I'd like to offer a contrarian view. Much of the NYT article can be explained away by the Gell-Mann effect. During most of human history it was hard to maintai

I'd like to offer a contrarian view. Much of the NYT article can be explained away by the Gell-Mann effect. During most of human history it was hard to maintain multiple strong bonds anyway; long distance communication pre-internet was hard too. There are plenty of modern opportunities for finding friends based on interests: conferences, concerts, sports bars etc. How much of this discussion is a moral panic caused by imprecise notions which by definition cannot be described by hard data?