5 ms·

The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every

The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every societal change has emphasized the individual right over the (real or perceived) benefit of the collective. This trend seems to accelerate and absolutely nothing that is happening in western society even remotely suggests a possible turnaround. You can take action, like get a new hobby that is just an okay activity but the people are great. Work on becoming a kick-ass friend yourself and cook for people and all that good stuff. But you'll do all that against massive societal forces. A few decades back you'd join one of the few organizations or clubs that happened in your area, and instantly be in a reliable community (if you adapt a little - let's ignore all the downsides for a moment). Friends would hook you up with a partner who's as nerdy as you. When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. A city street was a village, you knew everyone. That is not coming back anytime soon.

NaOH 4y ago
>The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every societal change has emphasized the individual right over the (real or perceived) benefit of the collective. This trend seems to accelerate and absolutely nothing that is happening in western society even remotely suggests a possible turnaround. I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction.
- seydor 4y ago
  I m somewhat surprised that big cities still exist and people aren't killing each other or run away
  - dangus 4y ago
    Believe it or not, big cities have pretty good quality of life and people who live there do actually have friends and social lives. I grew up in the suburbs, and I've lived in big cities, urban areas in medium sized cities, and exurbs as well. The cities aren't as different as non-urban people think. But also, they're better in a lot of the ways that most people would expect: more things to do, better food, better shopping. The only real downsides in my mind are less affordable real estate and higher local particle pollution. By far my least favorite lifestyle of those choices was in the exurbs/rural areas. Incredibly boring, isolated, and it's not as quiet and tranquil as one might expect (you're probably near a highway where jake brakes are allowed or a 55 MPH country road). Believe it or not, city areas seem to have better quality park space (because what most people who aren't into hardcore nature consider to be "a nice park" is usually quite heavily designed and built). And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are.
    - kodah 4y ago
      > And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are. We can and should change this as much as possible.
      - 1270018080 4y ago
        Why?
        _ktx2 4y ago
        In short, equity. In longer form, a lot of people don't have the chance to leave their towns and that is in part due to opportunity, another way of looking at it is that extracting people out of their communities and consolidating them in cities isn't very equitable. Historically we've relied on colleges to give people a ticket out of where they come from. In the long term that does real damage to those communities. Instead of building them up, using that newly found prosperity, that wealth gets consolidated in cities. If we let people stay near their families, or wherever they prefer to stay, it gives people choice and creates a much more sustainable economic environment.
        dangus 4y ago
        I think you misunderstand. Their families are already in cities. (And "cities" includes suburban areas) This isn't 1800's America where most families are on rural subsistence farms. People can choose to stay wherever they want, but the networks that make up the economy have to physically exist. Factories, warehouses, etc...look at a satellite view of the Chicago River from Goose Island down to Midway airport. It's a bunch of physical industrial infrastructure: warehouses, factories, railyards, etc. Do you propose these all instead spread out and get located in random middle-of-nowhere places where there are no employees, shops, restaurants, schools, etc? Even data centers need to be near population centers. Why put us-east-1 near Roanoke and Lynchburg, VA instead of Roy, New Mexico? We can't all just become remote knowledge worker hermits. Heck, we all saw how terrible remote learning is for children with the pandemic. [1] [1] https://apnews.com/article/online-school-covid-learning-loss-7c162ec1b4ce4d5219d5210aaac8f1ae https://apnews.com/article/online-school-covid-learning-loss...
  - darkwizard42 4y ago
    Big cities feel easier than ever to avoid the individualism trap in the US. Likely they have SOME public transportation, attract similar minded individuals, have vibrant social scenes involving food/drink and so make it easier to find friends and keep them.
  - shagie 4y ago
    Big cities are much more efficient - especially for the single person - than living further away. Personal vehicles scale up to their passenger count. The single person with a car in the suburbs or rural effectively pays 4x more for the car than the family of four. How do you get rid of the car? Live somewhere where public transportation or walking is the more efficient means of transportation - larger cities do this better than smaller ones. Many aspects of managing a house are best done with more people. I've got a list of repairs that need at least three hands to do - but get put off because I've only got two. It would be much easier to live in a nice apartment closer to the urban center of the city.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Every other utility scales that way - more efficient to run power lines, roads, internet, water and sewage to single buildings that house multiple people than single houses kilometers from each other.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction. I don’t personally seen the contradiction here. Mutualism is orthogonal in many ways to individualism. Even the lone hermit had parents, acquired the basic skills form somewhere, and probably uses some tool(s) made by others. Individualists can take on any number of voluntary social obligations. The ability to exit destructive obligations is a safety valve, and makes the carrying out of those obligations more meaningful in some ways. Narratives, customs, culture, and shared interests all bind people regardless of their place on the scale of individualism to collectivism.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< That is not coming back anytime soon. I am posting this as a person born and raised in a rather small community. I personally do not yearn for the good old days when 'everyone knew everyone' and there were things to do together. We did things together, because of geographical convenience and random chance. We had no other options so we did kids things. Granted, I was lucky to be included in that particular group, because they all were much, much smarter than me, but despite relatively pleasant memories, I enjoy my current situation much more. << When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. I accept that being extrovert and/or social is(was?) the default mode in polite society, but I think we can agree that not everyone is built the same way. I certainly do not talk to strangers bar some unusual turn of events that requires cooperation. << Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Is that a bad thing? We can now individually decide the life we actually want to lead with minimal interplay between various mediators that would have been mandatory only decades ago. Should we not be celebrating this as a tremendous achievement of humanity as a whole?
- FooHentai 4y ago
  Perhaps. But what are the long-term ramifications of continuing down this track? Does a society of individuals with low cohesion survive in the long run? What motivations to pull together and overcome any adversity that might come along exists? Is it worth it for a few generations of improved individual freedom, if that society doesn't hold together longer than that due to a lack of cohesion? “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- janeerie 4y ago
  I have come to believe that social interaction is like exercising or eating your vegetables. Some people naturally enjoy it; some people don’t. Either way, you will be a healthier person if you do it.
dangus 4y ago
I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions. This article says that the trend has started since 2013. In what way has American individualism changed since then? I would say it hasn't. How could American culture shift that much in less than 10 years in this specific span? I don't buy that explanation without more thorough study. American individualism has existed far longer than the data in this article. We've been sitting in cars by ourselves since the mid-century. I am most skeptical about easy and simple explanations like the one you're describing. For one thing, I'm looking through the data and I'm struggling to find the data that the chart is representing: https://www.bls.gov/tus/database/tustabs.htm https://www.bls.gov/tus/database/tustabs.htm Is anyone else able to find it?
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  "I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions." Definitely, especially because the article seems to avoid the elephant in the room. The US is amidst full on class warfare, the transfer of wealth from the poor and middleclass to the wealthy has been staggering, we never recovered from the 2008 crash, only rich people did. The rich are grinding us to pieces and honestly I just dont think most of us have the energy to socialize anymore. Wages are less, no one has much money to spend on recreation, everybody is stressed about rent, healthcare, and their bosses being assholes and making them do the job of 3 people. There are certainly other factors at play here but avoiding talking about this factor just torpedoes any intelligent discussion of ANYTHING related to quality of life in the US.
  - UweSchmidt 4y ago
    We had class warfare before, and collectivistic action (i.e. unions, strikes) was a logical and (somewhat?) successful solution to improve quality of life. Individualism as the underlying trend prevents those classic solutions and therefore individualistic solutions have to be found: Instead of just collectively asking for x% more salary, society tediously defines and articulates new instances of discrimination (which are ultimately violations on the individual level). Fixing various internal injustices leads to friction and is probably mostly a wealth transfer from different tiers of middle and lower classes. The powers that be therefore applaud and encourage individualism and thus further strenghten this trend.
closeparen 4y ago
>Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone This sounds deep and wise in the abstract, but I think it's important that we're talking about is, like, because there are washing machines now, you can show up places looking presentable without there being a woman in your home dedicated to washing your clothes all the time.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  That was never necessary. You have always been able to pay someone to do your laundry.
- bergenty 4y ago
  Is there a problem with a woman dedicated to washing your laundry at home? Seems like women today have to go to work and do that in the evening anyways.
  - closeparen 4y ago
    Yes, there is a problem with domestic labor being so demanding as to demand an entire human being's full time attention. That's why modernity is amazing.
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      Is it more meaningful if your labour is instead spent as a minute cog in a vast and faceless corporation? At least you can wear the clothes you wash. Don’t get me wrong, washing machines are great, probably one of the greatest inventions ever. We now can lead meaningful and consequential lives, but newly potent sources of inconsequentiality have arisen.
      - watwut 4y ago
        It gives you better control over your life. Cause that wife was utterly and absolutely dependent on husband. There was nothing she could do to improve her life if there were issues. And if he was gone (say due to being sick, dead, in prison) she was utterly absolutely effed. If be beat her up, she was helpless. If he was emotionally manipulative she was helpless. If the marriage just sucked, both were trapped. If he was feeling responsible, he would not leave her in poverty and would stay with her despite her being jerk too. The kind of murder where husband kills wife used to be waaay more frequent then it is now. It is one of reasons for lower murders clearance rate ... cause these were super easy to solve.
snoot 4y ago
> But you'll do all that against massive societal forces. What forces exactly? > A few decades back you'd join one of the few organizations or clubs that happened in your area, and instantly be in a reliable community (if you adapt a little - let's ignore all the downsides for a moment). I’ve joined two different clubs. One 7 years ago and one this year. Both have resulted in good friends, outings, and even trips to other states. There are more people who want to see more of me than I have time for. > Friends would hook you up with a partner who's as nerdy as you. I met my wife at a friend’s party 5 years ago. > When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. A city street was a village, you knew everyone. I know my neighbors on both sides and across the street, and routinely have conversations with people I meet when I’m walking my dog. > That is not coming back anytime soon. I don’t think it’s gone anywhere. As far as I can see there are far more groups of people doing interesting things than I have time for. Mostly I’m turning down opportunities.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toiletfuneral 4y ago
- cmauniada 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, where do you live?
  - snoot 4y ago
    SF Bay Area
    - wikibob 4y ago
      In the city or the vast suburbs of the peninsula / South Bay?
      - vaidhy 4y ago
edmundsauto 4y ago
> Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Isn’t it more nuanced? In order for someone to not need a wife for laundry service, we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity. It seems like we become more tightly dependent (single directional graph) on more people in order to feel superficially less intertwined. I think people need other people more than ever. We just might not need them to be our masters or servants.
- tobyjsullivan 4y ago
  > we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity. We rely on having money. And we rely on a mature economy where someone is willing to solve every problem in exchange for that money. In an individualistic society, each person is expected to earn their own way and then pay to solve every problem they may have. In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need. Each person's income/wealth is contributing to the collective for whatever cannot be served internally. This movement toward individualization correlates very strongly with the capitalism.
  - chii 4y ago
    > In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need. and as this community grew, accounting for such "favours" between friends/family become more important, and thus, the need for unit of accounts - aka money. You'd end up replicating the current system when given long enough time and a large enough community.
    - lilactown 4y ago
      The First 5000 Years of Debt has a lot to say about this. It’s not fact that every large group of people invents money
    - tobyjsullivan 4y ago
      I'm following up a bit late but I wasn't referring to communism or nation-sized communities. I was referring to societies that tend to value community (ranging from brazil to china - look for countries where it's normal for aging parents to live with their children). These societies tend to keep those communities smaller - immediate family plus some closer relatives and family friends. Then there are broader networks with shallower ties where business is favoured but money will usually change hands.
paul7986 4y ago
I think another thing that's causing it is social media ... the thought of ...i want to have the perfect family too and post photos of such so I get tons of likes too for what I created (the picture of me with my beautiful family). If i cant achieve that i'll be alone. That's just one thing yet not sure how big or small of a driver it is.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
I feel like it's the opposite. This was caused by the destruction of individualism. When people are individuals, you know the name of your butcher and which farm your wheat came from. Now it all comes from the collective and you can't participate in the process without being a drone. Working for Walmart is not the same as operating your own farm stand. You lack autonomy because decisions are made collectively by corporations and legislators, and that makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible.
- chii 4y ago
  > makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible. which is what makes it cheap and available. If you ran your own farm stand, the goods you produce would be some 2-5x more expensive than a factory farm could've sold for. The modern wealth is predicated on such specialization and scaling. It's why artisanal products are so expensive.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    Artisanal products are so expensive because we make them so. By default if you buy something in a store, add 5% to the value by improving it and want to sell it on eBay, they'll charge sales tax on the full sale price even though you already paid sales tax on 95% of that. To avoid the double taxation you have to file paperwork, which most people don't know how to do, and pay filing fees, which eat into your already-meager profits. If you want to sell things over the internet yourself, or accept digital payments in person, how do you avoid paying a fraction of the sale price that may exceed your margin to some payment intermediary that may capriciously choose to cut you off at any time with no recourse? If you want to incorporate, your annual fee is the same one paid by Apple, but e.g. $500 is a lot more to you than it is to them. Keep adding things like that up and individual-scale operations are no longer viable without charging thick margins and thereby having only the affluent as customers, which is what happened.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      Artisanal products are expensive because human work is expensive. You can either have a machine that produces a million bland identical tea cups a day for a cost of a dollar per cup or you can have an expert potter produce two dozen artisanal tea cups a day. Even if the potter works for minimum wage and materials are free it's several times more expensive.
unix_badger 4y ago
Dalewyn 4y ago
If you ask me, it's because humans fucking suck to be around. Myself and yourself included, along with everyone else. Marrying? Fuck that; pun intended. Friends? I can count the number of true friends I've ever had with one hand. Co-workers and comrades? Ultimately, we're just there to make ends meet. Societal collective (eg: neighborhoods, villages, towns)? Well, we're here talking about this because such things have become pieces of history. I crave solitude, even if in practice that solitude relies on a handful of people and organizations that enable it (eg: supermarkets, gas stations, power company). Interacting with people fucking sucks balls, the less of it the better I say. I'd sooner deal with machines or our fellow animal peers. The way I see it, back in the old days people tolerated being around each other because that was a hard requirement to long-term survival. But that is no longer the case, and given that relinquishment and freedom, I for one am going to take full advantage of that freedom and enjoy something my ancestors couldn't. Of course, this also means I won't have any descendants to enjoy what I enjoy (or enjoy what I couldn't), but that's none of my concern because I don't care about leaving behind offspring in the first place. Individualism baby, everyone including Mother Nature can go pound sand.
- karpierz 4y ago
  Why do people suck to be around?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Many reasons, including but not limited to: * People are two-faced. There is a distinct lack of sincerity in any human interaction compared to interacting with literally anything else. I know a machine is being honest with me, I know a dog or a cat is being honest with me, and I know a human is being dishonest with me. * The needs and desires of one will not align with those of another. Groups of people must compromise, and compromises leave noone happy. This modern age of people being manipulated into division and strife by the bigger powers-that-be make this even worse. * The desires of some to wield power leads to awkward and harmful social dynamics. Best to not get involved at all. For individualists, this is perhaps one of the biggest sticking points to socializing. Outside of professional obligations, nobody likes being told what to do. * People need sufficient time alone to remain mentally healthy, even those who are mega extroverts. The problem is, most people do not understand this and become nuisances in life. Worse is when certain social arrangements (eg: a family) make distancing oneself practically impossible.
coldtea 4y ago
Individuals thrive in communities. Individualism is doing your thing. What we have in the west (and increasingly the east) is the opposite: the creation of isolated cogs, educated to be mere cogs, following mass fashions, work as replacable units, and leave no mark of their existence. Their "individuality" is reduced to consumerism, and is sold to them through chosing among ready made brands (of gadgets, clothes, cultural products). They're "invididually" part of market groups. Those are, as you observe, better able to function alone than in the past (e.g. no need to cooperate to get it), but they also have no support group, and often not even family and friends to support them, and help them do anything and to allow them to be able to resist (work conditions, political pressure, etc). They're not individuals, they're cogs with cookie cutter "identities". Nobody knows or cares who they are even - because each of them is as good as any other, just a unit to get some services of.

NaOH 4y ago

>The fundamental force behind this is individualism. Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Every societal change has emphasized the individual right over the (real or perceived) benefit of the collective. This trend seems to accelerate and absolutely nothing that is happening in western society even remotely suggests a possible turnaround. I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction.

seydor 4y ago
I m somewhat surprised that big cities still exist and people aren't killing each other or run away
- dangus 4y ago
  Believe it or not, big cities have pretty good quality of life and people who live there do actually have friends and social lives. I grew up in the suburbs, and I've lived in big cities, urban areas in medium sized cities, and exurbs as well. The cities aren't as different as non-urban people think. But also, they're better in a lot of the ways that most people would expect: more things to do, better food, better shopping. The only real downsides in my mind are less affordable real estate and higher local particle pollution. By far my least favorite lifestyle of those choices was in the exurbs/rural areas. Incredibly boring, isolated, and it's not as quiet and tranquil as one might expect (you're probably near a highway where jake brakes are allowed or a 55 MPH country road). Believe it or not, city areas seem to have better quality park space (because what most people who aren't into hardcore nature consider to be "a nice park" is usually quite heavily designed and built). And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are.
  - kodah 4y ago
    > And, oh yeah, cities are where the jobs are. We can and should change this as much as possible.
    - 1270018080 4y ago
      Why?
      - _ktx2 4y ago
        In short, equity. In longer form, a lot of people don't have the chance to leave their towns and that is in part due to opportunity, another way of looking at it is that extracting people out of their communities and consolidating them in cities isn't very equitable. Historically we've relied on colleges to give people a ticket out of where they come from. In the long term that does real damage to those communities. Instead of building them up, using that newly found prosperity, that wealth gets consolidated in cities. If we let people stay near their families, or wherever they prefer to stay, it gives people choice and creates a much more sustainable economic environment.
        dangus 4y ago
        I think you misunderstand. Their families are already in cities. (And "cities" includes suburban areas) This isn't 1800's America where most families are on rural subsistence farms. People can choose to stay wherever they want, but the networks that make up the economy have to physically exist. Factories, warehouses, etc...look at a satellite view of the Chicago River from Goose Island down to Midway airport. It's a bunch of physical industrial infrastructure: warehouses, factories, railyards, etc. Do you propose these all instead spread out and get located in random middle-of-nowhere places where there are no employees, shops, restaurants, schools, etc? Even data centers need to be near population centers. Why put us-east-1 near Roanoke and Lynchburg, VA instead of Roy, New Mexico? We can't all just become remote knowledge worker hermits. Heck, we all saw how terrible remote learning is for children with the pandemic. [1] [1] https://apnews.com/article/online-school-covid-learning-loss-7c162ec1b4ce4d5219d5210aaac8f1ae https://apnews.com/article/online-school-covid-learning-loss...
- darkwizard42 4y ago
  Big cities feel easier than ever to avoid the individualism trap in the US. Likely they have SOME public transportation, attract similar minded individuals, have vibrant social scenes involving food/drink and so make it easier to find friends and keep them.
- shagie 4y ago
  Big cities are much more efficient - especially for the single person - than living further away. Personal vehicles scale up to their passenger count. The single person with a car in the suburbs or rural effectively pays 4x more for the car than the family of four. How do you get rid of the car? Live somewhere where public transportation or walking is the more efficient means of transportation - larger cities do this better than smaller ones. Many aspects of managing a house are best done with more people. I've got a list of repairs that need at least three hands to do - but get put off because I've only got two. It would be much easier to live in a nice apartment closer to the urban center of the city.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Every other utility scales that way - more efficient to run power lines, roads, internet, water and sewage to single buildings that house multiple people than single houses kilometers from each other.
ch4s3 4y ago
> I've long captured this by saying that a society based around the individual is a contradiction. I don’t personally seen the contradiction here. Mutualism is orthogonal in many ways to individualism. Even the lone hermit had parents, acquired the basic skills form somewhere, and probably uses some tool(s) made by others. Individualists can take on any number of voluntary social obligations. The ability to exit destructive obligations is a safety valve, and makes the carrying out of those obligations more meaningful in some ways. Narratives, customs, culture, and shared interests all bind people regardless of their place on the scale of individualism to collectivism.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<< That is not coming back anytime soon. I am posting this as a person born and raised in a rather small community. I personally do not yearn for the good old days when 'everyone knew everyone' and there were things to do together. We did things together, because of geographical convenience and random chance. We had no other options so we did kids things. Granted, I was lucky to be included in that particular group, because they all were much, much smarter than me, but despite relatively pleasant memories, I enjoy my current situation much more. << When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. I accept that being extrovert and/or social is(was?) the default mode in polite society, but I think we can agree that not everyone is built the same way. I certainly do not talk to strangers bar some unusual turn of events that requires cooperation. << Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Is that a bad thing? We can now individually decide the life we actually want to lead with minimal interplay between various mediators that would have been mandatory only decades ago. Should we not be celebrating this as a tremendous achievement of humanity as a whole?

FooHentai 4y ago
Perhaps. But what are the long-term ramifications of continuing down this track? Does a society of individuals with low cohesion survive in the long run? What motivations to pull together and overcome any adversity that might come along exists? Is it worth it for a few generations of improved individual freedom, if that society doesn't hold together longer than that due to a lack of cohesion? “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
janeerie 4y ago
I have come to believe that social interaction is like exercising or eating your vegetables. Some people naturally enjoy it; some people don’t. Either way, you will be a healthier person if you do it.

dangus 4y ago

I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions. This article says that the trend has started since 2013. In what way has American individualism changed since then? I would say it hasn't. How could American culture shift that much in less than 10 years in this specific span? I don't buy that explanation without more thorough study. American individualism has existed far longer than the data in this article. We've been sitting in cars by ourselves since the mid-century. I am most skeptical about easy and simple explanations like the one you're describing. For one thing, I'm looking through the data and I'm struggling to find the data that the chart is representing: https://www.bls.gov/tus/database/tustabs.htm https://www.bls.gov/tus/database/tustabs.htm Is anyone else able to find it?

dumpsterlid 4y ago
"I think this analysis, and the analysis of the opinion article, jumps to too many conclusions." Definitely, especially because the article seems to avoid the elephant in the room. The US is amidst full on class warfare, the transfer of wealth from the poor and middleclass to the wealthy has been staggering, we never recovered from the 2008 crash, only rich people did. The rich are grinding us to pieces and honestly I just dont think most of us have the energy to socialize anymore. Wages are less, no one has much money to spend on recreation, everybody is stressed about rent, healthcare, and their bosses being assholes and making them do the job of 3 people. There are certainly other factors at play here but avoiding talking about this factor just torpedoes any intelligent discussion of ANYTHING related to quality of life in the US.
- UweSchmidt 4y ago
  We had class warfare before, and collectivistic action (i.e. unions, strikes) was a logical and (somewhat?) successful solution to improve quality of life. Individualism as the underlying trend prevents those classic solutions and therefore individualistic solutions have to be found: Instead of just collectively asking for x% more salary, society tediously defines and articulates new instances of discrimination (which are ultimately violations on the individual level). Fixing various internal injustices leads to friction and is probably mostly a wealth transfer from different tiers of middle and lower classes. The powers that be therefore applaud and encourage individualism and thus further strenghten this trend.

closeparen 4y ago

>Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone This sounds deep and wise in the abstract, but I think it's important that we're talking about is, like, because there are washing machines now, you can show up places looking presentable without there being a woman in your home dedicated to washing your clothes all the time.

SoftTalker 4y ago
That was never necessary. You have always been able to pay someone to do your laundry.
bergenty 4y ago
Is there a problem with a woman dedicated to washing your laundry at home? Seems like women today have to go to work and do that in the evening anyways.
- closeparen 4y ago
  Yes, there is a problem with domestic labor being so demanding as to demand an entire human being's full time attention. That's why modernity is amazing.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    Is it more meaningful if your labour is instead spent as a minute cog in a vast and faceless corporation? At least you can wear the clothes you wash. Don’t get me wrong, washing machines are great, probably one of the greatest inventions ever. We now can lead meaningful and consequential lives, but newly potent sources of inconsequentiality have arisen.
    - watwut 4y ago
      It gives you better control over your life. Cause that wife was utterly and absolutely dependent on husband. There was nothing she could do to improve her life if there were issues. And if he was gone (say due to being sick, dead, in prison) she was utterly absolutely effed. If be beat her up, she was helpless. If he was emotionally manipulative she was helpless. If the marriage just sucked, both were trapped. If he was feeling responsible, he would not leave her in poverty and would stay with her despite her being jerk too. The kind of murder where husband kills wife used to be waaay more frequent then it is now. It is one of reasons for lower murders clearance rate ... cause these were super easy to solve.

snoot 4y ago

> But you'll do all that against massive societal forces. What forces exactly? > A few decades back you'd join one of the few organizations or clubs that happened in your area, and instantly be in a reliable community (if you adapt a little - let's ignore all the downsides for a moment). I’ve joined two different clubs. One 7 years ago and one this year. Both have resulted in good friends, outings, and even trips to other states. There are more people who want to see more of me than I have time for. > Friends would hook you up with a partner who's as nerdy as you. I met my wife at a friend’s party 5 years ago. > When I was young random strangers had regularly great conversations on trains. A city street was a village, you knew everyone. I know my neighbors on both sides and across the street, and routinely have conversations with people I meet when I’m walking my dog. > That is not coming back anytime soon. I don’t think it’s gone anywhere. As far as I can see there are far more groups of people doing interesting things than I have time for. Mostly I’m turning down opportunities.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
toiletfuneral 4y ago
cmauniada 4y ago
Out of curiosity, where do you live?
- snoot 4y ago
  SF Bay Area
  - wikibob 4y ago
    In the city or the vast suburbs of the peninsula / South Bay?
    - vaidhy 4y ago

edmundsauto 4y ago

> Every single technological innovation has made it easier for the individual to function better alone. Isn’t it more nuanced? In order for someone to not need a wife for laundry service, we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity. It seems like we become more tightly dependent (single directional graph) on more people in order to feel superficially less intertwined. I think people need other people more than ever. We just might not need them to be our masters or servants.

tobyjsullivan 4y ago
> we rely on the manufacturer. We rely on electricity. We rely on having money. And we rely on a mature economy where someone is willing to solve every problem in exchange for that money. In an individualistic society, each person is expected to earn their own way and then pay to solve every problem they may have. In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need. Each person's income/wealth is contributing to the collective for whatever cannot be served internally. This movement toward individualization correlates very strongly with the capitalism.
- chii 4y ago
  > In more community-oriented societies, personal earnings are less important than a strong network of friends and family who can fulfill every need. and as this community grew, accounting for such "favours" between friends/family become more important, and thus, the need for unit of accounts - aka money. You'd end up replicating the current system when given long enough time and a large enough community.
  - lilactown 4y ago
    The First 5000 Years of Debt has a lot to say about this. It’s not fact that every large group of people invents money
  - tobyjsullivan 4y ago
    I'm following up a bit late but I wasn't referring to communism or nation-sized communities. I was referring to societies that tend to value community (ranging from brazil to china - look for countries where it's normal for aging parents to live with their children). These societies tend to keep those communities smaller - immediate family plus some closer relatives and family friends. Then there are broader networks with shallower ties where business is favoured but money will usually change hands.

paul7986 4y ago

I think another thing that's causing it is social media ... the thought of ...i want to have the perfect family too and post photos of such so I get tons of likes too for what I created (the picture of me with my beautiful family). If i cant achieve that i'll be alone. That's just one thing yet not sure how big or small of a driver it is.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

I feel like it's the opposite. This was caused by the destruction of individualism. When people are individuals, you know the name of your butcher and which farm your wheat came from. Now it all comes from the collective and you can't participate in the process without being a drone. Working for Walmart is not the same as operating your own farm stand. You lack autonomy because decisions are made collectively by corporations and legislators, and that makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible.

chii 4y ago
> makes everything bland, homogeneous and fungible. which is what makes it cheap and available. If you ran your own farm stand, the goods you produce would be some 2-5x more expensive than a factory farm could've sold for. The modern wealth is predicated on such specialization and scaling. It's why artisanal products are so expensive.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Artisanal products are so expensive because we make them so. By default if you buy something in a store, add 5% to the value by improving it and want to sell it on eBay, they'll charge sales tax on the full sale price even though you already paid sales tax on 95% of that. To avoid the double taxation you have to file paperwork, which most people don't know how to do, and pay filing fees, which eat into your already-meager profits. If you want to sell things over the internet yourself, or accept digital payments in person, how do you avoid paying a fraction of the sale price that may exceed your margin to some payment intermediary that may capriciously choose to cut you off at any time with no recourse? If you want to incorporate, your annual fee is the same one paid by Apple, but e.g. $500 is a lot more to you than it is to them. Keep adding things like that up and individual-scale operations are no longer viable without charging thick margins and thereby having only the affluent as customers, which is what happened.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Artisanal products are expensive because human work is expensive. You can either have a machine that produces a million bland identical tea cups a day for a cost of a dollar per cup or you can have an expert potter produce two dozen artisanal tea cups a day. Even if the potter works for minimum wage and materials are free it's several times more expensive.

unix_badger 4y ago

Dalewyn 4y ago

If you ask me, it's because humans fucking suck to be around. Myself and yourself included, along with everyone else. Marrying? Fuck that; pun intended. Friends? I can count the number of true friends I've ever had with one hand. Co-workers and comrades? Ultimately, we're just there to make ends meet. Societal collective (eg: neighborhoods, villages, towns)? Well, we're here talking about this because such things have become pieces of history. I crave solitude, even if in practice that solitude relies on a handful of people and organizations that enable it (eg: supermarkets, gas stations, power company). Interacting with people fucking sucks balls, the less of it the better I say. I'd sooner deal with machines or our fellow animal peers. The way I see it, back in the old days people tolerated being around each other because that was a hard requirement to long-term survival. But that is no longer the case, and given that relinquishment and freedom, I for one am going to take full advantage of that freedom and enjoy something my ancestors couldn't. Of course, this also means I won't have any descendants to enjoy what I enjoy (or enjoy what I couldn't), but that's none of my concern because I don't care about leaving behind offspring in the first place. Individualism baby, everyone including Mother Nature can go pound sand.

karpierz 4y ago
Why do people suck to be around?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Many reasons, including but not limited to: * People are two-faced. There is a distinct lack of sincerity in any human interaction compared to interacting with literally anything else. I know a machine is being honest with me, I know a dog or a cat is being honest with me, and I know a human is being dishonest with me. * The needs and desires of one will not align with those of another. Groups of people must compromise, and compromises leave noone happy. This modern age of people being manipulated into division and strife by the bigger powers-that-be make this even worse. * The desires of some to wield power leads to awkward and harmful social dynamics. Best to not get involved at all. For individualists, this is perhaps one of the biggest sticking points to socializing. Outside of professional obligations, nobody likes being told what to do. * People need sufficient time alone to remain mentally healthy, even those who are mega extroverts. The problem is, most people do not understand this and become nuisances in life. Worse is when certain social arrangements (eg: a family) make distancing oneself practically impossible.

coldtea 4y ago

Individuals thrive in communities. Individualism is doing your thing. What we have in the west (and increasingly the east) is the opposite: the creation of isolated cogs, educated to be mere cogs, following mass fashions, work as replacable units, and leave no mark of their existence. Their "individuality" is reduced to consumerism, and is sold to them through chosing among ready made brands (of gadgets, clothes, cultural products). They're "invididually" part of market groups. Those are, as you observe, better able to function alone than in the past (e.g. no need to cooperate to get it), but they also have no support group, and often not even family and friends to support them, and help them do anything and to allow them to be able to resist (work conditions, political pressure, etc). They're not individuals, they're cogs with cookie cutter "identities". Nobody knows or cares who they are even - because each of them is as good as any other, just a unit to get some services of.