The Anti-Social Century

> History teaches us where the story goes.

Does it? When else has this happened before? Or do you just mean manipulated markets specifically?

Good vision, but why is it an app? In general "We want to install an app on your phone" is a no from many people unless there's a compelling reason. Not to mention the whole cross platform issue.

Your project seems very cool and like a great way to tackle the problem. Although between apps similar to yours and dating apps like Tinder, I can’t help but feel a little uneasy that more and more frequently, people only meet by first filtering out dozens or hundreds, if not thousands of other people through an app.

I suppose theoretically it should lead to more connections based on interests and commonalities, as opposed to superficial characteristics (at least in the case your app, going off of your Reddit post; Tinder is a bit of a different story). I do feel like something is lost in the process, though. There are many people who have good friends that they have very little in common with.

Could help me find your reddit posts? I'm interested in learning more, but am having trouble locating them through search...

I share your enthusiasm for making it easier for people to connect in person, focused around shared interests (incl. established online social networks). I'm sincerely concerned about the potential outcomes of our current and growing social isolation.

That said, I believe that "third spaces" are still essential. Effective third spaces can provide safe, neutral ground for those who are unacquainted to get to know one another on their own terms. I think that the thought of inviting a strangers into your personal space is pretty uncomfortable to many people. I also think people want to get out of their cave every now and then--especially with the rise of work-from-home.

I think the failure of traditional third spaces (cafes, bars, social clubs, libraries, etc.) has more to do with them being unable to adapt to the needs of modern society & socialization.

My thought is that there needs to be a new type of third space which meets those needs. Perhaps something like WeWork, but geared towards the third space? Something that can adapt to and support the diverse interest/hobbies/networks that have come about due to the internet. Something that tics all of the "Great Good Place" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place) boxes and more. I have some ideas, but need to develop them further.

> How many people think today's children are having better lives than the last generation? 25% of US university students on antidepressants.

Are they on anti-depressants because life has gotten worse or because of decreasing stigma resulting from greater accessibility to better-informed patients? Until the turn of the century, just mentioning you saw a shrink in any sincere capacity would get you funny looks in most parts of the country.

> Unfortunately it involves stopping staring at screens 10 hours a day, which is the funds supporting half of this forum's careers.

There's an old joke where a reporter asks a bank robber why he robs banks. The latter's response: "Because, that's where the money is". The bank and bar of today is the Internet. It's what funds and facilitates most social ventures, even the ones that take place IRL.

Happiness isn't a quality you can optimize for on a national or global scale as it's a purely individual affair.

Capitalism can't reproduce itself through happy people. It needs enormous amounts of suffering to continue, and as a kid growing up you'll at some point notice this. At least you did, before the screens became dominant over reality.

I think the primary point is that until the 20th century, most people did not ever have a choice. Communal living was the only primary successful strategy for survival, so we are fairly hardwired for that environment. In that environment occasional solitude was probably a benefit.

It’s like the physical exercise which until the 20th century was just a part of everyone’s life. We sought relief from it whenever possible, but that wasn’t often possible. But in modern life we can go weeks without much physical exertion. And we know the consequences of that.

I'm not sure which happy, anti-social countries you are referring to.

"It may turn out that people aren’t hanging out at bars, but at home." I understand that entertaining at home has been in decline over the last few decades, and is at or near an all time low. Putnam discusses this in Bowling Alone, and all research I've seen lines up with that.

My belief is that most people agree that the decline of community is a problem (I'll cite the Surgeon General's report, for example). I'm open to reconsidering my position if you have sources for the opposing viewpoint.

> polarization started well before the personal computer showed up in the geological record.

What do you mean?

And houses would be proportionally fewer, smaller, and and in need for repair.

That is unless we assume builders and maintenance people are exempt from working less

>There is an unstated and unnamed assumption in modern American culture: that you have experienced trauma, and more importantly that trauma is what has constructed your personality

This is not "American culture", it's American leftism. Almost no conservative American thinks like that. And it's dying out by itself because American liberals aren't having enough children and views/values are partially heritable.

It's the risk. Marriage is a risk, having children is risk, all commitments are risk. Any deviations, randomness and failures are prohibitively dangerous. Where does this risk come from? mostly from laws.

Autocrats are not crazy about votes and economy progress. Infact they are more community-minded than the votes-bank leaders who always worry about next elections, coalitions and political survival. Look at the churn of leaders in Europe.