Back then we had a deeper ties with all those who served us by which I mean vegetable vendor, carpenter, doctor, knife sharpener, cloth shop, grocer, baker and so on. Whenever we interacted with them it would be a small chit-chat, exchange small updates (how's your son doing, is he married yet?) and then finally do the actual purchase.

It was to an extent that the carpenter would come by and just hand over a big dining table just because he thought our house deserved/needed it. He wouldn't ask for immediate payment either and also in instalments. Some other times he would come by and borrow some money.

All of that is now gone. Every single interaction I have now with vendors is 100% transactional. I don't even know their names nor they mine.

It means that I'm now connected only with my immediate family, that's it. It also means that the generation now growing up know only transactional way of interaction with non family/friends. I guess these things eventually add up to the loss of community.

I see families struggle with things I don’t recall seeing as a kid or teenager. We all had more people around. We were rarely functioning as such independent family units.

And you’re right, my dad was a carpenter himself and he did all kinds of favours for people. Especially elderly people—mostly women—who couldn’t do the work themselves or easily afford to pay someone to. He would offer lower rates, fit things in for free, and show up at their convenience. It was the right thing to do. That isn’t really possible now, though.

Something I urge my kids to understand is that family is great, but it was never meant to be everything. That isn’t to diminish family, but to encourage one to identify and appreciate what’s so valuable and rewarding in friends and community. Humans are so richly social and so poor at functioning in isolation; there’s no sense in pretending otherwise. We really need each other. The more community erodes, so do we each as well.

Nowadays when everyone's busy trying to make as much money as possible to be able to make rent or survive in ever-increasing inflation, an extra dining table they didn't give away is one they can sell for money. Similarly, borrowing money is harder/less acceptable because everyone else too is under pressure and is less likely to be able to help (or at least it would cause them more hardship).

1971 is the year that we default on our obligations under Bretton Woods enabling the US to begin printing money at our own discretion. It's quite interesting to see how that year ended up being a huge inflection point for so absurdly many issues. [1] It resulted in a rapid increase in wealth, but came with a rapid increase in issues alongside it.

[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

But at some point you need money to pay people working on these things. So you look at something that doesn’t replace the core social connection, but augments the experience. Like selling additional services such as insurance.

But it’s not easy to cover costs, especially in western countries where employees are expensive.

These days (I haven’t been part of it for a long time) I’ve noticed there are also subscriptions to be part some community, which works but of course also makes it harder to grow.

And investors who are looking for return on investment are also difficult in something that’s so sensitive to good will from users.

There used to be local vendors as you describe (what comes to mind is a local shop, an ice cream van, milk man, a fizzy drinks vendor, a butcher/baker), but they've all been replaced by economies of scale (supermarkets and now online).

So now there are no local shops, no weekly vans with their specialist goods. And those half a dozen well known local faces aren't doing their rounds.

A local shop serves as a meeting place where conversations can take place. Even in the 80s in the UK when TV was at its peak, people could have conversations the next day on what they watched last night out of the 4 channels available.

I guess the local social cohesion can be thought of as a necessity when you're going to deal with lots of local people and with recent trends said in the article it's considered optional.

So even a cursory reading of older books and novels that detail city life just a few hundred years ago shows this not to be the case.

What's gone on is that the phenomenon described above has started in cities and spread everywhere, for better or worse.

(A few hundred years back cities were mostly only the size of small towns today anyway, the average person didn't really frequent stores and rural communities were sometimes really isolated, and we don't really have an accurate picture of how any of this affected mental health)

midsize cities / college towns ~100k will have a specialty butcher and a tobacconist where you can actually get to know the shopowners

The problem with people that talk about capitalism the way you do is that they mistake human nature for the system that was built around it so when they try to change the system, the people are maladapted and transgress against it by default then it fails miserably.

> it's a single possible pareto equilibrium

I propose that those other equilibriums’ stability depended on at least one of these: a) small population size&density b) violent totalitarian enforcement c) indoctrination in caste system and/or religion d) no contact with capitalism

> Capitalism is not an expression of human nature

Ownership is very natural for humans (2 year old already declares “it’s mine”).

Finally, capitalism is just one part what makes a society. I bet there are quite significant societal differences between Sweden vs US now vs US 70 years ago.

It's also probably worth considering that socialism doesn't necessarily have to forbid ownership of private property or capital outright. It could, for example, mean that revenue/profit/income derived from private property or capital is taxed more highly than revenue/profit/income derived from labor.

No nation has ever achieved equilibrium but we are enjoying the most peaceful times in history during a time after the previous wave of capitalism-alternatives failed miserably or acquiesced.

Just about every measure of human flourishing is in the rise, globally.

It's also quite possible that humanity can eventually find a new system that works better than capitalism. After all it took thousands of years for humanity to find capitalism.

Likewise, America's economy seemed to be much more healthy when it had a more active/successful labor movement.

I love being in big cities (overseas) because I actually can cultivate this sort of community / friendship with the locals.

I go to the same coffee shops and get to know the folks there, bring them interesting coffee to try, etc.

I will say that this only has worked for me in other countries, not the USA. I think folks here are too burnt out by the lack of safety nets and such, I really don't blame them.

Sometimes there are communities in these spaces - NUMTOTs or small Discord servers. Other times its just marketing foo foo.

We haven't ever lived in a world where not being "privacy-conscious" in a social setting could mean any of the following if that privacy is compromised by a corporation:

- Someone constructed a whole fake online presence using my data

- Someone used generative AI to make fake photos and videos of me doing things

- Someone has access to my bank accounts and all of my personal communications

- ...

We used to think of privacy as something that exists between people. Now we think of it as something that is mediated by corporations.

I don't think I've ever seen that. What I have seen is non-sponsored people referring to "the [brand] community" or "the [product] community" as a shorthand way of saying they discuss brand or product with other people with that shared interest on a dedicated Discord server or forum. The Sega community, the Final Fantasy community, etc.

Even this has been eroding, the amount of comments made by bots I see across reddit/Twitter has increased exponentially since the 2010s. It only got worse after LLMs.

But I don’t like feeling like I am being spoken for, or have it automatically assumed that everyone partaking in something all share a set of values or community-wide beliefs.

Fast forward to 2024 and every person home here in India is constantly on their phones. In the gym, in the car, at work, everywhere. Naturally kids are also getting hooked on devices.

How can you talk to someone when they aren’t even looking at you or paying attention ? Communities and real physical social interaction keep people mentally healthy. All these apps and devices are doing is keeping people away from each other instead.

Of course no one wants to admit this but people are addicted to devices and distractions. The sooner they dissociate, the better.

With phones, and before that music, and before that newspapers, it's a social norm. If you are trying to talk to people you feel like the weirdo.

And I get it, cause I don't like making myself vulnerable. I wish I talked to strangers but it's hard to undo a whole childhood of "Don't stare, don't bother them, keep to yourself, everyone loves how quiet you are, you're so mature for your age because you never talk, etc."

That's not 10X the general population. That's 81X. One in nine drink 9X what nine other people do.

So, you have a relationship with alcohol, it's likely not a healthy one. It's addiction, all the way down.

So if you have a relationship with alcohol it is most likely a healthy one, and it's "addiction all the way down" for... a minority.

You have a favorite drink, a regular bar, a liquor store that knows you - you are probably one of the ten percent. Believe it or not, most of us don't go to a bar most months of the year.

That doesn't really match my observations ,or NIH data https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-to...

There the majority (18 and over, and slightly under 50% of 12 and over) report consumption in the last month.

Of those, a bit under 7% report "heavy usage". You can look up the definitions, but doesn't include e.g. "usually has a beer or two with dinner".

The category you describe definitely exists, but I don't think it's anywhere close to a majority, and there are also at least a couple reasonable categories between that problematic or abusive consumption.

I'm talking to people constantly without looking at them. Some are loose ties like this one. But group chats, texts, Discord servers, even Facebook. Tons of 1:1 communication with people I see in person regularly. But also I don't have to see someone in person to have a real conversation. I'm often fully present with real people when on my devices, and I'm perfectly capable of dissociating while politely not touching my phone when I'm in a boring conversation with people standing next to me.

No wonder lots of people feel disconnected. They forgot how to connect in even the most conducive settings for it.

This has kind of been normalized!

Once upon a time, being together without having to talk was a measure of closeness. Relationships that achieved this were venerated.

That ideal aside: Proximity itself nurtures trust and feelings of safety.

It seems sad that we could miss examples of bonding because they don't fit our relationship model.

Still other people struggle with social situations, sometimes.

I'm in the latter group; I rarely-to-never eat out. It's exhausting to put on a convincing production of Pretending To Enjoy Myself.

Using a device to ease that burden seems super reasonable to me.

BUT there are always a few people who are open to talking. I prefer talking to being on the phone when I'm in flight. I get to have a long conversation about 1/4 of flights.

If you read old books like Pilgrim's Progress you see people walking towards the same town together, and they always struck up a conversation. Look at the Canterbury Tales: some really great literature that consists just of fellow travelers having a storytelling contest! We are missing so much humanity in our kosher lives.

Speaking personally:

I also tend to just load entire books onto my phone for flights. Reading on a small screen doesn't bother me.

With regards to talking - I like talking to strangers. However, the plane is one of the few places I try to avoid striking up conversations. People around me having loud (and it is loud, because talking quietly on a plane is impossible) conversations for hours about nonsense is something incredibly annoying to be on the receiving end of. While I enjoy actually having a conversation, I also know that by doing it I'll be annoying a half-dozen other people not involved in it but forced to listen to it in an environment where they can't do anything to escape it, and it feels rude to do that - especially since I don't enjoy when I'm in their position.

I still do what I did then - read. I just read on a Kindle now instead of a stack of paperback books bought at the airport.

I was flying economy on KLM with my mom and dad, family vacation to Europe. About a few hours prior to landing, the crew put on some Mr. Bean movies. Back then at least on that flight as far as I can still remember, there weren't seatback screens; only those dropdown TV screens on the ceiling above the aisles, so everyone had to watch Mr. Bean.

Well tell you what, Mr. Bean is bloody hilarious and I was a kid. I couldn't help but burst out laughing even though I knew it was bad manners, and in short order the entire cabin was laughing with me. That was a fun day.

If someone talks to me on a plane I say "Sorry, my hearing is really bad", and its really embarrassing when they respond by speaking so loudly the whole plane can hear for the rest of the flight.

If you've got a recommendation for one that is able to identify which voice in the crowd I want amplified, I'd appreciate it!

It sounds like yours were trying to actively amplify certain voices? I wonder if that’s sounds good but doesn’t work sort of feature. Naively it seems like just shifting the volume on everything should work as long as the frequency curve matches the lost frequencies. The brain is what is separating the voices, not the ears.

I'm more interested in the question of whether technology tethers us home more strongly, instead of venturing outside of our homes.

I agree that the tendency for wanting distractions has always been present in humans, but the hyper connectivity of today's world really taps into it unlike anything else we had before. It's a different quality.

Much better cognitively than endlessly scrolling Instagram reels YouTube shorts that are algorithms trying to keep you hooked. Sometimes I’ve seen people just open random apps and close and do nothing. It’s like a habit they are unable to let go.

This last category, non-consumer third places are formerly the domain of kid-friendly community-building activities. When we talk about creating more of these and the response is, "they aren't economically viable," it's exactly the kind of economic calculus framing that I'm talking about.

In 1940, over 50% met via friends or family. About 36% met at school.

In 2021, about 20% met via friends or family. About 10% met at school. Over 50% met online. So the majority of US couples are now meeting via profit-maximizing corporations. He has a 2019 paper on this (and it has only increased since that paper).

- in 1940, the top 3 were: met through family, met through friends, met in primary school. In that order, but pretty much equal

- From 1940-1980, two of those three (family, primary school) trended sharply downward, as did "met in church", while these trended upward: met through friends, met in bar or restaurant, met as or through coworkers, met in college. "met through friends" was by far the most common circa 1980

- starting in 1995 "met online" sees a sharp rise, and by 2010 it has overtaken them all.

The only other category that was still on the rise after 2010 was "met in a bar or restaurant". Is that really increasingly common? I have a strange feeling that some of those are just people too embarassed to say they met online...

Anyway, my point is there was (perhaps unsurprisingly) already a big shift going on 1940-1980, namely that the immediate family, church, childhood friends became less dominant in people's lives and friends, work, commercially-facilitated interactions (bars and restaurants) became more central. Did we learn anything from that adjustment? Were people in the 80's and 90's talking ad worrying about this the way we're talking today about the way social interactions are replacing the "old" ones?

(also, the values for "met online" on that graph seem to be small but non-zero in the 1980s! I'd like to hear the stories of some of those couples...)

IIRC Jason Scott's BBS documentary mentions this a bit. There's a couple that shows up a number of times that met on a BBS.

Probably right. I don't really get the stigma, but I've known a few people personally who told the same lie and found later it was online. One in particular had a huge elaborate story about their bar meeting. His wife told me later one day he basically selected her from a website.

So like most questions, probably worth taking self reporting with a giant dose of salt.

The subjective answer to this question might be at least part of this statistic.

Also you may be underestimating the number of people who pair up as part of nightlife outings. Based on my many many outings in cities around the world in recent years it does seem at a glance that people are still engaged in the practice.

It’s not that surprising when you think of selection effects. Suppose you have a sack full of marbles. Half of the marbles are pink and the other half are random assorted colours. Now reach into the sack and pull out two marbles. If they match then they get married and you set them aside, otherwise return them to the sack.

It’s easy to see that it won’t take very long until hardly any pink marbles remain. After that it’s going to be a total crapshoot to pull out a pair of matching marbles. Maybe some more pink ones get added at a later date but they’ll match and get removed.

The fundamental problem with dating sites cannot be solved by any business model: marriageable people (or otherwise people who can form and maintain a longterm relationship) are removed from the pool of potential dates. What’s left are all those who can’t or won’t form relationships. These “misfits” (for lack of a better term) tend to get concentrated in the pool over time. Perhaps it even gets so bad that marriageable people give up and just avoid dating sites.

Well, it can be solved but not by a dating site (evidence: this was a solved problem in the past). But it'd have to be very radical compared to modern dating. Arguably the branding couldn't be as a dating site, but as a stable community where people don't get removed over time so the concentration of non-pink marbles never rises.

That is something like the old model that church communities would have used. The marriageable ones pair off, but they are still in the community of people talking to each other. New marriageable people entered the community, didn't feel overwhelmed or different and eventually pair with other new entrants. The business model has to be that drawing a pair isn't ever expected to result in marriage and is fun by itself but serious dates might happen. Then the system would be viable.

If they design the system right, their audience just won't marry or have long term stable relationships

Where in the past women settled for a number of reasons, including economic and societal/familial expectations, they no longer do. And because women are much less apt to settle down, men settle down less too. More free women = more free men = less committed relationships. (assuming we are seeing fewer committed relationships - I didn't fact-check that)

Not at all scientific, just a vibe.

Therefore, with increased ability to live independently, expect more risk adverse behavior, which means a larger percentage of the “bottom” of the dating market goes uncoupled forever.

debatable if it got more prevalent because of them, as afaik the statistics indicate both, less short _and_ less long term relationships, so :shrug:

Though to be clear, just because I think the other more stable thing is valuable to folks even with the availability of the sex slot machine, I still don't love businesses trying to push slot machines or any kind really.

(Not a rhetorical question - as a queer person who's never used a dating site or app and who's been in a long-term relationship (now married) for almost 8 years now, I really do have no idea what people do on there.)

It could be the case that say, only 10% of dating site customers end up in a relationship, and this 10% amounts to 50% of the total couples, and the math would work out.

E.g.: suppose the total population is 1000 people, 500 of which are on a dating site, and the total number of couples is 20, 10 of which were formed via the dating site and 10 of which were formed by other means, and 960 people are out of luck.

It would be different in a saturated market, where they might want to try to keep people on the site, but that's not the case here.

Marriage rate and divorce rate have plummeted since 1940.

Probably not much to do with electronic media there. A lot more likely that financial and social pressures are squeezing what were previously considered cultural imperatives. ie - church, marriage, home ownership, etc.

The point is that now the financial imperative is not to wed. ("Girlfriend get serious! Why marry some loser who can't even buy a house?" or "Bro what? Do you know what will happen if you get divorced?")

The financial imperative is not to go to church. Working on Sunday has become the norm as people are regularly expected to be available on the weekends. This is especially true in the startup or tech space. And don't even get me started on how workers in the services sector, who would in any other era be the most likely to attend church, get so few weekends free between their multiple jobs, that church is now an afterthought for them.

The financial imperative is not to purchase a home. ("Bro! You don't have that kind of money! And what if you have to move for your job?")

We are living the most affluent lives ever known to mankind, even so-called low income people. We all have more money than we know what to do with, let alone more money than our forefathers.

Rather, I think the drop in marriage (and by extension divorce) has to do with increasing individualism and jade-ism.

The more humanity (namely the west) advances, the more it is drilled in that all men are created equal with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. People are increasingly more concerned with living their lives the way they want to the exclusion of spouses and children if such things are not what makes them happy.

Combine that with the brutal realities of life, because life is fucking hard at the best of times (no matter how rich you are), and the media constantly sensationalizing on everyones' fears and anger aren't helping matters either.

Also as an aside and anecdata: I'm in my mid-30s now, not married, never married, and never intend to marry because I do not find it appealing at all. I can more than afford to marry, but I am far too busy with other matters more important to me and I frankly find marriage to be nothing short of a human rights violation anyway.

Marriage is many things, but chief among them is that marriage is an inevitable compromise of each others' liberties and therein lies the violation. Who am I to compromise my would-be wife's unalienable right to liberty? Who is my would-be wife to compromise my unalienable right to liberty? This is absolutely irreconcilable and thus I consider marriage to be a violation of human rights.

If we also were to have children, I/we would also be imposing my/our will upon them. I/we would be violating our childrens' unalienable right to liberty and potentially pursuit of happiness. I cannot accept that.

I am also of the position that if I were to get a divorce for any reason, I must question why I got married in the first place. Marriage is not a thing that can nor should be taken lightly; divorce is an out, but I consider the entire premise of marriage is that it is a permanent thing until death do us part.

As such, if we end up in an unhappy marriage (eg: constant bickering over the kitchen or finances) then this is also a violation of our respective unalienable rights to pursuit of happiness and we both wasted significant amounts of our limited time that each of us have in this world.

Therefore, along with other personal convictions, I find no appeal in marriage and have no intentions of ever pursuing it or finding myself in such an arrangement of my free will.

Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness.

If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain.

One, you respect the owners right to happiness. But at the expense of the slave's liberty.

Two, you use force to stop the owners from violating the slaves rights. But in doing so you violate the owners right to happiness.

What's the answer then here if there no options that do not harm someone's unalienable rights?

To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Going back to the subject of marriage, my right to liberty ends where my would-be wife's right to liberty begins and vice versa. Marriage is inevitably a compromise of both our rights to liberty. Thus, I find marriage a violation of human rights.

Except you've chosen to violate the owners right to happiness by attempting to place limitations on the rights that were so called inalienable. What you think the limit should be and what the slave owner thinks the limit should be differ.

Same right, but in this case brought into conflict by disagreement of interpretations.

Second, what happens when the other side refuses to stop because he believes that your interpretation is wrong? What do you do then?

Governments are also tasked with guaranteeing those rights, and those who violate another's rights are deprived of their rights as mandated by laws.

For example, a murderer (violator of another's right to life) is imprisoned (deprived of his right to liberty) and possibly even executed (deprived of his right to life).

Right so you invented a notion of marriage which doesn't apply in the society you live in and then invented a problem created by that invented supposition.

This all sounds very normal.

Marriage is clearly very different from and more significant than simple friendship or other mundane relationship arrangement, and everyone's reasoning as to why will vary depending upon their religious and/or cultural upbringing and values.

Personally, as I stated earlier, I consider marriage to be some kind of permanent-ish arrangement (and especially if children become involved). There is an artificial out (divorce), but as far as I'm concerned it isn't something that should be used with wanton abandon. Thus, I place a lot of weight on why I would marry in the first place; if I am going to divorce, I should not have married in the first place.

I am deliberately violating the "Do not let perfect be the enemy of good." rule precisely because I demand a would-be marriage to be perfect given how many human rights I would flagrantly violate. I know I am never going to marry with such prerequisites and I desire that, because otherwise I cannot live with myself.

If you have any worthwhile arguments to the contrary to bring to the table I am quite happy to hear them. My conclusions thus far are the result of many years of deep and thorough deliberation, but I am also aware that it is far from infallible.

Marriage is an economic and logistical framework for the raising of children.

Any society that doesn’t come up with a viable way to raise children ceases to exist almost immediately.

So that’s why.

What? The only way to avoid mass human rights violations is the extinction of the human race in one generation?

Is that actually true? I read something recently (in an recent article in a major publication about how online dating sucks and people are getting tired of it), that the proportion is much lower. Like people put all this money and effort into dating apps, but must successful relationships still form outside of them.

Growing up we used to have these kid/youth centres that were run by local Catholic organizations. We used to hang out there after school. Ostensibly the point was that there'd be 30 minutes of catechism doctrine, but we didn't really care about that. To us it was just a the place where everyone would be. I miss that so much. A place where you can just go and meet people your age, without any reason to be that and without having to pay an entrance fee.

Now as a grown up we have community centers, which are run, not by the Church, but by sort of hippie-lefty people. But it's not really the same atmosphere, because you go there, and it's just one demographic of people. It's not quite the same.

There's also pubs and climbing gyms which people often use as low effort places where one can mingle, but again, it's not quite the same. I don't like drinking multiple times a week and I really don't like climbing.

You need to find religion, just don't call it that. Find your dream that's impossible and work towards making it possible. figure out your role in making that possible. and then work on it. as hard as you can. find others along the way.

Ever stream something or go to the cinema ? What does it show you? You’re happy => you drink to celebrate. You’re sad => drink out of sorrow. You want to hang out with friends => you go for drinks. DEFCON for example perpetuates that same behavior.

Sure, one part is loss of community, but the other half is toxic social behavior that is perpetuated by Hollywood. The people that don’t like this but want to belong will perpetuate this cycle for fear of getting ostracized.

Of course, some portion is also high rents. And I have never seen a restaurant or bar outside of Costco with free refills for anything other than tap water though.

This is true for a lot of the places I travel to within the US as well.

Also, nothing will ever be like the stuff we had when we were kids. Because in all our minds, that is the norm.

It's as diverse as any company or organization championing diversity, because obviously anyone part of one particular movement / entity is not diverse in one axis of their life (institutional allegiance)

You've clearly never lived in an area with high density of a specific religious group. At a certain threshold, yes, there can be more diversity in a single religious congregation than is present in most local environments short of the local public school.

If most of your neighbors are Catholic, then you'll often just show up for the Catholic events regardless of whether you deeply believe it because that's where the community is. That's essentially what OP said about their own experience—listening to the catechism was just the tax to pay for the community event.

1. The chief unit and source of community is the family. The married couple, the family, have been deteriorating for some time. It shouldn't be surprising that the consequences would spread outward. Societies are a manner of extended family organized according to the principle of subsidiary.

2. American culture especially is hyperindividualistic. It conceives of people not as persons, but as individuals, which is to say, atomic units that might enter into various transactions, if it suits them. There is no sense of moral duties I did not consent to. There is no real sense of a common good that is a superior and prior good. If you deny the social nature of human beings, and conceive the social sphere as transactional, a sphere for odious exchanges and extraction and gorging, then why should we be surprised that social life has gone south?

3. A common culture binds people together and give them a common heritage, a language without which you cannot communicate. Culture is far more than that, and I do not mean to belittle or instrumentalize it (some are already instrumentalizing religion, which is not the purpose of religion, even if it has that effect). But with the decay of ethnic culture and its replacement with an empty corporate pop culture (note how much discussion revolves around the latest episode of a show), we are robbed of a common identity. This explains the identity crises in the US. Subcultures, racial ideologies, sexual ideologies, and so on are just attempted substitutes for ethnic identity. Given how unsuitable they are for this purpose, it is also unsurprising that people feel alienated from society, as there really is no real society, just some people coexisting.

4. What we call "religion" is a fancy word for worldview with a superlative highest good that is worshiped and a tradition orienting us in life and our ultimate end according to it. Everyone has a religion, in that sense, because someone takes something to be the ultimate good. It's impossible otherwise, because it is by means of the ultimate good that we understand and order all other goods in relation to it. The religion of the US is liberalism (as in Hobbes, Locke, and Mill, not any particular partisan affiliation; all American parties presuppose liberalism). In this liberal worldview, freedom as absence of constraint is worshiped, hence the preoccupation with "transgression" and "crossing boundaries" and so on. It is an evangelical religion, concerned with bringing the good news of liberal freedom to the world. Of course, as many throughout history have noted, freedom thus understood is a recipe for disaster, and not freedom in any real sense. To be free is to be able to do what is good as determined by your human nature, which is the same as saying the freedom to be what you objectively are, not in opposition to it. Thus, I am not free when I become a drug user, but I am free when I attain self-mastery and self-restraint, much as a man on horseback is more free as horseback rider when his horse is obedient to his rationally informed will. We are free to be what we are when we attain this mastery, in light of objective truth, over ourselves, our appetites, our passions, our intellects, our wills, etc., what we used to call virtue. The opposite, vice, is a recipe for misery and the worst kind of enslavement that can occur. In light of that, and given how indulgent we are, how our economies cater to and feed the worst with pornography, excessive food, buying stuff, and how, generally speaking, we worship consumption and embrace a view of life that consists of consuming (even people, sexually speaking, including in our imaginations and through various media), again, why the surprise that we are miserable? We are incapable of healthy relationships, and functioning as human beings. It takes effort to become human. It's not a given that just falls in your lap.

> You know, one of the things that you hear people say sometimes is that America is an idea. And to be clear, America was indeed founded on brilliant ideas, like the rule of law and religious liberty. Things written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation. But America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.

And he's right. America does have a culture and social norms that are particular to this nation. Ask any immigrant, like my own parents, and they will tell you stories of adapting to them (if they've assimilated properly).

And yet, many Americans refuse to acknowledge that these exist, and if they do, some work actively against it, to disestablish them, as if that'd be good for a country.

IMO, this is the cause of the great divide in this country. On one side you have people that think that social norms and culture should exist and be protected by the government (to an extent) and on the other you have those that believe the norms are harmful. To the former group, the various 'small' changes proposed by the latter group feel 'gross' because they reduce community cohesion, even if any one particular instance of letting go of a norm isn't going to cause that much trouble.

See all the debate on whether English should be a national language for a good illustration of this whole phenomenon independent of most of the culture war issues.

This is not to say that America has no ideas, but any group of people pursuing a common goal is not just the idea, it's also their culture. For example, I've worked at several companies competing in the same space, and despite having the same goal (dominate the industry), the cultures are extremely different, to the point where you feel comfortable in one, and uncomfortable in the other. That's how people are, and we should recognize and acknowledge that.

This view stems from Judeo-Christian beliefs. The very invention of marriage was a separation of community, where men wanted ownership of women and their children.

I also wonder if you're fully aware of how much you've attempted to repackage the original sin in your comment.

It's really not, as marriage is present in pre-Christian belief and in non-Christian traditions.

Does it look exactly like Christian marriage / family? No

But it does share common characteristics. There is a single man, and one or more women who bear his children. The man and woman have particular authorities over their children, and as the children grow there is a system to determine how they inherit their parent's resources, and then perhaps some duties they owe their parents.

We see this in the Roman paterfamilias system, the Confucian filial piety system, the various Indic philosophies, the ancient Egyptian family system, the Babylonian familial system, etc. Together these encompass the basis of the vast majority of civilization.

You're right that in hunter gatherer tribes they may have not even understood how reproduction works, but given that these social systems are not sophisticated enough to run our society, I'm happy to just ignore them. There were hunter gatherer tribes that believed that prince phillip was a god; they're not that sophisticated

There are some options, of course, but they're limited and often of poor quality, at least locally. Libraries are trying to adapt to fill this gap, and maker spaces spring up but most don't have funding to be good - or if they do, that funding brings things that ruin the spirit. Once you're looking for a place as an Adult, especially without kids, the number of relevant events and things to do drops quickly too - so these same children aren't going to find better options as they grow older.

I am no fan of religion having grown up in an exceedingly religious environment. But it was always completely obvious to me even as a child that the primary purpose of religion was to form local communities and have others with shared values to rely on.

We seem to be doing it with more than just religion these days, but it’s the canary in the coal mine.

Lack of investment in your community will very rapidly erode any sort of high trust society you once had within a single generation. Once it’s gone, it’s pretty much gone for good.

I believe no one is talking about this aspect of WFH either. It’s taking away maybe the last “socially expected” regular commitment to your local community. Your daily life is not supposed to be lived in complete social comfort with planned interactions with a tiny group of people being your sole source of socialization. At times you should be feeling uncomfortable or obligated in some community or social setting or you are not growing as a human being. I don’t think the office is the best place at all for this, but for many folks I know it was their last social interaction of any sort outside of family.

I’ve been unable to articulate these thoughts very well for decades now - since my late high school days I was already the crazy guy telling friends I was really worried how our hobbies and social interactions were so much less investment on average than our grandparents generation. On average having a bunch of Quake guild buddies is simply not the same as my grandpa who had a bunch of fishing buddies. It’s been on my mind for quite some time, and I think the data is starting to show those concerns were legitimate.

> The mad rush to as quickly abolish religious practices in mainstream U.S. culture without any form of societal replacement is puzzling to me.

People need to acknowledge how much the downside of this kind of closeness was conformism, enforced by shunning (or worse) the noncompliant. A lot of religious communities have coped incredibly badly with the sexual revolution of the 20th century; if the only foray of your church into politics is against abortion or LGBT freedom, it's not really surprising that young people and women are going to run in the opposite direction as soon as they get a chance - often facilitated by the Internet. While simultaneously responding to actual abuse with coverups and complicity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...

What is novel about the sexual revolution is that it dismissed any needs for norms. Over the past two decades we've seen non-religious attempts to reinstate those norms (consent, kink, safe words, etc). However, what's unpalatable to religious people is not the sex per se, but the lack of norms.

And we need norms to function as a community with a common culture. Throwing those out does not actually help.

You mention the sexual abuse by the Catholic church, but that was caused by the sexual revolution. At the time, the psychological community encouraged moving pedophiles around. The church was -- at the time -- attempting to modernize, and part of the modernization was listening to 'science', including psychologists. Psychologists at the time insisted these things could be cured and criminalization would not help.

The church is not the only organization to have been affected by this, but it is one of the few prominent examples of institutions being held accountable for it. The same ideology caused the German foster care scandals [1] [2].

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-exp...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Kentler

IMO, at least for Catholics, it is the Church's insistence that condoms and birth control are sinful that led to the mass defections from belief in the legitimacy of Church teaching. Yes, even more so than anti-homosexual rhetoric or the sex abuse coverups.

It's an attitude of "these delusional celibate people care too much about abstract deductive logic, not empirical observations."

However I also grew up with constant anxiety about sin and hell. It still gets back to me when my insomnia is bad.

So churches and church membership aren't necessarily a net-positive. I too wish there was some sort of community my family could belong to. But I'm not taking my kids to church anytime soon.

Quick edit: I'm aware there are a lot of theological and historical publications nature of hell and whether or not it is misunderstood. I knew that at the age of 12. It doesn't matter. No minister or theologian or historian can _prove_ that there is no hell and that I won't end up there.

God, Messiah, Heaven, Hell - we are into the area of the unknowable. We don't have training and testing data.

The reason to be afraid isn't "here's someone who's just waiting for you to fail" it's (speaking for myself) "I'm _very_ stubborn and _very_ set in my own ways. Can I do the work of letting God work in me? He's eager to work in me, but He won't without my consent. Can I die to myself to serve the good?"

What about those who never had a chance to hear about God? That is between them and God. But God isn't looking to throw them into Hell - if they go to Hell it is because they decided they'd rather serve "something other than the good" even if they never connected "the good" to God.

Hell is a fantasy that causes more mental illness than any marginal reduction in antisocial behavior.

How many lifetimes were wasted fearing/sacrificing, arguing, killing, and dying over meaningless and unprovable silliness like heaven and hell? How many children scarred by things they read for themselves after years of being told it's--some measure of--the highest truth?

Thankfully beliefs aren't permanent, or I'd still be anxious and miserable. Perhaps you should not permanently choose a god who has caused so much harm for no benefit.

There's no point in favoring one natural human intuition over the other.

Then the number of people througout history who claimed to have taken revelation from God must be evaluated for authenticity of their miracles, one of which can still be verified today as his entire life is preserved through formal chain of transmissions: Muhammad (pbuh). Jesus, we can't even agree on the exact wording of the revelation he received let alone his life.

This makes no sense. There are myriad cognitive biases that prevent or hinder the ability to model reality, that may or may not be advantageous to an animal depending on the environment it is in.

If God, as Ipsum Esse Subsistens (i.e., not the straw man sky fairy), is the Summum Bonum, the Highest Good, and the only thing, in its infinity, that fully realizes Man, makes him whole, fulfills his nature, brings him everlasting peace, joy, and happiness (and all who are old enough can agree that nothing on earth can accomplish this end)...

If sin is willfully choosing inferior or illusory goods over and above the Highest Good, acting against what is objectively good instead of conforming to it, choosing a path away from the Highest Good toward something else...

If Man is created with the capacity to know the truth and the freedom to make choices and thus be responsible for those choices...

...then Hell is, first, his voluntary rejection of Heaven, which is unity with God and what is called the Beatific Vision, and second, justice received for committing the greatest injustice of hating God, which is frankly a kind of self-hatred because it involves hating one's own highest good. In other words, God, having made us free, does not violate the free exercise of choice, as love cannot be forced, but free. And since following one's own way away from the objective truth and the Highest Good necessarily leads to misery, and God permits that to occur even if He may "propose" through life events a change of heart, someone obstinate in his evil will be allowed to go exactly where he is choosing to go, much like a drug user can follow his drug use to his own self-destruction.

And because being forced into Heaven would be hellish for anyone who doesn't want to be there, Hell is actually a kind of mercy. But it is ridiculous to expect Hell to be a wonderful condition, as what satisfies Man is a matter of objective fact, not subjective fancy. In other words, it is not a false ultimatum between loving God or getting it good and hard, as if it were some kind of threat. Human nature points toward Heaven, something we can know to be the case, just as we can know many things that are good for us, and that by refusing them, we harm ourselves.

If thoughts of Hell are paralyzing to you, instead of instilling a healthy kind of vigilance and humility toward God, then you may come from a strange sect that is confused about the topic, suffer from scrupulosity, or have a burden of unaddressed guilt.

It's not a question of what team you're on. That relativizes the truth, making "religion" a matter of some kind of personal and preferred fairy tale. Truth is the only consideration. If these claims are untrue, then they're nonsense and should not be followed. It would be dishonest to do so. While we can tolerate a certain range of sincerely held beliefs that are obviously false, and a certain measure of that is necessary for any society, it is bad faith and a lack of integrity to "believe" instrumentally, for a purported practical result of doing so.

Erik Butler has a fantastic book on this overall subject called "The Devil and His Advocates" that you might be interested in.

I just don't think that is true for or to many, likely most, religious people. Community is an aspect but at its core it's a religion. You can't be a part of the community without believing, or at least pretending to believe, in the religion.

In the past (of course it depended on the exact time and place) occasionally going to church even if many treated it mostly as a formality was the default for most people. Even if you didn't, chances are that you couldn't ignore it entirely because you still had some links to the community surrounding it through family members, various organizations, events etc.

Just like ordinary organisms, it undergoes mutations and evolution - its characteristics are seldomly 'designed'.

Without community to keep it alive, it will die out. So religions that include practices to tie communities together are at an evolutionary advantage.

In the religious community I grew up in, the idea that the purpose of the church was "community" was loudly vilified. There was an active purism regarding sincerity of belief and the centricity faith should have in one's life.

Of course, one can see how cult-like devotion and suppression of dissent are conducive to social cohesion, but as a young adult, I only wanted to get away from an environment that stymied my mind and spirit, and that feeling writ large has shuttered churches, I think.

It is a problem, but… religion isn’t true. How do you square that with any sort of culture that values reality?

Regardless, I personally find all of that to be vastly preferable to whatever the fuck is happening to us in the absence of Christianity.

Protestants in Europe are also very different from the US btw - they are more moderate than Catholics, not less. I grew up Protestant and have always had doubts, which turned into being pretty sure that it's all bogus from age 20 or so. Having something to believe in is probably nice, but it doesn't work for me.

If you don't believe in it, you should just do all the actions and move on as normal. This is the 'liturgical' approach to religion and doesn't require belief.

I myself have confessed many times to my priest a lack of belief, but by virtue of the fact I'm there, I'm clearly still practicing. I mean, as a very analytical person, sometimes I feel very skeptical, and sometimes I feel as if God obviously exists. But either way, it doesn't matter because the answer is unknowable by observation, so it's a choice to believe or not. But even if my choice feels strained, being liturgical[1] about it still provides the same benefits.

[1] By liturgical, I mean, doing the actions, like kneeling, standing, bowing, etc. This builds community independent of any belief.

Empiricism doesn't help you with the questions of "who are my people?" or "what matters?" You can make a legitimate case for some of religion's claims being empirically unsound, it doesn't take away from the fact that religion is very effective at giving a lot of people meaning and community, orthogonal to those specific claims.

Nietzsche's aphorism about God being dead was correct, as was his prediction about the future. Religion wouldn't immediately die out but it would take increasingly pathological forms, it's arguably why religion has taken such a political turn as the capital 'f' Faith portion is just gone.

Personal commitments, even if idealistic are good, trying to talk yourself into facts about reality that you don't even believe is never good. And most religions of course make those demands. It's basically like being in the late Soviet Union. Everything is great, everyone is equal, you leave the house and there's a doctor selling cigarettes and vodka on the streets to survive. And basically when in your mind you see that double-think it's already over in a way.

At least for Judaism that not true at all. There are enormous numbers of Jews who do not believe, and yet consider themselves Jewish and go to occasional services, and find meaning in them even while not believing.

There are even pulpit Rabbis who do not believe and yet faithfully follow all the practices and teach.

There aren't, which is exactly why they're exceptional. After the experiences of the 20th century Jews have retained an acute awareness of threats to their very survival as a group which is why they tend to adhere to practice despite secularization. It's also likely why secular Jewish women are the only secular group with a high birth rate.

There's no historical analog to this in pretty much any other modern society, which is why you don't see secular Swedes drag themselves out of bed to go to mass on Sundays.

... And the 19th, and the 18th, and the 17th, and the 16th, and...

The Jewish condition was obviously affected by the Shoah, but the fundamental elements of otherness from the communities it lived in (since the exodus), with all the very real threats that they inevitably attract, have always been there.

(Sadly any further elaboration on this point cannot be made in a public forum today.)

You examine all cultures and find that, despite their claims, none truly value reality. Then you choose to believe, or have experiences that lead you to believe, one that explicitly says that there is more to life than what you can see.

It might be time to start judging which faith-based organizing principles produce the best outcomes.

Assuming you're utilitarian, you're working off of the untestable belief that making people happier has some property called 'goodness', and that there is some inherent value to it. But that doesn't even matter because happiness is a qualia that cannot be tested anyway.

So, while I agree that faith in God is not a prerequisite for morality, faith in something certainly is. And once you've allowed faith into your worldview, stating with certainty that God doesn't exist becomes inconsistent.

And theists have no empirical basis for their morality either, because faith by definition is belief in the absence of such evidence. People just believe what they believe. I prefer to be fed rather than starve, I prefer peace to suffering, I prefer liberty to slavery. I'm a social being capable of empathy and extending my beliefs about myself to include my expectations for others. I prefer others be fed, rather than starve. I prefer others have peace rather than suffer. I prefer others have liberty rather than slavery. I believe human life has value because I value my own life, and therefore value the lives of others.

What do I need to have faith in, here, other than nature and mortality?

I don't disagree that theists lack empirical basis for morality, both because I don't think anyone does and because I don't believe there is an empirical basis for God.

But it doesn't sound like you have a morality*. It sounds like you have preferences. One doesn't decide one's preferences, and even if they did, they would need a morality to do so rightly. This suggests that your being a good person is strictly luck of the draw. If my friend Bob the sadist says he loves it when people starve, would you be in the right to tell him he's wrong? On what grounds?

*Don't take this the wrong way- I don't mean to insult you, and I fully expect you do have morality. I'm only criticizing the argument here.

You first. You don't believe there is an empirical basis for God yet you believe morality absolutely presupposes faith in the supernatural. Presumably, you also consider yourself to have morality. On what supernaturally-derived basis would you (presumably) believe Bob is wrong? and given that the supernatural cannot be objectively proven, how does that faith differ from a preference, on your part?

It would not surprise me that on the whole our society is worse off for lack of a widespread secular tradition of discussing these concepts with your community.

edit: substitute "secular setting" for "secular state", definitely not arguing for the integration of church and state.

Certainly you can instill reverence in people - give people a challenge that involves using a cross as a hammer to complete and they’ll recoil instinctively, but I think that’s just software tapping into something more akin to firmware.

I think it's a combination of the environment you grew up in, the behavior of the people you grew up with, the values you were raised with, and the education you received, and some of it is also purely self-driven. And so toddlers and little kids are like amoral sponges, since they're still developing their senses of justice, morality, and empathy.

It's harder to call someone a "libtard" or a "troglodyte" if you have to sit next to them in a pew for the rest of your life.

That's what the intellectual cafes of 18th/19th century were. In a more bastardized way, that's what pubs can be today.

This said, school and "politics" have always been the main locations for such arguments - "politics", after all, was effectively built as an alternative to religious establishments to discuss matters without pesky clerics around.

I notice I usually walk away from conversations with fellow believers about the nature of God, the Bible etc feeling closer to and more trusting of them even compared to if I talk with them about e.g. trolley problems or what their take on moral realism is, especially if I later confirm they in fact walk the walk by living in a way which agrees with those principles. There's just something about the religious framing that gives it that extra kick.

The actual question of whether God is real is irrelevant. I just assume they're playing ball the same way I am, and that's often enough to kickstart the friendship.

I was just pointing out that you said several things as if they were proven facts, and they are not. That's all.

The religious do that all the time, but only atheists ever seem to get called out for it. Why the double standard, I wonder?

What does this even mean?

> How do you square that with any sort of culture that values reality?

Is reality true? Like all these agents in the comment section below who claim to know the unknowable, are they true?

That model of reality you are describing, thinking that it is reality itself, is that true?

In the US, it's been a slow process over 35 years, since 1991.[1] England and Wales are much further along - believers are below 50%. But Islam is on the way up in the UK, at 6%.

The high-intensity religions, the ones that require religious activity once a day or more, seem to be thriving.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-reli...

I don’t get this part. The only time I had a job in my local community was high school. Most of the adults (which was 95+% of the employees) commuted 20-60 minutes to get to it, though, so even that wasn’t my local community. You’d never run into your coworkers at the park or the store because they went to totally different parks and stores. Same’s held for my career as an adult. Coworkers are rarely people you’ll see anywhere other than work unless you go way out of your way to make it happen.

"Religion" in this case is not just about religion either, but also nations. The U.S. has our gods, such as Washington & Hamilton, and places of worship such as the "temples" in D.C., but we've also censored leaders like Jackson & Lee, and torn down slave-owning statues.

We're living through a deconstruction of history and rebuilding an inverted digital world. I don't think it's been productive. It actually almost feels like an end to history to me.

That is an atheist point of view. I grew up in religious environment too and people really believed in god. Some were hypocrites and some values stand in a real life way (commitment to not lie makes for the worst business), but the basic believe that god exist was really real. And when you play the part just for social reasons, then I think you are just a hypocrite. Which would be good reason for people to leave - so that they dont have to pretend.

If you don't have a hobby/interest with a local group, you can try picking new ones until you find one that clicks too. It does take some effort initially though. The shared interest is critical to removing barriers to making those relationships for me.

My guess is that "place" have become a way too expensive good, that people just can't afford to share for free.

My thought was to start a "philosopher's club", for Platonic friendships. Right now it's just me and one neighbor meeting every 2 weeks for coffee, but I think an ideal size might be around 3-4 "regulars" plus 2-5 sporadic attendees. Big enough to get boisterous but small enough to carpool.

The way to make this happen is get out there and volunteer your big dollar software engineer time to make it happen. Use all of the knowledge about how to get things done that you get from reading HN, join a team, and start building.

My volunteering experience has been amazing, but there were some negative experiences where it was clear we should have required more buy-in or up front investment.

What's nearly extinct is neutral third spaces with zero agenda.

Perhaps this was always true, but it seems for a brief time places like shopping malls were not as concerned as much somehow with having purely immediately profitable people inside and that’s why they were able to be that third place.

Hopefully in time a new generation of voters will want to fund more third places with taxes, because that seems to be the way to get long lasting third places that really do serve their purpose without an agenda.

However for non-religious people there is really no third place to meet. Additionally, the truth is that outside of religious communities, people are not having children and thus it creates a further sense of isolation and loneliness. The best one can do is perhaps join meetup groups for hobbies but most of those cost money and may not be welcoming to everyone.

I would also say that this can be a cultural phenomenon, for example in my home country (Iran) people are always meeting and socializing, at 10PM streets are bursting with activities and it's very easy to find people to connect with. In the west, unfortunately it's much harder and society is more focused on the individual rather than the collective so to approach a stranger in the street feels like a risk as they might consider your actions rude, disruptive or invading their personal space.

I don't know about that, I think in the US it's more that parents end up spending more time with other parents than anything, notably because kids are overscheduled, so as a childless person you don't see folks with children as much.

> at 10PM streets are bursting with activities and it's very easy to find people to connect with

I mean yes, if you have children and you have to be back at work at 9am, most folks aren't going to the bar every day (although those types of people do exist!)

Basically it's too expensive to make spaces available for below market rate due to the direct cost of rents (a middle or upper-middle class person could drop $1000/month on a passion project, but not so easily $5k/month) and there's a very high opportunity cost to forgoing revenue/profit, because you can find buyers willing to buy you out for 3-25x incremental profit. That opportunity cost makes it tempting for any community space to instead chase profit. But it also makes non-residential property more expensive because you're bidding against companies that are able to convert incremental $1000/mo profit to $50k-100k in realized value, even if you aren't intending to do that.

Rents themselves are very competitive not just from low supply but also because technology has made the rental market very "efficient"/liquid - it's easy to market a property and accurately price it, so sweetheart deals/underpriced leases are difficult to find. Plus rental properties themselves have been very well financialized as well - increases in incremental revenue/profit of commercial real estate can be recognized as many-times-more increases in equity by lenders, which can be accessed by loaning against the equity. So sweetheart deals are more costly to lessors than before.

I they were trying to convey sense you describe, of intense economic pressure to make a certain income to pay for a certain living or working space, or alternatively be kicked out because there are ten people in line waiting to take your space.

Perhaps a healthy culture cannot survive this degree of “efficiency”.

I also used to eat there quite often but I almost never go now because I don't like waiting 10 or 15 minutes for a sullen, indifferent person to hand me a bag of food that might or might not contain what I ordered and like you said the prices are crazy.

After years trying to see people weekly and failing miserably, this is best hack I have found. Caveat emptor, takes discipline and patience from everyone but it's great to see loved ones daily, fully engaged in a project.

It helps that I can afford to have hobby businesses.

When I was a teenager there was a specific square where one would go after school (or during if you skipped class that day). As far as I know my nieces don't have such a tradition.

Less clear example: in my country of origin those living in apartments used to have monthly meetings to discuss any issues they had about the building. People used to complain going to those, but at least you'd get an overview of who is who. I believe these meetings are gone, replaced by email. No one complains about them anymore but, at the same time, no one knows who their apartment neighbors are.

The apartments I've lived in the past several years had get together events from time to time. I also met a lot of neighbors going to the gym or hanging out around the pool or playing billiards in the clubhouse.

None of this seems radically rare from my experiences in Houston and DFW.

Average amount of time spent working has trended downwards for nearly every income group for every decade except at best the last decade where it's been stabilizing around ~33 to 36 hours a week or 1700 - 1800 hours a year. I'm not specifying a country because I don't have to, the only country that has actually trended upwards in working hours is China.

In general, people seem to do a lot less unstructured leisure activity and social interaction. Quantitative goals are imposed by social expectations, gamified ad-funded software, or economic anxiety.

Be sure to like and subscribe.

For many that’s now the unattainable dream: a community with values that sit still long enough to even aim at upholding them, a robust partnership early enough in life to start a family the biological way, children who can look forward to the same.

On the surface there is a culture war around this, and it’s true that the old model had serious problems with admitting other lifestyles. That needed fixing, but not by obliterating the model that works for most people with overwhelming precedent.

The real culprit as always is the “monetization” of everything, a baton that has now firmly been passed from finance people to Silicon Valley people.

The #1 post on Y-Combinator’s news site is in some sense the central locus in the observable universe for this.

It didn't need to be this. Richer kids might have been into swimming and water polo. I got into volleyball later and ad hoc sand courts were all over the place. Most of the parks near me also had tennis courts and I played tennis quite a bit. Even the more counter culture kids who weren't into team sports often did some combo of skating, surfing, and snowboarding and bonded over that.

Some of this is obviously mediated by where you happen to live. Southern California has a lot of open spaces, beaches and mountains, and the weather is pretty temperate all year. As much as Hacker News laments suburbs, the sprawl also means there are a lot of parks because there is so much space.

I've gravitated more toward individual athletic pursuits in middle age, so I'm not really involved in sporting communities any more. Seemingly, though, all this cheap, free to the consumer infrastructure in the form of concrete courts with nets still must exist, no? Nobody ever expected parks to turn a profit. They were just a thing cities and counties were expected to provide out of tax revenue and they're a minuscule portion of that compared to expenditure on schooling and law enforcement at the municipal level. There can't be any economically good reason to put them on the chopping block.

Yes, corporations and governments aren't great parents. But then neither are parents, if they allow corporations and government free reign over developing minds.

There are many different definitions of 'left' and 'right'. One perspective that can be useful is to think in terms of 'collective' and 'individualistic'. On this axis, neoliberalism is firmly to the right (not in the centre as is often portrayed). Communities are collective by definition and neoliberalism is inherently anti-community.

When I was younger I was always confused by the incessant political drive to 'privatise' everything despite the obvious bad outcomes. On the whole, the cost of services didn't go down, they didn't improve, and they didn't become more efficient. The opposite would happen, despite the promises to the contrary.

My eureka moment was when I realised that it really was simply about ideology. The essential aim was not to improve anything. It was to ensure all activity was turned into a 'market transaction' so as to provide those with capital more opportunities to invest. From that point of view, the push for privatisation makes perfect sense.

We have been fooled into selling our communities for profit (as if that's the only way to improve our lot).

> Adorno was born a German Jew at the end of the nineteenth century; he saw Hitler come to power via popular vote; and, in 1941, he was forced to flee Germany for the United States. Once there, however, he observed conditions of isolation and aloofness that made him worry: post-war American culture looked, to his eye, too much like pre-war Germany. The post-war “baby boom” had resulted in the growth of the American suburbs, sprawling sections of land developed for first-place functionality (private residence) and located within commuting distance to second-place nuclei (cities, office buildings, places of work). Adorno watched Americans shuttle back and forth in their cars between work and home, and he critiqued what he saw as ever-deepening habits consistent with conditions of social alienation. “He who stands aloof runs the risk of believing himself better than others and misusing his critique of society as an ideology for his private interest,” Adorno argues in his 1951 work Minima Moralia. In other words, Adorno says, isolation begets feelings of superiority, but not solely because the isolated individual lacks opportunities for comparison; rather, isolation begets superiority because the isolated individual has no audience but himself, no one to receive (and, perhaps, critique) his image of himself, to test whether or not it is even accurate.

--Sheila Liming, "Hanging Out" (2023)

We should have much higher density, high quality housing with plenty of public, walkable green spaces. They calling it "15-Minute Cities" now, but I always called it Tokyo.

I wouldn't know, there weren't any free spots, open or otherwise, for consideration.

> Or worse, paid open spots or shady looking cars parked all day selling drugs?

I'm not sure what constitutes a shady car in your mind. I'm pretty sure no one in my neighborhood sells drugs. I know that cuz I have to leave my neighborhood to buy the drugs I want. All things being equal I'd much prefer to just buy them in stores but for some insane reason we're still carrying on the war on drugs despite it being linked, in ink and in recordings, directly to the Nixon administration wanting to prevent black people and hippies from voting, so we make do the best we can.

> It seems like the more effective change is more parks

I mean, we have plenty of parks. Some days they're pretty damn busy but most days they're not. I'm blessed to be a remote worker so I can also just go there (or you know, used to be able to!) and work for a bit too.

> but imagine the pushback if someone tried suggesting that! You're angry that you already pay taxes and now you have to pay again to have a special spot right at the park you can park your car in. Imagine the backlash if someone had the audacity to suggest raising your taxes for new parks.

I actually pay pretty high taxes for my area. The trade-off is our snow collection is extremely good and the roads are well kept, as are the parks for that matter (now marred with stupid ass parking meters but alas).

I'm not opposed in the slightest to paying taxes. I participate in my local government, and I'm planning to bring this up at the next meeting because frankly I think it's bullshit that we're being asked to pay to park there when we're already funding that department. If they need more money or are running at a shortfall, that problem should be addressed with our community like everything else is, with a tax bump if required. I'm frankly infuriated that this was done not just from the principles of it but also because somehow it was done in a way that completely went under the radar of the city council I participate in. This was a huge change and should've been discussed.

> "I already pay for parks! I won't even use 95% of them! Why should I have to pay just because I'm a homeowner!"

Yes my position would be very unreasonable if it was even remotely this. Thankfully it's not.

FWIW I also am fine with paying for our schools too.

My only contribution was that I've seen folks make these kind of choices in good faith even though it isn't directly a thing they want because it's the best of the tools in their toolboxes.

Well... yes, that is precisely what's needed to wean America off its unhealthy dependence on cars.

Come over here to Europe, visit our cities where you can actually walk on a sidewalk, where you can live without a car just fine because everything you need can be reached safely on foot, by bike or with public transport.

HIGHLY disagree. If you want people off cars, you need to give them an alternative. Granted, I love cars. I would have cars whether I needed one or not, but I know I'm absolutely 100% in the minority on that issue, and like, when I say I would have cars either way, I mean fun cars. I wouldn't keep and maintain vehicles to just get around in my daily life if I didn't have to. I'd very much prefer to have just the vehicles I actually enjoy, and probably one truck and trailer to get around to tracks.

Most people don't like cars and don't like driving which is why most people drive like shit. It's a chore, a required to-do item on the way to doing something they actually want to do.

Never going to happen, outside of few dense city centers. Once an area is platted for detached single family homes and big box stores on stroads, the physical layout is incompatible with non car life, and hence you have to literally destroy everything and start over with narrow streets and smaller plots of land.

The expense of this is not going to win you any votes, especially as results will not be evident for at least 20 years while infrastructure is completely rebuilt and legal disputes are hashed out, hence it will not happen until nature forces it.

Not really. Repave the roads to make them slimmer, use the space gained to provide elevated sidewalks and bike lanes so people can see it with their own eyes that they can now participate in traffic without sharing infrastructure with cars. And whenever a reasonable sized lot goes up for sale, buy it up and convert it to a small store.

And you can’t just repave roads, there are utilities and sewer that needs to be moved, and that’s the small problem. The big problem is facing the outcry of very active voters for reducing their road space and making their commutes even a minute longer.

And if all the homes around this repaved area are detached homes with garages in 0.1+ acre lots, you will never have the density of customers to support businesses.

It kind of has to start at a city center and slowly, very slowly spread outward. But as soon as you hit the higher end suburbs with bigger plats, that’s where any of that high density hope stops, because the political will simply isn’t going to be there. Look at any US city and you will see the “trendy” or “hipster” or whatever areas with a few restaurants and whatever in a small walkable area are all in areas with postage stamp houses in tiny lots.

And to provide that infrastructure, you need space. Space that is reserved for parking cars at the moment. Just compare how much you pay per m² for the parking spot in your average city center vs the average rent mer m² that someone has to pay just for a basic shack.

Libraries meet this need in many ways. But because of the dwindling number of alternatives, reductions in funding, and increases in the number of struggling community members, they're being asked to perform many more community-support functions (social services, education, technical support, shelter, bathrooms, clinics, after-primary-school socializing) for many more people than they used to. This is causing some struggles, which I hope libraries and their supporters rise to rather than writing off another critical type of third place.

We've doubled down on marketplaces to mediate interactions because they are rational systems. Rational systems like marketplaces, elections, and bureaucracies are the sine qua non of liberalism, which both ends of the political spectrum advocate for in their own ways. The right typically advocates more for marketplaces and corporations (i.e. market-based bureaucracies) and the left typically advocates for more government managemeant (election based bureaucracies).

Rational systems are in constrast to local cultures based on tradition, biology, and shared history. Its why there is so much homogenization in farming, music, clothing, architecture, etc.

The upside is that rational systems allow for scale, propserity, and individual liberty on an unprecedented level. On the downside, rational systems are fundamentally dehumanizing.

We mediate everything through marketplaces because we've don't have any place for non-rational organizing principles (locality, biology, shared history, etc)

Its a tragedy of the commons style problem.

The viability has to come from a group effort - as soon as there is a single entity running the show the economic incentives will warp or collapse the 3rd place into something different.

I'd add, the belief that projects should be financially self-sufficient and the fiscal individualistic belief that I shouldn't pay for things I don't personally benefit from.

There is a sense of fairness, that makes sense in isolation, yet have these downstream effects when applied to public goods like third spaces. "Kids are always on their phones," and "Youth programs and parks should be financially self-sufficient" are downstream contradictions of the primary belief.

1. among infinite ways to analyze it

Tragedy of the commons is when there's no big entity with rules, and everyone does their own thing.

You'll often see these people everywhere in your community, and they may approach you very quickly to get you involved in their organizations. They are in constant need of new volunteers to burn out on their pet projects. They also constantly promote themselves and are always telling you about what they are doing with other organizations both to recruit you and to make sure everyone knows how "indispensable" they are.

These people are poisonous to community organizations because they will not abide any consensus-driven process that doesn't lead to agreement with them.

Perhaps better than everyone sitting in their homes getting amazon deliveries every few hours.

but this isn't what people mean when they say public community spaces. We need interconnectedness across income, ideology, generation, education, etc, for stable democracy.