>>3238
>Going 30+ years without so much as a hug sure hasn't felt life-threatening to me.
Cool anecdote. On the flipside, you see the most prominent works of literature and art magnifying love, and scores of violent criminals that were mentally broken by loneliness and lack of love.
>30 minutes without oxygen will surely kill or permanently render someone a vegetable.
Your narrow materialistic view isn't as smart as you think it is, our life and wellbeing are deeply dependent on our social interactions. The human machine is orders of magnitude more complex than a tree that only lives with energy, carbon and water.
Another cool anecdote for you is that the "social" interactions of plant life strongly influence their wellbeing by regulating the penetration of sunlight (and as a consequence, temperature deregulation and water evaporation) as well as other mutually beneficial interactions that improve stability and resilience (some treets even share their water through their roots so yes, the presence of other trees can make a big difference). Being much more conscious than plants, why would humans be any less conscious of the threat of isolation than they are of the danger of thirst or hunger ? Generosity, after all, has saved countless lives, it spared just as many from cruelty as it did from tragedy, it consistently had a substantial influence in the preservation and proliferation of life. How's that for a cartoon narrative ?
I'm not surprised at all this reality escapes your notice, as your narrow materialistic worldview's natural conclusion is always a hedonistic, materialistic, individualistic outlook that negates any significance of life beyond the individual.
No amount of irony will ever manage to hide the fact that your edgelord beliefs about life are pants-on-head absurd and can be dismissed with a soyjak.
>Marriages that are successful long-term certainly don't rely on "love" to survive. Familiarity breeds contempt. People who enter this union (that supposedly carries so much gravitas) together typically end up despising one another in short order.
And I guess you draw this observation from your extensive experience in the matter ? Seriously, consider this: you unironically claim to believe that people who have long, stable marriages actually hate each other. This is lunacy, even by the standards of anonymous internet boards.
Claiming that affection boils down to sexual attraction is a typical symptom of this materialistic silliness (*cough* Freud *cough*) that ends up toying with the idea that parental love can't be so different from sexual attraction. Utter lunacy.