Perhaps. But what are the long-term ramifications of continuing down this track? Does a society of individuals with low cohesion survive in the long run? What motivations to pull together and overcome any adversity that might come along exists? Is it worth it for a few generations of improved individual freedom, if that society doesn't hold together longer than that due to a lack of cohesion?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.

You raise a valid point. Societal cohesion is a real concern now.

As you note, individual freedom increased and number of individuals increased, but those increases also mean risk to the system since freedom means people being able to do things that are not always perceived well by society at large ( since they may be at odds with individual goals ). Some actions of individuals could be damaging to the society. If too many individuals take a path that is damaging, it becomes an actual threat to the system as a whole.

In other words, we either find a point that allows for society in general and individuals in particular to coalesce around ( in the past, American propaganda made you believe that as long you believed in some set of values, you were already -- mentally-- an American ) or attempt impose arbitrary way to create cohesion ( example: ensure National Anthem is played before each football game ).

I am not suggesting we take either of those paths or come up with a new one for two related reasons:

1. I am thankfully not in a position where I can make those kinds of decisions 2. While I see the issue you raise as an important, I am not able to offer a solution for it

everyone can learn to love their current situation. we are very adaptible species, but lack of interaction is also lack of opportunity and experience - sensory experience.

being guarded against strangers is a somewhat ingraned fear. but there is value to overcoming the fear , or at least it s worth knowing whether there is value.

somtimes the journey is worth more than the destination. surely it's great that we can travel faster in life and break barriers, but it often leads to lonely destinations which feel very meaningless.

I have come to believe that social interaction is like exercising or eating your vegetables. Some people naturally enjoy it; some people don’t. Either way, you will be a healthier person if you do it.

I don't automatically disagree. Over the years, I eventually learned that in a lot of ways, it is just another muscle and mine just did not get enough practice ( and now it is just takes a lot more effort ).

I don't think I am arguing for always abstaining from any human relationships. I am arguing for 'let people choose their own adventure'. I am sure there are enough people that want to do one or the other.

It's not just leave-me-alone individualism. It's this new, belligerent "Toxic Individualism" that's taken hold, supported by recent technological change (such as social media) and recent political/cultural change (many examples). A regular individualist simply prefers to operate on their own, outside of society and ignore collective activities. This new breed of individualism is more focused on attacking society and making it harder for people to take cooperative, collective action. Regular individualists are about working for themselves, where Toxic Individualists are more about deliberately working against society. "I don't want to be part of society" has become "Society is bad and you shouldn't have it either". I don't think this should be celebrated.

The anti-natalist movement is a good example of this.

not at all. They are completely different things. We anti-natalists see child-making as torture and murder against an innocent -- if you see someone murdering an innocent, surely it's normal to speak out against it and try to stop it.

>you are free to do whatever you do with your own life, not to involve someone else by force.

are you a vegan?

What you call the the "toxic individualists" are simply another collective. Just one motivated by envy or nihilism.

I hesitated a little, but I started to wonder if you are onto something in general. As defined, that type of individualist would be something like a herd of cats. They are clearly a part of a group ( with their own slang, rites and forbidden actions ), but yet manage to maintain aura of individualism.

I am not sure I agree, but I think it is an interesting thought worth exploring further.

You're the only one introducing "Toxic Individualism" in this thread.

I wonder what do you mean by it?

Because, just as well, there's an aggressive collectivist movement which directly attacks individuals (and individual choices).

It's really easy to switch from "I like to do my things alone, let me be" to "society is evil" after having been made a pariah by the "collective".

It's also really easy, I'd say even more common, for people to be made a pariah because of their behavior and then blame the collective. You could say it's a hallmark of toxic individualism. Activism and narcissism is rampant in modern society now. The old guard of moral conformity no longer exists. That pendulum has already swung and the heros/villians have traded places. To be fair, its extremely rare for groups to own their bad behavior, but you can still find it in individuals. Perhaps a good example of toxic individualism is the way JK Rowling has been criticized by the LGBT community. She's the most prolific writer of today and she chose to empathize a social nuance over another. Where she deviated cause a lack of conformity to the individuals drawing their ire and getting her effectively cancelled from her own IP. This I think shows that toxic individualism empowers the few over the many based not on what is best or good for society but what the individuals deem necessary. It's frankly pathetic and needs stopped.

You reply makes no sense. On a grammatical and conceptual level.

>"It's this new, belligerent "Toxic Individualism" that's taken hold, supported by recent technological change (such as social media) and recent political/cultural change (many examples)."

I feel like this started with reality-tv which predates social media by a few years. I think reality-tv took poorly-behaved and uninteresting people and elevated them. I think this not only normalized bad behavior but even celebrated these people as special. It seems like this just primed the pump for what came after with social media. TikTok/FB/Instagram et al, seem to enable and encourage everyone to star in their own reality-tv shows where the mundane, banal and uncivil are treated as interesting and worthy of attention.