I find the view that productive achievements are a chore, a thing, that once accomplished, thankfully we never have to do again, kind of sad.
What's the point of living if not to interact with the world?
What's the point of living if not to interact with the world?
I don't understand why we fetishize in-person interaction as being "the world" and virtual interaction as "not the world".
What about reading books? Would you criticize someone for reading too many books? Does that person not have a "point in living" in your opinion?
In my opinion, this is a true Scotsman fallacy. And the bias is due to nostalgia.
A hedonistic/utilitarian framework is a better model to look at these situations. Is that elderly individual enjoying themselves? Yes. Will their inaction today result in negative consequences (financial, health, etc.) later in life? No. In this framework, it's a perfectly good use of their time then.
As a redneck, I love America. But I think this question posed by the OP is interesting because it shows the tradeoff everyone must make in American culture between exercising individual freedoms and increasing social credit/value/standing.
Are they? I dont think its as obvious as you think it is.
People often trade long term joy for short term joy. If they didn't, drug dealers, casinos, facebook etc would be out of business.
To each their own, but no, it's not the world. We're made for real, in person interaction. Huge chunks of our brains are made to discern subtle facial details or body movements.
I remember there are studies that socialization is good even for introverts. They think it isn't, but it is.
We're social creatures by design, it's built very deep into us. To try otherwise is foolish for 99.9999% of people. Of course, everyone thinks they're that 1 person in a million:-)
It's up to each individual to decide whether the rewards of in-person social interaction outweigh the risks. And it's not up to anyone but me to proscribe what my decision on this matter is.
I think you used the wrong acronym. I assume you are not talking about seasonal affective disorder.
More to the point, for most people in most places there exists social options where such risks are not significant relative to other risks.
But I disagree fervently and am offended with the parent comment. It doesn't make one foolish or prideful to take ownership over evaluating the cost/benefit. As an asocial person who prefers it online: parent commenter, kindly [edit: mind your own business]
True, but then when stuff like cost of mental healthcare goes up, which it constantly is, who pays that bill? The correct answer is: everyone.
As a pet peeve. Being an introvert is not the same thing as having social anxiety or disliking socialization. Lots of introverts like socializing.
Passively Watching TV all day = no interaction
Writing an essay about the tv you watch = interacting. Or even just talking about it with someone.
I think what im trying to criticize is passive consumption. If you exert agency or creativity in what you do, than it isn't passive anymore.
Where is the boundary; how can you define it?
Also, why are you having children if your only goal is to get rid of them? Yes, part of having children is hoping and preparing for them to eventually be independent adults, but that's hardly the only thing raising children is about.