Top
Best
New

Posted by publicdebates 1/15/2026

Ask HN: How can we solve the loneliness epidemic?

Countless voiceless people sit alone every day and have no one to talk to, people of all ages, who don't feel that they can join any local groups. So they sit on social media all day when they're not at work or school. How can we solve this?
799 points | 1245 commentspage 14
sidcool 1/16/2026|
One probable cause of it is hyper individualistic achievement culture. Not everyone is tuned for this. It's not a shortcoming.

Community, friends and when spirituality helps.

sam345 1/16/2026||
It seems you can't ignore a lot of this is a product of fewer children, temporary and transitional relationships that are not governed by the boundaries of marriage, and fewer intact families. This leads to fewer siblings, fewer responsibilities toward others, and more opportunities to be and feel isolated. There is a reason why the concept of a family protected by certain legal responsibilities and obligations have been around for a long time. I can't imagine getting older and having no children or siblings. I look at my parents and the only reason why they advanced into old age with tons of support is because of their siblings and children. Friends only go so far. Also the loss of belief in God and purpose lived out through regular Church attendance, charitable activities with a purpose, and community prayer leads to fractured relationships, philosophical and existential anxieties, no matter how many people you have around you. There's a reason why religious communities and institutions have survived thousands of years through all sorts of political upheavals and change. The modern experimentation rejecting God and family doesn't seem to be working out so well. As the older population ages (and increasingly gets euthanized), the younger population shrinking, and the greater reliance on recreational drugs and technology to fill the void, it really doesn't seem that hard to understand the increasing loneliness.
good8675309 1/16/2026||
I grew up in the 90s chronically online, isolated, abused, and socially awkward. Then I started working out, losing weight, trying to get better socially, then left atheism and became a Christian at 17, quit drugs and porn, met my wife, we now have 4 kids, love our church, and I can’t even imagine what loneliness feels like now. With 4 kids and a future with grandkids, pile in all our friends from church, hard to imagine a future where I’ll ever feel that emptiness and loneliness again. There’s a lot of hard work and pain I didn’t mention but it’s all been worth it
morshu9001 1/16/2026|||
Yeah, life isn't one of those "old single friends living together" sitcoms. Most interaction is with family, anything else is more of a bonus that can't be relied on.

There are also plenty of cultures with family values not rooted in religion.

nonplus 1/16/2026|||
We seem to agree that what replaced religion (for profit social media) is not a basis for a strong society, or fulfilling lives. Religion seems like a close 2nd worst option though.
ickelbawd 1/16/2026|||
I think it’s bigger than a decrease in attendance in religious groups though I agree the impact is felt there too. Social clubs, non-profits, fraternal and civic organizations, neighborhood associations, labor unions, local political chapters, trade associations, etc etc.

Basically all forms of outward focused, community or geographic based groups seem to have been on a downward trend for decades in favor of hyperreal, inward-focused online spaces.

morshu9001 1/16/2026||
Church is a big thing though, it's weekly and not some hobby or niche. Like I've moved more often than I kinda wanted to, and each time instantly started hanging out with friends I met after church, even though I wasn't going there to meet people.
oraphalous 1/16/2026|||
Maybe a societal foundation of: magic man in the sky - wasn't so great a foundation after all?
Paraesthetic 1/16/2026|||
It would be quite the opposite, the magic man favours families, children, and population growth. The rejection of these beliefs seems to be what is detrimental to society. The other stuff I'll leave for you to decide.
groos 1/16/2026||||
What a non sequitur.
ehnto 1/16/2026|||
I'm not convinced, I believe the institutions of church were and often still are the foundations of communities in many positive ways.

But the fact that they rest on an arbitrary belief in one of the popular gods does make it a pretty shakey foundation.

We see it right now, as the belief in Christianity has dwindled so too have the communities the church was supporting, the community can be separate to belief and probably should be of it is to support a greater community.

rupx 1/16/2026||||
He's not wrong though.
jibal 1/16/2026|||
Not a non sequitur ... go back and read what they responded to.
hackable_sand 1/16/2026|||
Is this a fortnite reference?
aylmao 1/16/2026|||
> The modern experimentation rejecting God and family doesn't seem to be working out so well.

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the problem is what replaced it, not that they were replaced. Religious belief has been replaced by a quasi-religion revolving around clipling autodetermination and aggrandizement.

I don't think people suffer from not having faith in some god nowadays, I think they suffer for not having faith, period. I see people around me prefering to live in known discomfort, than choosing to "roll the dice". Religion played the role of teaching people not everything that happens to them is in their control, and comforting them that it would all turn out well. What we have nowadays is the awfuly debilitating belief that everything that happens in your life is your own doing, and that unless there's evidence thigns will work out, there's no reason to believe they will.

I personally see the risk-adversity this philosophy leads to everywhere. I see it in people prefering apps over potentially making a fools of themselves, or "risking it" with a stranger. I see it in people who want leave jobs or living situations but fail to take the leap. I see it in people strugging with even small decisions, obsessing over reading reviews for everything, refusing to commit in relationships.

Religion also gave you a certain peace of mind concerning your purpose in life, and assured you you could be perfectly content with little. In fact it assures you can be more "successful" at life than people who achieve great wealth or fame, since in religion success is measured by, say, devotion, acts of service, building a family, or other means instead.

This can be replaced by positive philosophies that focus people in the prusuit of eudaimonia, but instead have been replaced by reverence to aggrandizement and too often hedonism. The goal too often becomes fame, money, status, or, again, control, both out of fear your life might not be determined by you solely, and for the pursue of vain pleasures.

I see this as a product of an obsessive reverence to libertarian capitalism. Overall, it works very well in its favour. Convincing people the course of their lives depends soley on their own decisions is ingraining reverence for individualism and rejection for collectivism. The pursuit of wealth and status is good for the economy; when people are truly happy with the small things in life, they tend to buy less. I'm not saying libertarian capitalism lead to this philosophy, or that this philosophy lead to libertarian capitalism; I think they go hand-in-hand, and as one grows so does the other.

jibal 1/16/2026|||
"Rejecting" nonexistent mythical entities is not "experimentation".
thephyber 1/16/2026||
Your refrain is a common one, but it seems pretty hollow upon deeper investigation. Maybe consider why modern Americans aren’t making the same family structure and child count decisions as long ago.

In the days of subsistence farming, a child was an additional free worker. Once we mechanized farming, we went from 50% subsistence farming to 1%. Children moved from the profit-center column to the cost-center column.

Medicine improvements and government policies have reduced child mortality. Mothers no longer need to conceive 12 kids to ensure that 4 live to adulthood. Each birth is a much higher resource cost and a much larger responsibility than in generations past.

The gratifying life of being a stay-at-home mom to 18 kids only works so long as the father keeps the money rolling in and doesn’t decide to abandon the family (this happened to an aunt of mine). The modern changes to family structure didn’t happen out of the blue — they were a response to inadequate protections and violations of freedoms that people had at the time. You might consider educating yourself on your blind spots about the topic.

Churches are eating themselves. People aren’t “moving away from God” so much as seeing the churches as liars. Christianity is full of lies: many small, some big. The more that people are exposed to others with different perspectives, more education, and better ways to communicate complicated topics, the more likely people are to leave a church that lies to them. Churches which have been outed for covering up child sex abuse have seen outflows. Bad policies made it more likely that the child sex abuse would happen. Further bad policies prevented the abuser to go free without prosecution. Even further bad policies have allowed the internal investigations/reviews to be quietly ignored.

Ultimately small churches have empty pews because they aren’t entertaining. MegaChurches / televangelists based in Orange County, Dallas, Houston are pulling in members while small town churches close due to lack of membership. Churchgoers tend to care more about being engaged in the showmanship of the leader than the common benefits of keeping a community alive.

The other functions that churches serve (community service, reminders of purpose) are being replaced by the free market of ideas. Some churches are turning the pulpit into a political campaign. Many secular non-profits are taking up the slack of dying community churches by doing a slice of the same work without the lies, sex abuse, coercion, and threats of damnation.

Then there are completely unrelated changes in society. More people care more about having pets (dogs, cats) than children. Values change as society changes. Companies get far better at marketing than individuals get better at resisting marketing. Drugs, gambling, sex/porn, outrage / attention economy, etc have all been turbocharged via capitalism.

The values of the average person have changed a lot. It doesn’t make sense to cling to the old institutions if they don’t meet the people where they are.

hasbot 1/16/2026||
There is so much to this issue. One major problem is the lack of fourth places. If I want to be low-key social where do I go? Some people say the library but IMHO libraries are not social spots. The concept of man shed is cool except for the gender aspect but it's mostly private sheds. There is a maker space in the city but membership is limited and there is a wait list.
FigurativeVoid 1/15/2026||
I have been trying to make more friends in the real and virtual world the past two years, and I have been pretty successful. Most of my new friends come from the following: Volleyball, MtG, or a writing group.

Really, I think that it comes down to make making or joining a space with a shared activity and moderating out the crap.

The problem is most communities are losing those spaces in favor of private social clubs. That's what we need to fight.

d--b 1/16/2026||
It looks like every comment here is suggesting that lonely people should do something to feel less lonely. But that's not how you stop an epidemic.

The epidemic is a systemic things, and you don't solve systemic things by giving advice to individuals. You solve systemic things by changing the whole culture. and you change the whole culture by large scale initiative.

That said, I have no idea about what to do!

publicdebates 1/16/2026|
I firmly disagree.

I do agree that the advice being given for individuals is very misguided. It's like preaching to a nearly empty church about why more people should come to church. You're only going to reach the ones who are already there.

But in this case, systemic solutions don't exist outside of (a) individuals taking action, and then (b) that action having a real impact, and then (c) the individuals, actions, and impact snowballing into a movement.

My whole question from the start was, what should those (a) individuals do, to successfully get to (b) and (c)? I did not word this clearly at all.

d--b 1/16/2026||
Sure it always starts with an individual or a group of individuals, but what you describe is some sort of virality. Like a counter-epidemic if you will. It’s one way of getting changes in culture, which relies a lot on lucky timing. Like the Tee-totaler movement that lead to the prohibition in the US.

I think these events are extraordinarily rare. Civil rights is another one. These only happen when the bad situation is totally unbearable. Like huge wildfires happen when there is forest overgrowth.

Otherwise you need some sort of top down approach. if you want people to actually recycle their trash, fine them if they don’t. if you want people to stop dying on the roads, severely punish DUI and speeding. If you want people to have more children, reduce their taxes if they have some, etc.

Now fixing loneliness is complicated for sure. My opinion is that a grassroot movement is not going to succeed, cause the current situation is not that unsustainable, so people won’t take it in their own hands.

kentich 1/16/2026||
I save myself from total loneliness by hanging out in the background through a virtual frosted glass with my friend (via the https://MeetingGlass.com/ app). We do that every day for a few hours. Its better than nothing. It gives a relief from being home alone. At least you can see that someone is out there.
shdisi 1/15/2026||
I have no link or affiliation with this company, but recently heard about it:

https://storiboardclub.com/

They say they want to “make meeting like-minded people easy, natural, and fun” and “ Loneliness doesn't have to be the norm.”

https://storiboardclub.com/about-us

KittenInABox 1/15/2026||
I think part of the problem is that social media is normalized and it is easy. It is way easier to engage socially (or at least you feel like you're engaging socially) with likes and lurking and stuff. It is way harder to put on pants and go out and it is normalized to do so (phrasing like bedrotting is super casual, whereas it is actually really hard to maintain an eating disorder because you have to be constantly hiding it from people).

Also I think there's more groups whose social norms online teach you to be repulsive offline and again there's not enough social pushback against it. We do need to be harder on casual edginess online because it is teaching habitual behaviors that make it hard to engage socially. Your 50 year old hiking buddy is not going to understand your soycuck joke you are trying to show him on your phone. Your average wine mom at women-only book club is not going to love if you insist on talking about banning trans people from the club because they're "men invading the women's spaces" especially when there's very likely 0 trans people to exclude in the first place on account of trans people being rare.

Lastly there is usually a ton of stuff happening but the instructions on how to engage with it is nebulous. People who know the algorithm find it easy, the people who don't know the algorithm find it super hard. And IDK how to solve that because there's so much going on in people's heads that they don't realize the people around them seriously aren't scrutinizing them that much. There's like a socialization death spiral where every small awkward interaction hurts way more when you don't have enough experience to know that the small awkward interactions are normal. So you can't tell someone "just go to book club" because they'll go, have 1 normal situation like mishearing someone and then decide they are so embarrassed they can never go to book club again-- but since it is so normal it happens at every social event and they end up lonely.

publicdebates 1/15/2026|
You actually bring up the biggest obstacle to my tentative idea for this Sunday, of holding up a sign that points to a time/place for a casual conversation with strangers. I thought this would be a good way to get very lonely passers-by out of their comfort zone and into a situation where they have a chance to make friends and bond, but the absolute diversity of interests is the main show stopper. My first thought was to essentially avoid sensitive topics on the poster, such as religion and politics, but it still leaves the huge diversity of potential common interests open. So I started doing some research on the most common hobbies that people have in cities and that can be talked about casually, in hopes of finding like 5 ot 6 to write on the sign to get people into the coffee shop.
KittenInABox 1/16/2026||
I think people who seek out activities assume you actually have to be interested in the activity. No. You're there to socialize. The activity is just an excuse to have a positive experience with people. I play board games. Do I like board games? Meh. Do I like hanging out with people and talking about a board game, sure. The difference is important. This is why its a common joke to attend book club without having read the book. The book is literally just an excuse to gather.
motohagiography 1/16/2026||
if you want to be interesting, be interested. the error in a lot of this that most people mistake solitude for loneliness and index on the wrong problem.

solitude is a rarefied luxury, but loneliness requires being around other people.

real loneliness is a lack of trust, and the lack of trust is the effect of anxiety, which originates from a lack of stable personal boundaries, both in self and others.

the lack of trust can be the effect of a cycle where solitude doesn't give you normal social momentum, so there isn't a way to be present in the moment with anyone you do meet. if you go to a cafe and start talking at a stranger about warcraft, you're ignoring their experience, and the experience you share in the place.

If you are a man, you need to learn to be around other men and recognize it's a n important skill that takes experience and practice. The epidemic might not be cured, but you can develop local immunity to loneliness by practicing relating to other men and refining your boundaries.

intellectronica 1/15/2026|
There is no "loneliness epidemic". It's a bad journalism epidemic. People in general are a combination of lone and grouping. Both are OK. People don't need to socialise all the time. People who want to socialise but can't usually suffer from emotional difficulties that they haven't addressed. Same for people who obssess about socialising all the time.
More comments...