How I got here

If locking large numbers of people up for inordinately long times prevented crime, the United States would be the safest place in the world. We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population. We are one of a dwindling number of countries that will lock up a child for life (there was a SCOTUS case baring automatic life sentences for minors, but it leaves a loophole wide enough for a semi to allow judges to still impose life without parole to children). We've doubled down on it again and again. Looking at the results, this approach obviously doesn't work.

Given our status as a massive outlier, could it be that our current system of mass incarceration is a driver of crime? I see signs that point to yes. Many people I have talked to have said the main thing being locked up taught them was how to be a better criminal. Prisons break families. Children grow up without parents. At one of the conferences for the heads of the Departments of Corrections for US states, a question was asked of all 50 heads: are prisons effective at making society safer? About 8 said yes. About 7 said they were unsure. The remaining 35 said no.

We've tried highly punitive mass incarceration for decades and it's failing horribly. I'm not smart enough to know the correct answer, but I can say that it seems obvious that the answer is not to lock more people up for longer.

> That's pretty harsh. Children turn into adults,

No, it's not. It's reality. And you only think it's harsh because you are ignorant. And that ignorance will not prepare you for reality.

> But this idea that you should be responsible for another adult for the rest of their life just because you created them...? That's silly.

No, it's reality. And if you think otherwise, you are not ready to be a parent. Or you'll have a rude awakening when it turns out you are wrong.

Maybe you get lucky and they are able to support themselves, but if you think you raising them to 18 means you are done, it just means you are ignorant.

> Children turn into adults,

No, they don't and that's your ignorance.

Not all children grow up to be adults mentally. Not all children grow up. There are numerous conditions that mean you are responsible for them for the rest of their life, ensuring they get the care they need.

And trying to wave that off as the exception, it just means that you are ignorant. You should go into being a parent understanding that this might happen.

I see way too many parents throwing their kids into the water and letting them sink or swim. Sorry, but if they drown, it's on you as the parent. You failed them. You are the failure.

And that's child abuse, and people that think like that are worthless.

Do better.

For me that was an example of lazy cop who don't want to do extra paperwork.

It saved one life, but that person could later return to selling drugs and contribute to thousands OD's and many deaths.

Ya but...I feel like justice can often be had for the price of a stern finger-wagging and understanding that even if you're not booked into the system, you're in the system now and its best you clean up shop and get outta town figuratively speaking ;)

It is a good point that the final sentence could be taken negatively.

I wasn't trying to determine why any individual might choose such a path. I was thinking about the population of programmers and considering that the stereotypical traits associated with that population do seem to align with a set of traits that are conducive to hermit-like or even brotherhood-like lifestyles. I did choose negative-sounding stereotypical traits to highlight that fact (although introversion isn't necessarily negative).

I would even argue that my own experience is that the population of programmers on average tend towards self-reliance type mindsets (e.g. Henry David Thoreau) a little bit more than socially active mindsets. However, I personally know a few individuals who are social activist types and also programmers.

Even when you consider "brotherhoods" you can think of multiple reasons why someone might want to join up. Perhaps the person desires a community of like-minded activists. In fact, that is how many brotherhoods would grow after their establishment. Combating the "incursion" of these community building types in some traditions appears to be a feature (e.g. vows of silence). I remember watching a documentary on splits in these communities for this very reason. Some hermits felt that structured communities with explicit charters went against everything they were trying to do (usually some kind of mystic communion with God or similar). So you can imagine a bifurcation of such a community into those who wanted to be socially active communities and those who wanted just enough collaboration with others to allow them as much individual freedom as possible.

I don't believe that one of those groups was "positive" and the other "negative". But I do think it is worthwhile recognizing the difference in mindsets. You said "ideally also have others enmeshed in their questing too" - however, that is not a universal ideal. Be careful you aren't forcing yourself into spaces where that isn't the goal.