Once, a lake dried up in the ancient kingdom
of Chu because of the prolonged drought. The fish in the pond experienced significant
hardship as they struggled to survive, flopping around in the remaining mud puddles. Zhuangzi observed how the fishes smeared each
other with slime and exchanged saliva to help each other stay alive. Even though he admired their solidarity, he
asked himself if it wouldn’t be better if the lake were full, so the fish could swim
freely without needing each other to take drastic measures for survival. From a place of modern-day individualism,
we may look back on the past, feeling nostalgic about the degree of human solidarity and community
back then. Like the fishes in Zhuangzi’s story, people
helped and relied on each other and were involved in each other’s lives. And so, as humans do, they formed close-knit
communities. These communities provided a sense of safety
and social interaction; in many ways, they made people’s lives easier. Moreover, in times of crisis, group solidarity
was even more prevalent. Plenty of wartime stories sketch an almost
romantic image of how people supported each other during these times of great adversity:
war makes people come together, and shared sorrow is half sorrow. Last decades, a period of relative stability,
economic growth, and technological advancement, the world, by and large, has become more individualistic. Of course, we can still find collectivism
and close communities in many parts of the world, but overall, human beings have become
less reliant and less involved with each other, and more focused on themselves. Especially in wealthy Western countries, people
don’t need each other anymore as they used to. The declined mutual reliance isn’t just
because of wealth but also because technology makes human interaction increasingly obsolete
in many areas. And so, the lake is full. Like the fish, we’ve largely become self-reliant,
allowing us to swim freely and forget about each other. Yet, now people need each other less and less,
on a communal level at least, a new problem has arisen. The experience of loneliness is prevalent
in individualistic societies. We can’t deny that loneliness is problematic. However, without reducing the severity of
this issue, we might also have been underestimating the advantages of ‘not needing people.’ This video expands on Zhuangzi’s story about
the fish and why a lake full of water is actually highly joyful. A lone fish swimming in a lake full of water
decides wherever it goes, looking for food and shelter when needed. He can meet other fish but part ways whenever
he wants to continue his individual journey. Likewise, inhabitants of an individualistic
society are free to choose their own paths. Most of the time, socializing with other people
is an option, not a necessity, so they’re free to move on from these people if they
wish to. We can observe that ‘not needing’ close
relationships to live indeed leads to people minding their own business. Even though humans still depend on other humans
to survive, we don’t need their company, as in physical presence and personal relationships,
for survival. And thus, social ties have become an option,
not a requirement. A well-oiled system that largely relies on
technology takes care of our needs. We can order anything with a click of a mouse;
we can pay people to provide us with almost any kind of service, such as relocation, cleaning,
or taking care of us when where’s sick. In Europe, self-scanning checkouts are becoming
the norm. With the emergence of AI, things like the
type of companionship we previously reserved for a spouse can be replaced by advanced robots. Although the latter example may sound extreme,
it shows how little we’ll need each other’s company in the future to meet our needs if
such technological advancements become mainstream and widely used. A world where we don’t need to meet and
speak to each other may sound like a dystopian nightmare to some. In all likelihood, many people would be crushed
by the levels of loneliness within societies in which human-to-human contact is so infrequent. But aside from these severe consequences,
could the ‘not-needing-each other’ aspect of such circumstances benefit us? Imagine we’re all fish in a rich, vast ocean,
free to explore all its depths, mysteries, and knowledge. The path to adventure lies open, calling us
to explore and experience new things. We may do this together with someone, but
as we can fend for ourselves, we can easily take this journey alone; a companion is optional. The freedom from people allows us the freedom
to spend our every waking minute swimming wherever we want and doing whatever we want,
whenever we want. Such freedom and independence within the physical
world can be a great pleasure if one enjoys the solitary path. Albert Einstein, for example, was a true lone
fish, enjoying the distance between himself and others while excelling in solitude and
profoundly caring about other people’s well-being. I quote: My passionate sense of social justice and
social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for
direct contact with other human beings and human communities. I am truly a ‘lone traveler’ and have
never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with
my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and
a need for solitude. Carl Jung and Emma Rauschenbach became engaged
in 1902; they later married and had five kids together. Jung was keeping a diary at that time, in
which he wrote: I am no longer alone with myself, and I can
only artificially recall the scary and beautiful feeling of solitude. This is the shadow side of the fortune of
love. End quote. So, Carl Jung realized that through his commitment
to marriage, he had given up a precious thing: the experience of being alone. When dealing with people is optional, we’re
free to retreat and spend time in solitude. Even though some people cannot tolerate being
alone and instead choose to surround themselves with people as much as possible, the experience
of solitude benefits those who appreciate it, whether imposed or chosen. Regarding interpersonal relationships, not
needing people can be a blessing. Yes, in earlier times, there was more solidarity,
group activity, and involvement in each other’s lives. But close-knit communities could be detrimental
to one’s tranquility as we automatically become part of the drama people are capable
of. For some reason, no matter where we look,
when people come together, there’s always some form of turmoil, be it gossip, bullying,
people antagonizing each other, or fights. When people depend on each other, it’s the
unfortunate part of the deal. But if we don’t need these people, we don’t
have to tolerate their behavior; we don’t have to bear the cross of associating with
those we don’t like just to get our needs met. Mainly in Western countries, but without a
doubt in other places of the world as well, we observe that, regarding survival, the institution
of marriage has been rendered optional rather than mandatory. The religious authorities that used to force
people to marry have significantly lost their influence. On a practical level, men and women can survive
without each other, and many of them successfully sustain themselves. This development has both negative and positive
consequences. For example, the divorce rate has been rising
steadily, translating to an increase in broken homes. And the rising number of people who refuse
to marry and procreate has led to a population crisis in Japan. People automatically become more selective
when there’s no necessity to be in a relationship or marriage. After all, they don’t need anyone, and they
might even enjoy the perks of being single; sometimes, they love singlehood so much that
they won’t easily exchange it for commitment. A commitment to a relationship can be very
fulfilling and satisfying but has plenty of potential risks and downsides as well. One’s partner could be abusive, controlling,
emotionally draining, or simply not the right fit. Also, a relationship requires time and effort,
which some people prefer to spend on other things. A downside could be that we become too selective,
leading to us wanting a significant other but not being able to find them. ‘Not needing someone’ means that we can
end the relationship with that person more easily and quickly, which is also true when
it comes to friends. Not needing friends allows us to end toxic
friendships and set boundaries for the rest. And when we don’t have to make friends out
of necessity, we’re more likely to befriend people we genuinely like, connect with, and
share interests with. The major downside of belonging to a group
is the expectation of conformity: belonging requires us to adapt. Often, this means that people expect us, in
many regards, to do as they do, speak as they speak, and, not uncommonly, think as they
think. The meaning of Sartre’s famous quote, “Hell
is other people,” is often misunderstood. People generally interpret it as saying that
others are terrible and that we’re better off avoiding them altogether. This isn’t precisely what Sartre meant. The quote pointed to Sartre’s observation
that we’re never free from other people’s gaze and their opinions of us. And the more people we surround ourselves
with, the more judging eyes we endure. These opinions and expectations can have a
profound impact on us, and we may, therefore, feel trapped to conform to social expectations. Some people desire to conform and willingly
adopt other people’s opinions and mannerisms out of a desire for belonging. And when observing people’s overall behavior,
we could say that most of us care about the gaze of others. Most of us like it when people approve of
us, estimate us highly, and respect us. In many cases, to gain the validation of others,
we jump through the hoops they’ve set in place for us as trained monkeys. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer criticized
human infatuation with other people’s opinions, saying: By a peculiar weakness of human nature, people
generally think too much about the opinion which others form of them; although the slightest
reflection will show that this opinion, whatever it may be, is not in itself essential to happiness. Therefore it is hard to understand why everybody
feels so very pleased when he sees that other people have a good opinion of him, or say
anything flattering to his vanity. End quote. Isn’t our pursuit of approval detrimental
to our authenticity? What if we didn’t need the validation of
others for our happiness or, at least, only the minimum to function and survive in society? We could seize the freedom to shape ourselves
and our lives in ways we prefer. Taking this freedom doesn’t necessarily
mean we’re antisocial, without compassion, or full of ill will toward others. It’s just that we don’t let their gaze
dictate how we live authentically. Philosopher Nietzsche goes even further, encouraging
us to break with the herd, liberate ourselves from slave morality, and transcend the human
condition by becoming the “Overman.” According to Nietzsche, society and its moral
codes hold individuals back from realizing their full potential. The “Overmen” surpass these limitations,
creating their own authentic values and meaning. Whether we choose to engage in self-actualization
or just want to enjoy the tranquility of solitude, ‘not needing people’ allows us to choose
our own direction. Not needing people isn’t to deny the importance
of human connection, a natural inclination that varies per individual. For most people, human connection probably
plays a significant role in their overall well-being, and the harmful effects of loneliness
and social isolation are real. Not needing people doesn’t imply not associating
with people at all but grants us the possibility to embrace solitude when desired. When we can fend for ourselves, we can associate
with people, befriend them, and even be in intimate relationships with them, but with
the freedom to walk away whenever we please and indulge in the tranquility of solitude,
far away from human turmoil. Thank you for watching.
