Slashdot Mirror


How Social Isolation Is Killing Us (nymag.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from The New York Times: Social isolation is a growing epidemic (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source) -- one that's increasingly recognized as having dire physical, mental and emotional consequences. Since the 1980s, the percentage of American adults who say they're lonely has doubled from 20 percent to 40 percent. About one-third of Americans older than 65 now live alone, and half of those over 85 do. People in poorer health -- especially those with mood disorders like anxiety and depression -- are more likely to feel lonely. Those without a college education are the least likely to have someone they can talk to about important personal matters. A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent. Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age. Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

177 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Not everyone is the same by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone. Not everyone feels a deep seated need to talk about the weather or hear about trivial personal problems. Not everyone who lives alone degenerates into a curled up ball and mentally wastes away. But the day health risks are determined on an individual basis from a large pool of facts is far, far away. People like the security blanket statements that sum up a complicated condition into one handy catch phrase or statistic. Much like stereotypes, while statistically this study may be correct in general it certainly does not apply to everyone equally.

    1. Re:Not everyone is the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not all people are alike, broadly speaking, this is probably correct for the vast majority of people at some point in their lives.

    2. Re:Not everyone is the same by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are lonely when you are alone, you are in bad company.

    3. Re:Not everyone is the same by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.

      Well, if someone's friends suddenly leave without warning, I'm sure one could get nonplussed: perplexed and not knowing how to react.

    4. Re:Not everyone is the same by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extrovert vs. Introvert. This article does not account for differences in personality. It may only indicate that lonely extroverts die from lack of stimulation.

      No, the article attempts to pull lots of separate studies together in one over arching thesis. While the result may well be valid for a population of humans, there are undoubtably subsets of people where the assumptions don't hold true. TFA doesn't really speak to this.

      So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.

      But ask yourself, are you really happy?

      (If not, please send $49.99 in three easy payments to the address at the bottom of your screen - we're here to help.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Not everyone is the same by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.

      I think this is true. The trick is really knowing if this is really you.

      Let me give an analogy. A few years ago I was driving home from Christmas dinner at my sister's house when suddenly I couldn't unclench my hands from the steering wheel. I went to the emergency room, they did a blood test and my blood sugar was over 600. "You're diabetic," the doctor said, and she gave me a shot of insulin. Suddenly, I felt better than I had in twenty years. The things is, I had been feeling like crap for years, but I didn't know it. I thought I felt normal, but that's because "normal" is how you feel every day.

      After that experience I've come to doubt self-reports of well-being. I look at people who sincerely believe they are happy, but they don't look like happy to me. They seem miserable. Resentful. Sour-tempered. On a good day they might manage smug. Now maybe the problem is I don't have access to their rich inner lives, which they must keep bottled up like they're in a thermos. But it's just possible that they're deceived by the extraordinary human capacity to get used to feeling like crap.

      You don't have to believe the notion that social connection leads to greater levels of human health and happiness -- although it seems at least plausible given that this is true for practically every other primate species. And even in you believe it is true for most people, that doesn't necessarily mean that applies to you. Maybe you're a special case.

      But it seems to me rational to approach life as an experiment. You might think you are as happy as happy can be, but why take it for granted this is your best version of "normal"? And of course experiments force you to sharpen a lot of fuzzy concepts, like "social connection" or "isolation". I am an introvert. It doesn't mean I'm shy, or socially awkward, or misanthropic. It doesn't mean I don't need social connections. It just means I need different things from those connections than an extrovert would.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Not everyone is the same by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Introversion is not a disorder.

      But inability to read despite having an ability to write is.
      My post specifically said "anyone", without qualifiers.

      Maybe for extroverts, but introverts are happier alone, in general.

      You also failed to read what I quoted? This wasn't about "happier", but "really happy". Nobody is, on an ongoing basis, unless there's something wrong. Whether an inrovert, extrovert, clown, redhead or naked canasta player.

    7. Re:Not everyone is the same by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      You should read (or watch) Fight Club. Perhaps one of the most important movies ever made.

    8. Re:Not everyone is the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that a car analogy?

    9. Re:Not everyone is the same by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      the media has been constantly telling people, directly or indirectly, that they are a complete failure if they don't meet some arbitrary, ideal life.

      If you listen to what the media are saying:
      (b) you have not bought into their story: you are a complete failure from their perspective. or
      (a) you have bought into their story: you are a complete failure in real life . or
      (c) You don't listen to the media: you may or may not be a complete failure.

      So: if you listen to the media, you are doomed if not, at least their is hope!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re:Not everyone is the same by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


      I'd also add that social isolation may indeed be a side effect of other conditions.

      After all, people who are constantly miserable or sickly do not tend to make more friends over time...

      Furthermore there is the modern twist. Many people with niche or unpopular opinions are getting more exposure through the internet than ever before. They are perhaps naturally shunned or isolated.

      Worse yet are the people that are not on facebook missing all the opinions and interactions of those that are. Sometimes that means missing out on current events or the latest gossip and other times that means complete isolation from activities that originate and are organised there.

      In addition, people can be vicious and force other to isolate themselves as a form of protection. These days bullies can pursue you online not just the school playground.

      Finally, much like people may appear unhappy and claim they are happy so we can believe others to be happy because they appear so and in reality they are miserable yet put on a brave face.

      Social isolation, I believe is many cases is a symptom, not a cause.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    11. Re:Not everyone is the same by Chrontius · · Score: 2
      Protip:

      Nonplussed has two meanings. I tripped on this last week.

      nonplussed |nänplst| (also nonplused)
      adjective
      1 (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react: he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea.
      2 North American informal (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.

    12. Re:Not everyone is the same by humptheElephant · · Score: 2

      I like your comments on this. It would be interesting to break this down further to see how many interactions are needed per unit time for different personality types and the correlation with mental health. I read somewhere that very intelligent people need fewer interactions and friends, but that doesn't tell us how healthy they are. If one looks at politicians in light of this study, it appears that they are in dire need of friends and medications.

    13. Re: Not everyone is the same by rho · · Score: 1

      As my grandmother used to say, "if you can't stand to be by yourself, you probably bore other people too." She lived to be 103.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    14. Re:Not everyone is the same by temcat · · Score: 1

      I think you meant sociophobic.

    15. Re:Not everyone is the same by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      If you are lonely when you are alone, you are in bad company.

      When I drink Alone , I prefer to be By Myself . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    16. Re:Not everyone is the same by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      If you're happy or neutral about being alone then you're not "lonely", and the research mentioned in the article may not apply to you.

    17. Re:Not everyone is the same by buddyglass · · Score: 2

      This is a mischaracterization of what "introverted" means. In the general sense it does not mean "happier alone". That might describe "extreme social introversion". Most introverts have a small circle of friends. Most introverts enjoy spending time with some subset of their small circle of friends in private, and on occasion. A regular D&D game, for instance. Most introverts eventually marry. It's not the case that most introverts desire no human contact and are quite happy to die alone and friendless.

    18. Re:Not everyone is the same by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      An introvert is someone who is on a spectrum of needing less social contact than the average, but no functioning person can get by with no social contact at all. Look at what happens to people in enforced isolation. It's considered a form of torture.

    19. Re:Not everyone is the same by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      As a married introvert who plays D&D regularly and hangs out with friends regularly, I can provide anecdotal evidence to support this thesis. While I do enjoy my social time, I end up exhausted afterwards. I keep my circle to people I trust.

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
    20. Re:Not everyone is the same by tsqr · · Score: 1

      There are actually some people who are either happy or at least nonplussed to be alone.

      You should look up the meaning of that word. Unless you really meant, "either happy or at least puzzled and confused," that is.

    21. Re:Not everyone is the same by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      My mother lived alone for decades after my father died. She was very social and very happy. She did meals on wheels, tutored at a disadvantaged school, worked, played piano for people at a nursing home, active in the church, worked at a job etc. She was neither lonely or unhappy living alone, she loved it. She did this until 90. Totally agree with parent, this social science approach where everyone is the same is just wrong.

    22. Re:Not everyone is the same by grumling · · Score: 2

      So if you're happy sitting here by yourself typing away, go for it.

      But that's the thing, the OP isn't sitting here "by themselves," they are with all of our thoughts, including yours. Just because someone isn't staring at your face at the same moment in time doesn't mean they aren't interacting with you. Humans have been interacting over distance and time for thousands of years. Now that communication and artificial memory has become cheap, there are a lot more of us who can afford to engage.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    23. Re:Not everyone is the same by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear you are not really happy, or even happy. And no, nobody else gets your "joke" because the original really was a joke itself.

      I'm mildly happy that I'm not really happy. And it wasn't a joke.

    24. Re:Not everyone is the same by arth1 · · Score: 1

      What dictionary is that? Merriam-Webster and Oxford English both only list the original meaning of nonplussed, not the American misunderstanding. Has it become widespread enough now that it's listed in dictionaries?

      Will we also find entries in this dictionary for "CPU" and "Hard disk" that says "North American informal: computer enclosure"?

    25. Re:Not everyone is the same by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      For several decades now, the media has been constantly telling people, directly or indirectly, that they are a complete failure if they don't meet some arbitrary, ideal life.

      Turn off the television. I've done that 20+ years ago. I selectively watch TV content on Hulu and Netflix.

      You aren't good looking enough. You aren't rich enough. Your house isn't nice enough. You clothes aren't nice enough. You don't have enough friends. You don't have the right friends.

      The siren call of the American Dream. Give it up and left a modest lifestyle. If you try to keep up with the Joneses, you will never win. Ignore the Joneses, enjoy life.

    26. Re:Not everyone is the same by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I know this is me because for however crap I knowingly feel normally, in the majority of cases having to be around other people makes me feel even worse, because I don't get nearly enough time to relax and be myself and not have to do the performance that is interacting with most other people.

      There are a few people whose company I really enjoy, though even they can be too much sometimes. The problem is not being around people in the abstract, the problem is that most people are not people whose company impacts me positively rather than negatively.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    27. Re:Not everyone is the same by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If you think you are one of those, or know somebody that might be like that, I encourage you to read the book Quiet by Susan Cain and/or subscribe to the author's blog on the subject. Ms. Cain, in spite of being an introvert, is a great public speaker, and you may enjoy her TED talk about introversion.

    28. Re:Not everyone is the same by Nephandus · · Score: 2

      Check a thesaurus. Asocial and Antisocial are synonyms now...according to those sainted extroverts and their self-flagellating converts.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    29. Re:Not everyone is the same by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Worse yet are the people that are not on facebook missing all the opinions and interactions of those that are. Sometimes that means missing out on current events or the latest gossip

      Are you joking? Not being on Facebook so you can get their daily pro-establishment propaganda in your face and keep up to date on the latest "gossip"? How about, no, I don't need that shit and I'm better off without it. And happier. That's the kind of social interaction I don't need.

    30. Re:Not everyone is the same by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      and you think letting the medical coverage companies do whatever they want is better?

  2. Paywalled Sources by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source)

    If there is an "alternate source", why use the pay-walled sources?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Paywalled Sources by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Only old lonely losers use the free source, you'll get depressed hanging out with them

    2. Re:Paywalled Sources by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Only old lonely losers use the free source, you'll get depressed hanging out with them

      I know... I've got to get with the program and be a more dedicated consumer...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Paywalled Sources by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      It's probably the original.

  3. Money by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what's isolating me is money. Every year my income is more or less static but my bills go up. I've had promotions, a few projects that brought in some extra cash; but they've mostly served to keep my head above water and clean up the mess from the 2008 economy crash.

    Plus it's hard to stay in one place for any length of time. You gotta move to where the work is. And to be blunt, I live in the cheap tech worker apartments, and that means lots and lots of folks here on work visas. They're nice people, but they're not my people.

    I'd be a hell of a lot less isolated if the economy would stabilize, but I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Money by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      Inflation is too low.

      Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service. Deflation is bad because it means those who have money get rich and those who don't, don't get rich.

      What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.

      Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.

      One need not look very far and see that is exactly what happened during the Great Depression.

      The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.

      Quite frankly, you are very confused about banking, about money, about interest rates, and pretty economics in general. You quote a lot of shit. But, it's all shit.

    2. Re:Money by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 3, Funny

      roman_mir is Ayn Rand's Poltergeist, destined to plague /. for ever. Where's Steven Freeling when we need him?

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    3. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be a hell of a lot less isolated if the economy would stabilize, but I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of that...

      The first thing that you need to do is drop the notion that you must work for a company in the technology business. Instead seek out companies with stable customer bases and solid business plans and work for them instead. These days every company greater than a certain minimum size requires employees who can customize software, perform database work and setup or maintain a technology stack that supports the business. Finally, stop living in areas with insanely high costs of living and states with high taxes and anti-business laws, like California and especially the Palo Alto and San Francisco areas. The sooner you do these things, the happier you will be. It's a popular myth in the San Francisco and Silicon Valley bubble worlds that you have to be there or work for a famous name or startup to be a legitimate tech worker. Here's a pro tip: those guys aren't as smart as they think they are and frankly most of what they produce is trite and of questionable economic value.

    4. Re:Money by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      "They're nice people, but they're not my people." This got modded to +5, but I sure would have liked to have seen some clarification on this first. Cultural differences can be enriching.

    5. Re:Money by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Traditional communities naturally meet many 'basic needs' for emotional support. In the traditional Amish society in the US major depression is almost unknown, as it is in the equally traditional Kaluli tribe of New Guinea. In these societies individual concerns are group concerns and vise-versa. You know that if you have a problem other people will help you and you are expected to help out when others need support. We know we are meant to do these things but it's not a 'built in feature' of modern society in the same way.

      http://www.clinical-depression...

    6. Re:Money by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Inflation is good for the economy because it reduces the relative percentage of the GDP that must be devoted to debt service.

      Not everyone borrows as much as they can. Ignoring significant parts of the economy while making blanket claims about the economy is not good for the economy.

      What people like yourself don't understand is that the vast majority of money that exists in bank deposit accounts was not created by the government. It was created by banks, with debts credited as assets on the bank's balance sheet. All of that money that was created all came with a future interest obligation.

      Quite simply, if you do not inflation not only do people get poorer, but everyone defaults on their debts.

      Unless they don't owe enough debt for that to be relevant.

      The government always controls the money supply. It does this by adjudicating debts only in the currency that it has the sole legal right to create and regulate. It does this by levying taxes. And, in a more complex system impossible for libertardians to understand, sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.

      I see use of the term, "libertardians" here. Real classy that.

      The huge problem with your entire post is that it treats debt as if there was only one side, the borrower. There however is also the lender. And everything about inflation that is good for the borrower is equally bad for the lender. That's because lending is a trade and inflation is directly adjusting the relative costs and benefits of the trade in a zero sum game.

      That leads to two flaws in your argument. First, we still have lending despite this bias in favor of borrowers. What happens is lenders increase their interest rates (the costs of the loan) and the supposed advantages of inflation for the borrower go away.

      Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender? I'll note here that borrowers tend to be a lot less competent and disciplined than lenders. Encouraging them to borrow more doesn't seem a sane thing to do and there have been problems with excessive debt in every recession the US (to give a country I know a lot about) has had.

      What's really going on here is that country-level governments tend to both have control of their money supply and borrow a lot. So inflation, particularly an increasing rate of inflation helps cut the cost of the debt they imprudently acquired as well as the liabilities they have promised. And due to the immense propaganda mechanisms at their control, they get to spin that as inflation being a good thing without significant opposition.

    7. Re:Money by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      BE WARNED: above link has loud, unpleasant music. Do not visit if you have normal people around you.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    8. Re:Money by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      sovereign governments coordinate with one another to adjust exchange rates for mutually beneficial ends.

      You appear to be under the delusion that governments are run by sane, competent, well intentioned people. This is contrary to experience.

      I am not arguing for libertarianism - libertarians are obviously selfish, foolish, and inexperienced. I am pointing out that you can not rely on governments. Even if they are well intentioned and sane (they may not be either: see present situation in Gambia), they may lack the skill to control the money supply - or anything else - or indeed, deliver any benefits whatever.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:Money by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Enriching, or infuriating.

    10. Re:Money by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I too had to retire several years earlier than planned when work dried up after the Crash. But then I found that my services were more needed than ever, recast as a small business. Now I'm an IT country doctor.

    11. Re:Money by buddyglass · · Score: 2

      I'd add three things here, which may not actually contradict anything you believe: 1. Almost all governments carry debt; the ones that are close to having no debt are among the least prosperous, and 2. If you're someone who disproportionately benefits from the debt-financed spending then for you to support higher inflation (in order to allow more debt-financed spending) may be entirely rational, and 3. it's hard to know who benefits most from debt-financed spending because it's hard to separate expenditures into "debt-financed" and "non-debt-financed".

      One place to look to identify what an "acceptable" level of per debt GDP might be is the level below which the U.S. can maintain the highest possible sovereign debt rating from the various agencies. Countries currently rated AAA by Moody's, using the most recent free data I could find, along with their current per GDP central government debt (2013 data):

      United States: 106.5%
      Germany: 79.8%
      Australia: 35.9%
      Canada: 93.6%
      Switzerland: 45.3%
      Denmark: 59.3%
      Luxembourg: 33.5%
      Netherlands: 87.7%
      Norway: 39.6%
      New Zealand: 38.1%
      Sweden: 48.3%
      Singapore: 104.7% (had to get this from a different source)

      It's clear that among AAA-rated sovereigns the U.S. is near the top debt-wise. To draw more in line with the other members of that group it would need to get its per GDP debt down to around 80% at most.

      It also pays to look at countries that are highly developed but not AAA rated. This helps the debt level necessary to guarantee an AAA rating. The previous exercise helped to identify the level needed in order to preclude an AAA rating. Here are some highly developed non-AAA rated countries and their debt levels:

      United Kingdom: 103.1%
      France: 116.1%
      Japan: 232.5%
      Austria: 89.5%
      Belgium: 105.4%
      Finland: 70.1%
      Iceland: 91.3%
      South Korea: 39.0%

      Given S. Korea, it looks like there's essentially no debt level that guarantees a AAA rating. However, if the U.S. were to get down below 70% (i.e. Finland) then it would be pretty close to guaranteed.

      It's worth noting that, based on what he's promised so far, Trump looks to be no friend to debt/deficit hawks.

    12. Re:Money by giampy · · Score: 1

      >> Second, why should we favor the borrower over the lender?

      Because they tend to be more resource constrained and hence to spend more money (which is good for the economy) than the lenders.

      --
      We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
    13. Re:Money by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because they tend to be more resource constrained and hence to spend more money (which is good for the economy) than the lenders.

      Why is spending more money good for the economy? Is it good to force you to borrow as much as possible and then spend it rather than lend it?

    14. Re:Money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Whether more spending is good for the economy depends on how it's doing. More spending is good for the economy in recessions and depressions, not so good during boom times.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Cultural sickness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty much to be sociable you need a large group of people.

    In the past this was based either around your extended family, region, race, religion, or national heritage. This was not always a good thing either at the micro or macro level, but it did represent a support network for some (but not all) members of a societal group.

    Nowadays much of this has been lost, due to globalization, electronics, hetereogenized neighborhoods (especially new builds as evidenced in the US.) Neighborhoods for better or worse are often no longer established families and friends. As people have spread out, that previous sense of community has slowly dissolved. While there just as many people available today, fewer of them are willing to interact with people outside of their social norms, and since those social norms are spread more thinly across the local region, it becomes less likely that a particular person has an immediate support network to overcome that isolation.

    As a personal example: When I was a kid, there were a half dozen kids around my age all living with a block or so of me. While there was a concern of child predators and abductions, by and large people still let their kids go outside, and kids by and large still snuck off to go have fun with friends (my parents were however one of the 'shut in' types, up until I was around 10 or so, at which point I was allowed to bike to school (mostly because my mom had better things to do than actually bother to take me to school or pick me up on time.) In addition to this there was at least one empty field per block (1/4 to 1/2 mile square) which usually lead to a congregation point for the kids. Fast forward 10-20 years and all those fields have been fenced in or built over. Most parents are more concerned about the appearance of their children's safety in regards to allowing them out in the neighborhood, and kids by and large would rather play videogames/watch tv/on a computer than go outside and do stuff, whether hanging out with friends, terrorizing neighbors, or finding field replacements to hang out in.

    1. Re:Cultural sickness. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >all those fields have been fenced in

      It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.

      Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.

      Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(

    2. Re:Cultural sickness. by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even worse, the kind of land use patterns that encourage social interaction have been outlawed in much of the USA. We are no longer allowed to build cities the way we used to.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    3. Re:Cultural sickness. by kauaidiver · · Score: 1

      In Sillycon Valley there are still some schools with open fields but DeAnza used to have an open pool my friends and I used to go to all the time in the summer. Now you have to sign your life away or belong to a swim club to use it. They even closed the 10m platform because someone got hurt or died jumping off it.

    4. Re:Cultural sickness. by geekmux · · Score: 2

      >all those fields have been fenced in

      It's really sad how fear of lawsuits has forced property owners to fence in fields that would otherwise serve as open space for kids to play in urban areas. I so often see a nice field of grass fenced in with nothing on it, that no one can use. The property owner probably doesn't care if kids play on his land, he's just worried about a lawsuit if those kids get hurt on that land.

      Same thing with school athletic fields. When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s the fields were open to the public. There was usually a gate with some posts to keep vehicles out, but us kids could go in and play ball or do whatever on the field when school was out. Now it's all locked down because the school is afraid of lawsuits.

      Paranoia has made life less fun for kids. :(

      It's no better as an adult. Take a look at how much you spend every month on mandated expenses defined as "insurance".

      Thank the fucking legal community for this liability arms race, where lawyers and insurance companies get obscenely rich off the paranoia that keeps humans from actually enjoying life.

      It truly is one of the more disgusting facets of capitalism, and it shows no signs of slowing down.

    5. Re:Cultural sickness. by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't underestimate the car. In the not too distant past, you would live close to work, and most likely not too far from where you were born, in a community you'd consider to be yours. Now you can live a vast distance from work. Your coworkers are people from other communities as well, so there is no bond there, and you don't spend enough time at home to build meaningful bonds in your local community either.

    6. Re:Cultural sickness. by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is really informative and depressing actually. Thanks.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    7. Re:Cultural sickness. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      I don't disagree with GP, and I think mixed-use zones are a great way to lower costs and reduce traffic. However, that article is nonsense:

      1. Social Isolation: Rural areas have some of the most friendly and talkative people. Try going up to anyone in New York and ask how their day was. Just because there's 10 people in front of you, doesn't mean you're having social interactions. I personally have never felt more alone than in a crowded room with people partying and "having a great time".

      2. Discrimination: Forcing people to drive to places is less discriminatory than forcing them to walk to places. In fact, the elderly are more likely to be able to drive long distances than to walk long distances, especially in bad weather. Now imagine they're also carrying 20 lbs. of groceries. Self driving cars will solve much of the problem anyways.

      3. Expense: The article defeats its own point. Cars are expensive, but if 60% of people still own cars, how is that saving money? Car infrastructure can't go away either, since you still need to deliver things with trucks. Besides, without cars, you need to build taller and build more public transport. Both costs money. Just compare living costs in Tokyo with just about any suburb. Heck, just buying train tickets for a month there will cost more than renting a room in much of the US.

      4. Small businesses: Simply having more small businesses is not necessarily a good thing. Big ones have economies of scale and work more efficiently. Once again, the article defeats its own point. Take a closer look at the chart: the richest countries are all at the bottom: US, Germany, Denmark. And the country with the most small businesses? Greece... not exactly a shining beacon of prosperity right now.

      5. Health: Finally a good point. However, simply ending the corn subsidy can do far more.

    8. Re:Cultural sickness. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Most of my insurance dollars go to cover quantifiable risks. Something can happen to my house. I can make mistakes while driving, and those can get real expensive. (If you've got insufficient insurance, you're counting on going bankrupt in case of a really serious accident, and leaving the other party with woefully inadequate compensation for medical bills.) I'm also insured against most liability suits above and beyond that, and that's actually quite inexpensive. I figure my insurance company knows the risks better than I do, so I figure that outrageous liability suits are rare.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Cultural sickness. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Forcing people to drive to places is less discriminatory than forcing them to walk to places.

      Why do you want to force people to do anything? WTF is wrong with you?

      In fact, the elderly are more likely to be able to drive long distances than to walk long distances, especially in bad weather. Now imagine they're also carrying 20 lbs. of groceries. Self driving cars will solve much of the problem anyways.

      Are you really willing to bet your own grandmother's quality of life on something that may never exist?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  5. Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals. My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.

    Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

    Could technology help solve these problems rather than make them worse? I think so, but it would require different economic models than are currently being used. In the worst-case example of Facebook, the primary metric driving their "success" has nothing to do with improving your social life or helping you find real friends (not to be confused with whatever Facebook means by their increasingly bizarre use of that word). Facebook just wants you to waste as much time as possible on their website.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Slashdot much? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am dead serious. This is the most connected age in human history. Everybody has as much isolation and interaction as they want. My sister has 1500 facebook friends and is rarely off line. I confine my online activities to reddit, /. etc. Some people are still isolated but these are people who rarely go on line, and they were going to be isolated in any era.

    2. Re:Slashdot much? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals.

      Mostly. But one of th emost amusing things to me at least, is that there is a sort of shaming going on - that if you are not someone with a lot of friends, that if you enjoy yourself some solitude, there is something wrong with you. That being a private person is bad. Somehow. "Gotta watch out for those quiet ons, you know!"

      I have a lot of demands on my time. And people - including friends - are like a loud background noise that can be sressful after a while, and with no doubt tires me out. It really keeps me from processing problems.

      My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.

      Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

      But at least for me, Slashdot is nothing like Facebook. Since I had to open a Facebook account for one of my duties, that place is seriously fucked up, from the oversharing idiots, and the fake news, and some of the drama llamas who never let the chance to turn a bad day into the end of the universe.

      But Slashdot - I can do that without stressing my batteries.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Slashdot much? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

      I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

      That said, some people function better alone. And some need a social network. Our species does so well at least in part because we differ so much. What one person can't handle, another one can.

    4. Re:Slashdot much? by antdude · · Score: 1

      MichaelSmith: You're me! :D

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, I think I mostly agree with you, but I also think the 'social quality' of Slashdot has declined substantially over the years. Not just limited to Slashdot, but when we first started this computer-supported social-networking stuff it was mostly as support for face-to-face social gatherings. In those days the hub nodes were called BBSes, and most of the major ones sponsored periodic gatherings or at least occasional parties. Getting fuzzy from so long ago, but I think there were weekly Lep Lunches and monthly meetings of the Dull Men's Club, and a variety of other meetings of various kinds... This was back in Austin in the '80s...

      Don't know the demographics, but I suspect a majority of today's Slashdotters hadn't been born yet.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    6. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      I think I feel sorry for your sister, but for you I recommend reading The Shallows . Or maybe you could just clarify what you think "connection" means?

      I really did think you were going for the funny mod, but as things stand, I guess I'm supposed to hope you didn't get it?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    7. Re:Slashdot much? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a study is needed to investigate how well online contact can substitute for physical contact?

    8. Re:Slashdot much? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Recall also that BBSs were primarily local, for people interested in one activity in one city. Meatspace setups were considered an essential part of the process. Things began to change when Usenet was introduced: common interests, but no longer a common location.

    9. Re:Slashdot much? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think part of the problem is that people get spread too thin. When you have 500 friends, you really have no friends. Exclusive time and confidentiality disappears. It's not the frequency of contact that makes friendship, it's the depth.

      I think it quite quickly sorts into tiers anyway, because in the real world you're only one place at a time. If you hang out with group A of friends on the weekends, you're not hanging out with group B. Or for that matter how you balance friends/family/partner/self-time, obviously if you have a wife and kids you don't have the same time as when you were single but there's still a large degree of choice. I can feel it on something so trivial as when we're playing a four player online co-op game, who's first to be asked and who's just backup if the others are unavailable.

      Everybody else you're really just an observer and not part of their lives. I don't want to undersell Facebook either because I understand the feeling of taking parts in your grandkids' lives without actually being physically present, but when it comes to creating real bonds of friendship and family you have to be there and really interact with them. Even when we're just alone together, like when my buddy and I go out flying our drones we each fly our own drone but it's a shared experience. If I did it and posted on my Facebook and he did it and posted on his Facebook it wouldn't be the same at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Slashdot much? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My sister has 1500 facebook friends

      And how many actual, real-life friends does she have? That is, people she's actually met once or twice face to face? How many does she actually do stuff with on any kind of regular or semi-regular basis? Would she still be 'friends' with them if her internet connection went down for a few years?

      Facebook friends aren't friends, they're just people who clicked on a link. It's like claiming that "I'm the Ruler Of The Entire Universe", as long as you count my chair as "the entire universe".

      Personally I think Facebook has done more to separate and isolate people that it's done to bring them together. Oh sure, it can foster communication, but that's not the same thing by any means.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:Slashdot much? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time we recognize that being "extremely social" is in fact a mental illness. To me, our society that pushes socialization to the extreme instead of teaching children and encouraging adults to be independent is a sick society.

      Being "independent" is not mutually exclusive with being "social", even "extremely social".

      That said, I think a lot of the people who are "extremely social" are faking it or have no sense of identity beyond the social circles they inhabit.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:Slashdot much? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      And how many actual, real-life friends does she have?

      To steal from the old joke: Invite them all to her wedding with this notice, "She's in deep trouble and desperately needs your help". See how many show up...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Deserves the insightful mod. Overall seems to be an almost surprising discussion for today's Slashdot. Maybe the trolls are on Christmas break?

      Anyway, I think some of the problem you are addressing is due to oversimplification. Friendship is a rich and multidimensional concept, but Facebook collapses the meaning of the word. I actually think Google had a better idea, but the complexity made it unusable... I feel like repeating my old suggestion as to how something better could be implemented on Facebook, but lack the time and energy this morning, so I'm just going to drop the hint that it should give a default display of a single dimension while allowing for deeper dimensionality to be recorded and displayed upon requests.

      Looking forward to studying the discussion in more detail when I have some time, hopefully this afternoon.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    14. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Gotta run now, but I should have mentioned Dunbar's number in my earlier response to your post about your sister having 1,500 friends >> 150. Just checked and it doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere around here...

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:Slashdot much? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      I agree it's not mutually exclusive, but it correlates nonetheless. All our behaviors, including "social behavior", are mainly a result of physical or psychological needs. More than that, when someone "feels lonely", it certainly does indicate dependence.

      From my own experience, young people are now a lot more socially dependent than they were 30 years ago. I see that particularly in the workplace, as young people need a lot more social support than before. Not only do they lack agency, but many times it's to a point where without frequent social support, they have difficulties doing their work because of emotional discomfort.

    16. Re:Slashdot much? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I see that particularly in the workplace, as young people need a lot more social support than before. Not only do they lack agency, but many times it's to a point where without frequent social support, they have difficulties doing their work because of emotional discomfort.

      I agree 100%. Many of them appear to be socially inept and need constant hand-holding.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re:Slashdot much? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      She is definitely an outlier. Better at making friends than keeping them.

    18. Re:Slashdot much? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Facebook "friendship" was created by the users, not the owners, who created it for purely advertising reasons. And it serves that purpose extremely well, for the owners and users who take advantage of it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Actually I would say that usenet did foster some sense of community, especially in technical areas. The early trolls did hurt it, for example when they cross-linked the save-the-whales group, but it managed to do pretty well for a long time. Still hard to believe it has died... I think the killer was that no profits to be made.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    20. Re:Slashdot much? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Dunbar's number

      Only useful thing so far in this topic. I knew of the concept, but hadn't heard it given a personalised name. Rest of the topic : file thirteen.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      If that was a thank you of some sort, then your manners are lacking, but I'll say "You're welcome" anyway. I'm guessing you looked it up on Wikipedia, but if you want additional references, I can provide them.

      However, mostly you seem to be providing additional evidence for my primary point, which is that computer-mediated social interactions are not very social. Can't thank you for that since, if true, then it's a sad reality. I rather like computers and my computerized tools and I'm glad to see them used for constructive purposes.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    22. Re:Slashdot much? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      which is that computer-mediated social interactions are not very social.

      It's an utter truism, along with bears shitting in the woods and Papal Catholicism. There probably are interesting things about it - like does it actually matter - but bemoaning it isn't going to do much apart from giving the moaner a sore throat.

      Personally, I think we (well, our ancestors-in-common) took a bad step starting to have any social interactions not involving picking lice from each other's skins. It's clear (or is it?) than any lesser sort of interaction will lead to instant death of the species and replacement of both species and genus by something better. Or maybe that has already happened - since I lost my job playing Australopithecus afarensis body double for bad Discovery Channel programmes, I've not been wasting much time on human beings.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:Slashdot much? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Your point is or points are? Possibly something about the resolution of the Fermi Paradox being the extinction of homo sapiens (not so much)?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  6. hmm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about if you find being around other people stressful? I know plenty of people - myself included - who need to get away from others from time to time because being around other people just drains my batteries big time. It isn't shyness, I'm completely socialized, and not remotely awkward. But I find being around others stressful at times. I guess that you might describe it as how some people are afraid of public speaking. I can stand and deliver all day without a hitch, without a bit of nervousness - but after the evening's socialization, I need a day or two to recharge.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Are you lonely? If not, then this article has nothing to do with you.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. This benefits whom? by flacco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm trying to figure out what bullshit rip-off "service" sponsored this article.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  8. it's not isolation, its Isolationism by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    text my 62 year old mother, it might be 30 seconds to 2 days to get a response, people older than that are terrified to use email or other modern communication methods. My wife grandmother 10 years ago would spend HOURS on end on the phone, talking to the same 2 people about absolutely nothing, every single day ... but wouldn't go out to any events or gatherings, course now she cant remember her ass from her foot...

    Its not because you are doing something wrong, its because THEY absolutely refuse to get off their asses and do something. For contrast my grandmother (who died about 10 years ago) Made it a point to take classes, including computer classes to keep up with the grand kids, went to local ball games, went to places with her friends, and after 2 strokes could still give you unholy shit for something you did last week as a tough love joke.

    The interesting part is... my wife's grandmother is a college educated brillant woman, but went lazy, and now if you return from the bathroom its a surprise! My grandmother was a alcoholic chain smoking cub's fan factory worker that didnt make it like 8th grade, but got off her ass and DID things (died at 90 btw)

  9. Except lonliness is easy to avoid... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    I can see where this is coming from. The lack of interaction has a strange thickness to it. An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island. For those still of working age it's avoidable, though (without getting hitched):
    1. Live in an apartment building. Not a complex where everyone has their own door to the outside, but a huge, elevator building with dozens of apartments per floor. As these tend to be cheaper (or luxury buildings) it is a bit of a win-win. Having an interior space shared with neighbors helps a lot psychologically.
    2. Don't telecommute. Unless you (a) work with assholes or (b) are an asshole yourself it's hard to avoid making good friends in person at work.
    3. Get a roommate, or a pet if you hate compromising.
    4. Don't retire early. My dad made this mistake and has regretted it ever since. I suspect this article is about people like him.

    1. Re:Except lonliness is easy to avoid... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island.

      One man's Gilligan's Island is another man's Fantasy Island.

      One of the best days of my life was when I was 18 and got keys to my first and completely empty condo. All I had the first day was a table lamp, a sleeping bag and a book. It was heaven.
      Going to a cabin to get away from people is still wonderful.

    2. Re:Except lonliness is easy to avoid... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      An empty house can feel like you're stranded on a deserted island.

      One man's Gilligan's Island is another man's Fantasy Island.

      "De UPS truck! De UPS truck!"

  10. Social isolation isn't a cause. by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 2

    It's an effect. People are poor now. They don't have the money to go out and do things.

    1. Re:Social isolation isn't a cause. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      are you kidding ? If hipsters had no mean to go out, they wouldn't be buying $7 mocha latte at starbucks everyday, or even keep drinking beer ...

  11. If I have to fall back on inflation by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to make my debt affordable then something is very, very wrong with the economy.

    You're right about the monetary system being used to balance things, but it's just a temporary patch on a broken system. People have come to expect (reasonable I'd say) improved quality of life. This generation is on track to the be first one American history to be worse off overall.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:If I have to fall back on inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or something is very, very wrong with your finances.

      Entirely possible, even still, to have a fulfilling modern life with no debt at all- especially for people that work in the highly paid and high-demand tech sector.

    2. Re:If I have to fall back on inflation by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      If you have to fall back on nflation to make your debt affordable, you are most likely a government.

  12. Alone vs being lonely by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can certainly see how feeling lonely can lead to ill health effects. However feeling lonely and being alone are two different animals. One is a state of mind while the other is just a state of proximity.

  13. on the plus side by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Increased stress hormone levels help to improve memory.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  14. Re:Because by unixisc · · Score: 2

    I am pretty lonely, but don't suffer from obesity or poor health. Yeah, I'd like it if I had somebody, but I do need financial stability before I can get there. After I got dumped by my wife after losing my job 8 years ago and unable to find another for a while, I don't have any illusions that if I marry, I'll be supported for better or worse, in sickness or in health, until death do us part. I made the mistake of assuming that once. Not again.

  15. Re:Live Long and Prosper by unixisc · · Score: 1

    We should have a way to see each other, regardless of where we are, and comment. Maybe that will bring us more life }:-)

  16. Re:Because by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    Articles like this have already made me kill myself.

    Who ya gonna call?
    Ghost Poster!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  17. Eh by tylersoze · · Score: 1

    Hell is other people.

  18. It Is a real Issue by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    One reason that country folk attend church so regularly is that they are too isolated when they own larger plots of land than people do in the cities. Their instincts tell them the importance of associating with others. Can you imagine a dolphin or a chimp that did not socialize with others of its species?

  19. One additional symptom by Trachman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is denial.

    Denial that social isolation is harming. Look, even in this thread there are so many people who are saying that they are happy alone.

    More importantly, many magazines for women are pushing never ending message (never supported scientifically), that older women, after divorce are just better off.

    Increase in mortality by an average of 30% would normally be declared an epidemic health hazard, on par with smoking and obesity.

    Another fascinating fact is that probably a fifth of adults in USA are (or were) on antidepressants. Other studies have shown that having a partner, or a friend, to whom you can talk to, drastically reduces depression risk.

    Finally, the ultimate statistical fact. In USA average life expectancy is 79.3 years (source: wiki). Costa Rica has life expectancy of 79.6 yrs, and Albania has 77.8, while Costa Rica spends one tenth of US healthcare spendings and Albania spends one thirtieth of US healthcare spendings?

    Perhaps there is something wrong with US? Also, it is so difficult not to be suspicious that many purely american phenomena are known to the number crunchers, yet are allowed to stay the way the are intentionally.

    1. Re:One additional symptom by rebelwarlock · · Score: 2

      "Someone disagrees with my point of view. That means they're in denial."

    2. Re:One additional symptom by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Well, he's referring to medical evidence that loneliness has been associated with a 30% raise in mortality, and posters in this thread are saying, "Yeah, but who benefits from this study" or "I feel great without friends." It's like saying, "Yeah, my grandfather smoked two packs a day and he lived to 100 so smoking is fine." A normal reaction to anecdotal evidence would be "that's bullshit."

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:One additional symptom by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Assume, as an example, that half the people are perfectly happy by themselves most of the time, and half really really need human contact. Then loneliness might still bring a 30% increase in mortality, all from one group, and over half the people who say they're happy and lonely are telling the truth. Statistics are very useful if you know what you're doing, and can be very misleading when you don't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A BMW is not enough, you also need to be charming, muscular and have a huge penis. But more money can always make up for your lacking qualities.

  21. I much prefer the have a go once by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 1

    Pensioners have a very good income these days. Regardless of how they may complain sometimes.

    The have a go ordinary elderly person: As hobbies adopts an elderly dog or cat from a rescue centre who tries to re-home dogs whose owners have died.
    If they have not got a garden they grow plants on the window ledge. They buy decent clothing and look smart. They learn to use the Internet and use it for shopping. Many elderly people by the time they get elderly do not actually like other human beings and do not get lonely and they love those quiet days with their animals and "no bloody people."

    Nasty young people turn into nasty old people. Just because somebody as an old face and body does not make them nice.
    The world owes me a living type: fat and suffer from diabetes, they have blood flow problems their legs of turn black they have gaping ulcers on the legs.Their home smells. They buy junk from television shopping channel's. So much junk that they cannot move around their home. They create a little path so they can get to the kitchen for food. They complain that nobody is looking after them. They complain that the people looking after them are not looking after them. They do not want to be bothered by the people looking after them. They get so fat and gross and surrounded by TV shopping channel junk that they can no longer move. They then get scared because they are dying. They telephone the emergency services for an ambulance,
    they have a high blood pressure and an enlarged heart. And they are miserable bastards who are going to die probably from the enlarged heart.
    They have incontinence pads stuck to them that need peeling away.

    I much prefer the have a go once.
    Ladies and gentlemen always try to be a have a go elderly person. Quality of life is better than quantity of life there are worse things than dying.
    And remember people live happier and longer life's when they have something to look after and that is why women live longer. Get a dog or some kind of animal feed the wildlife make the birds around you depend on you. Caring for others makes you live a healthier longer life. Carers keep their faculties longer a absolute fact.

    Merry Christmas Mr Scrooge.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    http://www.britmovie.co.uk/act...

  22. Escort services covered by health insurance now by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    The slashdot crowd should be rejoicing. "It's for health."

  23. Loneliness? No, lack of warning by spiritplumber · · Score: 2

    If you are alone and old, you keel over and die. If you are with someone and old, they can call 911.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  24. Re:Alone != Lonely by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    If one person around me is a dick, I think they are a dick. If everyone around me are dicks, I think that maybe it's me who is a dick.

  25. It's buyouts by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that keep screwing my bro over. He's worked for multiple companies with stable customer bases. Big ones. They keep getting bought out or buying out somebody and merging and then it's layoff city.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. If you can't figure it out by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    then it's probably not a slashvertisement. Social Isolationism is a problem nerds face most or all of their lives. In this case this really is News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Has society created a life worth living? by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are many aspects we can look at that created this mess, but one that seems to be overlooked here is the concept that people don't want to grow old anymore. Sadly, many find they can't afford to. Think the average Millennial is looking forward to retirement when they can barely afford to make ends meet? What's the point of growing old when you're going to be forced to blow your entire retirement nest egg on some major health issue that will inevitably crop up?

    The constant threat of liability leading to lawsuits forces most of us to waste our incomes on countless forms of insurance. The social media lifestyles of the narcissistic elite are held high on an entertainment pedestal, and I wonder how watching that shit doesn't ultimately feed depression. Life is hard these days because it isn't getting any cheaper, and that chasm between the 99% and the 1% sure as hell isn't getting smaller, so don't assume Greed who helped create this mess is going to suddenly find compassion.

    As if all that wasn't bad enough, here comes automation and AI to help shrink the human worth down to nothing.

    It's sickening. Literally.

    1. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

      No, maybe its our own choosing not to be "filthy rich". Maybe we're not greedy, would rather do something worthwhile than pushing money around not contributing to society. There are so few "filthy rich" people who give back to society. Most are just greedy takers who are just leeches on society. They've learned to manipulate the system. I would rather try to make the world a better place than have so much money that I'd have to worry about keeping it and keep up a shopping spree for things that I wouldn't even enjoy.

    2. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you fail to get filthily rich, it's your own failing. You're either lazy, or dumb, or doing something wrong.

      Stop blaming the society.

      Well, I'm just going to assume for a moment that I'm not talking to a billionaire, so I guess by your own definition you're also one of those humans who's lazy, dumb, and doing it wrong.

      Enjoy that hypocrisy of yours. I'm sure that along with a healthy dose of narcissism will magically make you "filthy rich" all by itself.

    3. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Has society created a life worth living?

      It used to, but then we killed religion, culture, nation and family. You can't have public religious displays anymore because it might offend "someone." So religion leaves public life and there goes a point of connection between people. Multiculturalism insists we can't force people to assimilate to our own culture when they come here (or just tell them to fuck off, we're full to begin with), so now our neighborhoods are pocketed with people who don't speak our language, share our traditions and quite often don't really give a shit about us anyway as they're just economic migrants here for the money. Maybe nice people, but not our people. Now "patriotism is racism" and the multinationals want open borders so they can more easily shuffle around low wage workers. Feminism, no-fault divorce and the family court system killed the desire of both young men and women to get married and start families.

      What are you with no family, nation, religion, race or culture? Just another economic unit on an accounting sheet. Insist instead that family, nation, religion, race and culture matter and the news media calls you a nazi, though. Good people don't care about anything except money.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Has society created a life worth living?

      It used to, but then we killed religion, culture, nation and family. You can't have public religious displays anymore because it might offend "someone." So religion leaves public life and there goes a point of connection between people. Multiculturalism insists we can't force people to assimilate to our own culture when they come here (or just tell them to fuck off, we're full to begin with), so now our neighborhoods are pocketed with people who don't speak our language, share our traditions and quite often don't really give a shit about us anyway as they're just economic migrants here for the money. Maybe nice people, but not our people. Now "patriotism is racism" and the multinationals want open borders so they can more easily shuffle around low wage workers. Feminism, no-fault divorce and the family court system killed the desire of both young men and women to get married and start families.

      What are you with no family, nation, religion, race or culture? Just another economic unit on an accounting sheet. Insist instead that family, nation, religion, race and culture matter and the news media calls you a nazi, though. Good people don't care about anything except money.

      Let's clarify one thing about the impact of religion.

      An individual practicing religion can and still does exist and can thrive quite well in the world today. You are free to practice within the confines of your family circle, and maintain identity and culture.

      Organized religion is the kind of shit that has caused humans to want to kill each other on battlefields for thousands of years. If overt political correctness can offer anything of benefit to mankind, short-circuiting the channels leading to bloodshed would be a damn good start.

      There is nothing wrong with maintaining a belief system grounded in peace. The problem was when man decided to organize that concept and abuse it as a method of Control over the masses, justifying warfare and abuse against fellow man.

      Ironically you mention how people are treated like Nazis for broadcasting their beliefs when it is that very action that created the "supreme race" mentality in the first place. It's also hard to forgo the irony regarding Patriotism when speaking about a country that was built with a slave race on land taken from the Natives. America may stand for better today, but our history sure as hell isn't shiny and spot free.

      And yes, I agree that we should enforce our immigration laws. Being the melting pot of the world tends to create a catch-22 situation very quickly.

    5. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The problem was when man decided to organize that concept and abuse it as a method of Control over the masses, justifying warfare and abuse against fellow man.

      The masses will be controlled one way or the other. They can be controlled in productive, healthy ways that reinforce good behavior and community bonds by religious teaching. Or they can be controlled by the messaging generated by multinational corporations and programmed into their brains by television and pop culture. Drink, fuck, spend, buy buy buy. Or they can be forced by the state. But "control" isn't going away any time soon.

      An end to religion will not bring any end to warfare. The US has been perpetually at war for 200 years and none of them have been holy crusades against the non-believers.

      Also, right now the expansionist, violent, oppressive religion that keeps growing in size is Islam. You're little tirades against "religion" are not going to have any impact on the muslims. Their system of life (or Control, as you say) is working pretty damn well. Move in, out breed, rape, terrorize, kill anybody who steps out of line. What are you going to do to push back against that? Secular humanism ain't shit against Allah.

      As for "abusing fellow man," again, without religion, culture, nation, race...something to create group bond, identity and loyalty, then you're just an economic unit, which is the most abusable thing there is.

      People's minds demand a religion. A force that rewards the just and punishes the wicked. You remove God and people don't become anarcho capitalists and abide by the Non-Aggression Principle. They replace religious morality with myths about racial/gender/sexual equality and God with the power of the state, the Code of Student Conduct and the Human Resources Department to punish those who speak heresy. There is no end to "abuse against fellow man" without religion. It just takes a different form, with different inane reasoning, and excoriates for different sins.

      It's also hard to forgo the irony regarding Patriotism when speaking about a country that was built with a slave race on land taken from the Natives.

      So what would you have done? You show up on the boat, see the natives, say "well shit, there's some fuckers in loin cloths on the beach, guess the place is full let's fuck off back to Europe?" Fuck off with your moralizing shit. Lots of people in early America were adamantly against slavery. About the only people who liked it were the Cavaliers. And nobody alive today in America ever owned a slave. People love their country and fuck you for trying to make them feel ashamed of it. Pretty sure you aren't perfect either.

      The end result of the hate your country, religion is bad, patriotism is bad, blah blah blah leftist bullshit is a dead culture, a slave race that will absolutely be supplanted by any other group that exhibits any sort of in-group preference. "We are Chinese, we like being Chinese, fuck the round-eyes this is our century." "We are Muslim, we like being Muslim, fuck the infidels, Europe will be ours."

      Keep shitting on any westerner who wants any sort of religious, national, or cultural bond with other westerners. That'll keep western civilization going. That's the "life worth living" your society has created.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The problem was when man decided to organize that concept and abuse it as a method of Control over the masses, justifying warfare and abuse against fellow man.

      An end to religion will not bring any end to warfare. The US has been perpetually at war for 200 years and none of them have been holy crusades against the non-believers.

      Also, right now the expansionist, violent, oppressive religion that keeps growing in size is Islam. You're little tirades against "religion" are not going to have any impact on the muslims. Their system of life (or Control, as you say) is working pretty damn well. Move in, out breed, rape, terrorize, kill anybody who steps out of line. What are you going to do to push back against that?

      What do you do against an oppressive organized religion? The same fucking thing we've been doing for thousands of years. Engage in warfare and look to defeat the "bad" belief systems with the "good" ones. Christianity is heralded as one of the "good" ones these days, but during the Crusades they would make current day Islam look like a fucking Disney movie.

      There's a reason Muslims and Islamic faith have not consumed the planet. There's a reason we're not all speaking German, descendant of the "supreme" race. Enough of your delusions about the last 200 years of bloodshed, for warfare is almost always directly or indirectly justified due to a difference in belief systems, and perpetuating the concept that "good" must prevail over "evil". You ask what are we going to do to push back? Well, the last time we had enough of this shit we killed tens of thousands of humans by dropping nukes on cites, and since we now have a renewed interest in pushing another nuclear arms race, it seems we're readying ourselves to repeat history, as plenty of Patriots are ready to turn Islam into a parking lot as a means to "push back".

    7. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You understand the crusades were a response to 400+ years of unanswered Islamic aggression and oppression, right?

      Regardless, nuclear arms are irrelevant when you're inviting the stronger ideological culture to live among you and outbreed you without challenge. Islam has much to offer that secular society does not. With Islam you get conquest, bloodlust, faith, paradise, rape, many wives and children. With secular society you get...isolation, self-loathing, nihilism, and general faggotry. The last government to issue a gay marriage license will die centuries before the last muslim to throw a homosexual from a rooftop.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Eh? My religion is doing fine, and we are popping out babies. I'm saying the secular society around us is crumbling because their shitty secular morality does a poor job of reproducing them and propagating itself into the future.

      I'm not blaming others for my failure. I'm not failing. I'm blaming others for their failure, and reading the tea leaves for their future, and I say it's not good.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You understand the crusades were a response to 400+ years of unanswered Islamic aggression and oppression, right?

      Regardless, nuclear arms are irrelevant when you're inviting the stronger ideological culture to live among you and outbreed you without challenge...

      Both China and India have been "outbreeding" the rest of the fucking planet for decades now, regardless of whether or not other countries extend an invitation. The last thing the entire planet needs is some kind of breeding race, resulting in doubling our world population, along with tripling the problems related to that action.

    10. Re:Has society created a life worth living? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Both China and India have been "outbreeding" the rest of the fucking planet for decades now, regardless of whether or not other countries extend an invitation.

      Did you notice the part where I said "live among you?" Does the nation of China or the nation of India "live among" Americans or Europeans? I'm talking about a population race within a nation, not between nations. 25% of French teenagers are muslim. They breed younger, more quickly, and more numerously than the native French. How long will France last?

      Germany's got over a million new muslim inhabitants. Native German birthrate is in the toilet. Muslim birthrate much higher. Do you think all of those 2nd and 3rd generation muslims are going to become culturally German? Drink beer at Oktoberfest, nom down on pork mit zwiebeln? Of course not.

      As soon as they have numbers that make them believe they've got a chance, jihad by immigration becomes jihad by the sword. Just look at Lebanon.

      Unless Europe wakes up, the future belongs to Islam. Personally, I always wanted the future to be like Star Trek, but I don't think Muslims build spaceships.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  28. Re:The Joneses by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    The problem is, we now see 'The Kardashians' and the 'Real Housewives 'as the people we should keep up with

    If you see the Kardashians, that is the problem, right there. No wonder you are deranged if you watch that stuff.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  29. Re:Alone != Lonely by Patchw0rk+F0g · · Score: 1

    All right, someone mod this up, please! Just right. Although, most people do suck... lol.

    --
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. ~~ Hunter S. Thompson
  30. 7 Billion people, and we're still lonely. by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Yep, ya know why? Because no one gives a shit.

    The day when you start caring, is the day when it actually matters. I did - but no one else did.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  31. Bepis by Quzak · · Score: 1

    You mean bepis

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  32. Re:Because by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "Your FICO score shows how you succeed and fail in life, pure and simple."

    Obligatory Black Mirrror: "Nosedive"

  33. Re:Because by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Refusal and/or inability to trust will ensure you remain lonely even when you're in a relationship. It's also somewhat of a fallacy to assume every woman, or even the majority of women, are like your ex-wife. This assumes your description of why she left you is accurate. If the truth is closer to "I lost my job then sat on my ass for six months and played video games" then it may be entirely reasonable to suspect most women are like your ex-wife.

  34. Article on isolation ... behind a paywall ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... you can see the irony in that, right?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  35. Science marches on. Us...not so much by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    "One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent...."

    If all this is true, we Slashdotters are an endangered species. And I'd have to say the proportion who stroke is a lot closer to 100% than 32%.

    And if that seven year mortality stat is right, it might be wise to dump any shares you have in Kleenex and Vaseline before the inevitable crash.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  36. Re:Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    From what you mentioned, it can be argued that financial stability is the most important of all. Your FICO score shows how you succeed and fail in life, pure and simple. Same with the car you drive. Not a BMW or Lexus? There will be tons of excuses but no real actual reason.

    Focus on finances, everything else follows. Flash a BMW keyfob, there is your next wife is right there. Want a stable relationship, keep your finances good, because most breakups are over money.

    Thanks for that advice. I was unaware that money is the reason for most breakups: thought that it was only my ex who was a cunt. My finances were fine until the meltdown of 2008.

    However, I don't splurge on status symbols, nor on pricey vacations. Even if I had a 7 figure income, I wouldn't touch a BMW or Lexus. Previously, I had a Sebring, then 2 Saturns - a coup followed by a stationwagon after we had our kid, and now, I have a Subaru Crosstrek. While the other cars had a high maintenance, this one has been very good to me. Only complaint about it is its being underpowered

    But yeah, looks like I should avoid wife-shopping until I wipe out my debt and get my finances in order

  37. Re: Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Penis is not the plural of penny

  38. Because isolation is fun by iamacat · · Score: 2

    Let's forget about individuals who are too physically or mentally ill to socialize for a moment. These elderly single have been married for many decades and know their years are numbered in any case. Would all of them be THAT eager to give up independence and restrict their habits to accommodate a new person they just met? Even if it means sticking around for a few years longer?

    Let's not glamorize traditional hypersocial society either. It's not fun having people ring your doorbell without warning or never ending stream of social commitment that leaves little time for personal interests. Failure to adequately separate self from family and neighbors makes it difficult to succeed in ways not traditional for these groups or resist bad influences. How many join gangs because all cousins are in gangs?

    We mostly live the way we do by choice. A lot will feel lonely on holidays, but would be miserable if made to experience all consequences of lifestyle of their coworkers who are having a big home gathering.

  39. Re: Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I gave my wife full leeway on what she wanted to do. She wanted to work, and even after we had our kid, she started looking for jobs. My parents in law came to help w/ taking care of the kid while we were at work. That part was not an issue.

    Also, what you say about homes is not applicable in the Bay Area, which is where I lived. We did buy a home in 2007 for $750k in the Cupertino school district (school district being the criteria), and had to sell months later after I lost my job. I absolutely had to rent, and the only reason I bought was the Mrs insisting, even though I suspected that the market would crash sooner or later. We were lucky to sell it marginally higher.

    I married when I was 29, my wife was 28, I had my kid 2 years later and got divorced 3 years ago. Now I'm in my late 40s. I just don't feel right about going for anyone b/w 21 and 26. So I guess I should pretty much drop the idea of any more kids, and only marry someone who doesn't want them either

  40. Re:Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    It's more like "I lost my job and kept looking for months but couldn't find another that would pay anywhere remotely close to what I used to make". I'm assuming most women would be like her even in that situation. It's not like I wanted to become a homemaker: just that the industry tanked. Looking at the LinkedIn of some colleagues months later, most had left for completely different walks of life.

  41. We're not talking about individuals by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we're talking about the economy as a whole, and the entire point of the GP's post was that inflation is good because the bulk of people are in debt up to their ears and it helps them get out of debt.

    I don't know a nice way to say this: You're just spouting more bootstrappy nonsense to evade the argument. You're building the classic right wing straw man of personal responsibility that ignores market realities. Everything is always the individuals fault. Eventually it boils down to what I like to call Crowley Conservationism: Do what though wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law. Basically the worst elements of Satanism. All the lack of morality and none of the freedom. This isn't hyperbole. What else would you call the massive, systemic abuse of fellow humans that results the from this political ideology?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  42. Re: Because by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Half the problem is that many, many American/Western women make terrible partners. They're self-centered, self-absorbed perpetually unhappy, and will dump you in a heartbeat for something "better". They're not your partner, they're your competitor. It's very very hard to have a real relationship with most American/Western women. And I speak from 50+ years of combined dating and marriage experience.

    If anything and I mean anything goes wrong, it's going to be your fault because your job sole job in life (in her mind) is to make her "happy" and "satisfied", whatever that means. If you don't make her happy all the time, that's gonna be a problem- your problem, not hers.

    If you can't read her mind and know/predict exactly what she wants, you're screwed. ("You don't understand me!")
    If you can't fulfill her every whim, you're screwed.
    If one day she wakes up and decides you're not her "soulmate" anymore, you're screwed.
    If you suggest to her what to do, you're domineering and controlling, but if you let her do whatever she wants, you're a wimp.
    No matter how well off you are, remember that that will be her baseline in terms of expectations during your marriage. Drop below that for any reason and you're in trouble. Not her, YOU.
    You don't like her friends? Tough shit, deal with it. She doesn't like your friends? Get rid of them.

    From my experience you're far better off looking abroad for a wife and partner. Ask me how I know. :)

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  43. Re:Because by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    It's more like "I lost my job and kept looking for months but couldn't find another that would pay anywhere remotely close to what I used to make".

    Did you consider (and/or did she suggest) taking one that paid (potentially significantly) less than your previous one? Or relocating to a more amenable labor market? May not have made a difference; but, then again, it might have.

    I'm assuming most women would be like her even in that situation.

    Maybe a non-insignificant portion of women are that shallow, but I wouldn't view it as the norm.

  44. Re:Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, what did it was me moving to another market and finding a job, but not one that paid anything like before. She did suggest that I move, and ended the marriage when I couldn't find anything that would help me move back. Anyway, I'm done trusting women on this, and as it is, the best part of my life is behind me, so I have nothing to gain (or give) by remarrying

  45. Re: Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    My wife wasn't American/Western. What you describe goes well beyond them. Other than that, you're pretty much accurate in your description above.

  46. Re:Well, fuck. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    From the news, looks like she won't be there any sooner than you will

  47. Inflation is only low for the upper class by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The cost of food, rent, health care and education are going up at a much higher rate (I'm seeing about 5% in my neck of the woods, down from around 7% because food is gone down).

    Now, if you mix electronics and light consumer goods into that it drops. Even more if you include luxury & higher end goods into that the picture gets much rosier. But I don't buy a lot of that stuff.

    And that's the trouble. Inflation impacts the lower class much more, but we lump it all into one big number.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Inflation is only low for the upper class by knorthern+knight · · Score: 2

      Agreed, the cost of food, shelter, clothing, and transportation is going up like crazy, while electronics go down.

      * Summer of 2007, I bought a 50 inch TV (1366x768 resolution) for $3500 Canadian. Today, 48-to-50 inch TVs (1920x1080 resolution) can be had for $350. That's a 90% drop in price.

      * Stuff you really need, like food, shelter, clothing, and transportation has been constatnly increasing. I remember my first car, a new 1974 Ford Maverick 4-door. It cost $4,070 including taxes. Nowadays a compact 4-seater is at least $20,000

      http://transit.toronto.on.ca/s...

      TTC Fare Structure, July 1, 1954:
      > Adult day fares: 15cents cash; 5 tickets for 50cents 20 tickets for $2.
      > Children: 5cents cash; 6 tickets for 25cents
      > Scholars: 10 tickets for 55cents

      http://ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes...

      As of January, the fare structure will be
      > Adult (cash) $3.5
      > Adult (token or Presto-card) $3.00
      > "S" fare (Senior or Student) (cash) $2.10
      > "S" fare (Senior or Student) (ticket or Presto-card) $2.05

      Food, clothing, and housing (own or rent) have also skyrocketed. See http://www.thepeoplehistory.co... for some scarey numbers. To summarize... the current "2%" number is an an outright lie. The real number is a lot worse for people in the working class.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    2. Re:Inflation is only low for the upper class by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Wild generalization: The retail price of a new car hovers around one year's worth of wages for the target consumer of that model car. So basic entry-level cars sell for about a year's worth of minimum wage, whatever that may be.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  48. Re:Marry well... by PPH · · Score: 1

    Proverbs 21:19

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  49. I Need Companionship by PPH · · Score: 2

    But the law won't let me rent it by the hour.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  50. Re: Because by tigersha · · Score: 1

    So, how is life on the other side? Tell us! Is Elvis there? Was there a light when you crossed?? We want to know!

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  51. Re: Because by tigersha · · Score: 1

    God where do you get your women from?? I have been together with mine for 20 years, she has a (very) good job, both of us take care of the kids and all is happy and well. They are not all like that

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  52. Re: Because by tigersha · · Score: 1

    You think life stinks. Its ok, get up and get out of the room and it will be better again

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  53. Amen, brother, amen. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.

    Amen, brother, amen.

    Facebook is not a social network. Facebook is a global mental illness.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  54. Public masturbation of 1673220 by shanen · · Score: 1

    ZZ

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  55. Re: Because by maitas · · Score: 1

    Although I like the old joke "there is no single report in human history of a woman falling in love of a handsome and sensible men reading poetry in the unemployment line", the truth is that woman (and men) vary a lot.
    From my own experience afet a several years long lousy relationship, I met another women that is lovely and kind and we've been together since 2001. And that was before Tinder time....

    The point here is that you really need to keep trying. It does get better.

  56. Re: Because by Nephandus · · Score: 1

    > But that was before Tinder time...and I won a sequence of lotteries, so ignore my outlier. Fixed.

    --
    "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
  57. Re: Because by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    God where do you get your women from?? I have been together with mine for 20 years, she has a (very) good job, both of us take care of the kids and all is happy and well. They are not all like that

    I said they're not all like that, or do my statements "many, many American/Western women" and "most American/Western women" sound like "all American/Western women" to you?

    Yours is the exception that proves the rule. Look at the divorce rate and tell me I'm wrong.

    In any case, I'm glad you found someone good and I hope you have another 20 years of happiness.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  58. You are such a perv! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's why I find you so attractive :-)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  59. Re:Because by abmw · · Score: 1

    ".... thought that it was only my ex who was a cunt." Well, brother, you were OBVIOUSLY blameless in that relationship.

  60. Re:Because by abmw · · Score: 1

    Search youtube, "Three Stooges, women haters anonymous".

  61. Re: Because by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    G maybe your wife needs more penises.

    You need to look the other way. Or find a new wife.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  62. Re:Because by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Good point, but I didn't think of her that way when we were married: only after she dumped me.

  63. Public masturbation of 1673220 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^3

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  64. That's your thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    You like to talk about it on Slashdot, but this isn't the place. So perverted you are

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  65. Area specific by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    Most of the people posting here seem to be on the West or East Coasts.

    In the upper Midwest, and rural Texas (areas where I spend most of my time) you'd be hard pressed to find anybody wringing their hands over the issues being discussed here. Perhaps the whole mindset where society is flawed and must be transformed, the endless indignation fanned by the over the top political rhetoric, and the "America Sucks" environment is to blame? Or the "Your worth is measured by the car you drive, the house you live in, and how how the wifey is" mindset? This shallow god less existence is why I left California so many years ago.

    Most folks around these parts don't believe we're all doomed, that you don't have to be a millionaire to be happy, and that anyone can be successful with the proper attitude and hard work. The only folks truly unhappy around here are the drug addicts and the drunks.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  66. Public masturbation of 1673220 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^4

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  67. Thank you for the revelations by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    :-)

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  68. Public masturbation of 1673220 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^5

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  69. Public frustrations of 462549 by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Why do you hate your mother?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  70. Re: Because by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Divorce rates are falling, actually, so it would seem that more people are happy in their marriages.

    I don't personally know any woman like the ones you describe. I don't know where you meet women, but you really really need to look elsewhere.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  71. Public masturbation of 1673220 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^6

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  72. Re: Because by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Divorce rates are falling, actually, so it would seem that more people are happy in their marriages.

    There could be quite a few reasons for this besides the notion that "more people are happy in their marriages".

    -

    I don't personally know any woman like the ones you describe.

    Then you must not know any women. Seriously, you must not know a single one.

    -

    I don't know where you meet women, but you really really need to look elsewhere.

    Thanks for the advice but I already found mine. We're going on 10 years together and 8+ years happily married. :)

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  73. Re: Because by maitas · · Score: 1

    Hi. Sorry. English is not my primary language. Can you please explain ?

  74. Re: Because by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    You're the one who brought up divorce rates, which are falling. I'm not sure what you meant.

    I know a reasonable number of women well, and have been married to two. The first was the biggest mistake of my life, and didn't conform to your description. The second I've been married to for 35 years now, and really doesn't.

    However, congratulations on your successful marriage.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  75. Re: Because by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    I know a reasonable number of women well, and have been married to two. The first was the biggest mistake of my life, and didn't conform to your description.

    Same here. The unfortunate reality is that there are many ways for a marriage to fail.

    Regardless, I believe that what I said initially is accurate, and judging by the moderation (4, Insightful) apparently many men here feel the same way.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  76. Re: Because by Nephandus · · Score: 1

    Tinder's counterproductive to intimate relationships since it exists specifically for hookup culture. Most males are regarded as less than average attractiveness relative to pretty boys that actually stick out in the minds of most women (ignoring a male's resources or social statuses), so the entire swiping-faces format's worthless for your average guy looking for a serious relationship. Mutual attraction's unlikely. Considering the vastly different values and preferences of most women, actual compatibility's practically impossible for most tech-geeks (as opposed to fake geek chic hipsters, not that they're all pretty either or capable of sufficient substance for serious intimacy).

    The "Fixed." in my last post was supposed to be on its own line since the rest of my post was supposed to be a rewrite of part of your post, but I forgot I had to insert manual line brakes...

    --
    "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."