novum.substack.com
Fewer friends, relationships on the decline, delayed adulthood, trust at an all-time low, and many diseases of despair. The prognosis is not great.
In 2000, political scientist Robert Putnam published his book Bowling Alone to much acclaim and was first comprehensive look at the decline of social activities in the United States. Now, however, all those same trends have fallen off a cliff. This particular piece looks at sociability trends across various metrics—friendships, relationships, life milestones, trust, and so on—and gives a bird's eye view of the social state of things in 2022.
A piece that I wrote that really picked up on HackerNews recently with over 300+ comments. Some excellent comments there, I suggest reading it over.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't agree with Putnam or the article. There are more ways now than ever before and more convenient, thanks to the internet and mobile phones, for people to meet up. A google search shows tons of meetups, same on social media. There is no shortage of ways for people to engage in social activities today. I think rather a lot people are choosing to be alone. Maybe Netflix is more fun than in-person social activities.
So why not revolt against the modern world, if it is dehumanizing us like this? Or, a more modest proposal, rethink how we develop or interface with technology?
I mean, it seems to be a rather self defeating argument to bring up the fact that we have more ways now than ever to connect when we are standing right next to the fact that we are connecting less and less. And it certainly didn't stand as a valid argument in my household that playing video games was more fun than visiting grandma during Christmas. And whilst I didn't agree with it as a kid, I can certainly agree with and appreciate it now.
There can be market failures, in the sense of meaning individual rationality = collective rationality.
If you're the first one to start a social revolution against, say, social media technology, then your expected costs may exceed your expected benefits: you look weird, possibly dangerous, and there might be high risks from the revolution failing. Thus, it can be irrational for you to start the revolution even if it would be in your interests (and most/all other people's) if everyone was to become a social revolutionary.
In economics jargon, a change can be collectively rational (even Pareto optimal) but not a possible result of individually rational actions (not a Nash equilibrium).
Jon Elster did good work on this idea in the context of Marxist revolutions: it can be rational for the proletariat not to rebel, even if it would be in their best interests.
The term 'revolt against the modern world' is not revolutionary in the marxist sense. It's referential to Evola and a book that carries the name. It's less Karl Marx and more Varg Vikernes.
Yes, but is it different with respect to this market failure, i.e. it can be rational for everyone to change, but irrational for individuals to change?
It can be, but I don't see how that's a relevant... whatever it is. There are an endless amount of things that could be. I don't understand the point you are making. It seems like you are presupposing a framework of economic rationality and I don't understand why or what you think necessitates it. It's not about deducing what others think and seeing if it can or can not fit within some predefined rubric of 'rationality'.
It's like you are extrapolating into a wider context to get away from a question that isn't about anything other than yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link