3 ms·

Right those exist, they're called families. Actually they've existed for longer than humans. It turns out that many animals, particularly mammals and including

Right those exist, they're called families. Actually they've existed for longer than humans. It turns out that many animals, particularly mammals and including us, have evolved this behavior where they live with their blood relatives and take care of them, it has worked pretty well for millions of years. Now it so happens that in many modern human societies there's a declining birth rate and consequently fewer families are being formed. South Korea's one of the worst off in this regard. You end up with a lot of people being alone and dying alone (the majority are male but women are far from immune). Why are people not starting families? Well I haven't seen Korea-specific information but I think it's the same as most countries, people typically cite medical and financial reasons. So basically you have to address cost of living, cost of raising a kid and rising infertility to address this, among other things. However for a number of societies including Korea's it's probably too late. Koreans can't have more families and your solution probably won't work either. The reason is that the demographic collapse is so extreme, the population is increasingly too old to produce a new generation or take care of other people. There just aren't enough young people to go around. These societies either have to accept mass immigration or collapse. The next few decades will be interesting.

seydor 4y ago
that's irrelevant though. People at old age have already lost many of their peers, so they have mostly children to rely on. But people now have fewer children than ever and they are likely to be away. And i dont think parents or children want to be forced to live with each other just for this. We also shouldn't be shaming people for not living with their family. That's why we need something else (and maybe there's an entrepreneurial idea there) Also keep in mind that , particularly for men, the nuclear family living was not the norm until the past few generations. Men used to spent most of their time in men/gentlement's spaces socializing/doing business while the wife was at home with kids. This 'loneliness' thing happens because those other spaces are gone now
- safety1st 4y ago
  It's not irrelevant. I think the point you're missing is that there are not enough young able-bodied people to take care of the lonely old people. There is a numbers issue. Like in your solution you assume that people exist will be people who are young and have energy and have resources. These people do not exist. Not enough to take care of the massive number of old and sick people being created anyway. Here's an illustration: https://ourworldindata.org/global-population-pyramid https://ourworldindata.org/global-population-pyramid This is referred to as an inverted population pyramid but really it ends up looking more like a bell. The world used to have lots of young people and not many old people. The flattening of the peak which has happened in only 30 years is stunning! This will keep getting worse until the end of the century. Korea's population pyramid looks way worse than the one I linked above by the way. From age 60 down it actually is inverted. Again, there are no young people left to do the caretaking you envision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/media/File:South_Korea_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/m...
  - seydor 4y ago
    The point is not to take care of ailing old people, there's other venues for that. Instead it is to have some sort of semiregular contact with other peers that's beneficial both ways.
    - DieAgainAli 4y ago
      You’re missing the point. There is numbers issue, there’s not enough people for ‘a venue’ to take care of all the old people.
      - safety1st 4y ago
        I re-read their comment and I sort of get it now. We could bring back "gentlemen's spaces" and these single guys might be less lonely. They would still die alone, though, and it wouldn't do anything at all for the lonely women out there (who also account for 15-20% of the lonely deaths mentioned in the article). Though I'm not really convinced that those opportunities for socializing no longer exist, I mean any medium sized city has meetup groups, pubs, and probably all sorts of other social outlets I'm not thinking of. The modern middle aged man's problem isn't meeting people, it's building relationships that have a closeness and intimacy equivalent to familial ones, which some people seem to think is easy but if it was these corpses wouldn't be rotting in apartments would they?
imtringued 4y ago
You completely ignored that children move far away from their parents, following the money of rich people who concentrate in a few specific geographic areas. That is the whole shtick behind LA, the bay area and NYC after all. You go there because you get closer to the money. It is particularly paradoxical when your parents invest in stocks because then you have to follow your parent's money.
- safety1st 4y ago
  I haven't ignored that at all. Big cities are great talent pools for megacorps that owe their success to a free market while simultaneously seeking to destroy it. Those big cities also suck for decentralization of capital and power and for human society in general. Anxiety and depression are higher in big cities. Big cities are filled with highly educated white collar serfs (sorry I mean professionals) who are great human resources. In rural communities- the birth rate is way higher. So what are you getting at?

seydor 4y ago

that's irrelevant though. People at old age have already lost many of their peers, so they have mostly children to rely on. But people now have fewer children than ever and they are likely to be away. And i dont think parents or children want to be forced to live with each other just for this. We also shouldn't be shaming people for not living with their family. That's why we need something else (and maybe there's an entrepreneurial idea there) Also keep in mind that , particularly for men, the nuclear family living was not the norm until the past few generations. Men used to spent most of their time in men/gentlement's spaces socializing/doing business while the wife was at home with kids. This 'loneliness' thing happens because those other spaces are gone now

safety1st 4y ago
It's not irrelevant. I think the point you're missing is that there are not enough young able-bodied people to take care of the lonely old people. There is a numbers issue. Like in your solution you assume that people exist will be people who are young and have energy and have resources. These people do not exist. Not enough to take care of the massive number of old and sick people being created anyway. Here's an illustration: https://ourworldindata.org/global-population-pyramid https://ourworldindata.org/global-population-pyramid This is referred to as an inverted population pyramid but really it ends up looking more like a bell. The world used to have lots of young people and not many old people. The flattening of the peak which has happened in only 30 years is stunning! This will keep getting worse until the end of the century. Korea's population pyramid looks way worse than the one I linked above by the way. From age 60 down it actually is inverted. Again, there are no young people left to do the caretaking you envision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/media/File:South_Korea_Population_Pyramid.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/m...
- seydor 4y ago
  The point is not to take care of ailing old people, there's other venues for that. Instead it is to have some sort of semiregular contact with other peers that's beneficial both ways.
  - DieAgainAli 4y ago
    You’re missing the point. There is numbers issue, there’s not enough people for ‘a venue’ to take care of all the old people.
    - safety1st 4y ago
      I re-read their comment and I sort of get it now. We could bring back "gentlemen's spaces" and these single guys might be less lonely. They would still die alone, though, and it wouldn't do anything at all for the lonely women out there (who also account for 15-20% of the lonely deaths mentioned in the article). Though I'm not really convinced that those opportunities for socializing no longer exist, I mean any medium sized city has meetup groups, pubs, and probably all sorts of other social outlets I'm not thinking of. The modern middle aged man's problem isn't meeting people, it's building relationships that have a closeness and intimacy equivalent to familial ones, which some people seem to think is easy but if it was these corpses wouldn't be rotting in apartments would they?

imtringued 4y ago

You completely ignored that children move far away from their parents, following the money of rich people who concentrate in a few specific geographic areas. That is the whole shtick behind LA, the bay area and NYC after all. You go there because you get closer to the money. It is particularly paradoxical when your parents invest in stocks because then you have to follow your parent's money.

safety1st 4y ago
I haven't ignored that at all. Big cities are great talent pools for megacorps that owe their success to a free market while simultaneously seeking to destroy it. Those big cities also suck for decentralization of capital and power and for human society in general. Anxiety and depression are higher in big cities. Big cities are filled with highly educated white collar serfs (sorry I mean professionals) who are great human resources. In rural communities- the birth rate is way higher. So what are you getting at?