As traditional sources of belonging fade, young people are left navigating a world of unprecedented digital connection—and profound ‘real world’ isolation.
My thoughts are that you too blithely dismiss religion as "superstition." If that's truly all it is, I fail to see how it could ever have supplied the sense of meaning, purpose, etc. you attribute to it.
I wonder about this as well. I think it’s sensible and compassionate not to insist on religion- but to assume it is “ just superstition” makes it sound meaningless. Primatologist Frans de Waal has a great book called The Atheist and the Bonobo- it’s about many things, among them he makes a great case for the value and meaning of religion despite being an atheist. That shows a beautifully curious and open mind.
"X is the third leading cause of A" is always suspect statistics. That sort of phrasing should always be avoided and meaningful statistical measures should be preferred. Joel Best probably covers this in his book "Damned Lies and Statistics", or maybe the sequel, according to my web search.
Divorce is nothing new, and I would contend its impact was much greater on Generation X than those coming up today. Back then it was considered both unusual and a major source of stigma for the children. But I digress. Social media writ large is probably the biggest contributor to the issues the author identifies. It creates and reinforces silos in a way that's also very, very portable. Don't like your religion? You could move. Social media follows people everywhere and was designed to be addictive. I also think it's dangerous to ignore the more transient nature of community these days when you leave what's left of the working class. Wealthy families move more frequently, or maintain multiple homes, so their children don't establish roots in what used to be the traditional sense. You also saw this in military families, but there the community of military dependents in some ways formed a substitute (dependents were always outsiders, and often bullied because of their parents' occupation or the simple fact they were Americans overseas). Others don't have that.
We really do have a crisis in meaning so I appreciate the intent of the article. But, I take issue with some points and underlying assumptions. Just for the record, I'm not a particularly religious person. First, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Not everything that is true can necessarily be proven scientifically (see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems). Also, I don't think substituting a weekly meetup at a bar to support your (exclusive) team is a substitute for a deep belief in religion.
It has created a mental health crisis for all ages. Whether one is 18 or 80 like me, the loss of community makes life more of a struggle
I agree.
My thoughts are that you too blithely dismiss religion as "superstition." If that's truly all it is, I fail to see how it could ever have supplied the sense of meaning, purpose, etc. you attribute to it.
I wonder about this as well. I think it’s sensible and compassionate not to insist on religion- but to assume it is “ just superstition” makes it sound meaningless. Primatologist Frans de Waal has a great book called The Atheist and the Bonobo- it’s about many things, among them he makes a great case for the value and meaning of religion despite being an atheist. That shows a beautifully curious and open mind.
I wrote a little about the rituals that stayed with me from Bali, and how caring for the earth might bring us closer to each other. 🌿
https://thekindperspective.substack.com/p/closer-to-the-earth-closer-to-each?r=5gwejr&utm_medium=ios
"X is the third leading cause of A" is always suspect statistics. That sort of phrasing should always be avoided and meaningful statistical measures should be preferred. Joel Best probably covers this in his book "Damned Lies and Statistics", or maybe the sequel, according to my web search.
Divorce is nothing new, and I would contend its impact was much greater on Generation X than those coming up today. Back then it was considered both unusual and a major source of stigma for the children. But I digress. Social media writ large is probably the biggest contributor to the issues the author identifies. It creates and reinforces silos in a way that's also very, very portable. Don't like your religion? You could move. Social media follows people everywhere and was designed to be addictive. I also think it's dangerous to ignore the more transient nature of community these days when you leave what's left of the working class. Wealthy families move more frequently, or maintain multiple homes, so their children don't establish roots in what used to be the traditional sense. You also saw this in military families, but there the community of military dependents in some ways formed a substitute (dependents were always outsiders, and often bullied because of their parents' occupation or the simple fact they were Americans overseas). Others don't have that.
We really do have a crisis in meaning so I appreciate the intent of the article. But, I take issue with some points and underlying assumptions. Just for the record, I'm not a particularly religious person. First, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Not everything that is true can necessarily be proven scientifically (see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems). Also, I don't think substituting a weekly meetup at a bar to support your (exclusive) team is a substitute for a deep belief in religion.