3 ms·

> If the village is small and remote enough that's functionally the same thing No it isn't. Interacting with with 120-150 neighbors[1] on a daily basis is a ri

• jasmer 4y ago
  My grandparents lived on a farm there was nobody around for some distance. And many 'villages' in Europe were just 2 or 3 households, not really villages. I think the OP's point is reasonable for context.
  • ch4s3 4y ago
    You’re talking about a completely different time period. This is also historically abnormal. Premodern farmers almost universally lived in villages of 100 or more people. Check out some sources I linked. Widely dispersed freeholding is super unstable and even more so without modern tools and techniques.
  • recuter 4y ago
    My condolences, as it is apparently clinically impossible for them not to have developed severe psychological issues as a result. ;)
    • ch4s3 4y ago
      The discussion here is clearly about COVID isolation and the wild bullshit claims you’re making about history. Being in a community of even 3 households isn’t remotely similar to a single adult in COVID isolation and that should be obvious. You’re doing a great job ignoring any criticism of your claims.
    • jasmer 4y ago
      Yeah I spent much of my childhood around there it's a different kind of social system but I have not a single worry for them. I think they're more normal and happy than urban types who are a bit untethered, depressed, overly busy, unfulfilled a bit directionless. They have big families and know a lot of people for a long time. Regular people have funerals where 300 people come to the wake. My grandfather had to have three days of open casket there were so many people. He was a man of few words, he just owned a store and so got to know a ton of people.