There are plenty of things to live for, but that’s not even the point. There is a difference between choosing to be social and having to be social because you will get depressed if you aren’t.

I think this need for social interaction is harmful. We did see this in action during the COVID pandemic. So many people who weren’t able to abide by a short lockdown. Lives were lost due to our pathological need for social interaction.

Imagine how many communicable deceases we could eliminate by simply having a 3 month lockdown every other year.

So is food. If we switch to IV feeding you can also avoid many harms food and drink brings. We can do a soylent green as a stopgap.

I'm not a big fan of eating, so yes please? Even if I then want to indulge in something tasty every now and then, the option to just 'top up' without actually eating is hugely attractive.

> having to be social because you will get depressed if you aren’t

Tbh often I see going out and being social as a kind of pre-payment so I can be a shut-in nerd for the other day of the weekend without feeling bad.

You don't go far enough, every flu season should be lockdown and social distancing protocol should be followed on pain of death.

You live for others? As in remove those others and you lose whole purpose of life? I am not trying to be rude, seems like retirement homes house plenty of such people but it doesn't make sense for younger folks... although this is hardly a choice, is it. But - I believe one can work on this and move themselves quite a bit if wanted.

My 2 cents - mountains and nature and activities in them are always beautiful, as in it doesn't get boring or mundane, not for anybody I know. Working out on oneself, experiencing various adventures, backpacking around the world, sports, adrenaline/risky activities that make you feel alive, seeing cultures and history and food... those are done for oneself and they are absolutely 100% fulfilling that no career could ever deliver.

Saying above as one such person, and also father of 2 amazing kids (and a pretty decent wife to complement) whom I love more than anything. But I don't live for them despite doing various hard sacrifices for them, I live for me and do those things for me, to be happy, content, recharged, better father and husband and when looking back at my life being fine with various choices made.

> backpacking around the world

> sports

> seeing cultures and history and food

All of these things still require interaction with other people? If you remove all the others you also don't get to enjoy the things that you claim to enjoy by yourself

Being able to hike the mountains without the equipment that others have tried/tested/packaged/sold is not possible either.

Imagine that you're traveling space and you get stuck on an empty planet, that's the logical conclusion of "removing the need for human connection"

So if your wife and kids vanished the next day would the solo adventures be enough?

Having gone through divorce/empty nest and working remotely it's been quite challenging to avoid depression.

I feel like this just further reinforces the point - that need for social connection is a weakness.

I love my husband dearly, and I’d morn him if he vanished, but it wouldn’t make my life hard to live by any means - I lived just fine before him, and I’ll live just fine after him. I didn’t marry him because I needed somebody, I married him because I wanted him. I love him and I’m lucky to have him, but I also love myself and am lucky to be me - and as I said, that was true before I met him, and it’ll be true after he’s gone.

I don’t need someone else to make my worthwhile, or to make my life worth living - I am sufficient. He’s a (much welcomed and deeply appreciated) bonus.

What you’re describing sounds like romanticizing mental illness to me.

It would be up to you. These people who are lonely otherwise have lives.