As Gen X and Boomers Age, They Confront Living Alone
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Am I right? Is that too nuts? I just don't see how this ends well. We have effectively socialized old age care, and now we are expecting future generations, an ever-shrinking group, to pay for the pensions of people they have never met.
To each his own I say.
Firstly, There have always been — though I dislike the term — leftover men and women recluses and spinsters. People don't exist as sperm donors and incubators whose only purpose to form a family unit. They have rich lives as individuals.
Secondly, the question to ask would be a choice at what cost? I'm sure any naif would answer affirmatively to having a relationship with children. But those who are aware of what the question implies — the surrender of opportunity and free time, the fiduciary duty to spouse and child, the peer pressure and stress from society from without and one's SO from within, the potential for everything to fall apart at one's expense even when doing everything right — will rightfully be more uncertain about whether such a relationship is worth pursuing. No one in this universe has a choice as to someone else's behaviors, and, as a result, the only "reliable" metrics are semi-controllable tradeoffs (i.e. freedom vs loneliness, financial security vs fiduciary obligation) and an ability to judge character.
> I doubt it. Even if they are, if they're relying on being supported by the next generation, that is still leaning on outsiders, and the outcome may be quite disappointing.
What's the difference? Most people on Earth don't become their parents' geriatric specialists. You'll be depending on outsiders whether or not you have children. In fact, kids especially rely on outsiders to comfort of them, feed them, medicate them, make cheap products for them, teach them, and transport them, for about two decades. And by that point they'll have their own lives with their own demands.
The biggest difference is that a lot of the tasks you mentioned (feeding, medicating, teaching, transporting) can be outsourced to other random young people. But it is hard to get love and caring from someone who interacts with you on a purely transactional basis. I haven't yet seen any effective replacement to the joy grandkids can bring to grandparents. Or a warm Thanksgiving meal with family around the table.
TBF, friends can replace some of the roles families used to play. But intergenerational friendship is still rare and as you get old, your friends are also getting old and cannot care for you the way a younger family member would do.
Other cultures deal with this though. I’m sure it can be done. There’s ways to build privacy into a small place. Did it in college. But it would require some changes to how we expect to use the space, something more like a dorm with common areas than a traditional house.
Granted, that was for the comparatively rich. Poor people might all live in a one-room cottage with a dirt floor. In some places, many still do.
In some form or fashion, this is how things have always worked. The young take care of the old. It's not really a problem, so long as you have enough young folks around.
I think your first paragraph is right--modern culture is failing at giving humans the connection they need. That's the real problem we need to figure out. Taking care of old people is just always going to be A Thing We Have To Do until we all get issued a robot or whatever.
Seeking a mate and raising children used to be considered a duty to society, where, as a side-effect, and not the main intent, you got assistance in old age, and provided assistance to your children in raising theirs.
You're right that seeking the side-effect is wrong-headed and selfish.
I keep seeing this said, but I don’t see it. What are the examples?
That said, it’s unclear why either view would be seen as ‘selfish’.
lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
It could be construed that you waste your possible partners time along the way, till you find the imperfection that ends your relationship.
It presupposes that a person goes into a relationship looking for such an imperfection. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If you into a relationship expecting perfection, you will always be sadly mistaken as people are imperfect. Entering the relationship contract this way is "bad faith" but not unheard of.
I'm glad that you've never had to deal with it, but in reality it happens.
The side-effect is people being old and alone. Being married, becoming a "breeder" is offensive and oppressive (again, collectivist rhetoric, not the rhetoric of independence), because it "perpetuates the patriarchy" or "it continues systemic racism" or "advances white European values and disenfranchises minorities."
You'll find all of this out there, and not a lick of it is advocating independence. Quite the opposite.
Quite a few people seem to choose the latter even though it usually makes people less happy and less fulfilled.
Or… does it? I know more than one person who lives alone because they got too tired of drama.
I don’t live alone but have a pretty good relationship with my SO. If I had a bad one and could not repair it, living alone may be preferable.
it is easier to reach each other only if you have a bond with them. I can video call my family with a few taps. But it is harder to make those bonds in the first place.
The young take care of the old in their own communities, where the said old have spent a lot of energy and resources bringing up those young. FTFY.
How very evolved of you.
I wonder why it leaves out the adverse effects on mental health of living alone, which are arguably the worst of the bunch.
> But while many people in their 50s and 60s thrive living solo, research is unequivocal that people aging alone experience worse physical and mental health outcomes and shorter life spans.
>wants it deleted
Why don't you simply downvote or say "I disagree"? Is this the common trait of the NYT reader?
It got shared, it got up votes, people are discussing it. The results speak for themselves.
Do you just enjoy being a (lonely) data harvesting resource?
The amount of onus this delivers has to be calculated using infinitesimals. Especially compared to the amount of money delivered by paying subscribers.
Too bad such a thing would be deemed "socialist" in the US.
What's the solution? I skimmed the article and I'm left confused as to what exactly "co-housing" entails. Is it just a college dorm situation where multiple people live in one building with separate rooms and shared common areas?
>Too bad such a thing would be deemed "socialist" in the US.
I hate statements like these with a vengeance because:
1. it instills a defeatist attitude that we will never be able to get the change we want because of opponents
2. it asserts without evidence that the opponents are cartoonishly evil/ignorant