BUSINESS

Mark Cuban has spent years picking fights with the companies that control how Americans pay for prescription drugs. He’s built an entire business around the idea that middlemen, not doctors or manufacturers, are the reason medicine costs so much.

Now he is bringing that fight into one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country.

The billionaire entrepreneur is teaming up with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico on a plan to break up what they call “Big Medicine monopolies,” giving Cuban’s long-running healthcare crusade a direct line into electoral politics just months before voters head to the polls in one of the tightest statewide contests of the cycle.

Mark Cuban and Talarico healthcare reform plan

Talarico, a member of the Texas House of Representatives running against state Attorney General Ken Paxton, unveiled the proposal in a plan first shared with CNBC. The two will appear together for a live event and podcast recording in Fort Worth on Aug. 29 to discuss the plan.

“Mark and I agree it’s time to break up the Big Medicine monopolies that control our broken healthcare system,” Talarico said, according to CNBC.

“Healthcare corporations are ripping us off, jacking up premiums and profiting off our pain. This plan will break up monopolies, lower medical debt, bring down the cost of prescription drugs, and ensure doctors decide what medication their patients need, not insurance companies.”

Related: Mark Cuban predicts radical change for American workers

Talarico cited data showing that 90% of all U.S. hospital beds are controlled by large hospital systems, and that three pharmacy benefit managers, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx, process 80% of all prescriptions nationwide, according to Fox26.

A central piece of the proposal is stronger antitrust enforcement aimed at vertically integrated healthcare companies — the insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and hospital systems that increasingly own multiple links in the same supply chain.

Cuban’s statement backing the plan struck a deliberately bipartisan note. “I’ve spent a long time working to reduce the cost of healthcare for everybody,” Cuban said, as CNBC reported.

“Politicians in Washington have not. Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or an independent, you want more affordable, better quality healthcare. The plan James has put together will accomplish exactly that, which is why I am supporting it.”

Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs track record

Cuban did not arrive at this endorsement casually. He co-founded the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company in 2022 to sell generic medications at the manufacturer’s cost plus a flat 15% markup, with pharmacy and shipping fees, while bypassing traditional middlemen such as pharmacy benefit managers, according to TheStreet.

That company has become the backbone of Cuban’s broader argument that the healthcare system is rigged by middlemen rather than doctors or patients. Cost Plus Drugs built its model specifically to sidestep the pricing structure used by traditional pharmacy benefit managers and has grown to challenge established rivals such as Walgreens, CVS, and Amazon, CNBC reported.

He has also backed the Break Up Big Medicine Act, introduced in Congress in February 2026, which would force large insurers to separate their PBM divisions, provider networks, and drug distribution arms from their core insurance business, according to CNBC.

His endorsement of Talarico builds on public comments he made weeks earlier. In an Aug. 21 appearance on the “Pivot” podcast with Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway, Cuban called Talarico “honest” and said he would “do the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing,” a preview of the alliance now playing out in the Senate race, according to CNBC.

Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban is teaming up with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico on a plan to break up what they call “Big Medicine monopolies.”Adamkaz/Getty Images

Why CVS UnitedHealth and big healthcare are watching

The proposal lands directly on the business model that has made CVS Health one of the most vertically integrated companies in American healthcare. Its structure combines Aetna insurance, CVS Caremark pharmacy benefit management, and thousands of retail pharmacies, according to GuruFocus.

CVS is not the only company exposed. UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Elevance Health could all face greater scrutiny if lawmakers moved to separate insurance, PBM, and provider businesses that have become increasingly intertwined over the past decade, GuruFocus noted.

Talarico and Cuban are not alone in pushing this argument. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has separately called for breaking up the same vertical integration at UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, pointing to entities like Optum that link insurance, pharmacy, and provider services under one roof, according to CNBC.

What Cuban’s endorsement means for the Texas race

Cuban’s involvement gives Talarico’s campaign a business voice on an issue that consistently ranks among voters’ top concerns.

Healthcare affordability has become a defining theme of the race against Paxton. Polling shows the contest remains extremely tight, with Talarico holding a slim lead over Paxton in some surveys while trailing by a point in others, The Hill confirmed.

That tight margin makes an endorsement from a business figure like Cuban, who has spent years positioning himself as a critic of healthcare costs rather than a partisan actor, a potentially useful tool for a campaign trying to appeal across party lines in a traditionally Republican state.

Whether the plan itself ever becomes law is a separate question from whether it helps Talarico politically in a state Democrats have not won statewide in more than three decades, Fox26 reported.

For now, the proposal remains just that, a proposal. Still, the event scheduled for Aug. 29 in Fort Worth will be the clearest test yet of how much weight Cuban’s healthcare credibility can add to a campaign trying to flip one of the most closely contested Senate seats in the country.

Related: Mark Cuban just sent a strong message to America’s workers

In the wake of the “GTA 6 Extended Look,” some fans claim that “GTA 5” looks better. A “GTA 5” actor is now shooting that down.

‘Camp Rock 3’ debuts at No. 9 on Billboard’s Soundtracks chart, giving the franchise another top 10 hit but with a clear step down from its predecessors.

Guns and ammunition retailers have faced financial distress, leading to store closings and bankruptcy filings as sales have fallen significantly over the last two years.

Industry experts believe some of the decline in sales might have resulted from buyers delaying purchases to take advantage of the reduction in the National Firearms Act tax from $200 to $0 beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the National Rifle Association’s American Rifleman reported. The decline of sales, however, has continued in 2026.

Financial issues had led firearms and ammunition retailer White Oak Armory LLC to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize its business, owing a disputed tax debt to the Tennessee Department of Revenue.

White Oak Armory has filed for bankruptcy protection facing a substantial tax debt.Shutterstock

White Oak Armory files for bankruptcy

White Oak Armory filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on Aug. 24, listing $500,000 to $1 million in assets and liabilities. The petition did not reveal whether the company’s sales had declined, and the debtor did not give a specific reason for filing for bankruptcy in its petition.

The retailer was not immediately available for comment. The firearms dealer’s website and telephone were still operating on Aug. 30.

The Cleveland, Tenn.-based debtor’s largest creditor is the Tennessee Department of Revenue, owed $600,000 in disputed debt. The firearms and ammunition dealer also listed Cleveland Utilities and Spectrum as creditors but did not include the amounts of debt owed to each creditor.

No inventory listed on website

White Oak Armory’s website did not have any handgun, rifle or shotgun inventory available for sale on Aug. 30. The website also did not have any ammunition, optics or gear for sale. Some parts and accessories were available, however.

Firearms sales declined 4.1% to about 14.6 million in 2025, compared to over 15.2 million in 2024, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association’s American Rifleman reported.

New firearm unit sales declined by 7.6% year over year in the first quarter of 2026, and revenue declined by 2.6%, while average selling price increased by 5.4%, according to Tactical Wire.

Gun sales declined in 2026

Total firearms unit sales subsequently declined by 3.8% year over year in the second quarter of 2026 and dealers also cut inventory by 9.2%, with rifles down 12.3%, shotguns declining 9.4%, and handguns falling 7.7%, according to Gearfire’s RetailBI Q2 2026 Shooting Sports report on sales and inventory.

New rifle sales grew by 8.1%, while new handgun sales declined 5.6% and shotgun sales plummeted 17%.

While overall sales declined, revenue increased by 4.5% as the average firearm sold for 8.7% more than in the previous year. The report noted that consumers were focused on buying high-end rifles and handguns instead of entry-level models.

Other retailers file for bankruptcy

Several firearms retailers that filed for bankruptcy this year, including Hutco Corporation, the owner of the Delta Hawk Sportsman Gun & Pawn chain of stores, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 10 to reorganize its businesses, facing multiple civil claims.

Other the firearms companies filing for bankruptcy in 2026 include Attica, N.Y.-based Sagebrush Armory, which filed for bankruptcy on March 24, 2026, and firearms maker and dealer Custombilt Firearms Manufacturing LLC, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Feb. 8, 2026, after battling the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives over its license in 2023 and 2024.

Related: Mattress chain files Chapter 11 bankruptcy after 24 years

The door appears even more open now for an American man to win a major title for the first time since Andy Roddick 23 years ago.

Suffice it to say, the lightly-raced underdog Leading Change brought a game-changing, spectacular run to snatch the Travers from Golden Tempo. Here’s why it matters.

Oil prices jumped on Monday after the U.S. and Iran exchanged fire for the first time in a month.

I’ve been tracking SpaceX (SPCX) since before it went public, and I’ve written about nearly every bearish signal that’s emerged.

Doug Kass‘s short thesis, Jim Cramer‘s urge for patience before the lockup expiration, the former Nasdaq CEO‘s lockup warning, and Peter Andersen actively shorting and dismissing the Tesla merger thesis.My colleagues have also covered Michael Burry walking away from the trade entirely, and prominent veteran investor and former Fidelity manager George Noble labeling SpaceX “one of the best shorts in the market.”

Those are just a few of the signals. Now the chart is telling me the same story the fundamentals have been revealing for weeks. And when technicals and fundamentals align this cleanly, it’s time to pay close attention.

SPCX is trading around $141.50 as of the week ending Aug. 28. That’s 37% below its all-time high of $225.64, hit just four days after the June 12 IPO. 

The price crashed from that peak to $104.85 on Aug. 3, the day before SpaceX’s first quarterly earnings as a public company. Yes, the earnings beat triggered a recovery. But here’s the problem: That recovery retraced straight into a wall.

Also Read: SpaceX Latest News and Stories

What the SpaceX chart is showing right now

Let me walk you through exactly what I’m seeing technically, because the setup is cleaner than most.

After bottoming near $104.84, price retraced upward and tested a key point of interest (POI) — a resistance zone that has been tested multiple times without being convincingly broken.

At that level, I’m seeing a liquidity sweep followed by a confirmed shift in market structure. The bullish retracement leg has now broken down, signaling that the recovery move is likely complete and the broader downtrend is ready to resume.

Also, a descending trendline already tested twice with clear rejections acts as confluence with the existing bearish thesis.

My current setup is a short entry around the current market price, with a stop-loss at $151 and a target at the $104 sell-side liquidity.

That’s almost a 1:4 risk-reward setup. It is approximately a 25% decline from current levels, bringing total drawdown from the all-time high to roughly 52%.

TradingView

The bearish pressure is building, not dissipating. Every bounce into that support-turned-resistance zone has been met with a rejection. 

Until price closes convincingly above $151 on strong volume, the path of least resistance remains lower.

SpaceX fundamental case that backs up the chart

Technical analysis is not the only metric looking strong. The SPCX fundamental picture remains deeply uncomfortable for bulls at current prices.

SpaceX’s Q2 2026 earnings showed $7.8 billion in revenue, up 92% year over year. Sure, that’s a genuine beat versus the Street’s $6.93 billion estimate, according to TheStreet’s reporting. That helped the bullish retracement leg. 

More SpaceX:

Elon Musk’s startling claim to SpaceX investors

Citi sends powerful sign to SpaceX investors

Beaten-down stock lets you buy SpaceX below market price

But capital expenditure hit $18.4 billion for the quarter, with $15.8 billion directed toward AI infrastructure buildout, according to SpaceX’s Q2 2026 earnings report. Net loss was $541 million. Free cash flow stayed negative. 

The stock fell 13.6% the day after the report, according to TheStreet‘s reporting.

That reaction tells you something important about how sensitive SPCX is to cash burn. Revenue growth isn’t the problem. The spending pace is. 

And until investors see a credible path to free cash flow generation beyond Starlink — which generated approximately $1.66 billion in operating profit in Q2 and remains the only profitable segment — the multiple is difficult to justify.

Morningstar analyst Nicolas Owens has a fair value estimate of $62 on SPCX, which he reaffirmed after Q2 earnings, noting shares were trading at roughly twice his valuation. Former Fidelity Overseas Fund manager George Noble, who worked under Peter Lynch, told Business Insider he sees fair value for SpaceX around $30 per share. 

George flagged passive index fund flows as a structural concern, noting that retirement savings are being channeled into the stock, regardless of valuation.

Starlink has roughly 12 million subscribers and is SpaceX’s only profitable division, generating approximately $1.66 billion in operating profit in Q2 fiscal 2026.Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

What IPO history says happens next

My chart setup and the fundamental thesis have more confluence. Historical data on large IPOs points in the same bearish direction, too.

Among the 10 largest U.S. IPOs by market value since 2006, the average stock fell 34% from its IPO price at some point during the first year, according to The Motley Fool analysis of data compiled by University of Florida finance professor Jay Ritter.

Applied to SpaceX’s $135 IPO price, that historical pattern implies a drop to approximately $89 per share before June 2027.

The same dataset shows the average large IPO stock trading 12% below its IPO price after the first full year on the market, implying $119 per share for SPCX by June 2027, according to the same Motley Fool analysis.

I covered this dynamic extensively in my earlier SpaceX coverage. The median Year 1 maximum drawdown across major tech IPOs of the last decade was 54%. Facebook fell 54%. Uber dropped 68%. Snowflake lost 52%. SpaceX is already down 37% from its peak. History says there’s more room to go.

Related: Veteran hedge fund manager makes a brazen SpaceX bet

The lockup dynamic continues to add supply pressure. Roughly 911.5 million shares became eligible to trade on Aug. 6, more than doubling the public float from about 639 million to 1.55 billion shares, according to Reuters. 

Additional unlock tranches are spread across multiple dates into late 2026. More supply, same demand pool. That math doesn’t favor bulls.

SpaceX long-term case exists, but price matters

I want to be clear about something. I’m not bearish on what SpaceX is building. Starlink has roughly 12 million subscribers and is the only division generating consistent operating profit. 

The AI compute rental business, signing agreements with Anthropic, Google, and, as Bloomberg reported, Reflection AI, represents a genuinely interesting long-term revenue stream.

But there’s a massive difference between a great company and a great stock at every price. Peter Andersen, who remains actively short, put it this way when I covered him earlier: At 50 times revenue, and even if everything goes right, “You’re paying a pretty hefty price.”

Morningstar’s $62 fair value. Noble’s $30 target. My own near-term technical analysis points toward $104. These are very different methodologies converging on the same conclusion. The current price doesn’t reflect a reasonable margin of safety for the risks involved.

SPCX closed around $141.50 for the week ending Aug. 28, according to Yahoo Finance. My short setup targets $104.

None of that is a guarantee. But when the chart, the fundamentals, and the historical data all point in the same direction, I think investors deserve to hear it clearly.

Related: JPMorgan doubles down on SpaceX verdict on key update

Prices are rising again, but a slew of fan-favorite shows — including Apple’s ‘Slow Horses,’ Netflix’s ‘The Gentlemen’ and Paramount’s ‘MobLand’ — are returning for new seasons

In this thought-provoking conversation, Lawrence Quill, co-director of the Loneliness Project at San Jose State University dives deep into the modern loneliness epidemic and the surprising role technology plays as both the cause and potential cure. Drawing on ancient philosophy and cutting-edge insights, we explore why so many people—from the “feral generation” to Gen Z—feel more isolated than ever, how our phones and social media may be quietly rewiring our relationships, and whether AI companions and chatbots could genuinely ease loneliness or make it worse.

Subscribe To “Broadcast Retirement Network” On YouTube For Aging, Finance, Lifestyle, Privacy, Retirement, and Wellness programming Monday through Sunday at 7:30 AM ET.

Transcript:

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Well, joining me now is Dr. Lawrence Quill of San Jose State University. He is the co-director of The Loneliness Project.

Dr. Quill, it’s great to see you. Thanks for joining us on the program this morning.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Thank you. It’s a very great pleasure to be here.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Let’s, before we get into isolation and loneliness, I would love for you to tell myself and the audience about The Loneliness Project. Tell us about what you write about, what you’re studying, and why it’s so important in today’s world.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Well, thank you for the question. It’s important because we’re thinking about it and we’re talking about this a lot. And at San Jose State, in the College of Social Sciences, which is where I’ve spent most of my academic career, it turns out that there are lots of people interested in the topic.

They can be anthropologists, psychologists, urban studies professionals, and sort of political science people like me with a philosophical bent. And it turns out that people have been thinking about loneliness in all sorts of ways for literally hundreds of years. So it’s not exactly a new topic.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Okay, so it’s not a new topic, but yet it’s of interest to everyone. Doctor, would it be safe to say that human beings in general and by nature are communal, meaning they like to interact with each other? I mean, is that traditionally how human beings have interacted?

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Yes, it’s a very good question. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that assumption. Depending, of course, upon who you talk to, people will say we are communal creatures, we are social by nature.

This is all true. But at the same time, some of the earliest writings that we have in the ancient world talk about the importance of being by yourself, actually retreating away from the city, away from the crowd. And the reason they say that, interestingly enough, and I think it does resonate, is because they say politics is really not good for your mental health.

Really, these ideas…

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

They were onto something!

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Thousands of years old, these ideas. It’s like retreat from the city, put politics to one side, hang out with your friends, don’t surround yourself with people that are going to cause you anxiety. So we’ve been thinking about this topic for a long time.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Yeah, apparently. And, you know, coincidentally, I just finished reading again Thoreau’s Walden, and he had a very interesting story. I’m sure you know Thoreau very well.

He actually went off for two years, two months and two days, and was out on his own. That, I think, aligns very well with what you’re talking about in terms of individualism and kind of keeping your thoughts, exploring your thoughts. So let’s talk about some of this technology.

And I have my iPhone over here. It’s not on camera, but, you know, a lot of people… I remember when it was first created, and Steve Jobs, the former founder of Apple, now unfortunately no longer with us, founded it.

And he gave this big introduction, and he said, this is going to bring the world together, and you’ll be able to make phone calls and do all these things. But in some ways, Doctor, it’s also an isolating technology.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Hmm. I think you’re onto something. I think that’s right, and I think there’s an awful lot of research that would support that.

It varies, interestingly enough, by generation. If you can remember a world before the Internet…

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

I do, I do.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Right. And before the iPhone, which came in 2007, 2008, if you can remember a world before then, in some ways you’re better prepared to handle the kind of challenges that the new technology has presented. So you can use it as a connecting device.

I speak to my elderly mother in England regularly via the iPhone, and it’s absolutely wonderful. But if you’ve been born into a world where this is all you know, and that the social media world, the digital world, is more present and real to you than the reality that perhaps we grew up with, the physical reality, then that can cause some problems. That way it can be a sort of disconnect while you’re connecting.

And the data does show that millennials and Gen Z tend to suffer, and they do suffer more and speak more about feelings of loneliness than perhaps Gen X or even some boomers. So that’s kind of interesting, and that’s a new phenomenon.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Yeah, you know, I guess I can relate to that because, you know, I grew up, I’m probably a little bit older than you are, but I grew up with like the typewriter, the fax machine, you know, the Apple II computer. So most of the interactions I had were with people, you know, playing on sports teams and doing whatnot. And maybe in some ways my generation and those that came before me maybe had better coping mechanisms because of that experience.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

Well, I think you make a very good point. So I’m part of Gen X, which has been called the feral generation, which I rather like because we were let loose. We had a lot of unsupervised play.

We spent hours by ourselves or with our friends, and we kind of just got on with it. There’s been a change independent of the technology with how Gen X parents brought up their children. They were much more supervised.

The term is helicopter parenting. We’re familiar with that. I think that plus the technology has created an ecosystem where there’s less opportunity for young people to spend time by themselves that isn’t supervised.

And, you know, there are pros and cons, but it means that the generations have grown up differently. So we have different ways of understanding what is okay, what is appropriate, what we should worry about, and what we should just let go. And that makes it hard to understand a phenomenon like loneliness, which is, I suppose, in part why I’m interested in studying it.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

So let’s talk a little bit about more the condition. I’m not a psychotherapist. I don’t really come from the behavioral world.

But how would you define is it a feeling? Is it an emotion? Is it a combination of all those things?

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

A very good question. And a lot of ink has been spilt just trying to work out what it is we’re talking about. Because a lot of the information that we’re working with has come about because of surveys.

So surveys that have been administered since the 1990s. There’s the UCLA Loneliness Index. That’s a whole range of questions that people have been given over the years and variations on that kind of test, that survey.

But it’s self-reporting. So if people feel particularly lonely one day, it’s possible that they may not feel quite so lonely the following day or a week later or a month later. So in a sense, you have to take these surveys with a pinch of salt.

It’s much easier to report that we feel a certain way now than it was in the past, not least because of the digital environment. We’re filling out surveys all the time. So we do have a lot of data.

But what that data means, it’s kind of harder to say. And there have been some high profile cases of the same surveys being administered years apart to roughly the same group of people. And they produce different results.

So you can’t really pin down with any great degree of accuracy how bad loneliness is. That said, in popular culture and thanks to some rather high profile reports by the former surgeon general in the United States, we allegedly live in a loneliness epidemic. I’m not convinced personally, but it’s pretty alarming to hear that sort of thing.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

And when you think about the generations, would you think the millennials or maybe maybe Gen Z? Maybe that the are they? And I think back to Covid when we were really all isolated, but in particular, the kids were kind of coming up.

You know, they didn’t know what you know, they had no experience. They were asked to stay at home. But do you think that they maybe feel loneliness more than you or I as a as a feral generation or maybe our parents who are the boomer generation?

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. There’s a wonderful professor at San Diego State called Jean Twenge. She’s a social psychologist and she’s written books about this.

And all of the data that she’s collected suggests that millennials and Gen Z speak up much more about their feelings. And they report much more about their state of mental health. And that includes loneliness.

They feel it a lot more. Now, the irony here is that Professor Twenge isolates or points to the introduction of the cell phone as the technology that marks the generations apart. And has, in a sense, I suppose you could say, had a great deal to do with creating loneliness.

But also it’s the technology that many, many tech companies try to use, utilize to resolve issues of loneliness, to make us less lonely. So they’re using the same technology that perhaps has created some of these conditions in the first place.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

So, you know, I have to be honest and say, you know, I work from home. The studio that you’re seeing me in is in my home, one of the bedrooms. But I feel connected to you because you and I are having a conversation.

Now, we aren’t in the same room technically. And I guess I can’t see you from the sternum down. But for me, that’s very satisfying.

It would, you know, in terms of I don’t feel lonely. Now, if I was home alone, it was just me and the cats. I guess if my wife wasn’t here, I would feel by myself and a little lonely.

Does that connection that you and I are having, do other generations, the younger generations feel that same connection? Or do I do I resolve the loneliness by being physically next to somebody, seeing a warm body or having the the aura of a warm body, if you will, next to me?

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

So these are great questions. So let me see if I can, if I can, in the time that we have, do my best to splice them apart. About physical connection, what we know about millennials and Gen Z is that they physically connect a lot less than the feral generation did or the boomers did.

And that’s been a cultural phenomenon. People over the decades, people spend less time together in public places. And there are all sorts of reasons why that might be.

People don’t hang out the way they used to. So that’s the simplest way to put it. They spend a lot more time online and that’s how they’ve learned to communicate.

So the communication is mediated and that’s the first point of contact. And this is really a big generational shift that X’s and boomers can’t really wrap their heads around because the default for them is always to come back to a physical connection that makes sense. But there’s an additional problem with that as well.

And this one’s a little harder to unpack, but I’ll try to keep this as simple as I can. And that is that people are finding it much harder to talk to one another now. And there are all sorts of reasons why that might be.

We hear a lot about polarization in our political communities, not just in North America, but across the English speaking world. And that’s very sad, but there’s something to it. It means that while the technology has been making us more individual and isolated and covered really tips us over the edge.

Before that, there’s some evidence to suggest that people were moving to parts of America where they felt more comfortable with people like them politically, perhaps socioeconomically, religiously. This has been going on since the 90s, perhaps even before then, from the 70s, when urban centers emptied out and the suburbs really took off. So there’s this going along as well.

And and so we have a technology that individualizes and we have a desire to be surrounded by people with whom we’re comfortable for one reason or another. And that does not make it easy to talk to people randomly. So I would say that those two factors are rather interesting.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

Yeah, it’s a it’s a shame. And we’ll probably have to spend another show trying to trying to figure out how to maybe undo or resolve some of that. But I’ve got about two and a half minutes left.

And I want to ask you, we’ve talked about the iPhone technology and some of the newer technologies, technologies. I was talking to someone today about artificial intelligence. I want to get your perception about that, because I could see that as, you know, it’s kind of like friendly, though it’s not human.

It’s human like, but not human. Are we headed towards a world where each of us has our own little AI, large language learning model that we interact with and that becomes our friend and that takes away some of the loneliness?

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

It’s a great question. I mean, I hope we have another chance to talk about that. And so, yeah, the short answer is yes.

I think the short answer is yes. And I say that for a couple of reasons. First, a lot of the largest technology companies seem to be pushing us in that direction.

Mark Zuckerberg was interviewed, I think, last year. He spoke to the loneliness problem specifically. And his solution was to encourage people to have more friends in his metaverse.

So in his AI digital environment, he said, you know, this is where you can have more friends. Now we could get into that. Now is not the time.

But he clearly thinks there’s a technological solution to a social problem. I think the other thing might be slightly more interesting, which is and this is just anecdotal. But how many of the people I know use large language models as their personal therapists?

So they foregone physical therapy, you know, interacting with an actual trained therapist. And they talk to their AI and they train their AI to speak to them in a way that they find comforting. Because what they lack are friends with whom they confide, family members they feel comfortable with.

But the AI is always there. It’s generally very positive. It’s your personal cheerleader.

And it makes them it makes them feel better. Now, there have been all sorts of objections to this kind of technology behaving in this sort of way. I understand that.

That’s something we could talk about another time. But it’s here. It’s very sophisticated.

And I think it provides a great deal of comfort. Now, that doesn’t mean to say there aren’t issues or problems with this, because I think there are. But I think it’s here.

And I think we’re only going to have more of it in the future. Yeah.

Jeffrey Snyder, Broadcast Retirement Network

And from what I understand, talking to experts, it’s growing exponentially. Like every few months, it gets like super, like twice or four times as smart. So I think we have our work cut out for us.

But look, Dr. Quill, I really appreciate your time. And, you know, we’ll invite you back. We’ll bring you back because I think there’s a lot more to unpack there.

Thanks for joining us. And we look forward to having you back soon, sir.

Lawrence Quill, PhD., , co-director of The Loneliness Project, San Jose State University.

It was a pleasure. Thank you.