3 ms·

That's a huge question, but I believe the answer is that in a modern first world country, time is expensive and comfort is cheap. (I am also completely ignoring

That's a huge question, but I believe the answer is that in a modern first world country, time is expensive and comfort is cheap. (I am also completely ignoring any social changes that have occurred since the pandemic, because all of the pandemic-based social trends started well before it did). People used to meet up and have real hobbies because they were bored and wanted something to do with their time, not because they were principled adherents to (what I believe is) a better and more satisfying way of life. Comfort is cheap: have you ever used your phone to check your daily screen time? I float between 1.5 hours on a good day and 6 hours on a bad day. On my phone I'm reading, interacting, etc. but that's 1.5-6 hours I didn't spend playing cards or chess or talking to my friends in person, each of which requires a time and effort commitment. I don't have to commit effort or pay any money or walk anywhere to interact with the always-on stimulation box in my pocket. The same applies to streaming applications and video games. Between those three activities (browsing, social media, streaming, and video games) there are billions of lost first-world man-hours every year that could theoretically be spent interacting in person, if the people really wanted to. Time is expensive: I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have. I also have dozens of hobbies, but trying to find people to do those hobbies with is very difficult because they're all so busy with their own lives. My similarly-aged acquaintances are in graduate school (learning things that they could spread across 10 years in four years due to profit constraints), or they're working 40-60 hour workweeks in technology, or they're simply drained and don't want to do anything besides sit on the couch, which I completely understand given my own stressful 50-hour-per-week white collar job. If you want a return to "in-person life", somehow time needs to become cheap. I don't see comfort ever becoming expensive again, but I do think that if people weren't so busy and stressed out they'd be able to meet in person more often.

unboxedvariable 5y ago
Yeah I think this strikes at at least one of the issues, which is time. Although I am less familiar with how availability of time has changed over the generations. I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction. I think there are probably many other factors at play here.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be. The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age. As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them. Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help. When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward). In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.
iammisc 5y ago
> I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have I had children younger than most, and have never been starved for friends. I'll think you'll find that far from being isolating, having children will immediately start making you friends. IME, the time before children was the most isolating part.
varjag 5y ago
People however have fewer children than ever before and less demanding workdays than they were for millennia.

unboxedvariable 5y ago

Yeah I think this strikes at at least one of the issues, which is time. Although I am less familiar with how availability of time has changed over the generations. I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I think one other reason could be the tendency to mistake having a question that could be looked up online for the desire for human interaction that the question maybe was supposed to lead to. That may sound like a small/isolated observation but I could be convinced that the behavior change has broader consequences for how we view people/interaction. I think there are probably many other factors at play here.

iammisc 5y ago
> I will say I am constantly struck by how some of my relatives from previous generations were able to have 10 kids in a 3 bed house (relatively poor) and survive, let alone be happy. Anyway that one could be relevant overall, but I am curious nonetheless. I'll offer insight. As someone who attends a very traditional catholic parish, where a ten child family would be considered only slightly above average, the more children you have... the more social you're going to be. The more kids you have, the larger your network. Your kids become friends with someone else's kid and then you become friends with their parents. If you have two kids with five friends each, then this is 10 parents. If you have ten kids with five friends each, then this is 50, and you now have friends of all different ages, since the kids are not all the same age. As an example, the lady with one of the most kids at our parish, is also in some ways the center of the social life. She organizes a lot of events, and even if she's not around at a particular event, one of her kids and their family (some of the older ones are married) are there and you can communicate with her through them. Also, having so many kids, you have to rely on others for help. When we go to activities where there are smaller families, we notice how little 'help' we get with our children. This makes sense. With only two kids... that's manageable by two people. On the other hand at church, everyone will hold our newborn and toddler, take care of them for a few hours while my wife and I get some nice socializing time. Large families being the norm, everyone wants to help parents with young kids because they want that help reciprocated when they have a newborn or young children again (or in the case of older couples, they feel obligated to pay it forward). In contrast, with just one or two, it's easy to evolve the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality that is becoming so prevalent these days. In some ways, I think the shrinking family size has a lot to do with the loneliness many experience.

iammisc 5y ago

> I am at the last few years of my life before I have children and have the most advantageous combination of free time, youthly energy, and money that I will ever have I had children younger than most, and have never been starved for friends. I'll think you'll find that far from being isolating, having children will immediately start making you friends. IME, the time before children was the most isolating part.

varjag 5y ago

People however have fewer children than ever before and less demanding workdays than they were for millennia.