Who Americans spend their time with, by age • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#141

Post by throwaway98797 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

yakubin wrote: post #113

typhon04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, what do you do in that time? Isn't it providing some service or building a product for people... and a greater purpose? I doubt you are a hermit doing as little social interactions just to get by and only consuming without producing anything. If so... what is the meaning of it all?

> and a greater purpose? This part is presumptuous. "Greater" for whom? > If so... what is the meaning of it all? And what is the meaning of it all in the alternative? It's up to you. Maybe you don't need one. Maybe this question is meaningless.

With you there.

All will be forgotten. It is freeing to know that.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#142

Post by ericd » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

silveroriole wrote: post #30

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #11

I don't even want kids. I don't know why the 'time spent with one's children' line hurts so much, but it does. It sharply rises, before plummeting at age 40. That's got to be a jarring transition. No wonder so many folks have trouble with the 'empty nest' and mid-life crisis.

Makes me feel better in a way. By age 60 it won’t matter much whether I had kids or not. Time spent with them per day equals, like, one TV episode. So I’m happy to see that my partner and my self will continue to be more important by that metric.

I'm guessing that's the average over all people, including those who spend 0 time with their kids, because they don't have any.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#143

Post by sli » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #115

wbl wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Places can change. There's nothing stopping suburbia from becoming more walkable and friendly to the elderly other than choices we made.

Places CAN change, but there is a lot stopping suburbia from becoming more walkable. In the case of American suburbs, places will need to change by basically tearing everything down and rebuilding differently, either a piece at a time or all at once.

We can't mix together residential and commercial properties in the US (anymore) due to zoning laws, so walkable cities are effectively on life support and are only going to get more and more rare as time goes on. Each time a mixed-use building is demolished, another piece of a walkable city dies that likely won't ever come back. Suburbs and unaffordable metropolises are poised to kill off the ability to live without a car.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#144

Post by urban_strike » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #102

dcolkitt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and disagree. I'm certainly not arguing that industrialization isn't miraculous. Even from a parenting perspective, I think most would rather raise their kids in a stressful nuclear family than watch half of them die from preventable diseases. If you read about the anthropology of childrearing it's filled with endless heartbreaking accounts of parents having to make choices about letting one kid die to focus…

However, we have not been hunter gatherers for thousands of years. And we also live healthier and longer lives then they did.

Longer on average, yes, but I highly doubt healthier. I think we'd be in awe of the average health/fitness of a 30 year old hunter gatherer from 100,000 years ago, compared with the average corresponding human in modern times.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#145

Post by _qulr » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #139

_qulr wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has literally determined every aspect of our being. You can't move forward without understanding what got you where you are. So has physics. Why stop at hunter-gatherers, why not go back to the Big Bang? Would you argue that we need to study astrophysics to deal with obesity? It's not absurd at all to suggest that evolution is a red herring, any more than it's absurd to suggest that astrophysics is a red herring…

Biologists actually do have to study physics (including the most advanced and theoretical physics) to understand metabolic processes, and their discoveries directly inform medicine, psychology, and other downstream fields like sociology. So that's not as clever of an argument as you seem to think. No one is saying that we should live exactly like our ancestors.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#146

Post by Swizec » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

burade wrote: post #130

Swizec wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom always said ”Move far away enough that your parents can’t visit in their slippers, trust me you don’t want that kinda meddling” I moved to USA. “Damn it I didn’t mean that far” ~ mom My sister lives with her boyfriend in his mom’s house. There is indeed a ridiculous amount of meddling even though they’re technically separate households.

It's only meddling if you're way too stressed out by trying to keep up with capitalism. If you live a simple life without too much stress then it's not really meddling.

No it’s definitely meddling when you’re 30+ and your mom waltzes into your kitchen and says “Mmmmm are you sure that knife goes in that drawer? And when’s the last time you did the dishes anyway look at this mess”

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#147

Post by debaserab2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

abduhl wrote: post #76

kenjackson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that poor? During the pandemic my son has stayed in touch with his friends on the phone in these big group chats and smaller chats as well. I’m amazed at how natural it has become for them. They talk, gossip, play games (Roblox, Fortnite, nba 2k), and even watch YouTube and TikTok together. I think the model they created will persist into post Covid, with the addition of physical connection.

It is a poor substitution. Online groups nowadays are inherently exclusive and degenerative: they very rarely grow to include new individuals who were not in from the start and often will shrink over time as people feel slighted by something or another and disengage. There is no opportunity for growth. Social groups get crystallized and social growth stunted.

That's not my experience at all. My online social circle has grown substantially over the pandemic and there's several people I was only acquaintances with previously that I've grown to know much better.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#148

Post by bnralt » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #31

dcolkitt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Western nuclear family is a very unnatural social arrangement. Anthropologists have found that in most hunter-gatherers, the average infant is held at one point or another by 30+ people in a typical day. The nuclear family has the twin downsides of putting tons of stress on parents of young kids, who shoulder the entire childcare burden, and deprives a lot of grandparents, aunts, cousins, and others of meaningful…

I'm not defending the nuclear family, but I don't think our primitive past says anything about what's "optimal". For example, human life expectancy is much longer now. I'd much rather be a modern person with modern technology and medicine than a hunter-gatherer. Evolution != good. It's just history, and history is often ugly.

I've seen a decent amount of evidence suggesting that hunter-gatherer societies are generally quite a bit happier than members of modern society (here's an example of an article discussing this[1]). I think we often make the assumption that more is better, but it's quite possible that in our search for more we're putting ourselves in situations that run counter to our biological nature. Animals in captivity have many advantages over their wild brethren (they don't have to worry about food, about being eaten, they have access to advanced medicine, etc.), but I don't think we can say that they're clearly better off or happier.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/01/5510187...

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#149

Post by mcguire » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #78

yodsanklai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a trip to Hong Kong. I was very surprised to see a lot of old folks hanging out together, in the park, or traditional restaurants. Actually, even in NYC, there were always a lot of elderlies spending time in the Deli near my home. Maybe the secret is to retire in a place where one can maintain a good social life at an advanced age.

This is very true. Unfortunately such places are almost all very expensive these days. So if you’re not already into late retirement age (and you moved there 40 years ago when it was affordable), then it’s not economically feasible for most people to get in now.

Visit any rural diner between 8:00 and 9:00 (or urban diner between 9:00 and 11:00) when it's otherwise quiet. I'll bet you will find a cluster or two of elderly people swapping lies.

Indoor malls used to be similar gathering places for people who wanted to walk without being in the weather.

Basically, look anywhere the 20- or 30-somethings aren't.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#150

Post by yboris » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #11

I don't even want kids. I don't know why the 'time spent with one's children' line hurts so much, but it does. It sharply rises, before plummeting at age 40. That's got to be a jarring transition. No wonder so many folks have trouble with the 'empty nest' and mid-life crisis.

You don't have to have kids. I'm 35 years old; my wife and I (10 years together now) revisit this question yearly - neither of us want kids or wanted kids in these years. We're most likely never going to have kids (by choice).

The way I see it, bringing a sentient being into this mad world needs to have a good personal reason, it shouldn't be the default that you need to find a reasons against.