From Trust to Isolation: How Involuntary Celibacy Erodes Our Society

Written by: Kyla Scanlon

Translated by: Blockchain in Plain Language

The Tragedy of the Commons

In economics, the tragedy of the commons refers to the over-exploitation of shared resources—such as farmland, fisheries, or clean air—leading to their eventual collapse. Today, we are experiencing a modern version of the tragedy of the commons, not only limited to tangible resources but also encompassing the fundamental infrastructure of our society:

• Social public resources: trust, relationships, community.

• Cognitive public resources: curiosity, education, critical thinking.

• Economic public resources: stable markets, shared prosperity, institutional trust.

• Informational public resources: language, reality, basic consensus.

Unlike traditional public resources that collapse due to physical depletion, these intangible resources are gradually disintegrating due to systemic incentive mechanisms that reward isolation, compliance, instability, and division.

This may sound bold, but I believe we are moving towards a societal operating system of "involuntary celibacy"—no longer just an online subculture, but the default mode of society. "Involuntary celibacy" refers to a group of individuals who believe they cannot find romantic partners, often exhibiting emotions such as "resentment, hatred, self-pity, racism, misogyny, and nihilism." This mindset is eroding public resources: isolation, outsourced cognition, flattened identities, and performative resentment have become profitable norms. Governance and culture are dominated by memes, hatred, and algorithm-driven anger.

Social Public Resources

A stable society begins with stable relationships—friends, neighbors, colleagues, family. These connections form the foundation upon which abstract concepts like democracy or economic growth can operate.

But the current situation is not optimistic. Many have discussed this, such as Derek Thompson in his cover article "The Anti-Social Century" in The Atlantic, where he brilliantly describes how we are alienating each other. Meaningful connections between gender, class, and politics seem to be collapsing. The post-pandemic social infrastructure is warped, and we have lost shared norms and collective rituals. What has replaced them? Transactional connections, platform-driven loneliness, and the false sense of belonging provided by algorithmic tribes—these merely reflect your preferences back to you. Social interactions (from friendships to romantic relationships) are increasingly being commodified, optimized, ranked, and gamified. (Of course, the internet and dating apps have their positive sides, but the negative trends seem to prevail.)

A society built on transactional interactions and superficial connections is inherently fragile. People who cannot trust each other in daily life will not suddenly trust each other when voting. Those who cannot maintain friendships or romantic relationships may also struggle to engage in democratic institutions or civic participation. Without a solid foundation of relationships, society cannot maintain stable democracy.

Without genuine community bonds, civic engagement declines. As Guy Debord warned, politics devolves into performance rather than substance.

Cognitive Public Resources

We no longer teach people to think—we teach them to comply.

Curiosity is now seen as risky or inefficient.

It’s a pattern: no one is willing to take risks. Whether it’s elected officials or 19-year-olds choosing a college major. Because in this economy, everything has turned into compliance. As Italian philosopher Umberto Eco warned in "The Ur-Fascism," social systems do not collapse overnight but erode through small compromises, normalizing compliance as a civic virtue.

Take Cluely as an example. This product allows you to "cheat" on dates by wearing glasses, partly as a marketing gimmick (how to earn clicks by angering people) and partly reflecting the current ethos of cognitive public resources. The rise of AI companies is prompting us to rethink the meaning of "being human," and their answer is "efficiency and optimization." Perhaps that is the answer.

Cluely's declaration states: "We built it so you never have to think alone again." AI is no longer a tool to assist thinking but is attempting to replace it. Critical thinking, ambiguity, creativity—these qualities that define the best of humanity—are being replaced by optimized instant answers.

This is ubiquitous. In politics, nuance becomes dangerous, and Congress dares not confront President Trump. Even in leisure time, hobbies must be measured by "side hustle potential." Anne Helen Petersen wrote in a brilliant article: "The internalized logic is vicious and persistent: if you spend time doing something, and that thing has money-making potential, not making money is financially irresponsible." The obsessive pursuit and monetization of hobbies are not just escapism but a response to educational burnout, economic instability, and performative living. It is a way for people to assert identity and agency within structural constraints. Optimization, efficiency, monetization—it's a vicious cycle!

Without curiosity and critical thinking, we are easily manipulated, susceptible to polarized narratives, and ultimately lose the ability to make independent judgments—crucial for democratic citizens.

Economic Public Resources

Policy is an emotional projection—when those who despise the system become the system itself.

The economy relies on trust—not just in money or policy, but in the reliable rules and institutions surrounding money and policy. Today, that credibility is evaporating. Why? Because economic policy has become a stage for personal resentments, emotional reactions, and political performances. I have written multiple times about the issue of "trust." Take tariffs as an example; tariffs could serve as strategic tools, but recently they have not. Tax rates are adjusted arbitrarily, supply chains are disrupted, and businesses are left confused.

According to Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent privately acknowledged this instability at a closed-door investor meeting arranged by JPMorgan, admitting that the current 145% tariff on China is unsustainable. He hinted that a cooling-off period would come soon (though negotiations have not yet begun) and pointed out that, according to Eamon Javers, container bookings between the U.S. and China have dropped by 64%. He explicitly stated: "The goal is not decoupling," but rather to push China towards a consumer society and the U.S. towards a manufacturing society.

This is absurd, as it seems to imply we are entering the "Chinese Century." The U.S. is giving up its most comfortable seat. When you see Chinese manufacturing—like Xiaomi's factory "producing a phone every second, with no production staff (only maintenance personnel), operating 24 hours a day, with all lights off"—you can't help but wonder, what does this mean?

What is even more disturbing is why this critical information is shared privately at JPMorgan's closed-door investor events rather than being publicly transparent? Part of the reason is that no one dares to directly challenge Trump—Bessent seems to have leaked a lot of information because publicly questioning him is politically too risky. Another part may hint at some sort of "handshake - high-five - you're my guy - go trade this information."

Meanwhile, in public, both sides oscillate between radical postures and vague commitments. Trump has publicly stated he will not confront China "head-on," suggesting a cooling-off period, at least for now. He has also abandoned the idea of firing Powell. The market, of course, rose on this news, but it is just news. The economy will still struggle due to these fluctuations.

The market is currently operating entirely on "mood." Who can blame them? Look at these headlines, as if someone is talking to themselves.

China, on the other hand, has expressed a willingness to negotiate, but on the condition of mutual respect and reduced threats. They certainly should make such demands! In contrast, the U.S. seems like a child in a toy store when negotiating with Japan: "We don't know what we want, but we definitely want something." The result is headline-driven market volatility and diplomatic stalemate.

Martin Wolf incisively pointed out in "Odd Lots": the U.S. enjoys immense economic power due to the dollar's status as the reserve currency, allowing it to easily maintain large deficits. However, the U.S. seems intent on squandering this advantage through chaotic, emotion-driven policy decisions. Wolf bluntly stated: "You are rich, you are safe—unless you screw it up too badly. And now, why would you screw it up so badly? That is our current situation."

We all know (even those who initially supported tariffs understand) that this governance style is extremely irrational, with policies shaped not by economic logic but by resentment and projection. There is no plan—Bessent and Luthnick had to persuade Trump to lift tariffs against the wishes of tariff supporters. Look at this!

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are bracing for the impact. CEOs of Walmart, Target, and Home Depot privately warned Trump that tariffs could lead to supply chain disruptions and empty shelves. Who benefits from the trade war? According to the NBER, it is companies connected to the government! No wonder Tim Cook called personally!

A nationwide hiring freeze is spreading, causing pain in the grassroots economy—real costs paid for abstract resentments. Goldman Sachs estimates that federal layoffs (including contract and grant employees) could reach up to 1.2 million, with the tourism industry losing $90 billion, about 0.3% of GDP. Real costs. For what?

We are burning through economic public resources, not because it makes sense, but because our political leaders confuse economic policy with personal grievances. The chaotic market is thriving, and trust is evaporating.

Informational Public Resources

We no longer have a shared reality—only overlapping simulations.

A simple way to judge whether a space has healthy informational public resources is: can you describe reality without immediately sparking controversy? Can we agree on a common language, basic facts, or even definitions? The answer increasingly is: no. I wrote about this in 2022 as well.

Informational public resources—language, reality, and basic consensus—are collapsing because we have monetized division. Social media platforms are not built for clarity or understanding but are optimized for engagement, anger, and polarization. Algorithms do not reward nuance but reward certainty, controversy, and emotional triggers.

What is replacing consensual reality? Loyal realities, tribal realities, personalized realities! We no longer debate ideas or solutions but argue over whose facts matter, whose feelings matter, and whose truth prevails. Truth itself becomes a loyalty test rather than a common foundation. Without shared informational public resources, cooperation becomes impossible. We do not solve problems; we argue over who gets to define the problem! Language is weaponized, and reality is fragmented.

Conclusion

So, what to do? Bitcoin is rising again. Since "Liberation Day," it has decoupled from Nasdaq, rising 10%, while the S&P 500 has fallen 6%. Its rise is not optimism but a direct vote against the collapse of trust (and it has diversified away from the U.S.). The rise of assets like gold, silver, defense stocks, and cryptocurrencies reflects the fluctuations in social, cognitive, economic, and informational domains.

These public resources are being eroded, monetized, and exploited bit by bit. Social trust has turned into transactional loneliness. Curiosity has been replaced by compliance and cognitive outsourcing. Stable economic governance has been replaced by chaotic performances. Shared reality has fragmented into competing tribes and personalized truths.

In other words, we have institutionalized "involuntary celibacy"—no longer just romantic isolation, but a built-in, profitable disconnection within the social structure. The market impact is evident: as trust erodes, volatility increases, and traditional safe-haven assets regain dominance. Investors either obtain insider information from within the government or diversify into precious metals, infrastructure, dividend-paying companies, and global portfolios to hedge against the capriciousness of domestic policy.

Social infrastructure has not disappeared forever. Unlike depleted fisheries or farmlands, these intangible resources can be regenerated by choosing connection over transaction, critical thinking over compliance, substance over performance, and shared reality over isolated tribes.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。