As the world looks today, where many people live their lives on social media, one can sometimes wonder where the real people are — those who don’t live in order to take yet another photo that gives them the image of living an exciting, interesting, and fulfilling life.

As most people probably know and experience, life is not one continuous journey of exciting experiences. Every day life fills us with more than enough problems that need to be solved: bills have to be paid, the work we do is not always exciting — it’s often just a matter of carrying out a bunch of tasks that, in the end, will hopefully lead to some result.
The budget ending up in the black, the shareholders being satisfied, the boss not being displeased with one’s performance — that is probably the reality most of us live under. Work itself eventually becomes a routine that repeats itself, day after day. The enthusiasm one feels as a new employee is, over the years, replaced by a kind of melancholic monotony that makes us feel safe in what we know, fearful of changes that disturb our sense of security, and averse to the new employee’s enthusiasm for their work. Work is no longer exciting, but switching jobs does not feel like an option either — the energy required is simply no longer there. Security matters more; challenges are no longer motivating when the next bill needs to be paid. Yet we still want an exciting and fulfilling life, and we want to give the impression that this is the case.

Our lives become fake on social media. Life becomes a photo on social platforms.

Instead of being present in the moment, we look for images to post on social media. If an accident happens nearby — say, a car crash — you can see more mobile phones raised in the air filming the event than people trying to help.
Appearance matters a great deal to many young people, and it probably always has, but the obsession with looks is amplified by influencers posting tips on makeup, exercise, diet advice, fashion, and other methods of altering one’s appearance. Ozempic, peptides, Botox, and other cosmetic treatments have become common. Using such methods has been normalized. Rather than living healthily and eating a well-balanced diet, people look for shortcuts that require nothing of them — except a fat wallet, since these are expensive treatments.
A Swedish journalist, Erik Galli, who himself shares such a perspective on the fixation with appearance, argues that it is entirely natural in our culture. Being criticized for caring about how one looks is what Galli describes as a "double punishment." — When a young girl has been raised on TikTok to believe that appearance is important, she is then told that it’s vain and foolish. That’s just mean, in his view. In my opinion, such a statement goes too far. What is frightening and mean is that young people are being "raised" into a certain view of humanity through social media — not that it is criticized.
Influencers also have a financial incentive to make other young people believe that appearance matters, through the sponsors they work for. They are responsible for spreading the view of appearance; the influence they exert is more serious than that of the companies behind them. They are the window for the products — they can choose to influence or not — but for them, the money they earn matters more than sharing the responsibility for the impact they create.

It is as though we no longer participate in life but merely observe it, as if on a screen. One is no longer present but watches life from the outside. I myself am no exception — I have passed by events that, in hindsight, made me ask: why didn’t I do anything, why didn’t I stop to see if I could help? This is further reinforced when we have politicians who behave and speak as if they were contestants on a reality show. What they say or do only matters in the moment; no deeper, long-term thinking exists. Tomorrow, they may sound entirely different, and as long as people listen to them, this will continue.
When I ride the subway to work in the mornings, I often amuse myself by counting how many people are sitting and staring at their phones — almost all of them; a clear majority are looking at their phones at least. Admittedly, before mobile phones arrived, it was common for many people to sit with a newspaper in front of their face — but hopefully that was news being consumed. One got a little education. These days, people are on social media scrolling through post after post. I often glance down at people’s phones — I know, I know, it’s rude — and most of them are on some social media platform, scrolling.
You rarely see anyone reading a book, almost never a newspaper. Of course, some people listen to audiobooks, music, or read the news — I’ve come to understand that too.

But is listening to a book the same as reading one?

When you read a book, you can pause after a sentence and reflect a little on what you’ve just read, and hopefully try to make sense of what is written. Listening to a book becomes more like consumption; it’s difficult to reflect because you have to take out your phone and pause, and by then, three more sentences have already passed. I have tried listening to audiobooks several times, but I gave up because I keep getting stuck on something and then miss what follows while I’m pondering what was just read. Or I get distracted by the narrator being too theatrical or placing the emphasis in the wrong place, which ruins the experience. When I read myself, I can choose how I interpret the text, without theatrical emphasis and without the reader’s interpretation of how it should be understood. I am not colored by someone else’s interpretation, but can hopefully form my own view.

I went through a long period in my life when I read very little and relied heavily on googling. Work and life in general made me feel I didn’t have time to read. This caused my memory to deteriorate, since I wasn’t training it the same way, and I felt I didn’t need to commit things to memory when I could always just Google them. A few years ago, I suffered a couple of strokes, which further reduced my cognitive capacity, so I decided to do something about it and started reading books again — at first, lighter but engaging books. It went slowly at the beginning, but over time, I have regained my capacity and now mostly read non-fiction, and it is so enjoyable to read again. These days I have stacks of unread books that I work through one by one with an enormous appetite. I am probably not quite at the same level as in my youth; age plays a role, too. My wife says she can tell that my memory is much better now than it has been in many, many years. I myself believe that reading keeps my brain more active, and reflecting on what I read makes me seek out new books on related subjects to broaden my understanding. I should add that I am not a genius by any means — I am probably average at most things I take on — but an average person with a better memory and a somewhat broader view of the world, at least.

Instagram and TikTok are now the preferred search engines for Generation Z. Around 40% of Generation Z use these platforms to search for information, product information, and location information. Since so much of these platforms is built on the influence of influencers, one wonders how neutral and factual that information is. How might this affect Generation Z’s objectivity and knowledge of the facts?

Resistance to knowledge is spreading increasingly, from the political level down to the "ordinary" person. How will this affect the future worldview? Truths, lies, and a simplified picture of reality are woven together when scrolling on these platforms. Discerning the truthfulness of claims can be difficult — impossible in some cases — and when politicians and those in power also exploit the opportunity to influence, it is easy to be misled. Troll factories spread false political messages through many accounts, which can lend credibility to a false political "truth" when it appears to come from multiple sources. Rarely are "facts" published with source references, making it difficult to verify their truthfulness. It can also be hard to identify who is behind a social media account, which means the same source can operate through multiple accounts. AI has made it even harder to assess the truthfulness of, for example, a video, since statements from a source can easily be falsified through so-called deepfakes. If a friend who is normally trusted shares something, it is also often easier to interpret it as the truth, and one is influenced by the content.

Algorithms largely control what you see — the so-called rabbit-hole effect creates content through algorithms such that if you watch something on, say, TikTok, you are shown more and more of that topic, and you fall deeper into the "hole," all in order to keep your attention, make you keep scrolling, and keep you on the platform. On some platforms, the content becomes more extreme the more you scroll. Since more and more information is delivered to you, you can be influenced far more strongly by it. A tip in this regard is to reset your feed from time to time. On some apps, such as TikTok, you can reset your feed, which causes the algorithms to start over from scratch.
Other ways to manage your feed on both TikTok and Instagram include using the "not interested" function to avoid similar content. On both Instagram and TikTok, you can also filter keywords to make the content more tailored to you. This can look somewhat different depending on where in the world you live and how the apps are configured there.
You can also report content that you find uncomfortable or harmful. Apps like TikTok and Instagram have functions for reporting harmful or inaccurate posts. It is then the platform’s responsibility to review and remove content deemed harmful. The question remains whether the handling of reports on these platforms actually works — enormous volumes of reports, of varying severity, must surely be coming in every day.
At my workplace, many people sit with their heads bowed, looking at their phones during lunch — showing each other posts or using TikTok as a reference for some claim. When a 60-second post defines an opinion that may not even be accurate, the world starts to feel, at least to me, far too shallow and unsettling.

Now that we also use AI to produce creative things, what are humans needed for? When it becomes too effortful to be creative — when writing, creating images, and making videos are no longer done by humans — what will people do? According to an article by Digital and Data Studies Lecturer Francesco Agniellini at Binghamton University State University of New York, more than 50% of articles published on the internet in 2025 were written with the help of AI. Now in 2026, that percentage will surely increase.

Hopefully, we will grow tired of not being creative and reclaim and value the creative processes produced by humans. I have played around a fair amount with AI, but grew tired of it fairly quickly, as I felt I wasn’t actually doing anything. Admittedly, I probably write worse than how an AI formulates a text — but it is more rewarding to challenge myself and push myself to improve my phrasing. (I must admit, however, that I am not very good at expressing myself in English, so there I do cheat, and use AI to translate from Swedish to English. I’m a little ashamed of that, but the translations so far have not altered the original text. I really should work on my English — but at the age of 65, there is, at least for me, a limit to what I can bring myself to learn.) What I possibly did learn, using AI, was how to write a prompt in the "best" way.

It all comes down to making easy money without really contributing anything. Is this supposed to be the future for our children and grandchildren?

Thankfully, it seems that new ideas are beginning to take shape. People are starting to grow tired of shallow, empty posts and are mocking influencers' product marketing. Hopefully, the winds will shift, and more authenticity will be sought. A new way of living, called "slow living," "downshifting," or "living dumbly in a smart world," has now become a trend — one centered on countering the extreme efficiency and digitalization that characterizes everyday life. It is a reaction in which presence, craftsmanship, and authenticity are prioritized over speed and convenience. One can only hope that this way of life spreads to more people and does not merely become another passing trend.

Where Did the Real Human Go was originally published in Readers Hope on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A dangerous wave of pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories has increasingly become more common and has begun to spread primarily on social media such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.

These theories spread among people to a relatively high degree, mainly among young people, but also among older generations.

But who are these people who believe in, and create, these conspiracy theories?

First and foremost, what is classified as a conspiracy theory?

The simple answer is that it is an unproven theory about an ongoing conspiracy.

The theory is not proven according to modern society's principles for what is considered true, or has not been scientifically proven. Instead, it is built on an entirely different logic, where indications are turned into evidence and truths.

One can claim that something is true because we do not know for certain whether it is false: "Science has never proven that extraterrestrials do not visit Earth. Therefore, they could be living among us." For some, the very absence of evidence becomes a sign that the conspiracy actually exists – of course there is no evidence, because the powerful conspirators have swept it under the rug. In other cases, the conspiracy theory is underpinned by lies in order to single out a particular group, for example immigrants.

Researchers at Linköping University in Sweden have found that people who primarily rely on their own gut feeling to determine what is true and false also have an easier time latching onto conspiracy theories, in a study that examined the relationship between susceptibility to misleading information and the belief that truth is relative.

The results of the study show that those who believe truth is subjective are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and to hold on to their convictions even when confronted with facts. They also have a greater tendency to read profound messages into nonsensical sentences.

Those who have a subjectivist way of interpreting the world also tend toward dogmatic values, the study further shows. They claim that thought is free, which can be beneficial in certain contexts, but they often dismiss the opinions of others.

Sometimes conspiratorial ideas can be good when they question, engage, and sow a seed of skepticism toward prevailing scientific theories. But when they make a subjective judgment, they can become dangerous.

The danger is that this has now also begun to spread into political matters and debates. Despite the fact that many people today have attended school and acquired both general knowledge and formal education, we are all affected by the information that flows through social media, and when it reaches politics and politicians make use of that information, people begin to doubt and question facts.

Conspiracy theories are often based on the idea that a "higher power" is trying to control citizens.

Examples of common conspiracy theories are:

• That climate change is a hoax or an exaggeration created by states to increase control over citizens.
• That democratic elections are manipulated.
• That vaccines can cause autism, and that vaccines are used to implant microchips to control citizens.
• That the world is governed by a secret elite, an organized society.
• That the moon landing in 1969 was a hoax.
• That immigration is a planned population replacement.
• That a pizzeria in Washington had connections to a pedophilia ring, the so-called Pizzagate.
• That the Holocaust — the genocide primarily of Jews during the Second World War — did not take place.
• That airplanes release chemical and biological toxins, so-called chemtrails.

The list can be made as long as one wishes with all the conspiratorial ideas circulating on the internet.

The danger of these theories is that they can be used for propaganda purposes — the mere claim that elections have been manipulated is something we know has been used. Within the MAGA movement, this has almost become a mantra.

The more conspiratorial ideas are repeated, the more they are embedded in some people's consciousness, and suddenly they become truths — this can lead to radicalization and extremism. In film and television, conspiracy theories can be used in various series and movies to create exciting stories, which can also lead to the theories being amplified.

A British organization infiltrated a far-right group that, with financial support from a tech billionaire, conducted pseudo-scientific race research with the aim of acclimatizing political decision-makers, entrepreneurs, and billionaires to the idea that races have different levels of intelligence.

This group also finances a well-known YouTuber to spread extreme theories; they have managed to make it appear legitimate so that others have adopted extreme ideas and spread them further.

Elon Musk, as we know, uses his platform X for the same purpose — to spread far-right ideas.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services and a well-known vaccine opponent, has announced that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will conduct a study on the possible link between vaccines and autism. It may be good to conduct such a study, so that it can once and for all be established that autism is likely more complex than that, but how the results will be interpreted is another question.

In 2015, he became chairman of an organization for vaccine opponents, Children's Health Defense. They have pointed to everything from vaccines, fluoridated drinking water, and paracetamol to aluminum in mobile phones as the cause of the health problems of our time.

Previously, he has also expressed interest in pausing research on various infectious diseases, such as COVID-19 and measles.

When politicians begin to base their opinions on gut feeling rather than prevailing scientific facts, a dangerous trend begins.

The difficulty lies in responding to someone with conspiratorial thoughts and ideas, as they are often so convinced that counterarguments fail to get through.

Research offers three different explanations for why someone believes in conspiracy theories. The first explanation is cognitive, the second psychological, and the third existential. Most people could be susceptible to one of these three explanations.

The first is perhaps the most common. People who cognitively struggle to interpret facts also tend to believe in conspiracy theories. They misinterpret and draw incorrect conclusions and see connections in events and occurrences that do not necessarily belong together.

Psychologically, there are several reasons that can make a person more inclined to believe in various conspiracy theories. One example is "amplified personality traits" that one can develop after a traumatic experience — having experienced trauma in healthcare can lead to a lack of trust in authority figures and healthcare professionals; one may have been mistreated in the healthcare system, or have a close relative who has been.

Such a person who is recommended to, for example, vaccinate against COVID-19 may find it difficult to trust healthcare staff, and to believe in the validity of the importance of vaccination.

People are also social beings, and it can create great frustration not to be able to meet each other during a pandemic, such as the COVID-19 pandemic — this can lead to anger and suspicion about the reasons why people are not allowed to gather.

The third explanation is existential. One may have a strong belief that God governs the world, or that nature on its own will take care of the cause of a pandemic. Among these individuals there is also a belief that the world is divided into black and white, or good and evil. This makes one very susceptible to conspiracy theories that tell the same story.

A Swedish neuroscientist, Predrag Petrovic, followed a group of people with a high and low degree of psychosis tendency for several years, and observed how traits that participants displayed before the pandemic were linked to the development of conspiratorial ideas. They found that the greater the tendency to develop psychosis before the pandemic, the more conspiracy ideas around COVID-19 were constructed during the pandemic. In addition, they had participants complete a digital test measuring cognitive rigidity in the perception of how the world is connected. The test works by first creating an idea in participants about how different things are related. They are then given new information that contradicts this idea. Individuals with a high degree of psychosis tendency have difficulty changing their initial thought pattern, something that also resembles those with delusions.

How should one then respond to someone with conspiratorial ideas?

Andreas Önnerfors, professor of history of ideas and researcher on conspiracy theories, provides 6 examples of how to respond to someone with conspiracy theories:

1. Stay calm. Always respond to the person with respect, and do not make fun of the affected individual.

2. Try to understand. There are many reasons why a person believes in conspiracy theories. Try to listen without judgment.

3. Relate. Simply arguing easily leads to more conflict and frustration. Try to reflect on why the affected person embraces these particular theories.

4. Introduce reliable sources. Try to get the affected person to also take in information from research, fact-checking, and other trusted sources to balance the information.

5. Encourage critical thinking. Conspiracy theorists often see themselves as "critical thinkers" — ask why the person trusts the particular sources that spread conspiracy theories and what motivations might exist.

6. Know when to stop. Believing in conspiracy theories is linked to cognition, personality traits, and worldview. Sometimes conversations can actually amplify the polarization, and in those cases it may be better to end the discussion. The most important thing is to show understanding.

These are good pieces of advice, number 6 is the most important I think, often when one encounters a person with, for example, racist ideas, it can be difficult to keep one’s own frustration under control.

How one should respond to a conspiracy theory also depends on who is spreading it and for what purpose. Some who believe in conspiracy theories may not do so in order to influence others. Others have developed a conviction that the theories they believe in are correct and want to convince others of their truth. A person in a position of power who spreads conspiracy theories, however, is a dangerous authority figure and must be countered.

Conspiracy theories can be spread both "bottom-up" and "top-down."

Bottom-up is perhaps about social frustration — feeling cheated or powerless. The ordinary person in a vulnerable position. There, it is easy to have an understanding of that person's desire to embrace conspiratorial theories.

When theories are spread top-down, it becomes more dangerous — when it is used to consolidate and strengthen positions of power and to smear opponents, or to make money.

When it comes to people who are deeply convinced of their conspiracy theories, Andreas Önnerfors's examples of how to respond to such individuals may work in some cases.

Something resembling a low-arousal approach may work there.

But those who have something to gain from spreading conspiratorial theories — whether for political purposes, or to gain followers on social media — the use of conspiratorial ideas has a goal.

It becomes harder to respond to someone who has gained a position of power by exploiting people's willingness to believe in conspiracy theories, or an influencer who makes money on their social media and gains followers with such theories.

They are dangerous.

(See my article: Young Insecure Men )

They do not care about the truth; in many cases they are sometimes aware that what they are spreading is lies — what they gain from spreading these lies outweighs the truth.

The cynical way they treat their followers — whether it is a politician, an influencer, or a charismatic leader figure — is ruthless.

QAnon is a far-right movement that builds its agenda on conspiracy theories; a large part of their ideas is rooted in the belief that a hidden elite controls the world, "the deep state." They have an incredibly confused and strange worldview; occasionally something with a grain of credibility can creep into what they spread, which can make it harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, but most of it is confused and incomprehensible.

QAnon claims that Trump leads the fight against "the deep state," and Trump was quick to exploit this.

As we all know, Trump incited and inflamed this movement to storm the Capitol in 2021, on the grounds that he had lost the election, by claiming that electoral fraud had taken place.

Furthermore, in 2025 he pardoned those who had been arrested and convicted for the storming.

In 2021, QAnon had millions of followers in the United States, and QAnon still exists as a movement in the U.S. with supporters around the world.

When democracies are dismantled with the help of conspiratorial movements and autocratic rule becomes more common in an increasing number of countries, we have entered a dangerous path.

The number of countries in the world currently experiencing democratic erosion has risen sharply — from 13 to 42 countries between 2002 and 2022.

In a country where authoritarian political movements gain direct influence over government policy — where democratic institutions are dismantled: free media, civil society, independent organizations, and the judiciary — democracy is being dismantled in the vast majority of cases.

Nearly three in four inhabitants of the Earth lived in an autocracy in 2022. Ten years ago, the proportion was under half.

Recovery in these countries is difficult, and in many cases impossible, where those who hold capital become part of government power.

However, there are glimmers of hope: Bolivia, Moldova, Ecuador, the Maldives, North Macedonia, Slovenia, South Korea, and Zambia have managed to reverse their autocratic development — they have restored an independent justice system, removed authoritarian leaders, introduced free and fair elections, worked to reduce corruption, and regained a well-functioning civil society.

The spread of resistance to knowledge/facts and conspiratorial theories is a major problem.

Curiosity and the search for truth are human traits that have built the society we have today. "But group belonging is more important. We stop listening to facts if the new insights threaten our place in the group," says Mikael Klintman, professor of sociology.

As individuals, we must be diligent in checking the sources of the information delivered to us, which in many cases can be easier said than done, as even established media can fall into the same trap.

In the flow of information we are all exposed to — where the media is also fighting for survival — the pressure is to be fast in publishing news. This also means that the verification of information can sometimes be lacking, and by the time background checks reveal something different, a "truth" has already established itself that can be difficult to erase.

Tips for further reading:

Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now

Hans Rosling, Factfulness

(I'm not very good at writing English with good grammar, so I've "cheated" and taken help from AI to translate from the original language (Swedish), I hope you'll forgive me for that cheating. What I can read, I can read English without any problems, AI hasn't ruined the original text.)

Why all these conspiracy theories and how do they arise? was originally published in Readers Hope on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I just watched the documentary on Netflix by Louis Theroux: Inside The Manosphere, about young men who want to earn a lot of money, work out to get a masculine body, and surround themselves with women whom they see as objects. They are followed by a large crowd of men (and women?) on social media who admire their "masculinity," their "wealth," and look up to them.

The only thing I can think of when I see these men — or rather boys — is that I feel sorry for them. Young boys with zero self-esteem, insecure without any sensible goal in life other than to earn a lot of money, sleep with as many girls as possible, and flaunt expensive watches, drive sports cars, dress in fine suits, and believe themselves to have power. To some extent they do also have power, at least over some of their followers.

But what a poor life.

Of course I would like to be financially independent — that goes without saying, most people probably would. I don't understand the point of burning money on watches and other status symbols, though. The brand they build around themselves contains nothing. Like most influencers, they create an objectification of themselves that builds nothing of substance for the world around them. They accomplish nothing that makes the world better. One of them in the documentary claims to have other businesses such as a construction company, but it still seems as though their social media accounts are their main source of income.

Something else that strikes me when I watch the documentary is that on the surface they appear "masculine," but in reality they are incredibly vulnerable and sensitive boys, afraid that their vulnerability will be noticed. It is clear that they have found a niche where they can earn a lot of money, and if the facade they are trying to create cracks, they have nothing left. So they are terrified of being "caught" being insecure, being human — because then their business would fall apart and their entire image of "success" would turn out to be an empty shell. One of the boys was so insecure that he had his mother come along to defend him in one of Louis Theroux's interviews.

And yet they gain followers and admirers. What an empty world we are in the process of creating — "we" because everyone is affected by these influencers whether we want to be or not.

Admittedly, people with the same empty values have always existed — just look at the president of the large country south of Canada — but they did not have the same platforms to market their ego on before. Fewer people were exposed to their persona and they did not attract the same following.

A new worldview has begun to take shape among these weak men, one in which women are seen as objects and, in some cases, even behave as such, where men are considered the strong ones and women are weak. The only thing these men can offer is money and a life of luxury, which apparently attracts some women. At the same time, they exploit each other — both the women and the men — to gain followers on their platforms. All in order to make money from their social media.

On top of that, many of them carry homophobic, racist, and antisemitic messages, which attract more and more people. They also spread conspiracy theories, which draw in some followers too. In desperation to retain followers and create content, they resort to whatever means necessary. Retaining followers and gaining new ones naturally creates the opportunity to earn more money.

It is certainly a revolt against the parental generation in many cases — I believe that — a feeble protest against the parents' "woke" views. When I grew up in the 1960s and 70s, I had a father with racist, homophobic views, where the woman was meant to stand by the stove and bear children, the man was to have control over the finances (which gave him control over the family) and was the one who made the decisions in the household. That was probably common in many homes at the time. My father and I often ended up in conflicts that sometimes escalated into outright fights. I rebelled against that — for me, flower power and later punk were my path toward liberation from something I could not tolerate. In many ways my mother was a wise person, but so long suppressed that she could no longer make her voice heard. She pretended to be happy, told stories about her wonderful holidays to her coworkers, even though they were usually disasters — with drunkenness (my father) and lengthy quarrels. For us children, childhood became an escape into fantasy worlds, and in our teenage years, alcohol and drugs — which I thankfully eventually realized were only a temporary escape. Later I came to understand that my father was actually quite a weak person, with poor self-confidence and zero self-esteem. When the family (on my father's side) finally helped my mother to break away and flee the home, my father's existence fell completely apart and he drank himself to death.

These days I don't drink alcohol at all — I haven't for many years — having realized that alcohol does more harm than good. My partner and I have two daughters who I hope (in their eyes) I have a good relationship with; at least they have not rebelled in the same way I did. Probably because their mother was more stable than I was.

They share similar values to ours — firm in their conviction that all people have equal worth regardless of sexual orientation, ethnic background, or upbringing. They have no admiration for wealth and power, and do not see status symbols as something to strive for. They can find beauty even in things created from imagination and modest means.

In Louis Theroux's documentary, one of the men talks about his parents — above all his mother — whom he sees as "woke" and who does not share the views he holds. It is almost as though he is afraid his mother will find out about his worldview and his attitude toward women. Unfortunately, it is that same mother who defends her child in the interview with Louis — something that, to be fair, most parents would probably do if their child is being questioned.

One major difference from when I grew up is that young people today are individualists to a greater degree, unlike the more collectivist mindset of the 1960s and 70s. Individualists for better and for worse — the ego matters more than the group, personal happiness is more important than the well-being of the collective (society).

Youth is a confusing time: you have to find yourself, find goals and meaning in life, and understand yourself in relation to the world around you. Men generally have a harder time of it than women — we develop later, we have powerful hormones to keep in check, and we are easily led and confused in general. It is surely the same for women too, but men are a breed unto themselves, and as a man I can only relate to them. Just look at men in groups — they often behave like Neanderthals when they socialize. Often, not always and not all of them — one shouldn't generalize, I know — but often. Take my childhood friends from 50 years ago: they (we — I got pulled into it) have a WhatsApp group where they communicate. Most of it is about alcohol, sex, and sports — I can say I'm not there reading it very often, since most of it is empty. I'm probably seen as a bit of an oddball by the others, but I'm fine with that. I mean, 65-year-old men ought to have come further along in their development than that. I understand too that it is a form of camaraderie to bond over, but it is a bit hollow.

No person can truly say they are completely happy — I find that hard to believe. They may claim to be happy or content with life, but the searching is probably there in most people. Whether one uses religion, philosophy, science, politics, economics, mindfulness, or exercise, it is the search for something — a goal or a meaning — that drives one forward. That is probably why society has developed into what it is today.

New winds have begun to blow, however. More and more democracies are crumbling, autocrats are being given power in previously democratic countries and are slowly dismantling democracy for their own gain. Making money quickly and easily, without contributing to the development of society, has become a goal for many. People don't want to pay taxes, immigrants are seen as a problem rather than a resource, work is viewed as something negative, social problems are solved with populist ideas, politicians abandon their core political philosophy and are more concerned with winning voters than with carrying out changes for a better society. The fundamental idea that society is something that must be constantly built and shaped so that the majority of the population enjoys a decent living situation has slowly faded away.

The ideal society does not exist — we can probably agree on that — there is always some rule or law that chafes for all of us. Something that limits one's life. That is hard to escape; complete justice is difficult to create. Governing a country is difficult and complex, which is why democratic rules exist, even if they sometimes chafe.

The fact that more countries are being pushed toward autocratic rule is tragic, but it seems to have become easier now that many politicians have lost their political footing, and many voters have also lost interest in politics since no visions are ever carried through anymore. It has then become easier to win voters through lies, since there is no genuine political engagement — and by the time those lies are exposed, it is already too late. Many of these influencers have now been drawn into the political sphere, to be exploited for political purposes. Being able to reach their followers with political messages — messages disguised as the influencers' own opinions — is a way to reach younger voters. The influencers, for their part, also benefit from this, as they gain followers that way.

It all comes down to money and the possibility of earning more money without actually contributing anything. Is this to be the future of our children and grandchildren?

Thankfully, it seems that new ideas are beginning to take shape, people are starting to get tired of superficial empty posts and are joking about the way influencers market products. Hopefully, the winds are turning and more genuineness is sought.

A new way of living called "slow living", "downshifting" or "living stupidly in a smart world" - has now become a trend, where it is about counteracting the extreme efficiency and digitalization that characterizes everyday life. A reaction where presence, craftsmanship and authenticity are prioritized over speed and convenience. One can hope that this lifestyle spreads to more people and does not just become a new trend.

(I'm not very good at writing English with good grammar, so I've "cheated" and taken help from AI to translate from the original language (Swedish), I hope you'll forgive me for that cheating. What I can read, I can read English without any problems, AI hasn't ruined the original text.)

Young insecure men was originally published in Readers Hope on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I am writing this in sadness for those of you in the US who did not vote for Trump, and who did not want him as president.

I am writing in sadness for those of you who voted for Trump out of naivety and a belief that it would lead to improvement.

I am writing in sadness for those of you who are no longer considered wanted in the United States, those of you who worked and paid taxes but who are still not allowed to stay.

I write in sadness for those of you who no longer get to keep your jobs, you who no longer get the care you need, you who no longer get to carry out the research you did, the teaching you did.

I write in sadness for those of you who no longer get to be the person you know yourself to be.

I write in sadness there are politicians like Trump, who surround themselves with people without backbone and respect for others.

I write in sadness because the world is falling to pieces.

I am in mourning