3 ms·

Looking at population density at a global level, or at a national level, is going to be giving you misleading results. If your goal is to evaluate whether peopl

Looking at population density at a global level, or at a national level, is going to be giving you misleading results. If your goal is to evaluate whether people in history lived close to other people, you need a very different metric: Population density of the neighborhood where the median person lives. For instance, if you look at population density overall, Germany has a far higher population density than Spain. This is, however, because most of Spain is empty. Even when you look at rural areas, what you see is not American style homesteads, but people living in a relatively dense village, and traveling to their farm. In that environment, social isolation is very difficult: Just buying food and going to some kind of workplace leads to being very close to a whole lot more people than, say, your average American does. So when we go back in time in most places, we might not see that much cross-settlement travel, but how dense are the settlements? How much can you avoid other human beings? Just like travel was dangerous, living in a place that was a long distance from your next neighbor was also dangerous: The best protection against attack was to have enough neighbors very close, as to make it really difficult to get away with attacking you. We have ruins of many settlements, going back well before writing, and it's normal to see places that might have housed a dozen or so families, all in screaming distance. Therefore, I don't see how we can support that some form of relative social isolation was the norm everywhere. If anything, it's the modern American suburb, where in practice we don't need to exchange a word with the neighbors, and most retail transactions are impersonal, is what happens to be historically novel. The pandemic just made it more extreme.

recuter 4y ago
I like this reply and agree with most of what is written. > So when we go back in time in most places, we might not see that much cross-settlement travel, but how dense are the settlements? Depending on when and where sometimes not very dense at all. > How much can you avoid other human beings? You don't need to avoid anyone but going days and weeks without speaking to people was not so inconceivable as it is now. > If anything, it's the modern American suburb, where in practice we don't need to exchange a word with the neighbors, and most retail transactions are impersonal, is what happens to be historically novel. That's the slightly different lament of not knowing your neighbors. The loss of togetherness and sense of community. The bad vibes. I agree with all that, you can feel more alone surrounded by an ocean of people than being part of a small tight knit group of people surrounded by an ocean. Conversely, mental health problems have been on the rise for a long time prior to the pandemic. No doubt it brought these issues to the forefront and didn't help things. All I pointed out is that there is no shortage of precedent or examples of isolation and it does not necessarily imply that your mental health has to deteriorate. Forced isolation or alienation from neighbors on the other hand is far more likely to be harmful. So is substituting actual social relationships with parasocial interactions online and apps.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  There really is very little historical precedent for people being totally alone, all of the example you cited are of right communities, which is the opposite of alone. In fact the overwhelming weight of researcher points to isolation wrecking your mental health. I pointed to a meta-analysis of investigations into solitary confinement earlier. There’s no shortage of research showing similar results for contemporary non-carceral isolation. Here is an analysis pointing to increased deaths from drinking and drugs due to COVID isolation[1], point the opposite direction of your conclusion. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12835 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12835

recuter 4y ago

I like this reply and agree with most of what is written. > So when we go back in time in most places, we might not see that much cross-settlement travel, but how dense are the settlements? Depending on when and where sometimes not very dense at all. > How much can you avoid other human beings? You don't need to avoid anyone but going days and weeks without speaking to people was not so inconceivable as it is now. > If anything, it's the modern American suburb, where in practice we don't need to exchange a word with the neighbors, and most retail transactions are impersonal, is what happens to be historically novel. That's the slightly different lament of not knowing your neighbors. The loss of togetherness and sense of community. The bad vibes. I agree with all that, you can feel more alone surrounded by an ocean of people than being part of a small tight knit group of people surrounded by an ocean. Conversely, mental health problems have been on the rise for a long time prior to the pandemic. No doubt it brought these issues to the forefront and didn't help things. All I pointed out is that there is no shortage of precedent or examples of isolation and it does not necessarily imply that your mental health has to deteriorate. Forced isolation or alienation from neighbors on the other hand is far more likely to be harmful. So is substituting actual social relationships with parasocial interactions online and apps.

ch4s3 4y ago
There really is very little historical precedent for people being totally alone, all of the example you cited are of right communities, which is the opposite of alone. In fact the overwhelming weight of researcher points to isolation wrecking your mental health. I pointed to a meta-analysis of investigations into solitary confinement earlier. There’s no shortage of research showing similar results for contemporary non-carceral isolation. Here is an analysis pointing to increased deaths from drinking and drugs due to COVID isolation[1], point the opposite direction of your conclusion. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12835 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12835