[HN Gopher] The Social Recession: By the Numbers
___________________________________________________________________
The Social Recession: By the Numbers
Author : antonomon
Score : 47 points
Date : 2022-10-23 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (novum.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (novum.substack.com)
| seydor wrote:
| The US must not be a low-trust society. You should try to live in
| an actual low trust society (where people can't trust
| institutions and instead revert to their family or clan). The US
| is not like that, people seem to trust other people they have
| never seen before because they trust things like justice or the
| US army or google or apple.
|
| Other than that, it seems that things are progressing as normal.
| Since the times of the Enlightenment, there was this oxymoron of
| idealizing individual empowerment, while advocating that humans
| are social animals that must act collectively. Which is it? Well
| with today's technology and abundance people are drifting
| deliberately and decisively towards more individualism. Perhaps
| it is about ime to stop describing these things as 'problems' and
| realize that they are the new reality. Our politics worldwide is
| quite ancient , and not prepared for the next phase of individual
| empowerment. The places of the world that are stuck in
| collectivist mindsets are awfully deluded like Russia, or rigidly
| antiprogressive, like China.
| rayiner wrote:
| Every single highly individualistic society seems to be in
| population decline (more so if you factor out immigrants from
| "anti-progressive" Muslim or Catholic countries). Individualism
| seems to be a self-limiting feature of society: it's unpleasant
| to raise children in highly individualistic societies, which
| makes such societies inherently transitory.[1]
|
| Is societal self-obsolescence how you define "progress?" How
| successful can your society really be if your people don't seem
| to want to raise kids in it and perpetuate it? If you have to
| import people from collectivist societies just to take care of
| your elderly?
|
| [1] The inverse is not true--many collectivist societies are
| also facing population walls--but for quite different reasons.
| godelski wrote:
| But many collective societies are also facing similar issues
| of loneliness and isolation. This isn't just a western
| problem. We also see this same problem all across Asia:
| India, Japan, China, Korea. Some of these countries even had
| a rise in isolation before the US. I don't think it is a
| individualism vs collectivism issue, though I'm not going to
| dismiss it from the equation. I think it is that humans have
| just gotten comfortable as our lives have all tremendously
| benefited. We have little day to day problems. The problems
| we face now are much more abstract and existential than
| before, which tend to not be as motivating for adopting risky
| behavior.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Birth rates dropped to below replacement rate in the 70s near
| universally among developed countries, far before many of
| them became increasingly more individualistic.
|
| American culture and attitude seeping into most of those
| countries kicked into overdrive the 21st century, but
| birthrates were already low by then.
| CPLX wrote:
| The hidden variable here is the newly available innovation
| of birth control pills.
| seydor wrote:
| > in population decline
|
| So? It's not the most populous groups that dominate, quite
| the contrary. The world had half the population just 50 years
| ago.
| godelski wrote:
| Yeah I find the conversations about population decline
| quite odd. We've seen the results of population explosion,
| and I don't think many agree that the results were great.
| But they also weren't that bad. I think people miss the
| point that (if you're a fellow Millennial) that when your
| parents were born there were less than half the number of
| people on the planet than there are today. I don't think
| rapid decline will be a good thing (just like rapid
| increase wasn't) but I don't think it is an existential
| crisis either.
|
| World population: (1804) 1 billion, (1927: 123yrs) 2
| billion, (1960: 33 yrs) 3 billion, (1974: 14 yrs) 4
| billion, (1987: 13 yrs) 5 billion, (1999: 12 yrs) 6
| billion, (2011: 12yrs) 7 billion, (2023: 12 yrs) 8 billion.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| The collectivist societies, like South Korea and Japan, are
| experiencing stronger and worse populations declines than
| highly individualistic societies.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Which societies are even still growing? I thought that even
| developing countries were falling off in birthrates. I
| assume the world in 2100 will be mostly Amish people and
| Israelis at this rate (and the oceans will be a couple
| meters higher too).
| luckylion wrote:
| Are they, if you factor out immigration? As far as I know,
| in Europe, the recent-ish immigrants are propping up birth
| rates, but they adapt to the average in two or three
| generations.
| jesuscript wrote:
| Here's a wild question:
|
| Are we not all friends here on HN? Or am I so depraved and
| desperate? Have I socially died and don't even know it, friends?
|
| We're all friends right? Right? What the fuck is going on.
| dgfitz wrote:
| I don't consider anyone on HN a friend if that means anything.
| jesuscript wrote:
| Maybe that's the intangible the linked post is not
| addressing. What does _friendship_ even mean to the people
| they tracked?
|
| Being able to talk to people who are willing to spend time
| talking back is a basis for friendship, at least in my book.
|
| Friendship doesn't always have to be so serious.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| For me, a friend is a person I can discuss _personal_
| topics with.
|
| On HN, the topic is given (the article we comment on), and
| it is usually not personal. If it happens to be personal,
| it is most likely not the personal topic I would like to
| discuss now.
|
| Also, if any of us died today, most likely no one else on
| HN would ever notice. That too is not exactly what I
| imagine as "friendship".
| conductr wrote:
| Me either but I can see how it serves the purpose of a friend
| and for some people it could support increased isolation
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| There are people on HN, who I completely 100% disagree with and
| likely would not want to spend time with in any other setting (
| and likely vice versa ). However, the best part of HN is that
| me being friends, or even like minded, is not mandatory for the
| purpose of this site ( edit: in fact, to an extent, being able
| to present a different or conventionally objectionable,
| perspective in a compelling way is more important than same
| value framework ).
|
| In short, only you can answer that question.
| jesuscript wrote:
| But you find some of these deplorable people engaging
| (possibly even fun and interesting), right? Interesting how
| varied (imho, high) our standards are for another human
| being.
|
| Fun and interesting is enough for me, we don't need to be
| _best_ friends. We can be some semblance of friends. Or is
| that asking for too much as well?
|
| Anyways, I agree with you. The drop in friendships can't be
| fucking tracked because everyone has their own idea of what
| it means.
| OrangeMonkey wrote:
| We arn't friends - at best everyone here are strangers
| attending a conference where there are 4-5 competing views and
| barely concealed contempt.
|
| That said, you f'ing matter and you deserve to be friends with
| people. You can do it too. Just get out, talk to people in the
| real world, whatever just do something different from what you
| are doing now.
|
| I'm rooting for you man.
| ctoth wrote:
| I'd say we are most of us members of 3-4 distinct tribes all
| gathering around this oasis, if I had to put words to it. 3-4
| distinct tribes with obvious intermixing.
| thakoppno wrote:
| I think we're friends in a meaningful sense. My in--real-life
| friends live all over the world and we have a group thread. I
| don't see that as too different.
|
| I remember hearing some futurist a decade or so ago say how
| indistinguishable real-life and online life will be eventually.
| At the time I couldn't believe it but your comment synthesizes
| it in a way.
|
| I would be considerably more lonely, less inspired and
| knowledgeable without this community. That's friendship to me.
| errantmind wrote:
| The more time people spend passively consuming entertainment, the
| less time they spend doing everything else, including
| socializing.
|
| Most everyone I know just sits on their phones, computers, or TVs
| a good portion of the day. All boredom is banished, all gaps are
| filled. The threshold for participation and collaboration is
| higher, because why risk boredom when you have guaranteed-
| minimum-satisfaction available.
| juunpp wrote:
| The best part isn't even "sitting on their phones", but walking
| on their phones past other humans.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Every time I'm stuck behind someone who inexplicably stopped
| in the middle of a walkway to answer their phone, I just
| imagine to myself that it's a book and think of how
| engrossing the plot must be for them to pull it out and read
| it at the worst possible time, and at least I'm a little more
| amused than annoyed.
| juunpp wrote:
| Lucky you. I get the equivalent of road rage... but on the
| sidewalk.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Well, now you know my trick for dealing with it, maybe
| you can try it or work on one of your own ;)
| godelski wrote:
| > Most everyone I know just sits on their phones, computers, or
| TVs a good portion of the day. All boredom is banished,
|
| I see this a lot too, but I disagree with the conclusion. I
| think more people are bored today than have been before. But we
| need to recognize that engagement does not mean a lack of
| boredom but rather addiction. As the article points out, people
| are substantially more risk adverse now.
|
| While that may be good for things like less people doing heavy
| drinking and such, our lives are inherently risky. If you talk
| to people about why they have a hard time making friends you'll
| find that this risk adverse nature often pops up (not the only
| cause, but one of many). Same with dating. Any type of
| relationship is inherently risky. You WILL get hurt by some of
| them too, but that is the price to pay for the high rewards of
| successful relationships (which can form online).
|
| So I am in agreement that there is a "why risk it" aspect of
| people, but not about boredom. I believe we are self isolating
| because that's what animals do, especially depressed ones. If
| our lives are comfortable enough there is little incentive to
| take any risks. So it sounds weird, but I think a major part of
| the issue is that our lives have become so well off that there
| is fewer incentives to push ourselves out of our comfort
| zones[0]. But we are human too and able to find challenges for
| ourselves and create discomfort when there is none. This is a
| double edged sword that is difficult to wield, but I think it
| is important that we learn it. It is how we better ourselves:
| putting ourselves in uncomfortable positions[1].
|
| [0] I do think this also plays a role in the (global) rise in
| authoritarianism, but that is too much for this comment.
|
| [1] Even doing things like learning to code, ride a bike, or
| learn an instrument requires putting ourselves in uncomfortable
| positions. Specifically because you're never good at something
| when you first start. But the challenge is supposed to make us
| stronger.
| [deleted]
| antonomon wrote:
| Less friends, relationships on the decline, delayed adulthood,
| trust at an all-time low, and many diseases of despair. The
| prognosis is not great.
| [deleted]
| cowpig wrote:
| I wonder how much of this can be explained by social media? Feels
| like a feeling of impending doom with climate change could also
| be a factor.
|
| Also, I'd really like to see this trend in a broader context. How
| much did these kinds of indicators dip during, say, the great
| depression?
| trgn wrote:
| Very little. This has been an ongoing process, it's called
| modernity. It's the evaporation of reality due to mass media
| and commoditization. It's a reductive process that turns actual
| people into widgets, the adaptation of man to machine. Human
| relations, since these cannot be quantitied, are transmuted
| into transactions that can be measured, quantitied, monetized.
| Affection, intimacy, loyalty thus become replqced by countable
| things like swipes, nft drops, car infotainment packages, yoga
| cruise experiences, ...
|
| The matrix is real. Not that we are living in a computer (thats
| just stupid), but that we are being reduced to particiption in
| algorithm, mere conduits of information.
|
| That malaise, hard to pinpoint but ongoing since 150 years, is
| the driver of the social recession
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I genuinely fail to see how social media does not fit
| perfectly into the description of mass media commoditization
| in modernity.
| trgn wrote:
| For sure, it fits into it, apologies if I gave the
| impression it didn't.
| tchock23 wrote:
| I wonder how much of the lack of close friends is due to people
| moving more frequently. After college most of my close friends
| did a stint in various cities making it very difficult to
| maintain a relationship with them. I'd be curious to see a graph
| of reported close friendships against mobility.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I tried her this but it must be infected with some virus because
| an overlay popped up that made it so I couldn't read anything
| past the first paragraph!
| [deleted]
| 1270018080 wrote:
| As someone who likes looking at charts, I hate being in the
| "middle" of the story on the social recession. In addition to
| everything listed in the article, we also have ever increasing
| partisanship, declines in education, climate destruction etc.
| Instead of everything getting .5% worse every year, it would be
| nice to see something dramatically change, good or bad. Some
| shift that actually changes things just to get this current
| failing society out of the way.
|
| Is this what life is always like in declining empires? Will it
| just get worse every year until we have a few wars and genocides
| until there's enough destruction to start rebuilding?
| willnonya wrote:
| Which empire are you imagining is in decline?
| [deleted]
| antonomon wrote:
| It feels like things are a bit primed for something like that,
| in a way. Although it could easily not and just continue
| indefinitely if the public is pacified completely. Still, I
| think if this drip drip drip of a decline continues, then I
| think we might start seeing some weird fascination with war as
| an "outlet." A lot of fine de siecle 20th century writers
| talked about this same thing with regards to mass industrial
| society, as if they wanted WWI. When Wittgenstein was sent to
| the front, his response was basically, "I really needed that,"
| as if it was some kind of cleanse. People are built for
| narratives, they derive meaning from them, and a drift cannot
| persist indefinitely. Amid the collapse of traditional meta-
| narratives that once gave meaning, there are today many
| competing ones, none of which are truly for _the now._ It feels
| like we need a new way to live otherwise we will exhaust
| ourselves.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I'd recommend The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd
| DeMause [1] if you aren't already aware of it. The actual
| child abuse part is not apropos the technological aspects,
| but there's a deep (one of the most direct and powerfully
| written) account of perennial sacrificial cleansing rituals
| and the societal death-drive (Thanatos).
| antonomon wrote:
| Wow, great suggestion. I will check it.
| parthianshotgun wrote:
| I'd really look into the validity of the book, a cursory
| google search reveals that's it's basically a load of
| shit. Also the book is narrated by Stefan Molyneux,
| which, I wouldn't say is a 'happy accident' when it comes
| to Molyneux oeuvre
| antonomon wrote:
| Lol wtf? Jesus christ, nevermind then.
| [deleted]
| rafaelero wrote:
| I find this subject fascinating. We young people have been
| detaching from the old ways of living without really building a
| new narrative. I still think it's cringe how some subsections of
| society want to revive the traditional life (tm). I mean, there's
| a reason we went away from that, so that ends up being very
| patronizing and unhelpful.
| mistermann wrote:
| > We young people have been detaching from the old ways of
| living without really building a new narrative.
|
| George Hotz, are we living in a simulation (6 minutes)
|
| https://youtu.be/_SpptYg_0Rs
| debacle wrote:
| Look at the reddit front page and tell me it isn't enabling much
| of these behaviors.
| mistermann wrote:
| I thinks it's fascinating how it evades _significant_ study,
| attention, _and curiosity_.
| seydor wrote:
| Look at russia and see a society that is trying to disable
| those behaviors
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-23 23:00 UTC)