This is a situation that will affect too many men worldwide as they are more likely to live single / be childless. The solution is to have communities or networks of people built explitictly around the idea of caring for others.
It turns out that many animals, particularly mammals and including us, have evolved this behavior where they live with their blood relatives and take care of them, it has worked pretty well for millions of years.
Now it so happens that in many modern human societies there's a declining birth rate and consequently fewer families are being formed. South Korea's one of the worst off in this regard. You end up with a lot of people being alone and dying alone (the majority are male but women are far from immune).
Why are people not starting families? Well I haven't seen Korea-specific information but I think it's the same as most countries, people typically cite medical and financial reasons.
So basically you have to address cost of living, cost of raising a kid and rising infertility to address this, among other things.
However for a number of societies including Korea's it's probably too late. Koreans can't have more families and your solution probably won't work either. The reason is that the demographic collapse is so extreme, the population is increasingly too old to produce a new generation or take care of other people. There just aren't enough young people to go around. These societies either have to accept mass immigration or collapse. The next few decades will be interesting.
Also keep in mind that , particularly for men, the nuclear family living was not the norm until the past few generations. Men used to spent most of their time in men/gentlement's spaces socializing/doing business while the wife was at home with kids. This 'loneliness' thing happens because those other spaces are gone now
Like in your solution you assume that people exist will be people who are young and have energy and have resources. These people do not exist. Not enough to take care of the massive number of old and sick people being created anyway.
Here's an illustration: https://ourworldindata.org/global-population-pyramid
This is referred to as an inverted population pyramid but really it ends up looking more like a bell. The world used to have lots of young people and not many old people. The flattening of the peak which has happened in only 30 years is stunning! This will keep getting worse until the end of the century.
Korea's population pyramid looks way worse than the one I linked above by the way. From age 60 down it actually is inverted. Again, there are no young people left to do the caretaking you envision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Korea#/m...
Though I'm not really convinced that those opportunities for socializing no longer exist, I mean any medium sized city has meetup groups, pubs, and probably all sorts of other social outlets I'm not thinking of. The modern middle aged man's problem isn't meeting people, it's building relationships that have a closeness and intimacy equivalent to familial ones, which some people seem to think is easy but if it was these corpses wouldn't be rotting in apartments would they?
Big cities are filled with highly educated white collar serfs (sorry I mean professionals) who are great human resources.
In rural communities- the birth rate is way higher.
So what are you getting at?
Given men are also bad at maintaining relationships, I wonder if something like different, more communal living arrangements would be beneficial. I am thinking something like a dorm, but more luxurious with the common areas being more of a focus.
An idea that might accelerate overcoming the initial familiarity barrier might be something like the "question to fall in love" that made their rounds a few years back. I've seen a speed-dating version of similar, increasingly intimate questions build enormous feeling of trust within ~30 minutes as an icebreaker at a T-Group.
Men are not bad at maintaining relationships, that is a falsehood. Historically, men built all the hierarchical structures we have today. Antrhopologists used to say that men build a large and shallow network of relationships (while women prefer small but more intimate groups or pairs).
It doesn't have to involve communal living, but instead regular gatherings. Basically what traditional groups like church or brotherhoods like the freemasons did. Currently, however, there is a stigma against those things which has to be overcome
Non-religious versions of "churches" seem to fail due to a lack of regular attendance. Free Masons seem to have solved this by building some kinds of pressure to attend. I genuinely wonder why they fell out of favor. Did they just become uncool?
Could be it's like how younger people shied away from Facebook to Instagram, and then the even younger people hopped onto Tiktok.
The knock on effects to millenials make forming male friendships really fraught. Add the hyper-mainstreaming of gay culture, and suddenly male friendships have all the absurdity of how badly boys cling to women and hang around as "friends" hoping for more, but now they're doing it to straight male friends, and it undermines the trust in the fabric of male social networks. Can gay men have close straight male friends without holding out hope for more? Some, not all etc, but I would say the confluence of straight men codependently outsourcing their social lives to their wives/girlfriends because once they have one of those they're somehow made, and the complexities of normalized gay culture where boys-being-boys, they're hanging on for hope has really frayed the fabric. We're all still trying to navigate a radically new (and arguably, devastated) landscape without a lot of ground rules.
Stuff like:
> GenX men are largely codependent and needy owing to pressure to be "sensitive,"
> being largely raised in broken homes,
> so their ideal relationship now resembles what is effectively sexual cannibalism elsewhere in nature.
> They don't identify as men because they think men are who hurt their mothers, the source of their belief in a perfect infant self.
What?
I had direct experience with the growth issues facing a traditional fraternal organization. We can't really use the words we mean when we talk about the jargon this comment uses, but suffice it to say, among the scores of men I know socially, the people who use that jargon are punchlines.
Any barrier you might see right now is the consequence of the cultural switch to individualism, and that again is a direct consequence of the transition to market based economies.
The extreme focus on nuclear family is very recent, less than 200 years.