This newsletter is free, just click “no thanks” at the popup if you don’t want to subscribe.
Oh, he nailed it. Surrogate connection, that’s what we’re getting. And since it’s clearly distinct from the real thing in several ways, it’s only logical that it would be a poor substitute for irl connections. Where you can actually hug someone.
I know this isn’t a novel idea, but the wire-mother analogy is a particularly effective way to communicate it, and this is the first I’m seeing it.
edit: To further add, we should probably remember that not everyone gets the same opportunities for healthy, irl connections, due to circumstances outside their control. Particularly when you’re still a minor.
In these cases where the choice is between surrogate connections (say, an AI companion) and none at all (near-total social ostracisation) then the less-than-ideal becomes a little preferable to the shittiest of possibilities.
Absolutely. The essay does actually address that towards the end:
There’s no shame in turning to the internet for supplementing socialization when doing it “better” isn’t feasible. It’s easy to imagine situations where someone might not have access to a community that keeps them sane. A gay teenager stuck in rural Alabama. A woman born into a controlled religious society. A New York sports fan in Boston. Some days in life, the best we can hope for is making it until tomorrow in one piece.
Having been the gay teenager in a rural southern town, I can absolutely affirm that being able to connect with other gay guys online was massively helpful to me.
At the same time, now that I’m in a much better place, I can also affirm how much worse it is than actual real-life connection with a real community, and I do think that that’s something that’s quite a lot harder to access nowadays since so much social activity has shifted online.
A gay teenager stuck in rural Alabama. A woman born into a controlled religious society. A New York sports fan in Boston.
One of these things is not like the other, unless Boston is killing New York fans regularly. (Which wouldn’t surprise me. My sister’s a Red Sox fan.)
Quite true. I interpreted that as an intentional introduction of a slight amount of levity, because the topic was so dark and saddening. As usual with humor, it was not intended to be taken in earnest. I do not believe the author thinks sports rivalries are as egregious as the other two.
I personally wouldn’t judge any Yankees fan living in Boston who chooses to remain closeted about their allegiances and only discusses sports online.
This is true. Even amongst humans, there’s a concept called “surrogate partners”, who work with sex therapists who help patients deal with barriers in intimate relationships.
deleted by creator
With some families, and areas, this may be better
It already has
many of our relationships are not with people anymore, but with technology
deleted by creator
Here’s a shorthand way to think about healthful technology use.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/healthy-or-healthful
Is it ‘Healthy’ or ‘Healthful’? You don’t win friends with arbitrary usage rules from the 1880s
Do you like healthy food? Or do you think green vegetables only qualify as “healthful”? Those in the latter camp believe that healthful means “good for your health” (which is true), and that healthy means “having or showing good health” (which is also true), and that one word can never be used for the other. . .which, well, isn’t true.
These vegetables are healthful. They are also healthy. Both words are correct.
Let’s look at the histories of these two words. Healthful is older. It dates to the late 14th century, when it was used exclusively to mean “conducive to health” or “good for you.” Within about 150 years, though, healthful was also being used to mean “having or showing good health.”
Around the same time this alternate meaning of healthful developed—in the mid-1500s—the word healthy came on the scene—and it was used with both meanings that healthful had.
Since then it’s all been pretty much downhill for healthful. The word is now only rarely used as a synonym for “well,” and it’s not very frequently used to mean “good for you” either. Yep, since its introduction more than 450 years ago, healthy has been the more common word for both meanings.
For a long time it seems no one cared about which word people used. The distinction between healthful and healthy was first prescribed as a rule in the 1880s. The rule, though, never had much of an impact on actual usage. In American English, healthy is far more common than healthful, and in British English healthful is downright rare. You can of course observe the distinction if you want to, and call vegetables healthful and your well friends healthy. You’ll be correct if you do, and in the minority. You can also ignore the distinction and say that both vegetables and well people are healthy. You’ll also be correct, and in the majority. It’s up to you.
Why do you say this?
