When children are young, parents and grandparents take care of them. When a spouse gets sick, the other takes care of them. When children are older, they take care of their parents and grandparents.

When people aren’t getting married and having children, things get very weird as far as caretaking goes (and other things) and no amount of pleading or social engineering can solve this.

I mostly agree with the point, and I love the little soundbite from it - "care is infrastructure" - but I also can't help but to think there is something to the "society's version" of independence. It's actually the paragraph about care being not usually thought about as infrastructure, that made me think it needs to be said.

The difference between driving your own car vs. having a spouse/friend get groceries for you is precisely the direct involvement of another person, the dependence of relationship there. Yes, the car needs maintenance and roads and fuel/electricity, etc., we're all connected through network of relationships this way, but those relationships are indirect, they're mediated through things.

If I need something now[0], the car is there, fueled and ready, and so are roads and streetlights, and my watch tells me the store is open. I can make decisions myself, react to situations, and there are no other people I need to consider. There is no power relationships, no messy social stuff. My car won't be elsewhere because they had a sudden appointment, or be awkward to operate because my kid had an argument with its kid in the morning, etc.

To be clear: I'm not saying we should seek to distance ourselves from other people, and eschew deep, real relationships. But I am saying that the distance and things intermediating is actually a feature in many cases, and that kind of independence is valuable.

Why? I'm not sure. Two main factor I know are real, are:

- Social stuff is messy and exhausting, you don't want to invoke it every time you need to take trash out or fix a leak, if you can avoid it;

- Doing something yourself is often immediate, while asking for help (including hired help) takes much, much longer, so this kind of independence is worth it for time/focus savings

Just some thought. Again, I mostly agree with the author, and am grateful this article was posted here.

--

[0] - Figuratively, I don't actually drive myself.

> Independence, as our culture usually defines it, means completing a task without help.

This isn’t true. A business owner completes tasks with the help of employees, but unless he is indebted to a lender, he is still ordinarily thought of as being independent. Independence is a spectrum, and people who require that the world be re-engineered so that they can access it are generally on the lower end of that spectrum.

> The difference between their dependence and mine is not that mine exists. It is that mine is visible. […] A person who drives to the grocery store is considered independent, although the car depends on fuel, roads, mechanics, insurance, and a global manufacturing network. A person who orders groceries because they cannot walk through the store may be considered dependent.

The author is conflating two kinds of dependence. Lots of people rely on food delivery. If a food delivery system breaks down, it could be an existential threat to both parties, the difference is that the able-bodied will tend to have a greater level of optionality in how they respond to this kind of breakdown.

Someone suffering from kidney failure is obviously more dependent on the supply chain than someone who is not suffering from kidney failure. There is a debate to be had about how much this gradation matters if both categories of people are still mortally dependent on a system; am I independent if I can cross the street by myself but don’t know how to grow enough food to feed myself?

This is an AI-generated essay about AI. And I know what the rebuttal is going to be, but I'm getting older and it's really hard for me to keep up with all the AI essays on HN. To streamline the concept of online engagement, maybe I could have AI read and respond?...

As you engage with this blog post, let me ask you this: is that the future you want? Where HN is just an Clawdbook-style playground for agents? Or do you favor a future where AI generates an infinite number of blog posts, but we're expending human resources to read them and engage? If it doesn't matter if there's human effort behind it, what's the end game for online communities?

Interested to see the conversation here on HN. Tech independence and the idea of owning the systems and machines we operate are topics that frequently surface among enthusiasts. Yet, independence may not be the best way to describe it. Does autonomy fit the bill, satisfying a sense of self-direction while also reaping the benefits of our interdependence at large?

while it is true that interdependence has always been there. But there are different levels. Can a person unclog the sink and toilet without calling the plumber. Can a person change the flush mechanism without calling a plumber. Can they change the bathroom fixtures without calling a contractor; Can they renovate the kitchen without hiring contractors. Can a person fix the lawn without calling professionals. Can they trim the bushes in backyard without hiring someone. Can they clear the snow themselves or would they need to hire a person. Can they wash their own car without going to car wash. Can they cook without ordering food. Can they clean without hiring cleaning people. Can the paint the wall without calling painters. Can fix the fallen button of the jacket without help. Can they cut their nails without going to a nail salon. Can they cut their own hair; Can they call their bank to figure who is billing them without using an Ai agent and cancel services they don't use. Can they invest without hiring professionals. Can they do their homework without using Ai. Can they learn how to swim without a teacher.

So there are many levels and many are more independent than others. There is a huge cost difference between one who is less interdependent and one who is very interdependent.

I think people are either indifferent, or want kids, but a big house is just so damn expensive.

It’s a centralisation of wealth/greed thing.

The Door by Magda Szabó has a humbling take on our interdependence and what we all owe to the people around us. I can't recommend the book enough to you all.

The beginning of the film "Threads" comments on the total interdependence of modern society. The rest of the film proceeds to show what happens when it is forcibly removed, and it's not a good outcome.

I too look forward to playing Eschaton on Interdependence Day.

A great sci-fi book for this crowd that centers on this topic is "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. LeGuin

I don't agree when people say that "Humans need each other to survive."

Sure, not everyone would survive in the wild on their own, but some would, with ease. They would probably be happier too. The hard part is maintaining a family because this requires convincing other people; the psychological aspect of this is way harder than the survival aspect of foraging and hunting for food.

Of course, if you or a family member becomes seriously injured or sick with a critical illness, then you have to accept death as the outcome.

Also, people don't understand that civilization collapse is a distinct, much harder, survival challenge. If you live in a big city with millions of people, you are highly dependent on other people/civilization because there is nowhere near enough food or water natively accessible within your local area to support that many people without functioning infrastructure. You would literally have to cannibalize each other in the event of civilization collapse.

People who exist in these extreme high-dependency environments tend to develop beliefs and phobias which serve the collective, not themselves as individuals. The group selects individuals and manipulates the individuals within it to instill in them the fears and motivations which the group needs them to have to guarantee the survival of the group. Sometimes the group will sacrifice individuals to protect itself.

A large group has a distinct intelligence which hijacks the subconscious minds of its members to support its collective survival goal; this is what we call 'culture' but it's essentially a mind virus for the individual. Also, the more dependent someone is on the group, the harder they will try to spread and maintain the collective mind virus within the group.

The future of getting enough cheese to chart your own course, likely involves a lot of collaboration.

And efficient functional systems.

I collaborate with systems all day now.

Fantastic post that hits so many good points.

It's the same k-shaped tug of war and general grift as ever.

A good design is an accessible design, but those with the means to pay for good design are increasingly being funneled into buying more bespoke products that prioritize materials and aesthetics over functionality. When the damn thing doesn't really work as expected, it's a waste. You don't even need to cram it full of quickly obsoleted gadgetry to pull this off. It doesn't really matter if it's durable and looks amazing when it's useless. Whatever gets you to buy another one anyway.

The only people happy with this situation are those who sell us overpriced junk. They're laughing all the way to the bank.

If we want more accessibility, we need to be making better designed products with mass appeal. We're well into a postmodern world where cost can be adjusted for any price point without sacrificing the design. Their trick is to introduce deliberate subtle flaws into products to keep you buying. It needs to stop. We need standards.

[dead]

[dead]