alt Hacker News> (i.e. loud and busy environments with many strangers, often physically closer than comfortable) is unnatural to begin with.
That's very natural when it comes to life in an urban setting. Love it or hate it, we wouldn't have been here now (I'm talking from a civilizational pov) without us humans moving into the cities.
Replies
I would even argue that being surrounded by people is a natural state. Being isolated in a suburban home or an automobile is probably just as unnatural as being “surrounded by strangers”.
Our ancient ancestors probably did all of the following within eyesight and earshot of around 40 people:
- Eating
- Drinking
- Defecating
- Fornicating
- Bathing
- Exercising
Edit: I’m also deeply fascinated by the ability of historical sociolinguistics to give us insight into cultural attitudes towards different topics. Consider the evolution of and the attitude towards the expletives “fuck” and “Jesus Christ!”
> we wouldn't have been here now (I'm talking from a civilizational pov) without us humans moving into the cities.
What do you have in mind specifically?
Edit: I'm aware that statistically, there's more inventions in metropolitan areas. However I'm not sure how much of that we can really attribute to causal effects that are unique to cities, especially today. Obviously, many universities are in metropolitan areas, but on the other hand, we have many tools for remote collaboration that we didn't have 200 years ago. So I'm not sure if cities are not an outdated concept.
I think the argument is that the urban setting itself is ancestrally unnatural. Only a tiny proportion of humans lived in areas full of strangers in close proximity until the last hundred or two hundred years, which is not long enough for any related changes to spread widely given generation length.