
Singles are strengthening society’s social bonds - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/families-of-choice-are-remaking-america
======
meric
The flip side of this phenomenon, along with the demise of the traditional
family, is, those who aren't chosen as part of the hand picked family, can
miss out on having one altogether. Where decades ago there were many people
who had no friends besides family, today those people belong to an
'underclass' of loners. That's a worse kind of inequality than the economic
inequality everyone talks about.

~~~
KannO
Niche subcultures thrive on the internet. Friendships take an amount of effort
and a reasonable level of sacrifice to maintain. The internet also makes it
easy to ignore other people and spend time on consuming media instead of
creating and sharing experiences alongside other people. I assume this might
be why let's play videos and spectator video gaming seems to be gaining in
popularity.

~~~
meric
That's one kind of lonely person, though they are not strictly lonely because
often they have lots of relationships online, so they _are_ talking to people.
Often they are considered unattractive by women.

The kind I have in mind is 67 year old retired atheist man or woman living
next door, unmarried, parents passed away. has 3 siblings with kids but never
talks to them. Has to rely on neighbour to call him or her up at the
designated time every day to make sure he or she picks it up to confirm they
didn't faint in the shower.

I knew a few of these. One of them asked how to meet women because he hadn't
talked to one for so long. The other struggle to say "I'm fine" every time I
ask her "How're you?".

My parents is the neighbour by the way. I think the man has a son but I get
the feeling his son never talks to him.

------
fleitz
This article really annoys me, I don't really care if people have kids or not,
however, all these people doing so much for society came from people who chose
to do less for society and instead raise the people doing so much for society.

"As networked individuals, we have the freedom to design the community we want
to live in. And if what we choose isn’t working for us, we can always try
something else."

this a really disrespectful attitude to the kinds of decisions made by their
parents to enable them to live such a lifestyle, I'm not saying they owe
people to have children just respect that abandoning something when it doesn't
suit you is not how great adults are raised, but rather children growing up
secure in the knowledge that they are so loved that their parents gave up such
a lifestyle to ensure that even when things aren't going well they will be
loved and cared for.

We all contribute to society in our own way and it would be great if we could
all be proud of what we've contributed without having to compare to others. If
you're raising children cherish them, if you're single cherish that, neither
decision takes anything away from the other.

~~~
pessimizer
Having children directly takes from childless single people (in the US)
through their taxes. I know that due to the law of averages, everything is
supposed to be equal, but that is a direct subsidy to the majority from a
minority.

~~~
mc32
Presumably most of those children will be productive members of society whose
contributions support your retirement... And let's not forget the benefit you
[if born or raised in G20] would have received as a child. So, in essence you
are as a single, paying back the benefits you enjoyed as a youth, presuming
averages.

~~~
simplexion
Every time there is a discussion about people without children versus people
with, a bunch of childless people will make the statement about having to pay
taxes for these kids. It is like they have read that statement elsewhere and
then repeats it without actually thinking about it at all. I don't bother
responding anymore.

~~~
epicureanideal
I agree with you and the person you're responding to, but I also understand
where the anti-child-tax people are coming from. I think they come from a good
place, which is "I shouldn't pay for optional activities of others" and
probably some amount of "why pay for THOSE people's kids who are just a drain
on society's resources (and mine personally!)".

But if "those people" (trailer park folk, the uneducated, or whoever else
somebody dislikes) are going to have kids, wouldn't we all prefer that they at
least get a minimum education, basic nutrition etc. so that we don't push them
into being an un-educated, malnourished mob that resents the rest of society?

Public education, welfare, etc. might be broken, but that's a whole other
argument.

~~~
devonkim
A lot of these populations of undereducated are in areas that culturally
oppose outside influences. See: cults, extremely rural Appalachia, pockets of
immigrant groups opposing assimilation violently in European urban areas.
Education = indoctrination to them and a loss of their cultural values. How do
you teach people that may need it most when they don't want it?

This is not the case by and large but it puts a ceiling on the efforts to
educate away problems with the Idiocracy trends of the world.

