8 ms·

The alienation in the US very obviously has nothing to do with the internet, and in fact, I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. I say this becau

The alienation in the US very obviously has nothing to do with the internet, and in fact, I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. I say this because pretty much every country is as online as the US is, and doesn't have the problems the US does. The US is alienated from widespread fear of crime, immigration (aka the actual sociological results of Robert Putnam, rather than the yammerings of some Buzzfeed wanker), poisonous oligarch funded divisive politics, and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric in US society. There are various obvious ways of decreasing social alienation in US society; the problem with that is, most people aren't going to like it. The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. Fiddling with the internet in a futile attempt to decrease social alienation is like buying a tank top to increase your physical fitness.

pixelbash 7y ago
> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. A strong social fabric at it's root is things like being willing to talk to all walks of life and not nurturing a fear of the unknown.
- cmdshiftf4 7y ago
  >Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Would you care to point to one, or cite some studies to show their effectiveness vs those that are homogeneous in nature? I'd argue that a strong sense of shared identity, such as that provided previously by religion in the West, and which still currently holds strength elsewhere, is crucial to the success of a given society. The War state, and then post-War state, of the West also had a strong sense of shared identity and bound together as a result. Evidence points towards it. The current state of the West is a testament to the disarray caused in a heterogeneous society with no sense of shared identity and the mutual obligations that result from it. The divisions and gaps are only widening, the issues around it are only becoming worse, and those who stand to benefit from it are using it to its full advantage.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    >I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Comparable to what? I mean, just as one well known and google-able example, the Roman empire was obviously thoroughly heterogeneous. Maybe the key is that most people couldn't really travel? So no one from Lutetia ever really knew any woman from Alexandria for instance. Whereas today in Paris, obviously, a large number of people know people from Alexandria. EDIT: I realize that if you were in the Roman Army, you were an exception to the general rule of people not knowing people from other parts of the empire. Obviously, Romans had to fight together against the barbarians. (Or rather, against the other future Romans.) But that would be an example of one of the few ways your average Joe in Marseille would get to know your average Joe in Leptis Magna. But I digress. Most large, long lasting empires were not only enormous, but heterogeneous by necessity. Rome, China after warring states (even before actually), definitely Persia. In fact, I can't really think up any examples of contemporaneous homogeneous societies that could have even dreamed of competing with the historic behemoths.
    - dave_b 7y ago
      I think the heterogeneity of empires is a contributing factor to their eventual dissolution though. They tend to last a century or two at their height, and then start to break apart as more cohesive nations emerge. That’s not such a long time as far as societies go. And the issue at hand isn’t whether homogenous societies could “compete” with empires, but whether they’re more likely to persist (and have less alienation among the people).
      - bilbo0s 7y ago
        But China, Persia, and Rome lasted a whole lot longer than a century or two. If memory serves, most of the college books considered the height of Roman quality of life, as well as Roman influence in the world, to be the time of Diocletian's reign. (I think he was the tetrarchy guy, but people are free to correct me if there are real historians out there.) In any case, obviously Rome was heterogeneous, again just going by memory here, but it must have been at least before the first century BC. (Assuming the Bible is to be believed. Also, why else would we call it "BC" and "AD"?) So that's like, at least 4 centuries right there. Persia you can probably go what? At least a thousand years. And that's assuming you only start at Cyrus the Great. China is China. Different dynasties like the British, but even if you only counted the dynasties that ruled uncontested over all of the different ethnic groups, you'd be talking about a millennia or two at least as a political grouping whether by birthright, marriage or usurpation. Just pointing out that while some heterogeneous empires certainly fail, all of the empires in mankind's history that were great and long lasting, were unquestionably heterogeneous. I mean, some people may correct me on some details here and there, but in essentials that can't even be debated. It's extremely difficult to take out these empires. And despite what is generally believed, the historical evidence indicates that well run empires are not at all likely to fail on their own. (Even in the face of élites fighting each other, well run places just stand by and watch the old emperor get assassinated, and then, Hey! New emperor in Rome today!) Even at their heights, unless you have a few millennia to wait for failure, they typically just haven't gone away as fast as the homogeneous empires have.
- dave_b 7y ago
  It’s all well and good to encourage understanding and whatnot, but the question is what actually works in reality on a societal level. It might sound nice to say “a strong economic system is not based on greed but on a willingness of each person to contribute to the best of their ability,” but it turns out that philosophy doesn’t work very well when dealing with large groups of people. I think the same could be said about your statement.
- buboard 7y ago
  you have to define "be like other people". Racially, you don't have to be, perhaps not even religious-wise. But try being a libertarian in sweden, or a boomer among millennials
monoideism 7y ago
> from widespread fear of crime But crime, particularly violent crime, is at or near historic lows.
- papeda 7y ago
  Yes, but this is fear of crime. Over the past few decades, in general more Americans have believed crime is increasing than decreasing [1]. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - LMYahooTFY 7y ago
    I only went halfway down the page, but haven't yet stumbled upon the trend you're referring to? The first few questions specifically asking about the topic show the opposite of what you claim.
    - majos 7y ago
      The section I’m referring to is “Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?”.
      - philipkglass 7y ago
        Very interesting. The big swings in opinion don't seem timed to line up with national violent crime statistics. Maybe they correlate better with economic boom times and recessions. Or maybe perceptions are more weighted toward property crimes that have less reliable national statistics. Look at that dizzying drop in "more crime" responses between 1997 and 1998. The "more crime" responses stay low until 2002. Or maybe there's just a lot of noise in the responses. "More crime" gained 10 points between 2004 and 2005.
- jascii 7y ago
  There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the spread of crime and the spread of fear of crime. I see this as being related to the difference between risk and perceived risk.
jbigelow76 7y ago
The US is alienated from widespread fear of crime, immigration (aka the actual sociological results of Robert Putnam, rather than the yammerings of some Buzzfeed wanker), poisonous oligarch funded divisive politics, and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric in US society. There are various obvious ways of decreasing social alienation in US society; the problem with that is, most people aren't going to like it. The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. You can replace US with Western Society, because everything you described I can find analogs too in the UK/Europe. Fear of immigrants - check, fear of crime from immigrants - check, oligarch funded politics - check (Brexit). Maybeeee, there is a touch of truth to the family part with the US's high incarceration rate for African-Americans that could impact families in ways that Europe doesn't have; but wage stagnation also means young adults aren't leaving the home as early as previously so there's that. I just don't think what you laid out is unique to the US.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >there is a touch of truth to the family part with the US's high incarceration rate for African-Americans that could impact families in ways that Europe doesn't have Black americans are a minority though. So if they are, say 20% (which I don't think they are even that), what explains the alienation in the other 80%?
  - jbigelow76 7y ago
    I'm not saying overall alienation isn't a fact. But the GP laid out a list of reasons why it was problematic in the US and my point was those reasons a) mostly aren't unique to the US and b) probably not as big a contributor to alienation as they think. The mentioning of the high incarceration rate was to address their specific reason that the US is somehow unique in no longer having cohesive family units.
- papreclip 7y ago
  I think you're not parsing his sentence the way he intended it to be read "alienated due to fear of immigration" vs "alienated due to immigration". Of course, the EU also have their own share of immigration, at least in the past few years. But even with a whopping 15% of their residents being foreign-born, often the remaining 85% look the same, sound the same, are members or atheist ex-members of the same church, etc
amiga_500 7y ago
Computers, not the internet, allowed for banks to issue and track huge sums of debt at near zero cost. This allowed land prices to trend up to the maximum possible amount that people could service the debt at. This means people are now working as slaves for banks, making life pointless. This is why people are angry.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > This means people are now working as slaves for banks, making life pointless. This is why people are angry. Many people, perhaps, but not all. Many, maybe most, of my friends and family are nothing like slaves for banks, and aren't carrying anything like a burdensome load of debt.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    Are they people who either already had access to land, are in a high enough wealth bracket that they can purchase land, or don't care about owning land? Perhaps the OP's statement could be modified to "Many people are angry because they care about owning land but are unable to do so without becoming slaves to banks".
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      A couple own land outright, but most don't care about owning land at all. Your restatement makes more sense, but speaks to a specific subset of the general population.
  - amiga_500 7y ago
    > Many people, perhaps, but not all. Yes. > most, of my friends and family are nothing like slaves for bank Anecdote.
baybal2 7y ago
Seconding your though. A very good observation about this is that "letting masses into the internets" is very much like the historical period in Europe when popular masses got their hands on the printing press. Did people immediately utilised the press as a tool of mass enlightenment, and began printing academic literature? No... The very first popular printed literature were books on witchcraft and on Jew/Moor/Huguenot/Hussite burning.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  I love this point, assuming it’s historically accurate. Gives me hope that the issues around privacy, disinformation campaigns, walled gardens, and more, are mostly just inevitable growing pains from trying to harness this incredible capability we’ve built.
- buboard 7y ago
  This never stopped. Popular stuff is usually unoriginal and mediocre. It s not going to change
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 7y ago
>The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. I'd say the opposite: the individuality in alienation is faux individuality. The individual today is "individual" by their clothing choices, consumption patterns, etc, where everything is if not mass produced, still mediated by money in a market ("underground" and "alternative" consumption is still consumption, not some original expression of self). Add to that the widespread lack of social safety nets, non-support from community, friends, and even family, and individuals become obedient cogs to get their next meal. It's in the non-alienated societies where the individual can be truly non-conformant and more unique, because the uniqueness there can be an actual personal expression (e.g. the old eccentrics), and because community support means the individual is stronger against the state, market forces, etc. There are concessions to be made to get that community support, but few as heavy as the modern state/society/market/boss imposes on the individual (and they are based on historical prejudices which could be overcome within the same community - e.g against being gay - not in the inherent way the system functions - by making people consume as much as they can, nickel and dime them, treat them as redundant if they don't have money, etc- as are the modern concessions).
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Consumption doesn't prevent individuality. Not growing my own food doesn't make me a fashion victim.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    And yet, statistically it does. People not "growing their own food" buy into all kind of food trends, not to mention a whole nation sticking to 30-50 nationwide chains (restaurants, food brands, etc) for the huge majority of their food. Compared to an American of 70-80 years ago, or a modern French or Italian person this is huge conformism and sheep like consumption. And food is one of the most essential things in our life (not to mention the health implications). Although this is not about "growing own's own food". You can still buy your own food without modern consumerism, as societies have done since forever in farmers markets, etc (and people still do in other parts of the world), where the food is not mass produced and branded by 10 major chains, nor the restaurant choices are 20-30 nation wide chains.
bjourne 7y ago
I think it is worth mentioning that those fears are largely unfounded. The US is a much safer country today than it was 20-30 years ago. Especially the situation and social standing for many black Americans have improved tremendously. The US is not unique in that -- crime has fallen in most of the Western world -- yet people are more afraid than ever!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- umvi 7y ago
  That may be true, but media has warped out perceptions. The internet makes every mass shooting and earthquake and police brutality instantly reported to the entire planet and so the perception is that we are in more danger than ever before.
aantix 7y ago
>Fiddling with the internet in a futile attempt to decrease social alienation is like buying a tank top to increase your physical fitness. Disagree. For the innovators out there, please keep fiddling. Funny how I can interact with strangers in the real-world and sometimes walk away refreshed but I am not sure there's a single time I have ever read a stream of tweets from strangers and felt anything but anger and nausea? Reading unrefined emotive sentences has the damning effect of "this is a proclamation, this must be true!" Where-as if you had the conversation with a stranger, you would realize there are dramatic pauses, "umms" where they aren't so certain of their statement, trailing inflections in their voice where they're actually asking a question instead of making a statement. Most people are not sophisticated enough to write in a way that accurately conveys their emotions. So the tweets all read as grand proclamations. And it sucks. Participating in these "social" sites cause stress. Keep iterating. How can we experience online, the emotion of in-person chats? Video chats are from perfect and come off stale and more akin to the experience of a CB Radio. Async video group chat - all participants record video clips/responses? Along with fairly accurate transcriptions of the video, so that the content can be searched?
- nradov 7y ago
  Why do you allow yourself to feel anger and nausea over something as trivial as a tweet? Social media is just entertainment and a game, not something that sensible people actually take seriously.
  - toyg 7y ago
    Oh boy, I have to tell you about this old guy from New York...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - squish78 7y ago
      I wonder how many millions of productivity hours have been lost in the past 3 years as people direct all of their emotional energy at the president
Zelphyr 7y ago
I don't think we can make the Internet and tech blameless here. I personally feel like it is playing a part, but I would also like to see some research here so we can point to evidence when deciding what to do about it.
ehnto 7y ago
> I say this because pretty much every country is as online as the US is, and doesn't have the problems the US does Are you sure about that? Australia has similar issues.
monksy 7y ago
That being said. I would argue this is the result of being data driven to blindly make decisions. We're seeing niche groups and products being killed off because they're not in the average of that area.
nostromo 7y ago
I thought I'd share a snippet from Robert Putnam's research, since you mention it, and I wasn't previously familiar: > In the short run, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. In ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477....
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  In the United States and the West more broadly, we need to begin thinking about immigration with a more rigorous and serious perspective. The US is built on immigration and I want us to have a robust immigration system, but it's important to recognize that immigration must be managed and take into account social, cultural and economic realities. In recent decades it seems we have disregarded these considerations, allowing both illegal and legal immigration to rise year after year without any reflection on the broader negative impacts this massive influx of people may have. I want to stress that the large majority of people coming into the US are probably good people, but that doesn't mean we are free to ignore the possible systemic effects of mass immigration. Good intentions can often lead to negative outcomes when we don't look beyond the immediate future and our idealized conception of things. It doesn't help that any discussion around reducing immigration is immediately slandered as racist. How deluded have we become when even attempts at reducing illegal immigration are ridiculed and rejected?
  - rjsw 7y ago
    I'm not sure you have a choice in this. Climate change is going to cause a huge increase in the number of migrants.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Rather like the drug war, the war on immigration requires exponentially increasing violence to maintain. How many dead south Americans is US social cohesion worth?
there_the_and 7y ago
> widespread fear of crime, immigration (aka the actual sociological results of Robert Putnam, rather than the yammerings of some Buzzfeed wanker), poisonous oligarch funded divisive politics, and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric This is just a collection of sky-is-falling narratives promoted in the media. Stop letting the endless cycle of negative political and media fads drag you around mentally and emotionally, and instead focus on improving your personal health and the lives of those around you in actual reality.
- weberc2 7y ago
  The fact is that people are being dragged around mentally and emotionally, and telling tens of millions of people to just stop doesn't seem particularly likely to reverse the trend. This is a systemic problem and it demands a systemic response. That response could well be public education programs for processing fear mongering (if you can overcome the obvious political problems).
MadWombat 7y ago
> and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric in US society What exactly do you mean by that?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
GTP 7y ago
>The US is alienated from widespread fear of crime, immigration [...] It's roughly the same in Italy, are you sure that those problems are only USA's problems? I think those are pretty widespread today.
swat535 7y ago
Honestly, as a Canadian the US society has always been fascinating to me. Our sister country is so similar, yet so different, we have very compatible laws, have plenty of immigration and the same outlook on plenty of topics. In addition, every single American I have interacted with , has been kind, cool and caring. Yet for some reason, Canadian society just seems healthier and more content, at least as far as the overall well being the population goes. Perhaps I'm just too naive and am missing something obvious.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Canada just has better marketing. Canada's points-based immigration system, for example, would be decried as fascist by many Democrats: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-imm.... > Canada, unlike the U.S., is a country where nearly all arrivals come in through the front door, in the open, during daylight hours. > Almost everyone who immigrates to Canada has to first apply from overseas, and before they’re granted entry they’re subjected to extensive vetting by Canadian authorities. Those who make the cut have to wait months or years for their turn in line before being let in. Over the past 20 years, about 5 million immigrants chose Canada. But the vast majority only entered the country after Canada also chose them.
- refurb 7y ago
  As someone who has lived in Canada, I would have to disagree. Canadians loves to talk about how much better their country is than the US, and it leads to a lot of stifling of self-criticism and justification “oh, at least we’re not as bad as the US”.
  - swat535 7y ago
    My point was more towards how our countries are so similar yet different. Of course Canada isn’t perfect by any means and you’re right, perhaps there is stifling of self criticism going on but we have a different attitude towards the social well being such as healthcare and accessible social services. Of course these come at a cost of making compromises such as paying higher taxes and relying heavily on fellow Americans for both security and trade.
helen___keller 7y ago
> There are various obvious ways of decreasing social alienation in US society; the problem with that is, most people aren't going to like it There are also not-so-obvious ways. For example, returning to a society where most of our trips are on foot and transit rather than by the isolating and dehumanizing bubble of personal automotive. As always with public policy, the question arises of what's the better way to address problems. The gulf from recognizing a problem and implementing policy to solve a problem is vast.
- ripsawridge 7y ago
  I've often thought that the loss of smoking means less mixing of classes that wouldn't have reason to say one word to each other. Smoking creates small favors and the need to ask for them. Phones don't do this.
ryanmercer 7y ago
>I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. Have you spent much time around teens to people in their early 20's? Social skills no longer exist or most of them. They can't look at you, they can't give you their attention, they can't carry a conversation in person. They stare at their phones, feeling underprivileged because their favorite social media accounts seem to have better, flashier, fancier lives than them so they too highly curate what they show to the world. As a 34 year old I can look at the generation before me and the generation after me and see a stark difference in social skills. You used to fall into one of a few groups, now everyone thinks they need to find individuals exactly like them which requires them to search the world far and wide to find someone that identifies as some random string of letters (not necessarily representative of their gender and sexual preferences). I suspect people in general feel more alienated, more alone, than ever before in human history because of the internet. Just in the past week there was a thread here on HN about a hair cutting robot and the number of people claiming that they hated having to go to the barber because, God forbid, the barber/stylist might attempt to talk to them [1] was just flat out shocking. They'd rather have a machine cut their hair than have to be around other human beings! Go out to eat, or go walk around in a populated area (outside or inside). What do you see? People staring at screens, people with earbuds in, throngs of people ignoring each other to interact with strangers on the internet. People sitting at the same table, eating food, texting other people or even texting each other instead of having actual conversations. Take something like a dating app. Instead of walking up to someone and saying hi, you mindlessly swipe pictures waiting for someone to swipe you back. Then your match tries to find all of your social media so they can quickly see if you are worth the effort of getting to know, instead of actually asking you questions and getting to know you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21804089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21804089
- altoidaltoid 7y ago
  Going to leave this here: https://manybooks.net/titles/forstereother07machine_stops.html https://manybooks.net/titles/forstereother07machine_stops.ht... "The Machine Stops is a short science fiction story. It describes a world in which almost all humans have lost the ability to live on the surface of the Earth. Each individual lives in isolation in a 'cell', with all bodily and spiritual needs met by the omnipotent, global Machine. Most humans welcome this development, as they are skeptical and fearful of first-hand experience. " E.M. Forster wrote this in 1909
jahaja 7y ago
One thing that I've never understood as a Scandinavian is why people for their own pure interest doesn't want a wellfare state. Why would you rather have a paranoid society than one where crime and drugs are the exception?
- buboard 7y ago
  Compare south Europe too. Scandinavians have replaced the family/kin based support system with extensive welfare safety net. The south is trying hard to do the same and ends up with corruption. Because people don’t see the same incentives
- stanfordkid 7y ago
  Sweden has a population 1/4 of California... and 1/40th the size of USA. Scandinavia is generally culturally homogenous and quite wealthy. American problems are more complex than meets the eye. It’s easy to be happy with a welfare state when most of your citizens are motivated and educated, and you have a large pool of wealth.
  - cambalache 7y ago
    America still has more money per capita that most of Scandinavia (perhaps not Norway). "Culturally homogeneous" is just a dog-whistle for "nordic white". Plenty of "cultural homogeneous" places are very bad, and many "culturally diverse" places are quite good. At the end nothing of that has to do about the possibility of having a welfare state. The decision is just political.
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> The alienation in the US very obviously has nothing to do with the internet, and in fact, I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. That is a very bold statement, with no data, that I can disprove by a simple counterfactual: me. I often feel more alienated because of the internet, mainly because I find it easier to replace "real" human interactions with, well, things like this, typing into a screen. Of course, I have no idea if I'm representative of a significant sub-population of the US, but stating your opinion as a "very obvious", and somehow implying it is based in fact, is a logical fallacy.
codeisawesome 7y ago
> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. What a racist and poisonous stance. This seems to indicate a preference that the US should just be a homogenous White Anglo Saxon Protestant society, along with "good family values" such as sexism and keeping women "in the kitchen". No thanks.

pixelbash 7y ago

> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. A strong social fabric at it's root is things like being willing to talk to all walks of life and not nurturing a fear of the unknown.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago
>Not sure I agree with that, you don't have to be like other people to get along with them. I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Would you care to point to one, or cite some studies to show their effectiveness vs those that are homogeneous in nature? I'd argue that a strong sense of shared identity, such as that provided previously by religion in the West, and which still currently holds strength elsewhere, is crucial to the success of a given society. The War state, and then post-War state, of the West also had a strong sense of shared identity and bound together as a result. Evidence points towards it. The current state of the West is a testament to the disarray caused in a heterogeneous society with no sense of shared identity and the mutual obligations that result from it. The divisions and gaps are only widening, the issues around it are only becoming worse, and those who stand to benefit from it are using it to its full advantage.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >I can't think of a single example of a heterogeneous society that has lasted a comparably long time. Comparable to what? I mean, just as one well known and google-able example, the Roman empire was obviously thoroughly heterogeneous. Maybe the key is that most people couldn't really travel? So no one from Lutetia ever really knew any woman from Alexandria for instance. Whereas today in Paris, obviously, a large number of people know people from Alexandria. EDIT: I realize that if you were in the Roman Army, you were an exception to the general rule of people not knowing people from other parts of the empire. Obviously, Romans had to fight together against the barbarians. (Or rather, against the other future Romans.) But that would be an example of one of the few ways your average Joe in Marseille would get to know your average Joe in Leptis Magna. But I digress. Most large, long lasting empires were not only enormous, but heterogeneous by necessity. Rome, China after warring states (even before actually), definitely Persia. In fact, I can't really think up any examples of contemporaneous homogeneous societies that could have even dreamed of competing with the historic behemoths.
  - dave_b 7y ago
    I think the heterogeneity of empires is a contributing factor to their eventual dissolution though. They tend to last a century or two at their height, and then start to break apart as more cohesive nations emerge. That’s not such a long time as far as societies go. And the issue at hand isn’t whether homogenous societies could “compete” with empires, but whether they’re more likely to persist (and have less alienation among the people).
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      But China, Persia, and Rome lasted a whole lot longer than a century or two. If memory serves, most of the college books considered the height of Roman quality of life, as well as Roman influence in the world, to be the time of Diocletian's reign. (I think he was the tetrarchy guy, but people are free to correct me if there are real historians out there.) In any case, obviously Rome was heterogeneous, again just going by memory here, but it must have been at least before the first century BC. (Assuming the Bible is to be believed. Also, why else would we call it "BC" and "AD"?) So that's like, at least 4 centuries right there. Persia you can probably go what? At least a thousand years. And that's assuming you only start at Cyrus the Great. China is China. Different dynasties like the British, but even if you only counted the dynasties that ruled uncontested over all of the different ethnic groups, you'd be talking about a millennia or two at least as a political grouping whether by birthright, marriage or usurpation. Just pointing out that while some heterogeneous empires certainly fail, all of the empires in mankind's history that were great and long lasting, were unquestionably heterogeneous. I mean, some people may correct me on some details here and there, but in essentials that can't even be debated. It's extremely difficult to take out these empires. And despite what is generally believed, the historical evidence indicates that well run empires are not at all likely to fail on their own. (Even in the face of élites fighting each other, well run places just stand by and watch the old emperor get assassinated, and then, Hey! New emperor in Rome today!) Even at their heights, unless you have a few millennia to wait for failure, they typically just haven't gone away as fast as the homogeneous empires have.
dave_b 7y ago
It’s all well and good to encourage understanding and whatnot, but the question is what actually works in reality on a societal level. It might sound nice to say “a strong economic system is not based on greed but on a willingness of each person to contribute to the best of their ability,” but it turns out that philosophy doesn’t work very well when dealing with large groups of people. I think the same could be said about your statement.
buboard 7y ago
you have to define "be like other people". Racially, you don't have to be, perhaps not even religious-wise. But try being a libertarian in sweden, or a boomer among millennials

monoideism 7y ago

> from widespread fear of crime But crime, particularly violent crime, is at or near historic lows.

papeda 7y ago
Yes, but this is fear of crime. Over the past few decades, in general more Americans have believed crime is increasing than decreasing [1]. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- LMYahooTFY 7y ago
  I only went halfway down the page, but haven't yet stumbled upon the trend you're referring to? The first few questions specifically asking about the topic show the opposite of what you claim.
  - majos 7y ago
    The section I’m referring to is “Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?”.
    - philipkglass 7y ago
      Very interesting. The big swings in opinion don't seem timed to line up with national violent crime statistics. Maybe they correlate better with economic boom times and recessions. Or maybe perceptions are more weighted toward property crimes that have less reliable national statistics. Look at that dizzying drop in "more crime" responses between 1997 and 1998. The "more crime" responses stay low until 2002. Or maybe there's just a lot of noise in the responses. "More crime" gained 10 points between 2004 and 2005.
jascii 7y ago
There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the spread of crime and the spread of fear of crime. I see this as being related to the difference between risk and perceived risk.

jbigelow76 7y ago

The US is alienated from widespread fear of crime, immigration (aka the actual sociological results of Robert Putnam, rather than the yammerings of some Buzzfeed wanker), poisonous oligarch funded divisive politics, and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric in US society. There are various obvious ways of decreasing social alienation in US society; the problem with that is, most people aren't going to like it. The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. You can replace US with Western Society, because everything you described I can find analogs too in the UK/Europe. Fear of immigrants - check, fear of crime from immigrants - check, oligarch funded politics - check (Brexit). Maybeeee, there is a touch of truth to the family part with the US's high incarceration rate for African-Americans that could impact families in ways that Europe doesn't have; but wage stagnation also means young adults aren't leaving the home as early as previously so there's that. I just don't think what you laid out is unique to the US.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>there is a touch of truth to the family part with the US's high incarceration rate for African-Americans that could impact families in ways that Europe doesn't have Black americans are a minority though. So if they are, say 20% (which I don't think they are even that), what explains the alienation in the other 80%?
- jbigelow76 7y ago
  I'm not saying overall alienation isn't a fact. But the GP laid out a list of reasons why it was problematic in the US and my point was those reasons a) mostly aren't unique to the US and b) probably not as big a contributor to alienation as they think. The mentioning of the high incarceration rate was to address their specific reason that the US is somehow unique in no longer having cohesive family units.
papreclip 7y ago
I think you're not parsing his sentence the way he intended it to be read "alienated due to fear of immigration" vs "alienated due to immigration". Of course, the EU also have their own share of immigration, at least in the past few years. But even with a whopping 15% of their residents being foreign-born, often the remaining 85% look the same, sound the same, are members or atheist ex-members of the same church, etc

amiga_500 7y ago

Computers, not the internet, allowed for banks to issue and track huge sums of debt at near zero cost. This allowed land prices to trend up to the maximum possible amount that people could service the debt at. This means people are now working as slaves for banks, making life pointless. This is why people are angry.

JohnFen 7y ago
> This means people are now working as slaves for banks, making life pointless. This is why people are angry. Many people, perhaps, but not all. Many, maybe most, of my friends and family are nothing like slaves for banks, and aren't carrying anything like a burdensome load of debt.
- harimau777 7y ago
  Are they people who either already had access to land, are in a high enough wealth bracket that they can purchase land, or don't care about owning land? Perhaps the OP's statement could be modified to "Many people are angry because they care about owning land but are unable to do so without becoming slaves to banks".
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    A couple own land outright, but most don't care about owning land at all. Your restatement makes more sense, but speaks to a specific subset of the general population.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  > Many people, perhaps, but not all. Yes. > most, of my friends and family are nothing like slaves for bank Anecdote.

baybal2 7y ago

Seconding your though. A very good observation about this is that "letting masses into the internets" is very much like the historical period in Europe when popular masses got their hands on the printing press. Did people immediately utilised the press as a tool of mass enlightenment, and began printing academic literature? No... The very first popular printed literature were books on witchcraft and on Jew/Moor/Huguenot/Hussite burning.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ryanwaggoner 7y ago
I love this point, assuming it’s historically accurate. Gives me hope that the issues around privacy, disinformation campaigns, walled gardens, and more, are mostly just inevitable growing pains from trying to harness this incredible capability we’ve built.
buboard 7y ago
This never stopped. Popular stuff is usually unoriginal and mediocre. It s not going to change

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 7y ago

>The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. I'd say the opposite: the individuality in alienation is faux individuality. The individual today is "individual" by their clothing choices, consumption patterns, etc, where everything is if not mass produced, still mediated by money in a market ("underground" and "alternative" consumption is still consumption, not some original expression of self). Add to that the widespread lack of social safety nets, non-support from community, friends, and even family, and individuals become obedient cogs to get their next meal. It's in the non-alienated societies where the individual can be truly non-conformant and more unique, because the uniqueness there can be an actual personal expression (e.g. the old eccentrics), and because community support means the individual is stronger against the state, market forces, etc. There are concessions to be made to get that community support, but few as heavy as the modern state/society/market/boss imposes on the individual (and they are based on historical prejudices which could be overcome within the same community - e.g against being gay - not in the inherent way the system functions - by making people consume as much as they can, nickel and dime them, treat them as redundant if they don't have money, etc- as are the modern concessions).

lonelappde 7y ago
Consumption doesn't prevent individuality. Not growing my own food doesn't make me a fashion victim.
- coldtea 7y ago
  And yet, statistically it does. People not "growing their own food" buy into all kind of food trends, not to mention a whole nation sticking to 30-50 nationwide chains (restaurants, food brands, etc) for the huge majority of their food. Compared to an American of 70-80 years ago, or a modern French or Italian person this is huge conformism and sheep like consumption. And food is one of the most essential things in our life (not to mention the health implications). Although this is not about "growing own's own food". You can still buy your own food without modern consumerism, as societies have done since forever in farmers markets, etc (and people still do in other parts of the world), where the food is not mass produced and branded by 10 major chains, nor the restaurant choices are 20-30 nation wide chains.

bjourne 7y ago

I think it is worth mentioning that those fears are largely unfounded. The US is a much safer country today than it was 20-30 years ago. Especially the situation and social standing for many black Americans have improved tremendously. The US is not unique in that -- crime has fallen in most of the Western world -- yet people are more afraid than ever!

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
umvi 7y ago
That may be true, but media has warped out perceptions. The internet makes every mass shooting and earthquake and police brutality instantly reported to the entire planet and so the perception is that we are in more danger than ever before.

aantix 7y ago

>Fiddling with the internet in a futile attempt to decrease social alienation is like buying a tank top to increase your physical fitness. Disagree. For the innovators out there, please keep fiddling. Funny how I can interact with strangers in the real-world and sometimes walk away refreshed but I am not sure there's a single time I have ever read a stream of tweets from strangers and felt anything but anger and nausea? Reading unrefined emotive sentences has the damning effect of "this is a proclamation, this must be true!" Where-as if you had the conversation with a stranger, you would realize there are dramatic pauses, "umms" where they aren't so certain of their statement, trailing inflections in their voice where they're actually asking a question instead of making a statement. Most people are not sophisticated enough to write in a way that accurately conveys their emotions. So the tweets all read as grand proclamations. And it sucks. Participating in these "social" sites cause stress. Keep iterating. How can we experience online, the emotion of in-person chats? Video chats are from perfect and come off stale and more akin to the experience of a CB Radio. Async video group chat - all participants record video clips/responses? Along with fairly accurate transcriptions of the video, so that the content can be searched?

nradov 7y ago
Why do you allow yourself to feel anger and nausea over something as trivial as a tweet? Social media is just entertainment and a game, not something that sensible people actually take seriously.
- toyg 7y ago
  Oh boy, I have to tell you about this old guy from New York...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - squish78 7y ago
    I wonder how many millions of productivity hours have been lost in the past 3 years as people direct all of their emotional energy at the president

Zelphyr 7y ago

I don't think we can make the Internet and tech blameless here. I personally feel like it is playing a part, but I would also like to see some research here so we can point to evidence when deciding what to do about it.

ehnto 7y ago

> I say this because pretty much every country is as online as the US is, and doesn't have the problems the US does Are you sure about that? Australia has similar issues.

monksy 7y ago

That being said. I would argue this is the result of being data driven to blindly make decisions. We're seeing niche groups and products being killed off because they're not in the average of that area.

nostromo 7y ago

I thought I'd share a snippet from Robert Putnam's research, since you mention it, and I wasn't previously familiar: > In the short run, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. In ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477....

corporate_shi11 7y ago
In the United States and the West more broadly, we need to begin thinking about immigration with a more rigorous and serious perspective. The US is built on immigration and I want us to have a robust immigration system, but it's important to recognize that immigration must be managed and take into account social, cultural and economic realities. In recent decades it seems we have disregarded these considerations, allowing both illegal and legal immigration to rise year after year without any reflection on the broader negative impacts this massive influx of people may have. I want to stress that the large majority of people coming into the US are probably good people, but that doesn't mean we are free to ignore the possible systemic effects of mass immigration. Good intentions can often lead to negative outcomes when we don't look beyond the immediate future and our idealized conception of things. It doesn't help that any discussion around reducing immigration is immediately slandered as racist. How deluded have we become when even attempts at reducing illegal immigration are ridiculed and rejected?
- rjsw 7y ago
  I'm not sure you have a choice in this. Climate change is going to cause a huge increase in the number of migrants.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Rather like the drug war, the war on immigration requires exponentially increasing violence to maintain. How many dead south Americans is US social cohesion worth?

there_the_and 7y ago

> widespread fear of crime, immigration (aka the actual sociological results of Robert Putnam, rather than the yammerings of some Buzzfeed wanker), poisonous oligarch funded divisive politics, and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric This is just a collection of sky-is-falling narratives promoted in the media. Stop letting the endless cycle of negative political and media fads drag you around mentally and emotionally, and instead focus on improving your personal health and the lives of those around you in actual reality.

weberc2 7y ago
The fact is that people are being dragged around mentally and emotionally, and telling tens of millions of people to just stop doesn't seem particularly likely to reverse the trend. This is a systemic problem and it demands a systemic response. That response could well be public education programs for processing fear mongering (if you can overcome the obvious political problems).

MadWombat 7y ago

> and the general disintegration of anything resembling a family life or social fabric in US society What exactly do you mean by that?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

GTP 7y ago

>The US is alienated from widespread fear of crime, immigration [...] It's roughly the same in Italy, are you sure that those problems are only USA's problems? I think those are pretty widespread today.

swat535 7y ago

Honestly, as a Canadian the US society has always been fascinating to me. Our sister country is so similar, yet so different, we have very compatible laws, have plenty of immigration and the same outlook on plenty of topics. In addition, every single American I have interacted with , has been kind, cool and caring. Yet for some reason, Canadian society just seems healthier and more content, at least as far as the overall well being the population goes. Perhaps I'm just too naive and am missing something obvious.

rayiner 7y ago
Canada just has better marketing. Canada's points-based immigration system, for example, would be decried as fascist by many Democrats: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/canada-imm.... > Canada, unlike the U.S., is a country where nearly all arrivals come in through the front door, in the open, during daylight hours. > Almost everyone who immigrates to Canada has to first apply from overseas, and before they’re granted entry they’re subjected to extensive vetting by Canadian authorities. Those who make the cut have to wait months or years for their turn in line before being let in. Over the past 20 years, about 5 million immigrants chose Canada. But the vast majority only entered the country after Canada also chose them.
refurb 7y ago
As someone who has lived in Canada, I would have to disagree. Canadians loves to talk about how much better their country is than the US, and it leads to a lot of stifling of self-criticism and justification “oh, at least we’re not as bad as the US”.
- swat535 7y ago
  My point was more towards how our countries are so similar yet different. Of course Canada isn’t perfect by any means and you’re right, perhaps there is stifling of self criticism going on but we have a different attitude towards the social well being such as healthcare and accessible social services. Of course these come at a cost of making compromises such as paying higher taxes and relying heavily on fellow Americans for both security and trade.

helen___keller 7y ago

> There are various obvious ways of decreasing social alienation in US society; the problem with that is, most people aren't going to like it There are also not-so-obvious ways. For example, returning to a society where most of our trips are on foot and transit rather than by the isolating and dehumanizing bubble of personal automotive. As always with public policy, the question arises of what's the better way to address problems. The gulf from recognizing a problem and implementing policy to solve a problem is vast.

ripsawridge 7y ago
I've often thought that the loss of smoking means less mixing of classes that wouldn't have reason to say one word to each other. Smoking creates small favors and the need to ask for them. Phones don't do this.

ryanmercer 7y ago

>I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. Have you spent much time around teens to people in their early 20's? Social skills no longer exist or most of them. They can't look at you, they can't give you their attention, they can't carry a conversation in person. They stare at their phones, feeling underprivileged because their favorite social media accounts seem to have better, flashier, fancier lives than them so they too highly curate what they show to the world. As a 34 year old I can look at the generation before me and the generation after me and see a stark difference in social skills. You used to fall into one of a few groups, now everyone thinks they need to find individuals exactly like them which requires them to search the world far and wide to find someone that identifies as some random string of letters (not necessarily representative of their gender and sexual preferences). I suspect people in general feel more alienated, more alone, than ever before in human history because of the internet. Just in the past week there was a thread here on HN about a hair cutting robot and the number of people claiming that they hated having to go to the barber because, God forbid, the barber/stylist might attempt to talk to them [1] was just flat out shocking. They'd rather have a machine cut their hair than have to be around other human beings! Go out to eat, or go walk around in a populated area (outside or inside). What do you see? People staring at screens, people with earbuds in, throngs of people ignoring each other to interact with strangers on the internet. People sitting at the same table, eating food, texting other people or even texting each other instead of having actual conversations. Take something like a dating app. Instead of walking up to someone and saying hi, you mindlessly swipe pictures waiting for someone to swipe you back. Then your match tries to find all of your social media so they can quickly see if you are worth the effort of getting to know, instead of actually asking you questions and getting to know you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21804089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21804089

altoidaltoid 7y ago
Going to leave this here: https://manybooks.net/titles/forstereother07machine_stops.html https://manybooks.net/titles/forstereother07machine_stops.ht... "The Machine Stops is a short science fiction story. It describes a world in which almost all humans have lost the ability to live on the surface of the Earth. Each individual lives in isolation in a 'cell', with all bodily and spiritual needs met by the omnipotent, global Machine. Most humans welcome this development, as they are skeptical and fearful of first-hand experience. " E.M. Forster wrote this in 1909

jahaja 7y ago

One thing that I've never understood as a Scandinavian is why people for their own pure interest doesn't want a wellfare state. Why would you rather have a paranoid society than one where crime and drugs are the exception?

buboard 7y ago
Compare south Europe too. Scandinavians have replaced the family/kin based support system with extensive welfare safety net. The south is trying hard to do the same and ends up with corruption. Because people don’t see the same incentives
stanfordkid 7y ago
Sweden has a population 1/4 of California... and 1/40th the size of USA. Scandinavia is generally culturally homogenous and quite wealthy. American problems are more complex than meets the eye. It’s easy to be happy with a welfare state when most of your citizens are motivated and educated, and you have a large pool of wealth.
- cambalache 7y ago
  America still has more money per capita that most of Scandinavia (perhaps not Norway). "Culturally homogeneous" is just a dog-whistle for "nordic white". Plenty of "cultural homogeneous" places are very bad, and many "culturally diverse" places are quite good. At the end nothing of that has to do about the possibility of having a welfare state. The decision is just political.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

> The alienation in the US very obviously has nothing to do with the internet, and in fact, I'd say the internet helped people be less alienated. That is a very bold statement, with no data, that I can disprove by a simple counterfactual: me. I often feel more alienated because of the internet, mainly because I find it easier to replace "real" human interactions with, well, things like this, typing into a screen. Of course, I have no idea if I'm representative of a significant sub-population of the US, but stating your opinion as a "very obvious", and somehow implying it is based in fact, is a logical fallacy.

codeisawesome 7y ago

> The opposite of alienation and social atomization is basically conformity and homogeneity, and that's bad for business; and especially bad for the oligarch types who engender this kind of alienation. What a racist and poisonous stance. This seems to indicate a preference that the US should just be a homogenous White Anglo Saxon Protestant society, along with "good family values" such as sexism and keeping women "in the kitchen". No thanks.