> see what the negative externalities are of a system that assumes the driving force between human interactions to be economic (one of which is the commodification of everything including relationships)

Absolutely agreed. We've gone from a community-based culture where you took care of your neighbors because it's the right thing to do to "rugged individualism" where things like healthcare are "privileges" you have to _earn_ through labor.

I think we need to stop making the assumption that all the systems we have today are the best and take a long hard look at what upholds society, piece by piece.

Being a good neighbor is a fundamental part of being a man of good character and maintaining a working society.

Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business.

Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.

> Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business.

For a lot of human history this was simply not the case. I am not saying that this level of social cohesion is better or worse for mental health, but you can't use your own cultural viewpoints to debunk the previous commenter's claim. You have this view because you have been conditioned to have it in our current society.

What we're saying is that they aren't, though.

Let me put it this way then: Individualism and a community are not mutually exclusive.

When taking care of a neighbor is none of your business, what you have with them is not community.

What you have with them is not the community you envision.

Arguments over definitions don't add to the conversation.

Yes that would be preposterous. What adds to the conversation is to snipe arguably at least 2nd if not 3+rd comment regarding the use of the word, then simply say the comment doesn't add to the conversation and nothing more. I truly appreciate this non-hypocritical value add.

The previous commenters are disagreeing over whether "community" (in the locale sense) is distinct from "neighborhood". Not (from what I see) the extent to which "unified body" or "common interests" are present when the individuals of such a body do not see to the interests of members of the body.

The fundamental argument between jackson1442, Dalewyn, and giraffe_lady is this argument as to whether a "good neighbor" can exist if a community does not exist. Dalewyn is saying "yes", jackson1442 and giraffe_lady are saying "no".

You're stating that "community" encompasses both. And by stating that you're effectively ignoring the definition of the term that giraffe_lady and jackson1442 are using. If ignoring this distinction was not your intent, then your original comment needed to be more verbose.

giraffe used the pattern of "X is not A"

I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B"

They've said it's not 'A.' My statement was COMPATIBLE in fact with their original statement being true, it just leaves open the door that it may not be. It's certainly possible something could be both not a community and not the community they envision, and in fact if it weren't a community it couldn't possibly be the one they envision. Nothing I said necessarily conflicts with their definition.

Given that the comment I responded to and my comment used very similar patterns with mine only weakening the 'not' possibilities I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you. It didn't even assert the previous comment or definition was incorrect.

> I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you.

1) I've seen the "arguments over definitions don't add to HN" morale stated here before and decided to try it out when it seemed pertinent.

2) I wasn't too on board with giraffe_lady either, and yours was just the figurative last straw. Also if I'm going to try to interject in what I think is a non-productive back and forth I figured I'd do so at the end of the chain, not with multiple comments throughout the chain.

>The fundamental argument between jackson1442, Dalewyn, and giraffe_lady is this argument as to whether a "good neighbor" can exist if a community does not exist. Dalewyn is saying "yes", jackson1442 and giraffe_lady are saying "no".

"Good neighbor" and "taking care of your neighbor" are simply figures of speech. If someone is taking them to literally mean a neighbor and subsequently literally a neighborhood, they are demonstrating a gross lack of understanding in the subject matter.

Being a "good neighbor" means being a man of good character. What is a man of good character? Treating others with kindness and professionalism, respecting property and privacy, reciprocating generosity and respect, and protecting the weak and helping those truly in need. None of this is mutually exclusive with individualism.

"Taking care of your neighbor" means to proactively involve yourself in the lives of others, which may or may not be appreciated depending on the recipient (anecdata: I know many people who don't) and is either way none of your business to initiate.

I am making this distinction between "a good neighbor" and "taking care of your neighbor" in my original comment because the two are very different things, and the commenter I replied to was conflating the latter with the former.

> "Taking care of your neighbor" means to proactively involve yourself in the lives of others

It often means this given the type of person most likely to "take care of their neighbor", but it doesn't have to. Rare people can make it known that they are willing to help with anything a neighbor may ask for help with without actively butting in. It's difficult to do without making it seem like you're sincere and not just saying a platitude, but I am sure that it can be done, and has been done.

I'm neither community or neighbor oriented, so I don't have a horse in this race.(1) I just thought I'd comment on this particular statement of yours.

(1) - To the extent I butted into the conversation with my comment toward notch898a it was mostly an experiment.

As a neoliberal/capitalist, I would suggest that capitalism is an incomplete theory and that we are still flushing things out.

The huge rise in material standard of living from the 1850s to 1970s in the US made a dramatic improvement in people’s real quality of life.

But since the 70s the improvements are very marginal. I speculate that’s because most of the consumer improvements are in the domain of status consumption goods, which by definition is zero sum. Material abundance beyond a certain point is in and of itself corrosive because it’s just status seeking / competitive signaling.

I don't think it has much to do with material abundance or status consumption as much as it is simply inequality. The productivity vs. real wage gap[1] that began in the early 1970s is well documented. Productivity gains since then have been largely captured by shareholders rather than workers. Quality of life is relative. While a poor person today may personally have more material abundance than a King in the 1300s or a middle class clerk in the early 1800s, their quality of life is still worse because it is measured relative to everyone else today.

1: https://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-d...

I would tend to agree with this with the addition of the fact that labor rights have degenerated too.

The relationship between working people and let's say "capital" used to be more tenuous. This had ramifications for political stability in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but by the middle of the century we had a decent balance of power between laborers and companies, mediated by the government.

Union membership + secret societies were a huge building block of everyday life. If you haven't ever walked through a graveyard, I encourage you to do so. Look at the headstones of people who died before the 1980s. A huge number belong to a secret society or trade union group (for the sake of simplicity let's ignore the uncomfortable racial aspects many of these organizations may have had, they were still pillars of community even if they were racist pillars of community)

Contrasted with up until very recently where the norm was about bragging how hard you work (for someone else). Rugged individualism, not collectivism, is what some would consider to be the highest virtue today. Not to say this is a root cause, but just an example of change that can be analyzed in some weighted equation.

If it's an incomplete theory, it's been incomplete for the 400-500 years or so it's existed. No more excuses then, the "theory" needs to be fixed and practiced before the whole planet goes to an early grave.

Can't agree that the improvements since the 70s have been marginal. The internet is one of the greatest quality of life improvements humanity has ever created, especially relative to its cost.

I posted this comment elsewhere, but I think the marginal utility of our advancements is definitely decreasing.

The internet itself is just a method of getting information, most of which is garbage.

To use an analogy, let's say the telephone just got invented. Hey I can call my brother in Tampa, this rocks! But now you get spam calls every day, every time you try to use your phone you have to listen to an ad to call your brother. People call you at random times of the night telling you they are going to kill you.

Hyperbole, but you can see how a QOL of life improvement can also just be another vector for the bullshit you already have to put up with every day.

Certainly the internet brings new problems that we have to grapple with, but overall I can't agree that it's net negative. Riffing on your phone example, are you really claiming that dealing with spam calls is bad enough to counteract the huge gains you get from being able to talk to your family and friends whenever you want? Imo that's not even close to true.

There's certainly a lot more bullshit to deal with today than there was in the past, and I can respect how leads to some level of existential angst and mental health issues, but I can't agree that it has overall made life worse.

I do think that life is better with the internet, but a counterpoint I'd like to make is that humans are very quick to adapt to material change.

Someone who goes from making $600 to $8000 a month will see their stress levels reduced but the $8000 will quickly become just a number for them.

To use another analogy, programmers will always quickly squander the gains made by the chips. I bitch and moan about webpack and React because I've never written a GUI in C, the intermittent gains are invisible to me.

Now for kids born after the internet's invention, they don't even understand the benefits of having the internet. Those are invisible. The negative effects are crystal clear though.

In my example, I am not saying webpack made life worse, but that it's easy to see what's wrong with it and hard to see what's right.

On the whole I would disagree.

1. Humans seem to do best in social groups of ~50 people. Connecting everyone to everyone doesn’t seem to be working very well from a societal standpoint.

2. https://www.theonion.com/report-90-of-waking-hours-spent-sta...

Does the internet make us more productive? Sure. Does this improve the human condition? Not clear. Will the sum total gains eventually outweigh the costs? Maybe. But then again, it may also destroy civilization. Generative AI distributed over the internet has the capability to unravel everything.

This is the shift from "capitalism efficiently allocating resources to fulfill needs" to "capitalism manufacturing wants".

Would appreciate reading recommendations in this area if anyone has any.