints how to perform the conversion.
Edit:
Thinking about this more, it seems like there could be room in the market for “like Tinder, but for arranging social events” (ie party, soccer, whatever)
“John from 3 streets down would like you to play soccer this Saturday (26 people are going, you’ve met 5). Accept/Decline?”
I'm from a less developed country and I moved to a developed country. That's pretty much what happens.
The people from the less developed country are more sociable, in the true sense of the word, because they know that in the future they will need other people. In a developed country, with enough income, a decent market economy and rule of law, strangers can do most of what you want, if you pay them or just obey the law.
In poor countries the social net is: family, extended family, neighbors, various acquaintances.
In rich countries the social net is: your own income (impersonal), the state (impersonal), the healthcare system (also impersonal). Obviously, the things I listed for poor countries also apply, but to a much lesser degree.
Personal experience, YMMV, but it's a common thing I hear from people with the same background as mine.
To some extent wealth and the comfort you can buy with it does reduce dependence on others and can help someone become isolated, since you don’t need help or favors and don’t need to engage in reciprocal social activities, since you can just pay for things. It doesn’t necessarily cause isolation, but it definitely helps someone who intentionally or unintentionally want to become socially isolated.
This. One trivial example - people used to cook their meals in my country, which meant that you sometimes found yourself lacking some basic ingredients (like flour, salt, sugar) and just borrowed them from a neighbor living on the same floor. Now, as people more people eat out or order, this has decreased significantly.
Another thing is children activity - when I was a child, all children from my area were playing together outside all day (weather and school permitting), which resulted in parents knowing each other via various everyday interactions. Now, when people can afford to pay for extracurricular activities for their children, they just chauffeur them to their various activities and there is no parent community where the children actually live.
40 years since Thatcher, Reagan and the rest of the world started tearing down everything communal, and community, giving individual "choice" instead. You'll buy a service, seek a product, but you won't know your neighbour.
Seems to be working as intended.
With hindsight, we should have stopped after about 10 years of those reforms.
What specific reforms are you referring to as the cause of loneliness in Canada? Why do you name two foreign politicians and no Canadian politicians? I presume you're upset with Brian Mulroney, but it's still unclear exactly why.
The picture painted by the article seems very comparable to the picture painted in many other countries. It picks out church and community as a mitigating factor. The common factor has been the destruction, intentionally or otherwise, of other group resources that gave friendship and interaction. Those have been mostly replaced by individuals acting individually, without the community and interaction benefit. Isolation is a very unsurprising consequence, even if it was unintended.
I name the two I did as they, famously, started the neoliberal revolution that the world has been trying the last few decades. That came a few years later to Canada as Trudeau was in power in the early 80s.
I'm no sociologist, but I suspect changes in the nature of work had a more sizable effect on loneliness. Nothing fuels teamwork like a shared experience of adversity, which makes sense considering how humans used to live in small bands where they had to toil together to solve life or death problems.
But there isn't a whole lot of that anymore - unless Trump goes to war with China and starts WWIII :(
As a counterpoint, the communist countries were extremely communal, and they were terrible for everyone involved (except for people running things).
This "captalism or communism" false dichotomy is really preventing society from considering useful alternatives. There are plenty of other systems we could develop.
I know people that lived under communism, and what you describe is false. The leaders were incentivized to spread distrust of neighbor to keep power. My friends who grew up that way remember the fear of neighbors that would turn you into the police.
Canada, the USA, UK, and others were not communist in the fifties and sixties, but did have many community group amenities that have mostly been lost in the 80s and beyond. Sharing stuff in groups is not communist or even require people be in communes. Communism generally had little to share anyway.
I'm not sure how that is a counterpoint other than attempted wordplay.
Too communal approach and you're looking at ossified society with no innovation and no efficiency - communism (socialism really) demonstrated it. My UK friend told me that UK was already heading somewhat dangerously in that direction right before Thatcher stepped in - it saw little economic growth, unions blocking entire industries etc. I don't know the full brunt of the situation back then, but it looks like people were tired enough to try a different approach, and elected Thatcher.
The seventies was indeed chaos on many levels. Know why? The 1973 oil crisis. Most everything else of the dysfunctional, high inflation seventies stemmed from that. I remember once getting 15% on a savings account! Below inflation, of course.
Too much union power, and their political aspiration aggravated that rather than caused it. As the economy faltered they continued to seek above inflation pay rises driving inflation higher. Strikes could have one industry supporting another via sympathetic strikes. Until the oil crisis and rest of the seventies it hadn't mattered much, and no one much cared that some union had elected an extremist. The chaos that led to Thatcher and Reagan being necessary came from 73.
None of this related in the slightest to the many community, but not communist, town clubs, amenities, work social clubs, social care and countless other things that died or deformed in the reforms. Which helped push to the little or no community we see today. Thatcher once said something like "there's no such thing as society, just individuals".
Which is why I think the early changes were helpful, especially putting some constraint on unions, but not neutering them completely. The other 30 odd years of going in the same direction have been as damaging as those long fixed seventies problems, so I haven't been especially surprised at the global crises of mental health, loneliness and isolation we've ended up with.
The elderly are particularly vulnerable. I'm a Canadian and I'd like to plug an international charitable movement called Cycling Without Age[1]. In helping found a local chapter, I've really started to see how common social isolation is, independent of health and wealth and even in urban density. But I've also seen how even a single short social connection can have enduring benefit. Unlike some afflictions of aging, loneliness is a relatively solvable problem.
Take care of your older friends and family and neighbours, and maybe even offer to connect with a stranger once in a while. It's good for everyone! :-)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Ti4qUa-OU
Well a few decades ago people used to go to church weekly and now people don’t, and hey, loneliness and lack of companions for people is cropping up all over the news lately (observation).
That leaves an opportunity for organizations who bring people together without propagating silly beliefs. Sunday Assembly is one example of this model.
I'm not sure how I feel about this line of argument, but food for thought:
Is the authoritarianism and coercion a necessary part of church? Clearly left to their own devices, people aren't self-organizing into social groups very well. And perhaps the silly beliefs are an important marker or side effect of social coercion, and can't easily be abandoned. Even if they're not causal, they are a great indicator that you are truly allied with the group.
>Is the authoritarianism and coercion a necessary part of church
Speaking about religion in genera:
Authoritarianism, no. I don't see how that's related. You can have a cohesive group without being a dick to everyone who doesn't conform to the exact letter of every little thing.
Coercion is required on some level but unless you really don't conform to any of the social norms of the group you should be fine. A religion can always structure itself to have a bare minimum amount of conformity and accept anyone above that. Being able to conform to group social norms or at leas minimize when you can't is part of being human.
> Authoritarianism, no. I don't see how that's related. You can have a cohesive group without being a dick to everyone who doesn't conform to the exact letter of every little thing.
I might have used a poor word. I certainly didn't mean for authoritarianism to mean "being a dick to everyone." I suppose I meant hierarchical structure, pressure, and control.
As a corollary, imagine the sort of social cohesion you see in the military. With regard to the values the military cares about, there's a high degree of coercion and authoritarianism. So, counterpoints about how you can be whatever religion, creed, political party etc aren't really valid in my mind. You can Muslim or Christian, but you can't ignore a salute, or a command, etc. The values the military wishes to coerce are nonnegotiable.
There can be no doubt that the military is good at systematically building cohesion in troops. I'm just wondering how well social cohesion can work without any of these aspects. In other words, does strict individualism harm social cohesion.
Love your neighbor
We also used leaded gas a few decades ago. What’s your point? Just because people go to church less doesn’t mean that’s why people are lonely, it just means that people are lonely and they’ve also stopped going to church as much. There’s no causal link there.
Plus, it’s 100% possible to have community without church.
Edit: cool, downvotes for disagreement.
Clearly church was a common source of community for people, and the OP makes the point that maybe we haven't found a good replacement for it yet. I wouldn't just dismiss that out of hand, it's a reasonable hypothesis on the surface.
Sunday Assembly is getting popular and very much not religious: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/11175092/Br...
Wish it were more active in the BALTIMORE / DC area.
But how do you get from that to “we’re lonely because we’re not going to church”?
Church services require people to be in the same place at the same time, for the same purpose.
Few other activities gather the same people regularly. I can immediately think of narrow social networks (like obscure subreddits), and online games, though.
Although those activities lack the factor of physical presence. For a lot of people in modern society the only time they are around others is at work or in public places neither of which have a primary focus on community and fellowship like a church congregation. We desperately need to add more community gatherings that don't exclude people based on skill or ability.
>require people to be in the same place at the same time, for the same purpose.
Otherwise known as the most effective way to build friendships.
World of Warcraft raids are the only one
Isn't the potential connection obvious? If you remove the main source of community and making friendships outside school/college and your workplace, that could definitely lead to loneliness.
Can't speak for everyone, but I downvoted it for snarky disagreement that showed only a superficial engagement with the topic.
The edit really pushed it over the top as well.
As a child who was abused by religion I find this offensive. It may as well be technology, the effects of the economy, and or social change from stress with competition being higher than ever.
Sorry to hear that. Unfourtunately the idea that this could happen wasn’t widely publicised and hence the correct cautions were never put in place (for example, now to serve as a minister you need to be on a register, hold an ID card and undergo regular police checks). Of course that doesn’t solve the issue in its entirety, but hopefully it helps you appreciate that people are thinking about the issue.
Actually it doesn't help. I don't appreciate how the victims aren't compensated and what should only be considered a business is allowed to continue operating. Nobody goes to jail or anything. Wish I was born into a society that didn't have religion. Also the downvotes make me think I'm right to assume religious people are just narcissists that care so much about their views to ignore others that were severely wronged.
Agree that they are very much a business based on how most act, despite some having good intentions.
I'm sorry the truth is offensive to you, but, almost by design, going to church is a social experience.
You're not wrong, but, there's so much things wrong with religious institution - think indoctrination, contradicting views (love thy neighbour unless they're gay, or had an abortion, or they vote Democrats, or they're black, but give extra love to young boys which is totally fine unlike extramarital relationships and condoms)
Picking on the sore points of Catholicism as a criticism of all religion is really dismissive.
1: that's something that's wrong with one very specific implementation of a subsect of a religious institution
2: I never made a value judgement about religious institutions being good or bad. I merely said they were social in nature.
Every institution with humans has its misdeeds
I didn’t experience the social aspect and was just tortured. I’m not going to consider anything where people are gathered as a social experience unless there is real events that made it social for everyone.
The part where it shows the responses with regard to social interaction with neighbours is a huge part of this. A lot of my friends have been neighbours or people I met out and about. If you do not have social interactions with complete strangers, and your family is disappearing from your life, you will probably be alone.
Social time, no go back to your roommate filled apartment with an one & half hour commute one way to work to be downsized, underpaid, under trained, miss manged, and pension sold off to pay for your boss kids' toys. Why would anyone in Canada feel isolated or lonely?
This seems like a micro-version of whats happening in Japan. Looks like most civilisations have a curve of social development. Japan is post-prosperity.
The idea is that all you need is money, business, and technology are not true... but don't tell people that because they have adopted these as virtues of some sort of new syncretic religion.
One prosaic explanation for social isolation in Canada in particular would be its relatively harsh winters which make being outside uncomfortable and unpleasant (i.e., cold, wet, dark) for much of the year, especially if you're old. If you're cooped up inside your house you're much less likely to have chance encounters with your neighbours or strangers.
Another major issue is immigration. You have lots of people living together that don't share any sort of social cultural connection... and then you have work which occupies most people's existence most of the time therefore there is almost no time to build a new culture outside of work... and no one even knows what that would look like to strive towards something like that. Modern capitalist man is one dimensional isolated man whose sense of self is more or less based on providing for him or herself and the things that they care about whether that be people, pets, or the material things which own them such as their financial obligations to the banks for their housing and their employers.
Before that in the Middle Ages, Westerners in the upper classes who had any sort of wealth were much more social living very much like people in the so-called third world live today where they would throw parties to show their wealth and took pride in showing off their children and their accomplishments. When that culture was bulldozed, people forgot that it even existed... and perhaps it never did in the frontier like Canada like it did in old Europe. The immigrants were always busy working to be productive and industrious and always not closely related to the people they lived near.
More than the immigrants or capitalism , I would boil it down to breaking up of the family as the fundamental building block of society.
The 'very recent' social engineering has thrown western societies in a depressive state.
Even in the age of plenty, we miss the family bond in our solitary lives.
Well liberation came through technology and politics where women who were quite dependent on men became no longer dependent on men economically or in fear of being impregnated by them. You could not escape that reality before, and so single families proliferated alongside a legal system which encouraged that rather than the patriarchy which forced people to stay together for the kids even if they could no longer stand each other -- or one party was abusive towards the other.
An alternative theory, and I think much larger reason for the destruction of the family unit is that individualism was heavily marketed by mainstream media through the 20th century. People shifted their wants and desires in marriage from one of creating a family unit to that of finding personal enlightenment.
The excellent documentary The Century of the Self covers the evolution of marketing, the baby boomers and the psychology behind individualism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
I've seen ethnic groups and seniors mitigate this by turning malls into their communal places. Malls with lots of natural sunlight coming in, lots of seating inside and outside of the food court and have a "loop" structure that mimic an indoor track seem to do well to attract this.
Maybe we should be looking at the existing “cow paths” and figuring out how to make them more welcoming to the idea of being a shared communal space during the winter.
My observation is that once seniors in the USA lose their ability to drive, they become shut-ins.
A different view:
My mom hasn't driven in 40 years (she's 90). She's not a shut-in. Lives in an apartment with 100 other older, independent people. Took the bus until just recently. Goes to lunch with her kids several times each week.
And with the advent of the internet, we want to talk shutins, we want to talk young people online most of their waking moments?
Social isolation is probably the result of too much wealth. Y Combinator should have it on their request for startup list. Snapchat is doing something in this space.
Friends as a service, ha :) Naturally money can pretty easily promote companionship but I’m guessing people might need a few hints how to perform the conversion.
Edit: Thinking about this more, it seems like there could be room in the market for “like Tinder, but for arranging social events” (ie party, soccer, whatever)
“John from 3 streets down would like you to play soccer this Saturday (26 people are going, you’ve met 5). Accept/Decline?”
>Friends as a service, ha :)
That's what streaming services like Twitch are, aren't they?
I see posts like that all the time on Meetup
Similarly, with information as wealth, I often don't ask questions I know I can look up on the internet
What? How would wealth result in social isolation? Youre positing that a lack of survival need on others results in isolation?
I'm from a less developed country and I moved to a developed country. That's pretty much what happens.
The people from the less developed country are more sociable, in the true sense of the word, because they know that in the future they will need other people. In a developed country, with enough income, a decent market economy and rule of law, strangers can do most of what you want, if you pay them or just obey the law.
In poor countries the social net is: family, extended family, neighbors, various acquaintances.
In rich countries the social net is: your own income (impersonal), the state (impersonal), the healthcare system (also impersonal). Obviously, the things I listed for poor countries also apply, but to a much lesser degree.
Personal experience, YMMV, but it's a common thing I hear from people with the same background as mine.
To some extent wealth and the comfort you can buy with it does reduce dependence on others and can help someone become isolated, since you don’t need help or favors and don’t need to engage in reciprocal social activities, since you can just pay for things. It doesn’t necessarily cause isolation, but it definitely helps someone who intentionally or unintentionally want to become socially isolated.
This. One trivial example - people used to cook their meals in my country, which meant that you sometimes found yourself lacking some basic ingredients (like flour, salt, sugar) and just borrowed them from a neighbor living on the same floor. Now, as people more people eat out or order, this has decreased significantly.
Another thing is children activity - when I was a child, all children from my area were playing together outside all day (weather and school permitting), which resulted in parents knowing each other via various everyday interactions. Now, when people can afford to pay for extracurricular activities for their children, they just chauffeur them to their various activities and there is no parent community where the children actually live.
Same here in NZ and I blame the winters with short daylight.