[superultra]

Everyone reading this needs to go read the book the Dawn of Everything. That book - long as it is - synthesizes a lot of preexisting research to argue, among many things, that the thing that makes humans humans is our wild and wacky adaptability.

This idea that there is some kind of pre-idyllic Eden state of nature and man is a myth propagated by wildly unsubstantiated guesses that involved very little or no science or data.

I’m not saying your main point, that getting outside does us some good and that we’re social creatures, is wrong. It’s just that it’s one facet of our long history as evolved animals.

We’re literally built for change. It’s that very adaptability that has allowed us to survive and change.

[tomtheelder]

We are uniquely adaptable, but our ability to adapt does not necessarily imply that there are not ideal states. Not only that, there are clearly limits to our adaptability. We can be pushed to the point that we begin to break.

An awful lot of research exists to suggest that exposure to the outdoors has positive effects on mood and well being, and a veritable ocean to suggest that loneliness is toxic to both mental and physical health. It's not a simple appeal to nature- there is empirical data backing the claims that the original commenter made.

[slothtrop]

All animals adapt (or try to). In the first place, it doesn't necessarily work (things go extinct), and if it does, it may require evolutionary changes which take a (really) long time. If you think of examples of short-term adaptability, they don't substantially change the animal (e.g. reward circuits); usually it involves strategies and/or symbiosis. For simpler beings like bacteria maybe it's faster.

Some conditions are sure to be either entirely negative, or at least lead to deleterious effects for a very long indeterminate length of time. For instance, chronic calorie restriction (or overconsumption), or having no exposure to bright light or sunlight. Survival is one thing and quality of life is another. Some animals may have evolved to be solitary; how many of those were previously social beings, in the evolutionary chain? That may suggest how likely and viable a strategy that is. Language has evolved as a human power because we are so social - it seems infants learn from direct exposure but don't pick up language well from videos. I don't think emotional needs can be satisfied with cheap substitutes, and as entertainment technology develops, you see the offerings trying to more closely mimic real human interaction (VR, AI, etc). If we surpass the uncanny valley it will be because the synthetic experiences will be indistinguishable, which makes them redundant. It would mean that the way to "adapt" to isolated virtual living is to deceive ourselves with false reality (also see Brave New World and all the consequences entailed as to agency, liberty, the human experience). It becomes a support system for living in isolation - as opposed to devising a support system for living well.