I really don't think that's true. It's combination of a couple of things.

1. Life is busy, it's hard to find time, and easy to put off 2. They are anxious about what to say, and it really sucks going to places where people die. 3. There are a lot of people who show up to funerals because they are trying to support the friends and family of the deceased and don't really have any relationship with the deceased. My friends parents for instance. I don't really feel an obligation to visit my friends parent's I barely know, but would want to show up to the funeral to support my friends.

Also 4. Visiting someone who is going to die soon reminds one of one's own vulnerability, so it's easier to put that off.

Indeed, anecdotally I think there's an epidemic of uncaring going on in the world right now. I think the hyper-connectivity of always-on internet-based and smartphone-based stuff just overwhelms our capacity to care, but that's purely a theory.

> I think there's an epidemic of uncaring going on in the world right now.

That’s like, your opinion man. You are in control of that. Such a negative view is a choice. You can focus on something positive instead.

Our connected world allows families to stay in touch with almost zero friction. I get multiple updates weekly on my nieces and nephews even though they live hundreds of miles away.

I have hundreds of photos and videos at my fingertips.

I only get two or three in person visits a year. Connectivity is our only way to maintain… connection.

> I think the hyper-connectivity of always-on internet-based and smartphone-based stuff just overwhelms our capacity to care, but that's purely a theory.

GP stated explicitly they have a theory about something that is causing people to behave differently. You can call that an opinion if you'd like. You can not believe the theory and instead blame that person's "choice," which is also "your opinion man." Your anecdote isn't very relevant to the theory in a thread full of people talking to the contrary.

> GP stated explicitly they have a theory about something that is causing people to behave differently.

Yes and I disagree that connectivity is inherently negative or even overwhelming.

> You can call that an opinion if you'd like.

This “theory” is totally unsubstantiated so is no more than an opinion.

> You can not believe the theory and instead blame that person's "choice," which is also "your opinion man."

Yes. That’s exactly what I did.

> Your anecdote isn't very relevant to the theory in a thread full of people talking to the contrary.

I don’t find the volume of an argument compelling.

Of course there are positives for being hyper connected. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be any negatives. Furthermore, choosing to ignore them won't make them magically go away.

There are big positives about having an abundance of food, but along with that we get type 2 diabetes and plenty of other health problems. Trying to understand the cause of these health problems does not mean one wishes to return to an era of widespread starvation and malnutrition. I suppose you have the same criticism for the doctors who began theorizing that an excess of carbs/sugar was causing problems? After all, plenty of people enjoy sugary desserts and lots of families get quality time together eating them around the dinner table. I don't see why those doctors had to choose to have such a negative view. Ignoring the problem would have been better, no?

> Of course there are positives for being hyper connected. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be any negatives. Furthermore, choosing to ignore them won't make them magically go away.

I agree with you that always on communication can be overwhelming. When that communication is negative it affects our emotions negatively. So why continue to add negativity? That’s the choice.

What is that based on? You don't know these people, many individuals with their own stories and needs and troubles and drives.