Gone by 2040

[Luce NDs]

As a psychiatrist, I once encountered in free communication, stated, if you are in a situation where you are exposed to psyche flaws ... these flaws can't help to wear off on a person.

The rule was ... you cannot live among these people, long term or you become like them. Maybe that birds of a feather touch!

Again, depends on how you say it ... and your convictions!

 

[Carolla]

At one point in time the Church was the hub of the community - almost everyone in the community attended, if not often at least sometimes

A while back, I heard this perspective & it made sense to me - Yes, church buildings very often were the hub of the community. People went to the church building for a myriad of reasons beyond worship. The building was a comfortable community place to gather with friends & neighbours (for most but not necessarily all people). As municipal political structures developed, municipalities began building 'community centres' & running recreational/social programmes in those locations. Programmes that had often been occurring within church buildings & often under community leadership were relocated to 'secular' community centres & run by paid staff. The general community use of church building consequently dwindled and their primary use often became worship. Reliance on others (staff) to organize programmes became the norm. Insurance issues cropped up ... more change to how, who, and where community programmes could be run. The change in sense of community seems a paradoxical effect of the rise of municipalities & far more complex.

 

[Davyc]

After all, community is as much as bunch of neighbours getting together in a backyard as a bunch of relative strangers getting together in a church or other faith-based institution. It's my neighbour helping me with my yard and me doing the same for him, which does not require a church (in fact, he is RC and I am unchurched so we are not even part of the same religious community).

I'm not saying that communities 'require' a church to be the hub of the community, just that back in the day the church was a hub of the community and gave way for neighbours to meet up in one place, as opposed to the scattered community minded acts of kindness that one neighbour pays to another. When people gather in one place there is a tendency for friendships to be kindled and community spirited acts of kindness and compassion can be extended and exchanged when a situation or issue becomes known from a wider platform.

 

[paradox3]

I have often wondered if the "church as community hub" idea gets a bit romanticized when we look at the past. Many small towns had churches of different denominations, each serving its own particular membership. They would have been distinct groups within the community at large, don't you think? Rather than a community hub for all?

 

[jimkenney12]

People have more choices for community today and often belong to several sometimes overlapping communities. In Deep River, there were circles in the church, circles that took place in the church with or without church members, and churches like walking and skiing and golfing circles that sometimes the nckuded some church members that took place in the community.Tge coffee shop had several circles that made a stop for coffee part of their community time, with a route be for when each community was there. The folders would leave when the walkers arrived for example. Each person developed a personal community including a few people for m their various circles. Each community or circle met specific needs for each person.

As life moves along, we change and our circles change.

Some of the s nse of community people had in church was often an illusion. People can feel like part of a faith community in worship and not really get to know anyone else in church, even in relatively small congregation's. Luce can probably say that better than me.

 

[Mendalla]

Many small towns had churches of different denominations, each serving its own particular membership. They would have been distinct groups within the community at large, don't you think? Rather than a community hub for all?

That's the point I was going to make next. Most of my "community" growing up were from outside my own church. My friends, classmates, etc. were part of the school community or the neighbourhood community, not my church for the most part. None of our neighbours went to the same church as us. Basically, I think in a larger center (Kitchener was still under 100K people when I grew up there but not by much) you tend to be part of several communities that intersect to varying degrees. So I was part of my school community and my family church community. There was a bit of overlap (I had a few classmates in school who were also classmates in Sunday School, but not many) but for the most part, they were separate beasts. My neighbourhood was another community again, with some church members and school classmates living close by, but not many. Once you're in a city/town larger than a few hundred people, I don't think it can be treated as a single community anymore. And since there are multiple communities, there are also multiple hubs (school is one, church is another, arena might be another if you're into sports).

And there's also the issue of churches that divide, rather than create, community. It is certainly not all, or even most, of them, but they exist. Churches that put other faiths down and encourage their members to only socialize within their own group. That is not the church being a community hub. It is quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Davyc]

I need to put this into context as there is a wide divide in times being referred to - when I refer to the church being the community hub I'm referring to a time in the UK before Canada was the country it is today. In modern times, I refer to this as my time, the complexes of modern life and the diversity of people and the options available to them are substantially different now. The churches lost their way as community hubs as times moved on. Today, even neighbourhoods are less relevant as communities with people choosing to have less physical contact in favour of more electronic contact. If people stop gathering collectively then communities die, regardless of the churches existence or not.

I've watched the landscape change dramatically in a short space of time and where I live, aside from the people I associate with, there is no community; it's pretty much a graveyard in terms of people gathering together. Even the working men's social clubs, which were the hub that churches once were have slowly but surely eroded away into non existence and there is a barren landscape where there was once a hive of activity.

It may be different in Canada, but the only community spirited places in the UK are small villages - the towns and cities are a hive of electronic activity. Even the leisure centres are closing down because people don't want to mingle with people they don't know, don't want to know and couldn't care less about. That's a huge step away from the community I grew up in some sixty years ago. Change is always inevitable, but this is a huge shift in a very short space of time. People just don't care about people they way they used to, and that is pretty sad indictment of the times we live in now. Which is why I said I would not wish to be born into this world now the way it is today.

 

[Luce NDs]

I have often wondered if the "church as community hub" idea gets a bit romanticized when we look at the past. Many small towns had churches of different denominations, each serving its own particular membership. They would have been distinct groups within the community at large, don't you think? Rather than a community hub for all?

If the church did not have barriers and confinements beyond reasonable conscience and responsibility; i.e. totalitarian ideals ... would if serve the entire paradigm better? Thus the win-win balance instead of the winner-loser theory ... an evil conspiracy? (you do know the entire spread of conspiracy includes plots, plans. schemes and a lead into a trilogy?) As CS Lewis stated ... the myth never ends ... no point of vanishing by those right into trying to make the myth work! Vanishing point is on the fringe of reality ... right ... realists never see the abstract! Tis a sadistic comedy ... like life itself! --- Shakespeare?

 

[Mendalla]

Today, even neighbourhoods are less relevant as communities with people choosing to have less physical contact in favour of more electronic contact.

I can suggest a couple reasons for this that are not quite as dire and sinister as you think.

Online, you are more likely to find communities of shared interest. Fans of a particular band, especially an obscure one, or practitioners of a particulary obscure artform, or whatever may be more likely to find others with the same interest online than in their real world community. Once people have made that contact, they may be reluctant to go into a world where literally no one else seems to have that interest. Or they may meet people from their own community who have that interest and meet with them. It's a two-edged sword that way.

Example: For decades, Unitarian Universalism has had The Church of the Larger Fellowship which provides support to individual UUs and small groups in areas where there is no UU church available. That has gone from mailing sermons and other materials to its members to a full online church with discussions, online services, ministers accessible via chat, etc. And those UUs sometimes form or join congregations eventually.

For persons from some marginalized groups, esp. gender and sexual minorities, the Internet may be the first and only place they can find people who share their experience and who won't reject them for being who they are. If someone is non-binary, are they going to be more comfortable in a "real world" community where many of those around them may not understand or accept them or in an online community comprised mainly of people like them?

So, yes, people spending all of their social time online is problematic in some regards, but it has also opened doors to community for groups and individuals that lacked it before. So if your neighbour is spending more time online than with you, is it because they are obsessed with social media or they have found communities online that they are not finding in real life?

And extending communities beyond borders, as we see here with you and Pavlos joining a community based on the opposite of the Atlantic from you, has its benefits, too. And those communities and relationships can, and do, extend back into the real world. We have (or had, she hasn't been around in a while) an Aussie member here who has visited Canada and spent time with Canadians that she met via Wondercafe and Wondercafe2.

 

[Luce NDs]

How many in the power half of the paradigm do not see the sinister and dire nature of the functioning ... dictatorships (derived from dire) that justify the accumulation of insane wealth?

There are a few organizations .... however badmouthed by much of the ground level fundamentals ... we must be free to slaughter the ... well you may catch the wind rift as hounds in the darkness ... wolves of roman classic brutality?

They put down the essence of those bitches Psyche and Sophia ... in the underground of the sol ( singularity of sacred unification)!

Interesting program on TV today about NDE and OBI as things beyond our fixed and pious mental processes. The powers believe these qualities are dark ... shades of the Shadow conscience ... and an evil sentience?

Your understanding may be dependant of whether on the up side or down side of the mental construct ... said to be abstract ... as if incomplete ...

Generate an image of that watchtower of old salts ... Magdalene? Madgi ... I see a little gnawing creature facing a tempest in the castle ...

 

[BetteTheRed]

I've never lived in England, full-time, but I've visited often, spent up to six months there at a time, and have very close family who live there.

To some extent, in my closest cuz's experience, there is still a certain amount of that community church feeling. Now my family are Catholics, but a large portion of their family still live in the same parish, within walking/short driving distance of each other. Their parish club (a place to have a beer, among other functions) is within walking distance of their home. It's also where they participate in the yearly panto, rehearsal for which occupies 1/4 of their year, and planning/finding costumes for the next one consumes the other 3/4.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Here, we are more likely, as Mendalla describes, to have an accumulation of circles, some of which overlap. Church community, neighbour community (I'm quite close to 3-4 families on the street), retirees/employees of my ex-employer, customers at the store, hobby community (quilters, knitters, golfers, etc.), special interest/passion community (social justice, homeless issues, indigenous issues), personal development community (AA, etc.), fellow dog walkers (my friend Dorothy knows all the doggie parents' names, I only know the dog's names, so the guy down the street is "Lindsay's Dad".

 

[Luce NDs]

Here, we are more likely, as Mendalla describes, to have an accumulation of circles, some of which overlap. Church community, neighbour community (I'm quite close to 3-4 families on the street), retirees/employees of my ex-employer, customers at the store, hobby community (quilters, knitters, golfers, etc.), special interest/passion community (social justice, homeless issues, indigenous issues), personal development community (AA, etc.), fellow dog walkers (my friend Dorothy knows all the doggie parents' names, I only know the dog's names, so the guy down the street is "Lindsay's Dad".

Sounds like a parallel universe syndrome where ... some of them come together a bit ... not like those that crash to win ... like European Lords jousting? It moved west ... isn't that wild ...

 

[paradox3]

When I was growing up, I had friends who lived on my street, school friends and church friends. There was almost no overlap between the group's.

Agreed that many people belong to a number of different circles

 

[Davyc]

Online, you are more likely to find communities of shared interest. Fans of a particular band, especially an obscure one, or practitioners of a particulary obscure artform, or whatever may be more likely to find others with the same interest online than in their real world community.

The likelihood of finding people with niche interests is almost negligible - there is a veritable graveyard of monstrous proportions of sites that have attempted to cater for such niche groups. Even common interest groups are less likely to thrive in a forum based online theatre over the banalities of Social Media. There are exceptions, but they are finite and even they struggle to maintain momentum.

I agree that online people have more chance to extend their spheres of interest and meet, even if just virtually, those they would otherwise never know they existed, but it is as you know well yourself how difficult it is to generate interest in those who would benefit greatly from joining an online community that catered to their interests and needs. People gravitate to where others gravitate to, which is why Social Media is such an attraction. I Skype my friend in the USA twice a week and it's great that we can actually interact face-to-face, far more rewarding than communicating with just the written word. I find that facility more remarkable and rewarding than forums or Social Media.

During one of our weekly debates he pointed me towards something interesting that could, in some people's minds, lead to conspiracy theories but where the two protagonists intersect is thought provoking to say the least. What he pointed out was LifeLog a project of DARPA to collect information on everyone, everywhere it ended in February 2004. Nothing nefarious about that in many ways (though there would be concerns surrounding data protection) but what was remarkable was what he pointed out next. Facebook! When did Facebook come online? February 2004. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Of course, I'm digressing, but I believe it was worth pointing out. If you get everyone together in one place you have the ability to exert control more easily, when people are divergent there is less ability to control. Now whether the inception of Social Media was a coordinated attempt to exert control is up for debate, but it's presence is not. I point this out because of the graveyard of sites that wanted to be separate and different, but are now defunct. So, the ability for people with diverse needs to express their uniqueness is watered down to the point where its existence is of no importance. I find that not only sad, but troubling because choice is slowly being removed.

This can be reflected in the diminishing act of socialising outside of Social Media control. When was the last time you had neighbours around for dinner, or a BBQ or any kind of social gathering without the need for an excuse, such as a public holiday? If you did, was it your immediate neighbours next door, or did your invitation extend beyond these boundaries? When was the last time you invited someone from your workplace around to your home for some general socialising? If you did were either of these one-off events or do you make a regular date for the invites? When was the last time neighbours or workmates invited you to their homes? Now extend this to your neighbourhoods and tell me whether there are regular days, evenings, nights when the whole neighbourhood can come together?

I'm not deriding the technologies that can bring people together (such as this site) but rather the implementation of that technology and the impact it is having on people's lives - particularly those aspects that they may not even realise are having an impact. People are slowly losing the ability to create real communities outside of their electronic worlds, and those that do manage to maintain a semblance of community spirit are in the older generational league and when they cease to be those communities they value may also cease to be.

We live in strange and challenging times on various levels and we need to be mindful of what is happening around us. The Churches are losing ground, belief in God is losing ground, belief in thriving communities who gather together and share time with each other, is losing ground. So much is being eroded and because it is a gradual process it tends to be invisible. The least violent method of exerting control is attrition, something to think about.

 

[Luce NDs]

The likelihood of finding people with niche interests is almost negligible - there is a veritable graveyard of monstrous proportions of sites that have attempted to cater for such niche groups. Even common interest groups are less likely to thrive in a forum based online theatre over the banalities of Social Media. There are exceptions, but they are finite and even they struggle to maintain momentum.

I agree that online people have more chance to extend their spheres of interest and meet, even if just virtually, those they would otherwise never know they existed, but it is as you know well yourself how difficult it is to generate interest in those who would benefit greatly from joining an online community that catered to their interests and needs. People gravitate to where others gravitate to, which is why Social Media is such an attraction. I Skype my friend in the USA twice a week and it's great that we can actually interact face-to-face, far more rewarding than communicating with just the written word. I find that facility more remarkable and rewarding than forums or Social Media.

During one of our weekly debates he pointed me towards something interesting that could, in some people's minds, lead to conspiracy theories but where the two protagonists intersect is thought provoking to say the least. What he pointed out was LifeLog a project of DARPA to collect information on everyone, everywhere it ended in February 2004. Nothing nefarious about that in many ways (though there would be concerns surrounding data protection) but what was remarkable was what he pointed out next. Facebook! When did Facebook come online? February 2004. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Of course, I'm digressing, but I believe it was worth pointing out. If you get everyone together in one place you have the ability to exert control more easily, when people are divergent there is less ability to control. Now whether the inception of Social Media was a coordinated attempt to exert control is up for debate, but it's presence is not. I point this out because of the graveyard of sites that wanted to be separate and different, but are now defunct. So, the ability for people with diverse needs to express their uniqueness is watered down to the point where its existence is of no importance. I find that not only sad, but troubling because choice is slowly being removed.

This can be reflected in the diminishing act of socialising outside of Social Media control. When was the last time you had neighbours around for dinner, or a BBQ or any kind of social gathering without the need for an excuse, such as a public holiday? If you did, was it your immediate neighbours next door, or did your invitation extend beyond these boundaries? When was the last time you invited someone from your workplace around to your home for some general socialising? If you did were either of these one-off events or do you make a regular date for the invites? When was the last time neighbours or workmates invited you to their homes? Now extend this to your neighbourhoods and tell me whether there are regular days, evenings, nights when the whole neighbourhood can come together?

I'm not deriding the technologies that can bring people together (such as this site) but rather the implementation of that technology and the impact it is having on people's lives - particularly those aspects that they may not even realise are having an impact. People are slowly losing the ability to create real communities outside of their electronic worlds, and those that do manage to maintain a semblance of community spirit are in the older generational league and when they cease to be those communities they value may also cease to be.

We live in strange and challenging times on various levels and we need to be mindful of what is happening around us. The Churches are losing ground, belief in God is losing ground, belief in thriving communities who gather together and share time with each other, is losing ground. So much is being eroded and because it is a gradual process it tends to be invisible. The least violent method of exerting control is attrition, something to think about.

Such to me seems to point to a sense of extreme diversity ... when people initiate a BS that they can control a vast multidimensional construct ... independent of all other skills that are lost due to attritions and efficiency in the grasp of being best is being powerful ... when your domain may collapse without respect and relationship with the entire item ... whether you like it or not! --- Einstein's conception of the conflict between quanti and what's relative ...

Always that aspect of Back Swans, or outliers in the paradigm curve ... exceptionalism! When encountering an exceptional self ... best to keep it humble given the stoic belief that it is best not to know! Therein lay the enemy within ... naivete?

Is that ignorant of me to bring that up in our circumstances of observing a monumental collapse of humanity as we know it? Ignorance too should be better understood as a projection of the unconscious self (sometimes referred to as the abstract mine)! Tis an ode passage ... as described in Gail Sheehy's text on the various passages of life ... tunnels or bores of desire ... mountains and mole ills ... items to be denied?

If we mentally back off to observe the thing ... would that be an essence of OBI? Get out wit cha ... thinking and reason are deplored ...

 

[KayTheCurler]

My take on the UK back in my childhood isn't one of 'goodness, light, friendly community, etc...Nor is it based around the notion of church as the community hub. As a child I attended church, introduced to it via Brownies and Guides. . NONE of my extended family belonged to any type of church. Not my parents or grandparents, aunts or uncles, cousins etc. When I quit attending because no one would answer my questions I wasn't missed. There was no contact made until the Vicar wanted a babysitter and came to my house to ask me to help out.

I had friends at school. Guides, neighbourhood, but none that were strictly from church. My relationships at work were basically friendly but we didn't socialise.

Now, in small town Canada, some of the churches seem to be changing from something many people belong to, to something that is clinging to 'how we do things''. A lack of vision, an unwillingness to think ahead, is leading many of them towards a sort of slow death. Maintaining their individual buildings seems to be the biggest concern. Aging congregations aren't able to do the fund raising work. Ethnic based congregations have pretty much disappeared. Other congregations with younger members, worship bands, small group activities, entertainment for different subgroups, seem to be thriving. One comes across as the major source of entertainment, with movies, games nights, free concerts by Christian rock groups etc..

 

[BetteTheRed]

Other congregations with younger members, worship bands, small group activities, entertainment for different subgroups, seem to be thriving. One comes across as the major source of entertainment, with movies, games nights, free concerts by Christian rock groups etc..

Agreed, until one looks with a closer lens at the theology, and thinks yikes or yuck. (Although, as a wyrd aside, of the four UCC churches here, one has quite a young demographic, serious children/youth energy, is also affirming, and wyrdest of all (because I have served on boards, etc.) runs on a consensus model of board administration.)

 

[Luce NDs]

Agreed, until one looks with a closer lens at the theology, and thinks yikes or yuck. (Although, as a wyrd aside, of the four UCC churches here, one has quite a young demographic, serious children/youth energy, is also affirming, and wyrdest of all (because I have served on boards, etc.) runs on a consensus model of board administration.)

I like that consensus perception although that can be a fragile state ... when folks lean towards hostilities rather than hospitality. The other thing as an alternate thought is that hospitality must be perfectly balanced ... or one side or the other will be bankrupted! Thus considerable failing and falling of those going for the get rich quick option.

Look what the get rich quick folk have accomplished in the entire collective (sometimes known as an integrated social order without severe and political leanings ... wobble and weaving are only good for sewing moderate goods ...

Today no moderates ... everyone sells the best that leaves no underside ... they were denied existence and thus the lack of being is encountered in metaphysical studies! Few would proceed to know themselves in our society ... becoming lost in taking over other poor souls! Avarice personified?

Thus the eternal veil is delicate ... and the great powers don't wish to know anything but heavy handedness ... thus the myth of gentile is overlooked ... and blind faith takes off too ... as another form of fey, fa, flighty or ephemeral ... leading to suspicions of angels in duplication ... diabolical multiplication? Sometimes a catch 22 type of paradox ... the power of tous/toutes?

Then it comes together ... the great mystery does try to cover up ... thieves of the night messing with dreams?

 

[Mendalla]

So apparently the article in the OP is actually part of a series. Today's article talks about the impact of COVID, both as it stands as we approach the two year anniversary of the pandemic and what it might be down the road.

MSN