5 ms·

I'll try out an extreme point of view here. Modern culture has failed, we need to replace it. One third of 50 year olds living alone is as good a symptom as any

by dash2 4y ago

I'll try out an extreme point of view here. Modern culture has failed, we need to replace it. One third of 50 year olds living alone is as good a symptom as any. You could mention the birth rate also. The two are obviously connected. Am I right? Is that too nuts? I just don't see how this ends well. We have effectively socialized old age care, and now we are expecting future generations, an ever-shrinking group, to pay for the pensions of people they have never met.

la64710 4y ago
You have to make a small distinction between groups that are alone and unhappy AND groups that are alone to be happy. To each his own I say.
- dash2 4y ago
  Sure. Are most people single in their 50s by choice, as in they would prefer that to being in a relationship with children? I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing.
  - la64710 4y ago
    Nothing happens without reason and some of those reasons maybe due to choices made earlier in life. Take responsibility for those choices , and most importantly if someone is feeling lonely please consider to wholeheartedly getting involved in volunteering and helping others. It is not a replacement for a relationship but it opens doors to human connections. Life is impermanent , we come alone and go alone , whatever time you find in this planet try whatever ways you can connect to others.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > Are most people single in their 50s by choice, as in they would prefer that to being in a relationship with children? Firstly, There have always been — though I dislike the term — leftover men and women recluses and spinsters. People don't exist as sperm donors and incubators whose only purpose to form a family unit. They have rich lives as individuals. Secondly, the question to ask would be a choice at what cost? I'm sure any naif would answer affirmatively to having a relationship with children. But those who are aware of what the question implies — the surrender of opportunity and free time, the fiduciary duty to spouse and child, the peer pressure and stress from society from without and one's SO from within, the potential for everything to fall apart at one's expense even when doing everything right — will rightfully be more uncertain about whether such a relationship is worth pursuing. No one in this universe has a choice as to someone else's behaviors, and, as a result, the only "reliable" metrics are semi-controllable tradeoffs (i.e. freedom vs loneliness, financial security vs fiduciary obligation) and an ability to judge character. > I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing. What's the difference? Most people on Earth don't become their parents' geriatric specialists. You'll be depending on outsiders whether or not you have children. In fact, kids especially rely on outsiders to comfort of them, feed them, medicate them, make cheap products for them, teach them, and transport them, for about two decades. And by that point they'll have their own lives with their own demands.
    - RestlessMind 4y ago
      > What's the difference? The biggest difference is that a lot of the tasks you mentioned (feeding, medicating, teaching, transporting) can be outsourced to other random young people. But it is hard to get love and caring from someone who interacts with you on a purely transactional basis. I haven't yet seen any effective replacement to the joy grandkids can bring to grandparents. Or a warm Thanksgiving meal with family around the table. TBF, friends can replace some of the roles families used to play. But intergenerational friendship is still rare and as you get old, your friends are also getting old and cannot care for you the way a younger family member would do.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You don't really. You just have to make the assumptions that 1) the proportion between the two groups isn't radically increasing recently in favor of people who want to be alone, and 2) that when a higher proportion of people who are alone report being sad about that and sadder and sicker in general as compared to people who are not, they're not trying to trick you.
newaccount2021 4y ago
copperx 4y ago
I wouldn't go as far, but certainly, the death of the multi-generational household has brought tragic consequences.
- api 4y ago
  I have a multi generational household right now with my father staying in our finished basement. It’s working out very well, but we also have a fairly big house in the Midwest. I’m not sure it could work for us in a small place. It’d be hard for my wife and I to have a relationship or any intimacy. Other cultures deal with this though. I’m sure it can be done. There’s ways to build privacy into a small place. Did it in college. But it would require some changes to how we expect to use the space, something more like a dorm with common areas than a traditional house.
  - FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
    Open floor plans are one small part of the problem. Older houses have separate rooms so people can have more psychological space, when they want it. Granted, that was for the comparatively rich. Poor people might all live in a one-room cottage with a dirt floor. In some places, many still do.
whynotminot 4y ago
> We have effectively socialized old age care, and now we are expecting future generations, an ever-shrinking group, to pay for the pensions of people they have never met. In some form or fashion, this is how things have always worked. The young take care of the old. It's not really a problem, so long as you have enough young folks around. I think your first paragraph is right--modern culture is failing at giving humans the connection they need. That's the real problem we need to figure out. Taking care of old people is just always going to be A Thing We Have To Do until we all get issued a robot or whatever.
- aliqot 4y ago
  We're also perpetuating values like fierce independence. This has an effect as everyone is focused on me-me-me rather than finding a mate. To this style of rhetoric, finding a mate is succumbing to the status quo, and surrendering to common relationship ideals.
  - thechao 4y ago
    Isn't this a self-correcting phenomenon in the long-run?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Seeking a mate or procreation with the goal of having someone to help you in old age is just as, no, more selfish than being independent.
    - worthless-trash 4y ago
      Rarely are goals so one dimensional, there are costs in having and raising children, the benefit of company and family flows both ways.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      Being independent is the opposite of selfish. Seeking a mate and raising children used to be considered a duty to society, where, as a side-effect, and not the main intent, you got assistance in old age, and provided assistance to your children in raising theirs. You're right that seeking the side-effect is wrong-headed and selfish.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by dash2 4y ago

la64710 4y ago

You have to make a small distinction between groups that are alone and unhappy AND groups that are alone to be happy. To each his own I say.

dash2 4y ago
Sure. Are most people single in their 50s by choice, as in they would prefer that to being in a relationship with children? I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing.
- la64710 4y ago
  Nothing happens without reason and some of those reasons maybe due to choices made earlier in life. Take responsibility for those choices , and most importantly if someone is feeling lonely please consider to wholeheartedly getting involved in volunteering and helping others. It is not a replacement for a relationship but it opens doors to human connections. Life is impermanent , we come alone and go alone , whatever time you find in this planet try whatever ways you can connect to others.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Are most people single in their 50s by choice, as in they would prefer that to being in a relationship with children? Firstly, There have always been — though I dislike the term — leftover men and women recluses and spinsters. People don't exist as sperm donors and incubators whose only purpose to form a family unit. They have rich lives as individuals. Secondly, the question to ask would be a choice at what cost? I'm sure any naif would answer affirmatively to having a relationship with children. But those who are aware of what the question implies — the surrender of opportunity and free time, the fiduciary duty to spouse and child, the peer pressure and stress from society from without and one's SO from within, the potential for everything to fall apart at one's expense even when doing everything right — will rightfully be more uncertain about whether such a relationship is worth pursuing. No one in this universe has a choice as to someone else's behaviors, and, as a result, the only "reliable" metrics are semi-controllable tradeoffs (i.e. freedom vs loneliness, financial security vs fiduciary obligation) and an ability to judge character. > I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing. What's the difference? Most people on Earth don't become their parents' geriatric specialists. You'll be depending on outsiders whether or not you have children. In fact, kids especially rely on outsiders to comfort of them, feed them, medicate them, make cheap products for them, teach them, and transport them, for about two decades. And by that point they'll have their own lives with their own demands.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > What's the difference? The biggest difference is that a lot of the tasks you mentioned (feeding, medicating, teaching, transporting) can be outsourced to other random young people. But it is hard to get love and caring from someone who interacts with you on a purely transactional basis. I haven't yet seen any effective replacement to the joy grandkids can bring to grandparents. Or a warm Thanksgiving meal with family around the table. TBF, friends can replace some of the roles families used to play. But intergenerational friendship is still rare and as you get old, your friends are also getting old and cannot care for you the way a younger family member would do.
pessimizer 4y ago
You don't really. You just have to make the assumptions that 1) the proportion between the two groups isn't radically increasing recently in favor of people who want to be alone, and 2) that when a higher proportion of people who are alone report being sad about that and sadder and sicker in general as compared to people who are not, they're not trying to trick you.

newaccount2021 4y ago

copperx 4y ago

I wouldn't go as far, but certainly, the death of the multi-generational household has brought tragic consequences.

api 4y ago
I have a multi generational household right now with my father staying in our finished basement. It’s working out very well, but we also have a fairly big house in the Midwest. I’m not sure it could work for us in a small place. It’d be hard for my wife and I to have a relationship or any intimacy. Other cultures deal with this though. I’m sure it can be done. There’s ways to build privacy into a small place. Did it in college. But it would require some changes to how we expect to use the space, something more like a dorm with common areas than a traditional house.
- FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
  Open floor plans are one small part of the problem. Older houses have separate rooms so people can have more psychological space, when they want it. Granted, that was for the comparatively rich. Poor people might all live in a one-room cottage with a dirt floor. In some places, many still do.

whynotminot 4y ago

> We have effectively socialized old age care, and now we are expecting future generations, an ever-shrinking group, to pay for the pensions of people they have never met. In some form or fashion, this is how things have always worked. The young take care of the old. It's not really a problem, so long as you have enough young folks around. I think your first paragraph is right--modern culture is failing at giving humans the connection they need. That's the real problem we need to figure out. Taking care of old people is just always going to be A Thing We Have To Do until we all get issued a robot or whatever.

aliqot 4y ago
We're also perpetuating values like fierce independence. This has an effect as everyone is focused on me-me-me rather than finding a mate. To this style of rhetoric, finding a mate is succumbing to the status quo, and surrendering to common relationship ideals.
- thechao 4y ago
  Isn't this a self-correcting phenomenon in the long-run?
- falcolas 4y ago
  Seeking a mate or procreation with the goal of having someone to help you in old age is just as, no, more selfish than being independent.
  - worthless-trash 4y ago
    Rarely are goals so one dimensional, there are costs in having and raising children, the benefit of company and family flows both ways.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    Being independent is the opposite of selfish. Seeking a mate and raising children used to be considered a duty to society, where, as a side-effect, and not the main intent, you got assistance in old age, and provided assistance to your children in raising theirs. You're right that seeking the side-effect is wrong-headed and selfish.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]