Alienation Is Killing Americans and Japanese
nautil.us
nautil.us
I'm fairly alone in this, and I say Ex-Christian to indicate I'm not Atheist but I don't know if that's true. Anyway, this is something I've been struggling with a lot. I just spent 3 hours last night talking to a Power salesman, because we had a good time chatting and I don't get that outside my friends and work. There is no forced place for me to talk to acquaintences.
Honestly, if I didn't disagree so strongly with the theology of the LDS (Mormon) church I'd go back to that. They are FANTASTIC for kids, parents, events, etc. They instill great morals (other than homophobia and some other things I disagree with). But they are in general very nice people.
So where do I go for a "third place" without God being involved, but I still get the, "hey man we missed you last week, where were you." and "Have you given your money to God lately?"
Sorry this struck a nerve, and I'm almost ready to go back to the LDS church just so Sam has people he knows but to try to counter the Theology by exposing him to other beliefs as well. IDK.
I think that if you bring your kids to church, they'll still look to you for what to believe (or not to believe!). Be straight with them, though. Tell them that you're just going there to have something to do. My parents pretty much said that and I didn't have any problem with it. Maybe ask them not to repeat that in front of others though.
I haven't been, so maybe I'm wrong about there being any kind of spiritual focus to the group, but I might describe my coworkers as an ex-Christian (who's fairly bitter about it) and...well, the other guy, I'm not sure. Maybe "theist"? My impression was that they're an open-minded and diverse group of people. Maybe you can find something similar in your area.
And as you say pub attendance is down by a lot too.
The major lack of easy association to the group is something that is hard to replicate in the nonsecular space. There is nothing strongly compelling about a group that's focus is too general, and the difficulty to bridge the gap from outsider to inclusion can be too high for a group that is interesting.
You mean other than the focus on God and morality?
There are a bunch of related issues I'd like to discuss:
1. Church attendance isn't available to everyone. Specifically, LGBTQ folks are often excluded. In a broader sense, does church attendance still make you happy and reduce alienation if you don't agree with the church's dogma? You claim that "Whether you actually donate and believe everything that is said isn't really a factor" but in my personal experience that was a very large factor.
2. Why do people believe that this is unpopular to discuss? You're not the first person I've heard claim this.
3. Instead of comparing church-attendance to non-church-attendance, is there data which compares church attendance to attendance of other social groups (clubs, activity groups, etc.) which meet weekly?
4. Have there been any attempts to replicate the benefits of church with secular community organizations; i.e. a group that meets weekly and someone gives a talk about some topic (science!)?
I have been to a lot of churches and I've never seen this happen.
> Why do people believe that this is unpopular to discuss?
The Bible offends people. And it's very strange to discuss church participation without discussing God and the Bible.
For example, I believe creating a godless (or even God agnostic) church will be ultimately a dead end (at least in the long term). I'd be interested to read any research about these things, but I'm skeptical that it's even possible to study these things scientifically. Church dynamics play out over generations. You really need to watch organizations over many changes of leadership to see if they're really successful.
I realize that some people reading this reach for an empirical, practical approach to discovering whether it's possible to recreate the benefits of church without the theism. I'd be interested to hear what happens, but I suspect we'll all be dead before all the implications of the experiment are known. I'm not sure waiting around for a series of definitive studies is a good plan.
because youve never seen a gay person be escorted out of a church doesnt mean the church is welcoming to homosexuals.
The Bible teaches that you can't have love without truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). Love without truth isn't really love at all. To take one particular, teaching people to be agnostic about who God is or even whether He exists isn't really loving in the long run, no matter how nice the intentions are.
And there's some real danger of self delusion in editing the Bible. If we are the ultimate judges of what parts of the Bible count, we become the ultimate judges of Truth. In contrast, it's consistent to trust the scriptures and the God of the scriptures. But if you take that objective source of Truth away, what keeps us honest about who God is? When there is no objective source of Truth, people create a false god in our own image. One that's cold and harsh. Or one that thinks love involves money and power. Or one that only hugs and never rights wrongs.
Anyway, I've never heard a good answer from a Unitarian about how they know what parts of the Bible are good. It generally boils down to their own feelings and experience. Typically phrased like, "I can't see how God could...." As if anything we don't understand is automatically false.
Anyway, Unitarians are generally nice people, but the ones who are Christian are heavily editing the commandments of Jesus from the Bible. They're very close to practicing another faith. It makes about as much sense to me as a Christian attending a mosque or synagogue.
The accountability and shared search for applied Truth is where the meaning is. I don't see how UU churches provide either well. In other words, a church needs to be able to fire a pastor for heresy without being hypocritical. Otherwise, the word 'church' has started to become a synonym for the word 'nonprofit' or 'club' or 'fraternity'.
For one example, as recently as 1996, the Catholic Church ran slave-labour camps in Ireland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Laundries_in_Ireland
When these camps were eventually shut down, some within the Church defended them, claiming they had done nothing wrong but had instead provided a service by enslaving these women. Not something many sane people want to be associated with.
A good book called "Counterfeit Gods" by Timothy Keller explores this and other topics from a Christian perspective.
His argument is that work and many other things in life are inherently good and part of our purpose as humans, but not when they consume us. Idolotry is what happens when a "good" thing becomes the "ultimate" and it corrupts who we are at the core.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers
I've known several atheists/agnostics that go to both locally and the few times I've gone to either the meetings tend to be quite low in dogma. Not my thing, but if you crave that sort of community might be worth taking a look.
Meeting decisions have to be unanimous. It's a real source of frustration at times trying to convince the last holdout.
Instead of a minister, they have a clerk. The clerk is elected and coordinates the church for a year.
Before we were married, we had to meet several times with a clearance committee that had to say that we were ready to marry. I understand many ministers do something similar but this was a great thing. One of the members said it used to be a way that parents could stall a marriage - things were different 200 years ago with teenagers wanting to get married. (My wife and I were 33 and 39.)
I remember reading an article about calling "root" "clerk" as a way to deter your boss from asking for root privileges.
Participating in a healthy church is way too much work if all you get out of it is the community benefits. Healthy churches:
* feed and clothe people
* take care of the abandoned people in society (foster kids, shut-ins, people with personality disorders, the homeless, people with immigration problems, addicts)
* talk people into apologizing to each other (yeah, like your mom and her sister after all these years)
* educate themselves about local issues (homelessness, drug use, poverty, etc.) with a mind towards helping somehow
* mentor and provide structure for prisoners and ex-prisoners
* are involved in global relief... they've been doing charity-water-style projects for millenia
* do all the normal boring stuff involved in maintaining and funding an organization with facilities
* do intense critical analysis (including studying dead languages) of the Bible and related resources
* provide educational opportunities to underpivileged children
* put on an 90-120 minute A/V production once a week
* provide huge amounts of child care services, including background checks, training, instilling best practices to ensure safety of children, etc.
* provide therapy for people that need it (techniques here vary a lot but every church does it somehow)
* provide mentoring and care for people entering new life stages (newlyweds, new couples, divorcees, recently widowed, etc.)
That is to say it only makes sense to explore if you are interested in God. If you aren't, consider looking for something else and good luck on your journey.
Yes, there are people (many of them) who just show up sometimes for the A/V portion of the weekend, but that's pretty much missing the point. Unsurprisingly, they tend to have a rougher time 'getting' the whole church thing.
I've heard good things about Unitarian Universalist churches.
I know there's plenty of meetup groups, for example, that have a hard time finding spaces that can host 40 or more people at a time, that doesn't cost like $50 to reserve ahead of time or have to be reserved almost a year in advance. I've been wanting to do a meet and greet for my group for months and haven't been able to find a good space for it.
Also, as far as I can tell, there's not really a marketplace for these kind of "single-day activity space" rentals, so I mostly trawl through Cragslist and pound pavement looking for HOA clubhouses and cheap hotel conference centers. There's your next start-up idea: AirBNB for temporary office space on the weekend.
In the burbs there is an entire division of the govt called "parks and rec" or whatever and I live far from the coasts in an area with a hyperactive parks and rec dept. All you need do is convince one parks and rec functionary that you should run game night and you've got your choice of parks and rec owned rooms for free. If you can't convince them, then you get to pay rent which is of the $100 class you mention and the city self insures.
There are issues, like no dogs or alcohol in the parks and park facilities. And there are first come first serve issues, you are not getting the pavilion on monday nights because thats projection screen movie night, tuesday nights because thats free cover band night, thursdays are free community orchestra concerts, and every friday night the streets are blocked off for a block party. Aside from festivals and holiday events. Of course that's just one busy park, but wednesday nights are open right now.
With respect to "things to do" the problem is defining things to do. If thats defined as drink until 2am and throw up in the street and take some beer googled person home, thats fun but its city only and nothing to do in the burbs. If you want to play a different intermural parks and rec sport every night with the general public in organized games, or have what boils down to club meetings or block/street parties or park concerts or festivals for the heck of it, there's nothing like that to do in the city because corporate has priced the recreation out, yet the burbs are incredibly active, because the burbs are where sober people go for fun. Recreational tree climbing, Adult tae Kwon Do, Learn to Kayak, every sport imaginable...
Only pavilion I'm aware of is at the local arboretum, and it's $12 a person just to get inside there.
I will look into it, though. I also tried to get rooms at one of the local libraries, but they kept saying their rooms could only handle about 25 people. Last meet and greet we had, 45 people showed up (it was at a local coffee shop that has since gone out of business).
I'm from Ohio so it may be different up here, but that's my experience.
There are a wide spectrum of beliefs and interpretations across denominations, far beyond Orthodox , liberal, etc. And the quality of the delivery is still up to the people at the pulpit. A bad experience at one church or denomination should not be a generalization of all churches/religions.
If you feel that something is being imposed on you, that particular church may not be the best fit for you. Or you may be hearing something that is at conflict with the ego, or with an area of personal struggle.
Also YMMV depending on if you view church is a consumer good/service, versus a lifelong shared experience of learning and of putting others before self.
The problem for me (as well as many others I know), is that the tradeoff isn't worth it. There is an entire generation of people who are receptive to religion and the church community, but who are completely at odds with the traditional interpretations of religion that preach intolerance and other backward moral positions. The so-called 'contemporary' churches that have been sprouting like weeds have addressed this somewhat, but scant few are actually progressive thinkers, rather than just traditional churches that play religious rock music. I would love to be a part of a church community, but not if it means I'm constantly inundated with a message that runs counter to everything I believe in.
The question is whether the decline of the church in America is a symptom of other things besides the issues mentioned in the article and elsewhere (eg: churches being too connected to money and power, too focused on rules, too intolerant, too judgemental). Most unchurched still believe, so if it's just those things, then America is merely ripe for a disruptive church that would correct the current modern America church sins.
However, from what I've seen with more liberal churches that exist, the crowd is elderly and small. So I think that there's been a bit of a greater societal shift. "Make an atheist church" is not a solution, because that style just does not work for a more connected, global, diverse world where individualism is more valued. Look at this thread; many people in this thread are rejecting church because the pressure to "conform to the norm" is not worth the community gain.
Is it possible to gain the benefits of community, without sacrificing the benefits individualism? (I personally think the sins of the collective tend to be worse than the sins of the individualism, so I personally would not want to see that balance shifted to the sort of conformity many churches seem to demand.)
'I point at the stars and the sky ripples.'
I would disrespect people who feel lonely by calling myself lonely - I have a handful of very close friends and am in a relationship. I don't find it easy to connect to other people in meaningful way. What needs to happen is both persons being in a spontaneous state, and that's a rare thing to find because at least one person always has somewhere to go or something to do, or is scared of something or is too attached to something, preventing the two people from enjoying the present moment.
One more word about 'science and atheism': I'm put on notice every time someone mentions those two as axioms to follow. Atheism means to me disregarding spirituality at all costs, and considering only scientific facts means invalidating personal experiences of themselves and people around them.
'A; Today I went X and saw Y and felt Z'
'B; it is scientifically proven when you X you feel Z but it doesn't mean you Z1'
The reliance on facts puts the emotional part of the conversation aside in favour of logic and rationality and reduces the potential of building a connection.
But hey, I'm not an expert at building relationships in the first place, these are just my thoughts and personal experiences, compare them with your own and build your own framework.
But yes people can sometimes be annoying.
A number of atheists have felt that, and some have even established groups modeled on the social aspects of churches without the particular theistic views (e.g., Sunday Assembly.)
If anything, the best I can see aiming for is some equivalent to cultural Judaism, where even non-believing Jews are invited to attend major ceremonies.
Hobby groups and community organizations offer a bit of this, but it seems like there's a fairly specific identity/culture gap that's not easily filled with anything else for non-Jewish atheists/agnostics.
But yeah the demographic of UU members is "High functioning non-contributors"
What's a 'big, public decision'? The Bible is very clear that there is such a thing as sexual immorality and that same-sex relationships qualify. I've heard arguments that a long series of translation errors means that certain kinds of same-sex relationships are fine, but even so, the Bible does say there is such a thing as sexual immorality. I haven't seen a church that is fine with homosexual acts that also has a coherent position on those passages of scripture.
The only coherent position that's possible is that the Bible is just a good book with a lot of good ideas, but I'm not sure how to organize a community around that principle.
Let's say I put my foot in my mouth and hurt someone's feelings and need to apologize. There is a Bible verse in which Jesus said that we need to prioritize reconciliation over religious habits. If I thought the Bible was just a pretty good list of suggestions, I could easily ignore that teaching because <insert reasonable excuse here>.
That is to say, I don't really how to remove scriptural authority and still have a clear understanding of who God is and what that means to us.
Then again, as Scot McNight makes undeniably clear in the opening chapters of The Blue Parakeet, everybody picks and chooses: it's just a matter of degree.
I think we're going to give it another try - we've since met some other members who were horrified at our experience. :-/ We'll see. If they want to drive away families with young kids, I figure they'll last another 20 years or so…
I grew up with a very tight church community. I simultaneously miss it and have claustrophobic nausea every time I think about it.
People are attracted to confidence, so when the preacher, members and staff continuously and confidently proclaim their certainty in that which is difficult to believe, attendance and membership swell. People with marginal faith would fit in better at a liberal church, but mostly they're turned off by it.
Hmm I've actually been to Catholic Mass where the congregation is exclusively white haired and the local prosperity gospel rock music church where the average congregation age must have only been 25. You can guess the long term demographic result.
I'll throw out a dissenting opinion to the majority view that only non-mainline churches are possible. I met a very cool Catholic priest who had a long entertaining presentation along the lines of if you can't stand one guy on TV or can't stand one guy at your local Catholic church, that's OK because there's a billion of them and if you can't find one part per billion that offends you, you're not paying enough attention, and if you can't avoid that one part per billion, you're just complaining for fun and are not trying hard enough.
* Not agreeing with the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Suffering
* Not agreeing with Substitutionary Atonement
* Not agreeing with the Exclusivity of Salvation through Christ
Also, you're painting a picture as though you can come for the other benefits and not have to deal with their primary purpose of existence; kinda like a time-share salesman who offers $500 and a free lunch provided you listen to the 3 hour brainwashing session. It's a disingenuous statement. I know this from being sold the same free lunch - many times :)
I believe, however, we would do well as a civilization to study what The Church (capital letters on purpose) has done well in the last 2000 years, strip it of magic and veiled class dynamics, and rebuild it for the social good.
I work as a data analyst for a large social service government agency, and I always joke that we should hire the LDS (Mormon) church to run our social welfare programs. Well, sans God and some nasty sexism and LGBT hatefulness.
As someone who recently turned 30, yet has remained single most of my life despite my other successes, I see it very clearly. I grew up along with the Internet as many people in my generation did. Even when around other people in my age group, everyone is disconnected from each other. There's less empathy and relationships in my generation feel more superficial. At any moment, someone will pull out a smartphone and be using social media while literally standing around with a group of supposed friends. I'd say it's the group of people I've hung out with if it weren't for observing the same in the wild many many times.
I think we still haven't figured out what all the unintended consequences from technology are going to be, and I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't end up seeing a sharp decline in the birth rate among whites in the US to go along with the increase in younger deaths. Not just because of the consequences of social isolation on mental health, but because the lack of social connectedness that exists today makes it almost impossible to actually procreate.
As a result, most of the phone use I see is socially beneficial. People can show an interesting video or look up a fact to keep a conversation rolling, and take shelter in their phones to avoid looking awkward when they have no one to talk to.
That being said, as an introvert, I also agree that it helps me in social situations not to always have to be communicate with people.
It's definitely a tool for introverts, but I hardly ever see phones get in the way of what would otherwise be a fluid, enjoyable conversation. That claim feels more like techphobia than anything, because avoiding awkward, forced conversation is neither novel nor a clear problem.
I think the media has a role to play here too, the idea that you need romantic love in order to be successful or complete is a toxic one.
Edit: a lot of replies to my comment are misinterpreting what I'm saying as "romance is a new idea invented by the media" when all I said is that it's possible to have a complete and successful life without romance.
It is sublime how when you feel lonely you look for a lover and then pretty soon you have more people around. It makes heterosex seem almost subversive these days...
We're also both descended from 40+ yrs of marriage couples, so the risk of divorce seems much lower.
I think no matter who you are, going from a situation where you know no or few people who live close to you, to one where you suddenly know and have access to people who are within walking distance would make a huge difference on your life. Will that solve all of a depressed person's problems? I don't know, but I think it could go a long way towards helping them. Access, in my opinion, is the main issue here. That's what I'm working on.
Sure, some could probably help, but I imagine they'll either be palliatives (like 7 Cups of Tea) or enablers for human actions (like Skype). I normally assume that "startups will solve it all!" is more of an exaggeration than an actual opinion, but this thread has me doubting myself.
I'm quite attractive and analytically intelligent, but lack social and emotional intelligence (always been a loner due to childhood circumstances).
I feel alienated, I can't relate to others in this rat race. The constant dick waving and competition driven by social media, it's just such a turnoff.
Without motivation or passion for games like I used to, life feels empty. Suicide is my wholehearted plan when this company goes under, it just seems like the reasonable, logical end.
This rant is more of an anecdotal story, take from it what you will - in short, I can relate to this article.
If you are considering self-harm or suicide as an option for you, please reach out for advice or help. Many people have been through similar situations and found the advice of others helpful.[1]
I find that there is little wisdom in the world I like to quote, but here is some:
"And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."[2]
[1]1-800-273-8255
>If you are considering self-harm or suicide as an option for you, please reach out for advice or help. Many people have been through similar situations and found the advice of others helpful.[1]
Otherwise, I sympathise with your thoughts. One thing that has been helpful for me is realising that throughout time, a small percentage of people have felt this way about their society. It should be considered an expected part of any society, it just happens you are in this group.
I feel like if everything gets a bit too much, I will retreat into the countryside and set up a homestead. Nature does wonders for the soul and connects you to the longer thread of life and human experience, above the noise of day-to-day life and perceived trivialities. Please consider the alternatives, even if they are drastic such as above, before suicide. There will be something, a way of life, that resonates with your soul and makes you feel life worth living again, even if it is at odds with what society and family expect of you. I wish the best for you.
Working IT, especially for a small IT department, can be isolating. You can find yourself at a company where there's no-one else like you. But that's not because there's no-one else like you in the world; it's because you work IT at a sales firm.
I moved into a new neighborhood a few months ago (something I've wanted to do for over 2 years). When the weather started getting nice, I bought a bike and started using it. A lot. I eventually started commuting without a car. I'm not sure if it's the exercise or simply being in sunlight more, but I'm feeling better than I have in 10 years, and I'm much happier. It seems that other feelings are up too, since I'm starting to talk to someone I've had a crush on for years.
Mix things up in your life. Change things. I agree with your thoughts on social media. The way people use it is evil: you only see the good things, but not the everyday boredom and tragedy.
Read books on the subject! I am the same as you. Very logical but not emotional at all and I struggle with empathy.
I recently started reading some of Daniel Goleman's books and learning about emotions in a logical way opened my mind to new ways to think.
I'm not an economist (or Japanese) but from the outside when you can list Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suburu, Shimano, Nintendo, Hitachi, Yamaha, Sega and Murata among your country's well known brands it seems odd that you would be considered a poorly performing economy for so long.
Can anyone share some insight?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/09/05/japan-is-...
Fortunately most of this debt is internal and in local currency (no fear of hyperinflation). But Japanese are getting old. In a few years Japanese insurance companies and Japanese savers turn from net buyers of government debt and stocks into net sellers.
It's interesting to see what happens then.
If you were around in the 1980s, when Japan was at it's economic peak, Japan has slowly been passed by China and continues to tread water (i.e. stay in the same place, as China has passed it.)
Japan is a poorly performing economy in that there's been little to no growth since the bubble burst in the late 80s. Other economies have gone through growth stages and we had the Asian financial crisis and then the '08 global crash, but Japan has just kept the status quo. So from the perspective of economists, who expect growth, Japan does look bad.
In Japan, life is largely as it has been since the 90s. In fact with deflation, prices are largely the same as they have been for more than 2 decades. This is not a good thing mostly- healthy economies should have some small amount of inflation each year.
Hope this helps? (I am Japanese, fwiw.)
Look beyond the 3-year or even 10-year perspective. All of Europe and most of Latin America is doing visibly better than 25 years ago in terms of infrastructure, life expectancy, disposable income etc. Even after three years of a massive economic crisis, Brazil is a better place to live than in 1990.
While Japan is the same - just older.
From what I've read, the Japanese public debt is mostly domestic, so it wasn't actually foreign money that was fueling the growth.
There's also an English Wikipedia page of the case at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunula_mummy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Vincent
Having just moved to Finland I'm less believing of the stereotype that Finnish people as a whole are insular and isolated, but I think there are always going to be agoraphobic, depressed, or otherwise very isolated individuals in any country.
I agree that the ability to withdraw and obtain privacy is crucial, but I'd like to see options for privacy and isolation that don't require absolute disconnection.
And from the chart, US's (whites) death rates takes off starting from late 90s, where the economy was doing great, while other countries' death rates keep declining even during great recession.
In Europe, people are generally less mobile (geographically) and countries are smaller, so you can still work in the city and still live in the vicinity of your elderly parents (let's say one-two hour drive).
Maybe less obvious, but people in Europe also tend to have more vacation (understatement), so it is much easier to visit your family more frequently.
As a European I am always surprised that people only see their family during Thanksgiving. I don't have data but looking at people I know, you see your family much more frequently there.
According to the article. It's because grandparents no longer stay with family, and divorces.
On the internet.
You think any of those people are going to miss me if I'm gone.
Kinda sad, really.
I was (and still am) part of a tight community of people on IRC and one day we realized a guy in our group hadn't said anything for almost a month. He'd always been the quiet type of person who sometimes would go for a few days or even a week without saying anything, but it was really weird for us. These are all people I've been interacting with for years every day, we do know a lot about each other (although to varying degrees). We knew about this guy's name and some circumstantial social network presence, so we started to investigate and we eventually found out he had passed.
We all mourned him, and to this day still I regret the fact that it took us a month to realize he wasn't with us anymore (we initially thought he had gone on vacation, since it was summer).
In a few months it's going to be the 2nd anniversary of his death and we plan to write up something within our community to remember him, just like last year.
If you're communicating with somebody on a regular basis in person, and they die? You mourn, you send flowers. Hell, you might even go to the funeral home, even if it was in another town.
If it's online? You can go weeks or months and be clueless. And then when you do find out, you feel like you were robbed of something. Something important.
I think the problem isn't whether or not your friendship is online, but whether or not it's advertised sufficiently to the next of kin and other relevant social networks.
Didn't mean that to sound so gloomy, just wanted to point out that reading text from a person is also a form of isolation for both people.
There are a lot of people that I've interacted with over the years that I haven't heard from in a long time. Our only contact was email or texting. Their text number stopped working a long time ago, and emailing them results in no response at all.
This is not a situation where folks are angry at each other, just slowly drifting apart.
Are they alive or dead? Beats me.
I like the idea of a mobile video equipped assistant with voice recognition that can contact us in an emergency, and their pretty happy with tech so I don't think we would have a problem convincing them(especially if I an code an app for them and their grand children to communicate easily).
Even if you don't want sex Japan has a culture of hostess clubs and "snack" clubs. A hostess club is a club you pay to have someone flirt and talk with you. A snack club is a club were the owner entertains everyone. Think of bar where the bartender leads everyone in discussion, games, songs, etc...
In other words, Japan has that but is still having these issues.
I don't know which way it would go. Since Japan has these and Japan seems to have some of the biggest problems with isolation how do we know these services don't contribute to the isolation?
Note I'm not saying they do. I don't know but it's easy to imagine things like:
* Why make up with my significant other if I can just get some paid for companionship leading to less strong relationships
* Why even try to have a real relationship where I my SO might get angry when I can pay to have a fake one where they'll never get angry and rarely disapprove of me
* Maybe given I know these paid relationships aren't real, that the provider I'm paying really doesn't care about me but is just doing a job makes me more depressed about my life.
Again, I'm not saying any of these are true or not, only pointing out that AFAIK there's no studies that show if paid companionship is a net positive or net negative for social isolation.
One thing I found striking, was when they do the customary handshake (which signals a bit more familiarity in Japan than it does in the US), the clients literally sometimes cry as they've not touched another human being for years!
There are a lot of pretty convincing theories about male death rates and how they're tied to conflict, demonstrations of courage, and clear purpose. I'd never heard the Ireland result, but it doesn't shock me. Obviously some of this is gender-agnostic, like sense of community, but some of it doesn't seem to be; there's a reason that young, unemployed men are the largest risk factor for social instability.
Given all that, it's intriguing to see that what's going wrong in the American heartland is affecting women at least as strongly as men. A lot of the easy answers (unemployment, worsened employment, lack of education) are all things that have mostly changed to the detriment of men (they might be better or worse for women, but we care about recent change and that would imply declining results for men). So that drives me into suspicions that this isn't something we can handwave with "construction took a downturn" or "bad warehouse jobs" - there seems to be a broader anomie transcending those simple problems.
Startups cannot change the fact people abandon their elderly parents. They'll just make it worse.
Startups cannot make people less egotistical or make them think about the other. They'll just make it worse.
Startups cannot take the existential anxiety and anger from you. They'll just make it worse.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11813571 and marked it off-topic.
But on a deeper, intuitive level things rings completely true. It's not something I can prove, it's something that can be proved, but I can't shake the feeling that this carries weight.
This is a world where Facebook use averages 50 minutes per day, and we're going to solve the problem with startups? Really? I tried a popular, profitable app that "gamifies" good habits recently, and almost immediately realized that it was just going to make me take another slice of my day to update an app about the stuff I've already done. Great.
At best, startups can grease the wheels. My 'favorite' apps, the ones that improve my life, are the ones that quietly make easier something I was going to do anyway. They help clear out mental clutter and offer simple reminders, making room for the human things that have to emerge from me rather than a product. So yes, better software and better companies can help, but mostly by getting out of the way; by smoothing over the humanity-eroding problems of other systems and products. This is a wicked problem, one that's entrapping whole societies, and change will have to come from equally large alterations.
Can a startup change the core of human nature? Can it change thousands of years of Philosophy? Can it change our socio-economic background? Can it change history?
If you can, then... dear Lord... this is Apotheosis.
People have been forming close-knit communities for all of human history. But modernity has changed things as we now have fewer excuses to interact with each other. People still want and need that sense of community, and I think giving people a way to meet over and over again that's both comfortable and convenient is what is needed.
This doesn't help anyone; it only makes them feel worse. You will only make people have even more superficial relationships - the last thing a depressed alienated individual needs.
Empathetic bonds do not have a "template" - it is based in the individuality of each person in a group. There is not a single statistical model at scale that is able to predict what can take you out of isolation and alienation.
> I think giving people a way to meet over and over again that's both comfortable and convenient is what is needed.
Just confirms what I argued. They crave real emotional bonds, not an easy "fast-food way" to talk to strangers. Long-term relationships are complicated, deep and time-consuming.
In no way do I think startups are a panacea for the ailments of society, but you do realize that they are made up of people?
People can do all the things that you list and more.
Comments like this break the HN guidelines. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Overfunded startups cannot change that.
Overfunded startups can only provide another pill to ignore the problem (making it even worse).
Great communities are a consequence of the chosen lifestyle and morality of religious people. You could gather just as many atheists and the response wouldn't be the same.
EDIT: I'm not saying an atheist community would be WORSE than Christianity.
I'm saying it would be DIFFERENT from the Christian one.
You don't give athiests and agnostics enough credit. Religion is not required for morals and community values.
See, I agree, but probably because I understand "religion" differently than you do.
I would say, though, that love of God is required for morals and healthy community (not sure what 'community values' are). There are a lot of difficult things in this life (addiction, betrayal, chronic illness, corruption, oppression) that are difficult to tackle with bald reason, raw force of will, and whatever teamwork we can scrape together.
Maybe some atheists also have these, but there's not a guarantee all act this way.
IMO, before founding an "atheist church", I'd at least establish "secular values" and find a community around it.
EDIT: I was called a "delusional idiot" for claiming Christians are defined by fraternity, equality, goodness.
I'm referring to the SYSTEM OF VALUES. Something must be aspired for and desired in social interactions. I'm well aware of "hypocritical Christians", it has nothing to do with them.
If you cannot understand that, I'm not a "delusional idiot"; you are just ignorant.
So you haven't really pointed to a real difference.
No true Scotsman!
I didn't use it to refer to "true Christians", but as an ontological description of Christianity.
Atheists as a whole might be less likely to share a system of values, but those who sought and joined such an organization of their own volition (and not because their family dragged them to church every Sunday) are extremely likely to shared its values.
Also, your second argument is ridiculous.
Say you and me go to a party. We both decided this on our own. That doesn't mean we share A SINGLE value.
I don't want to be rude, so instead of replying I'll just bow out of this conversation. Farewell.
You probably value a good party, right?
I would, at least in the long run. There wouldn't be much point to being a Christian otherwise.
NOTE: That's not to say that a given "Christian" is a "better person" than a given atheist. People, including "Christians" that think that don't really understand Christian philosophy.