Social Capital in the Post-Future

Simple living, extreme early retirement, becoming and being wealthy, wisdom, praxis, personal growth,...
Post Reply
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Having recently come to the conclusion that even the most pro-environmental plans seriously under consideration by any unit of government will amount to some variation on "too little, too late", I decided to give "Survival+" by Charles Hugh Smith a re-read. I found his advice/theory much more comprehensible and reasonable now that I have some of the basic vocabulary and models of systems theory lodged in my brain. One thing that especially struck me as true was his advice concerning a strategy of "splendid isolation" vs. creating circle of social capital. My own small experiment in attempting to live by the principles of permaculture quickly informed me that the flow of trade with other humans is extremely valuable. Since I am just barely E vs. I in my temperament, and therefore fairly indifferent to choice between "chatting with neighbor about terrible person who set fire to free book box" vs. "continuing to hoe garden", I think my experience validates this from the book:
Because the best protection isn't owning 30 guns; it's having 30 people who care about you. Since those 30 have other people who care about them, you actually have 300 people who are looking out for each other, including you. The second best protection isn't a big stash of stuff others want to steal; it's sharing what you have and owning little of value. That's being flexible, and common, the very opposite of creating a big fat highly visible, high-value target and trying to defend it yourself in a remote setting.
So, then I started pondering how he came up with the number 30. The Rule of 7 states that once somebody has socially interacted with you 7 times on average, they will no longer regard you as a stranger. Therefore, 7 positive interactions should tend towards "friendly" if not yet "friend." So, my question for the members of this forum would be do you currently have a friendly relationship with 30 other people in your real world realm (biking distance?) where you acquire food, water, shelter and energy? AND/OR, do you have the skills/strategy that will allow you to quickly develop such a social circle if you feel the need to relocate? How varied or tight is your circle? For instance, Is everybody in your circle a co-worker at the food co-op or a frequent attendee of your AA meeting?

vexed87
Posts: 1521
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:02 am
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by vexed87 »

My biking distance is probably further than most here, but still I'd struggle to define any of my relationships beyond immediate family and very close friends as 'friendly'. I probably have 10-15 at the most, I'm definitely an introvert :lol:

I am sure the figure of 30 is probably plucked out of the air, 30 is better than 3 though, for sure. I suppose that there is an element of quality to consider when trying to establish the value of your acquaintances, unless you expect all your social capital to be paid in physical labour, i.e. hands in the field, erecting barns, a few very skilled friends could outweigh 30 useless hyper-specialised consumers.

I know some of my skills will be in demand, so I don't worry too much about making connections should circumstances change significantly. I tend to forge new connections when there is a need, and not in advance. I guess this is a risky approach, because it will be harder to make connections when the internet dies, and the town hall has been overrun by barbarians, mad max style. But which exact future do we prepare for in advance? That's the hard bit. Whose to say any of our closest family will be any use in a grid down scenario for instance? I know my family might be leaning on me, more than I am on them in that situation. (I'm trying really really hard not to come across arrogant here!!!). At least I'll have skills to sell.

SO has done wonders for mixing up my social circle, I'm less limited to my university educated peers now than ever before, which is good for mixing up skill sets, I can't count on my own long-time drinking buddies and course mates to give me a crash course in blacksmithing or carpentry for instance. SOs connections could get me those. Diversity is definitely key.

P.S. thanks to this post, I definitely have to re-read Survival+ to see if I can get new insights, thanks 7WB ;)

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by Ego »

Yes! When I was younger I was not naturally inclined to cultivate friendships. They just happened. In college I rented a room in a ten-room house and poof instant friends. Work a summer job swinging a hammer, another selling running shoes and coworkers just naturally intermingled so that the hammer swingers were running 10k races on Saturday morning.

As we get older we become more in control of our world and the people who would naturally become our friends are more fixed in their worlds with everyone's time measured rather precisely in dollars per hour. Consequently, we have to make an effort to cultivate new friends while pruning the time suckers and the toxics. We have to try. We have to seek out those with similar interests.

I find that 95% of this involves one simple skill. Ask a lot of questions. Be curious. If you see something out of the ordinary, ask about it. If you've offended someone with your curiosity, oh well. They'll get over it.

One of the reasons I dislike Myers Briggs is because it implies that this skill is fixed. It is not. It is learnable. It takes constant effort. And a willingness to interrupt the thoughts bouncing around in my head.

I disagree with a few premises, though. I don't think we should cultivate friendships (and the resulting social capital) because of climate change or because the world as we know it is going to end. We should do it because that is what human beings do. People are skeptical of those who seem to be trying to cultivate friendships with some underlying goal. If you just do it because you are interested, then thing happen naturally. Recognizing that serendipity isn't likely to hit you while maintaining silence in the presence of strangers is reason enough. A plant that is thriving spreads it's roots deep and wide so that they interlace with others.

Also, I am not so sure about the rule of 7. Or maybe it is the distinction between friendly and friend. I've got some friends who I considered friends after one interaction.

So, to answer your question.... yeah, I've got many people nearby with whom my roots interlace.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by cmonkey »

vexed87 wrote:My biking distance is probably further than most here, but still I'd struggle to define any of my relationships beyond immediate family and very close friends as 'friendly'. I probably have 10-15 at the most, I'm definitely an introvert :lol:
I can beat that. I have 1 which is 20 minutes by car and 1 who is 5 hours by car. No one else. I'm perfectly fine with that.

I used to be the kind of guy who was 'curious, asked questions, etc...' because it stood out as something that DID make you stand out and people would generally be more open/friendly/whatever. I've since realized that splendid isolation is far superior, at least as far as my personality is concerned. So I have gone in the opposite direction. It might just be the phase of life I'm in though.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

vexed87 said: I am sure the figure of 30 is probably plucked out of the air, 30 is better than 3 though, for sure. I suppose that there is an element of quality to consider when trying to establish the value of your acquaintances, unless you expect all your social capital to be paid in physical labour, i.e. hands in the field, erecting barns, a few very skilled friends could outweigh 30 useless hyper-specialised consumers.
I dug out my copy of "Personal Village: How to Have People in Your Life by Choice, Not Chance" to see if I could make sense of the number 30 in general (not post-future) human context. The author suggests 15 as a very high number for the level of relationship he designates as intimate, with perhaps 5 as an average. He also divides human social activity into zones, much like permaculture describes. First Place being the realm of intimate relationships (lovers, confidants), Second Place being the realm of affiliate relationships (such as co-workers, ) , and Third Place being the realm of the social commons within range of ramble (morning clerk at cafe you frequent, runner you nod "Hi" at on trail.) He also suggests that optimum social health/resilience would be achieved with variety along strong continuum of relationships.

In my neck of the woods, the frustrating thing is that the people I know who have the most skills are likely to be old and less likely to accept climate change science, and the young people I know who accept climate change science do not have as many basic skills. For instance, my DD25's BF designed a really detailed tiny house on sketch-up and helped produce a documentary on an important ecological issue, but he has no basic building skills whatsoever. Unfortunately, I do not possess the super-human social skills necessary to convince the extremely science/tech intelligent liberally minded young people in my circle to learn directly from the conservative highly-skilled older people in my circle, or vice-versa. And the stupid, stupid election is making the situation even worse. Also, a few of the humans in my current social circle and neighborhood are very young, very poor children who follow me around because they are otherwise neglected, and I took 5 minutes to teach them how to tie their shoes. But, I am also friends with old, extremely wealthy people (in possession of more money than they can possibly spend on enjoyment of consumer goods before they die) who are frustrated because they would like to help the poor children, but there are systemic flaws (such as crack-head mothers or violent metal-studded fathers not yet relieved of custody and few decent foster homes available if they were) which make this difficult.
Ego said: I disagree with a few premises, though. I don't think we should cultivate friendships (and the resulting social capital) because of climate change or because the world as we know it is going to end. We should do it because that is what human beings do. People are skeptical of those who seem to be trying to cultivate friendships with some underlying goal. If you just do it because you are interested, then thing happen naturally. Recognizing that serendipity isn't likely to hit you while maintaining silence in the presence of strangers is reason enough. A plant that is thriving spreads it's roots deep and wide so that they interlace with others.
I half agree ;) Cultivating social health and resilience will improve your life in the best of times as well as save your life in the worst of times. Just like cultivating physical health and resilience will serve the purposes of attending a dress ball as well as running from zombies. OTOH, when I was practicing polyamory, I straight-up told my partners that one of the conditions of contract was looking out for my welfare in the event of zombie apocalypse, and that wasn't a problem. What mostly skeezes people out is any sort of covert or underhanded contract, rather than any sort of overt trade or offer. It's really tough to be transparent (in part because we don't always know our own underlying motivations) , but it sets good precedent.
cmonkey said: I used to be the kind of guy who was 'curious, asked questions, etc...' because it stood out as something that DID make you stand out and people would generally be more open/friendly/whatever. I've since realized that splendid isolation is far superior, at least as far as my personality is concerned. So I have gone in the opposite direction. It might just be the phase of life I'm in though.
Well, practical skill-building is also very important. I currently find myself in a phase of life, place on the planet, where I am having difficulty focusing on independent work towards skill acquisition, because I am in almost constant demand in one or another social context. So, I rather envy those on the forum who are more in splendid isolation mode, and I constantly question whether I am just allowing myself to be distracted vs. naturally flowing into context where I can offer more value. That's why I am drawn towards any sort of metric that can help me consider the varieties of capital without constant reference to $$$

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by Ego »

cmonkey wrote: I've since realized that splendid isolation is far superior, at least as far as my personality is concerned. So I have gone in the opposite direction. It might just be the phase of life I'm in though.
You are an outlier. Unusual. That's a good thing.

For many non-outliers, social isolation is part of a vicious cycle purposely set up to create a new form of slave.

This (paradoxically) from the Journal of Consumer Research:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/67 ... b_contents

Materialism fosters social isolation which in turn reinforces materialism.

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inside-out

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Ego: The study showed that loneliness was a pre-condition for seeking status through materialism, and contributed to a vicious cycle. However, the study also showed that "materialistic mirth" or "shopping for fun or pleasure" tended towards reducing loneliness. Men had more tendency towards the first, and women had more tendency towards the second. I think it is pretty obvious why this would be true.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by Dragline »

Ego wrote: For many non-outliers, social isolation is part of a vicious cycle purposely set up to create a new form of slave.

This (paradoxically) from the Journal of Consumer Research:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/67 ... b_contents

Materialism fosters social isolation which in turn reinforces materialism.

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... inside-out
That makes sense to me. It kind of goes with the idea that you are "the average of the five people you spend the most time with". If there are no actual people involved, but just substitute models of behavior provided through advertising, it would reinforce acting on those behavioral models as mimetic models to be copied.

Would also be consistent with the idea that people who don't form relationships IRL eventually "become", for lack of a better term, through unconscious mimickry what they feed into themselves information-wise from the inter-webs.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by cmonkey »

I must be some sort of extreme outlier because I am not materialistic in any sense. I feel very burdened by having too much stuff in fact and am actively getting rid of things left and right as we unpack from our renovation. It's amazing the things you think you need until you not only have not seen it for months, you didn't even remember you had it until you saw it again.

Or it just means I'm not lonely. :P

I probably do have more 'friends' than I think, though, especially if I don't define friendship as something that is found in a 90's sitcom. Being an introvert I am perfectly fine feeding those relationships every few months or so.

JamesR
Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:08 pm

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by JamesR »

7Wannabe5 wrote: In my neck of the woods, the frustrating thing is that the people I know who have the most skills are likely to be old and less likely to accept climate change science, and the young people I know who accept climate change science do not have as many basic skills.
How did old americans end up being less likely to accept climate change science? Specifically was there any anti-climate change lies in the media or something? I don't watch much TV so I've never seen any anti-climate change disinformation in the media in Canada.

RealPerson
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by RealPerson »

JamesR wrote: How did old americans end up being less likely to accept climate change science? Specifically was there any anti-climate change lies in the media or something? I don't watch much TV so I've never seen any anti-climate change disinformation in the media in Canada.
I don't watch TV either, so I can't answer that part of your question.

The older generation has seen environmental armageddon issues come and gone. Remember acid rain. All our lakes and rivers were going to die. This was a serious issue at the time, and then it disappeared. Maybe due to better environmental regulation, or maybe the environmental community found a better issue, like global warming. Either they were easily fixed, or they didn't really exist in the first place.

That makes a person more cautious about the next environmental disaster. I think there is a boy cried wolf perception and it makes older people more cynical. I was in that category. I thought environmentalists were drumming up another catastrophe to keep the research dollars flowing. Scientists are people too and they also have families to feed.

In addition, there is a sense of hopelessness. Discontinuing the use of fossil fuels would end society as we know it. Not an appealing prospect for anyone. I know reasonable people who can't discuss this issue in depth, because it causes too much anxiety.

As I see it now, global warming in a serious and imminent existential threat to humanity and many other species. I am taking personal action to limit my carbon footprint where I can. For example, I sold the gas guzzler and bought a bicycle off of Craigslist. Many of my local errands are now done on bicycle. We stopped using the AC and keep our house at 66 degrees during the winter. We started our own vegetable garden, and avoid buying stuff shipped around the globe. Actionable things that have an immediate impact. I am not waiting for someone to invent a magical solution, because there may not be one. Solar and wind energy reduces our fossil fuel needs, but they won't replace them entirely.

It is a shame that this problem has become so politicized. The political arguments about this scientific issue, as seen on TV, may make people doubt that a problem exists.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by Ego »

Here's my take on old-people-climate-denial from managing a senior apartment complex for a few years.

Fear of death increases with age because peers are actually dying. Old people cope with this by subconsciously denying their own mortality. They seek out symbolic immortality by focusing on how they are part of something greater that will ultimately live on.

Climate change threatens those institutions that give them symbolic immortality (lineage, town, team, party, country, species) and must be denied to continue the subconscious charade.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Side note: What else might this explain? :D

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Social Capital in the Post-Future

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@JamesR: I agree with many of the suggestions made above. Also maybe has something to do with the fact that the 20th century debate between religion and science ended up promoting two theories of human exceptionalism. The interesting thing is that the line between those who believe in climate change, and those who don't, is pretty much smack dab in the middle of the Baby Boom.

Post Reply