Wouldn't you feel so much better if you were the only human alive to enjoy and dictate anything?

[PCutter 127]

Whether it be a certain food, hobby, tv show, movie, discipline or whatever, do you want to be the only human in existence who will be eternally happy that noone will get in your way anymore about what you like or how you look at it or enjoy it? Or you'd lose your mind if there's nobody to share it with?

Edited April 15, 2019 by PCutter

[The Historian 516]

No, because if you're doing it alone, there's really no point.

[PCutter 127]

8 minutes ago, The Historian said:

No, because if you're doing it alone, there's really no point.

Well why wouldn't you be happy if nobody else existed anymore to go against you?

[Passion 3,484]

Maybe nobody would exist to go against you, but the whole idea of people going against you is that you overcome them and can get satisfaction of boasting about it to others... who would not exist either.

There's nobody to go WITH you either, and humanity is a social construct. You can be an antisocial introvert with a ton of issues, but you will still appreciate proper contact with other humans. There's a reason why people with inadequate social relationships are more susceptible to mental issues than others.

The whole idea behind sports is competition. Who would you compete with? What about the satisfaction of achieving your goals if there's nobody to care or acknowledge it? Our desires to do a lot of activities are often in various levels fueled by perception of remnants of society.

[OdellaLark 185]

No. Because that’d be incredibly boring. You’d be happy for a bit but it’d get old. You’d want company eventually. Isolation can take a toll on a person in multiple ways. Especially if you’d be the only one alive. You wouldn’t last as long as you’d think. 

[TBD 17,256]

Only for a short period time I'd be. But eventually it will get old. 

[PCutter 127]

8 minutes ago, Passion said:

Maybe nobody would exist to go against you, but the whole idea of people going against you is that you overcome them and can get satisfaction of boasting about it to others... who would not exist either.

There's nobody to go WITH you either, and humanity is a social construct. You can be an antisocial introvert with a ton of issues, but you will still appreciate proper contact with other humans. There's a reason why people with inadequate social relationships are more susceptible to mental issues than others.

The whole idea behind sports is competition. Who would you compete with? What about the satisfaction of achieving your goals if there's nobody to care or acknowledge it? Our desires to do a lot of activities are often in various levels fueled by perception of remnants of society.

Sports was always about winners and losers, a Darwinist expression of only the best at everything are allowed to survive.

If you were the only human alive, at least you will get all the credit and nobody else on your team won't be around to be left out. 

[Passion 3,484]

1 minute ago, PCutter said:

Sports was always about winners and losers, a Darwinist expression of only the best at everything are allowed to survive.

If you were the only human alive, at least you will get all the credit and nobody else on your team won't be around to be left out. 

Who will give you the credit? And credit for what? Winning when there's literally no way of losing :P?

And what team? You won't care about team because there would be no team, so being left out argument is pointless.

Darwinist approach is only one of scientific studies of sports' value. You cannot discard others when perceiving the topic as a whole.

 

What I want to ask you however is why you bring out the Darwinist approach and then move on to getting credit, which has no effect or impact on Darwinist approach? Evolution does not care about getting credited for anything.

[PCutter 127]

 

39 minutes ago, TBD said:

Only for a short period time I'd be. But eventually it will get old. 

I was thinking more of the hypothetical long-term and less about the short term. 

 

[TBD 17,256]

4 minutes ago, PCutter said:

I was thinking more of the hypothetical long-term and less about the short term. 

I mean it as I would feel better alone atm but then realizing later madness will take over eventually. But I'll take it, since being around people won't be any different. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by TBD

[The Historian 516]

2 hours ago, PCutter said:

Well why wouldn't you be happy if nobody else existed anymore to go against you?

Who do you share your finds with? My current hobby is collecting PC games and without a group to share with and trade with, it's pointless.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Yeah, no. Even if I weren't seeing someone, I would have to take a hard pass on that one. 

[Rebel the Wolfgirl 5,605]

Sounds like gatekeeping to me.

[SharpWit 2,707]

You can't dictate anything because sure your word is technically law, but you're the only one to follow and enforce it, so whatever you choose to dictate is strictly a matter of self dicipline which there's no point in having if it's just you.

You'd lose your mind very quickly if you rely heavily on modern entertainment. Within a week you can expect all power to go out. TV would go during that time, as would the internet. Luckily, you have your digital and physical copies of your favorite movies and shows and you can use a generator to keep your players and computer running. Petroleum based fuels do expire, so in about 3 years you'll have to burn alternative fuels which you'll need to know how to make and they have their own issues but luckilly you quite literally have a surplus on everything, except nothing new is being produced and you're the only one to maintain everything. That's a bit of a problem that even renewable source sof energy have. solar panels will wear out as will anything with moving parts, but you might be able to work around this. You're enjoying your shows but you notice something like your laptop has to be charged more often and eventually has to be plugged in all of the time, and finally it just dies on you, and this happens to every battery based electronic you have. Oh well, guess you'll have to revert entirely to DVD's and other things except they're beginning to perform poorly as well. You concede to of all things, filling your free time with books! But upon arrival to your local shop or library, you find nothing but shelves of mold covered pulp. With no one dealing with the humidity, everything's just rotted away. You'll find some that are good, neatly tucked away in safe dry places, but perhaps they're not your cup of tea.

Speaking of tea, we should go over food items. Before all of this you already realized that not everything you enjoyed gorging yourself on is available. With the power out, all that was left in your local grocery stores were canned items and dry goods which have become infested with pests. Some are still fine to eat, but almost every single item will go bad. With a food and entertainment shortage, you resort to farming. Things like chocolate and vanilla sweets seem like a dream. If only the necessary ingredients weren't all thousands of miles away. Sure your meals aren't as good as they used to be, but survival has a way of making you thankful that you have anything to fill your stomach with.

So assuming you don't do something stupid, have an accident, or get eaten alive by a pack of stray dogs, you could live in relative comfort for about 30 years till you've nothing but another day of hard work and the memories of what you once had.

[Misty Shadow 7,943]

No. Even the most hard-line misanthrope can recognize that having an interest is meaningless if there's no one else to share it with. With love for something comes the drive to share that love with the world. Even in a hypothetical "utopia" where surviving on my own with literally no one else in the world is possible, there would be no point. Pure solitude is not magic. 

[PCutter 127]

On 4/16/2019 at 3:03 AM, The Historian said:

Who do you share your finds with? My current hobby is collecting PC games and without a group to share with and trade with, it's pointless.

In regards to PC gaming, I keep seeing that more people are getting sick off multiplayer functions for whatever reasons like bugs or toxicity. Maybe Overwatch could be an exception

[Dreambiscuit 10,091]

I spent a lot of my adolescent years alone, with very little outside contact. Most of the time it was by choice because I just didn't care about being a social animal. But after a while I realized there has to be a balance between being completely internalized and being completely externalized. There is something to be said for both, so as long as the right balance can be maintained, it's better to have the options of people around, Then at least you can ignore the ones you don't like and choose the ones you want to be with. 

[Lucky Bolt 35,085]

No way. That just sounds too lonely for me. 

[PCutter 127]

I think I'd rather go insane by myself than have to spend another second with the pieces of walking filth called humans. 

[ZiggWheelsManning 10,925]

Dictating everything would be bad because you would be an unbelievable jerk who didn't take the Metallica song "King Nothing" very seriously  

[Sonic Shimmer 4,133]

I wouldn’t want everyone gone, that would be very selfish. But maybe to live on an island or a mountain where it’s just me and nobody else, that would be best.

[Scilla Bell 103]

Being the only person alive able to enjoy anything without being able to share that enjoyment sounds like the most miserable existence I can think of. Sure, I think it would be fun at first, but once it sets in that I am completely alone? I would be insanely depressed. I would miss my friends and family. I would miss places like this! I could probably hold out for a little while by keeping some animal companions, but probably not for very long.

Besides, if I'm alone, who would make new things to enjoy? I could make my own art, make some simple dishes, and maybe even write my own books, but that's about it. I wouldn't be able to watch new TV or movies, I wouldn't be able to eat some of my favorite foods, I wouldn't be able to play new games, and so much more. I don't have the skills to create those things. Maybe I could learn those skills in the time I'm alone, but it doesn't change that some projects are inherently collaborative, and are rarely one person jobs for a reason. 

I lean on the introverted side of the spectrum so I completely understand distaste towards socializing and human interaction. It's tedious and annoying at times, but it's necessary. I think it's worth being occasionally ticked off if it means I can share what I love with other people.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Scila Bell

[Savy 5,093]

I wouldn't want everyone gone, that would be way too lonely for me.

[TheRockARockster 52,103]

I'm gonna say 'NO!'.

I would go insane without those I care about, even though I enjoy my alone time.

[ExplosionMare 18,085]

What quality of life would I have if I was living completely by myself? No thanks!