Individualism is definitely part of the problem that contributes to loneliness. We've been bombarded with propaganda since we were children about the virtues of independence and self-reliance. Living on your own and not needing other people has been romanticized. But humans are so much happier around people, so that culture definitely needs to change.
I hope to make proximity mean something again. I don't think people need to be bound by anything to get along. Everyone has had a wealth of life experiences they can share. But their is something undeniably special about being able to walk around the neighborhood and come across people you're friends with. Or walk into a local pub on a whim and find a group of friends already there.
That doesn't really mean much. It's not that they do or don't get along, it's that no challenge presents itself to define if they get along or not. The ability to get along is defined by surviving that challenge.
>I don't think people need to be bound by anything to get along.
Then why does hardship or shared experience make more closely bound couples?
> Everyone has had a wealth of life experiences they can share.
But only a few of those are actually interesting. When you go down to a club, even though there are a lot of people there, statistically you'll only talk to a few. Technology, in it's ability to erase communication distance, brings you closer to many more interesting people even though you don't see them.
Then there is also the cult of individualistic freedom, which almost by definition means less interest in others.
You have a great website there. I wonder, however, if proximity means anything nowadays. A long time ago, it used to be that neighbors were relatives, or part of the same tight knit cultural community. Nowadays people have scattered randomly, and almost the only common denominator between neighbors is their income bracket. I would like to see a startup going the opposite way , i.e. helping people who 'fit in' with each other to become real life neighbors.