Introduction
In this essay, I attempt to explain the role humans play in each other’s lives. I argue that our interactions arise out of our individual desires, because desire is the ultimate motivation of human behavior. For the sake of this analysis, I split human desire into two categories, human-dependent and non-human dependent desires. They exist as endpoints on opposite sides of a spectrum. With respect to these two desires, I examine the function of relationships (i.e., repeated interactions) and outline how to build them effectively to better achieve these desires. My conclusion is that relationships are immensely useful for achieving both types of desires and there are better and worse approaches to building and maintaining them.
Desires
As mentioned above, desires can be split into two categories that sit on opposite ends of a spectrum: human-dependent and non-human-dependent desires. A human-dependent desire is one that cannot be satisfied without the involvement of another person. By contrast, a non-human-dependent desire can, at least in theory, be fulfilled without any human help—even if, in practice, people often step in to help. The phrase “cannot possibly” is crucial as some desires involve other people as it is the easiest or most common way to fulfill them, but do not require them. For most of history, we have relied on one another to satisfy every kind of desire, but that reliance has been shrinking as technology and social institutions evolve. This is all to say that the distinction between the two categories is important guides to our current and future behaviors.
Human Dependent
Examples of human-dependent desires include intimacy; personal and collective identity; reproduction and parenting; and status and social roles. These desires meet two key criteria: (1) they are fundamental desires, and (2) they can only be achieved through interaction with other people. Thus far, things that merely approximate humanness can satisfy just part of these desires. Technologies like letters, telephones, social media have reshaped the channels by which these desires are pursued but always with the ultimate involvement of humans even if it’s virtual and not interactive. It seems artificial intelligence may be the first technology capable of standing in for a person, provided it can convincingly emulate human behaviour and tailor its responses to each individual. If AI, or another technology, fully replicates human essence, the labels would shift, but the distinction would remain useful for spotting which desires still need a human-level substitute. Additionally, if technology must emulate us that closely to meet those desires, it validates the unique role humans still play.
Non-Human Dependent
Examples include most practical desires such as satiating hunger, acquiring knowledge, and staying warm and most emotional desires such as pleasure, excitement, and relaxation. Many emotional desires evolved to be triggered in multiple ways, given the diverse and dynamic range of behaviors necessary for human life; this helps explain why so many are non-human-dependent. Historically, these desires were primarily achieved through personal relationships, but over time some shifted to impersonal relationships and, eventually, to technological solutions. Even so, we still depend on other humans to satisfy most of them as it remains an efficient method of delivery.
Relationships
We form relationships to help us achieve both types of desires. They are indispensable for human-dependent desires and often serve as efficient channels for delivering non-human-dependent desires. Consider a simple example: Two people connect over shared interests. They exchange ideas and find each other’s thoughts valuable, which triggers positive emotions. Over time, that positive response becomes habitual—even the sight of one another elicits it given the expectation of value. As the relationship deepens, they develop a sense of shared identity, emotional intimacy, and a defined place in each other’s social circles. Because the relationship now satisfies multiple desires—both human-dependent (intimacy, social identity) and non-human-dependent (knowledge, pleasure)—it becomes more valuable than unbundling those benefits and seeking them separately. In other words, one hour spent with each other yields more total value than spending the same hour hunting for each benefit in isolation. Thus, although that relationship is ultimately just a means of delivering both kinds of desire, it has become a uniquely useful means of doing so.
Number of Relationships
We can meet our desires with very few relationships. That said, it usually makes sense to have many, as each will have deficiencies and there is inevitable turnover. There may also be a rough minimum number of relationships required to satisfy desires tied to group or collective identity. You also want to be careful about not having too many as there is the opportunity cost of time, the complexity that comes from managing many relationships, and the likely reduction in intimacy and trust per relationship.
Types of Relationships
A helpful way to think through relationships is to break them into different groups. Mentally placing each relationship within a group allows you to more easily assess what you want out of the relationship and therefore how you should act. I’ve found it helpful to organize them into tiers. The closest tiers are relationships where significant human-dependent desire is extracted while in the further tiers non-human-dependent value is dominant. The significant other, family, and close friends tend to occupy the closer levels. Friends, acquaintances, and business associates tend to occupy the further ones.
Specific Approaches
There are many ways to effectively organize your relationships. I will lay out my approach as an example. I want to have a fairly diversified portfolio with relationships occupying specific roles but little redundancy as I find managing many relationships time consuming in ways that exceed the expected value. Within the closest tier, I keep the significant other (SO) meaningful above all the others and this allows me to avoid the pitfalls of over diversification which are lower intimacy and trust. I believe the SO’s potential benefits are worth the downside risks which I don’t think are easily diversified away anyways. Below the SO is space for a few people who are close but recognize the primacy of the SO. They, like the SO, must provide large amounts of human-dependent and non-human dependent value. Then are the group of folks either capable of jumping up a tier or who are very strong along a particular dimension or dimensions. After them lie a layer of folks who are usually fairly strong across the board, particularly strong in certain dimensions, or a very strong in some places but very weak in others, usually all with respect to non-human dependent value. Lastly is a large group of people who deliver weaker value along the dimensions laid out, this may include colleagues, acquaintances, and folks you encounter by necessity.
Selecting Relationships
Given the importance of the SO in my framework, their selection is most critical. The family, which typically resides in the closest rungs, is not typically selected rather certain members are prioritized. Friends are also generally a selected group, although many close friends arise during childhood. Then the final layers are often not so much chosen but encountered throughout life and again prioritization becomes important. In the case of selection and prioritization, you need to assess their potential value and role within your existing portfolio. You want relationships which play superior, complementary, or differentiating roles relative the rest. The benefit of adding them must also exceed the cost. The same logic is used when cutting relationships. You need to assess the benefit of removal relative to the cost. Long term relationship, especially in the closest layers, generally have high replacement costs but also have high maintenance costs, while relationships in the outer layers are more replaceable, even by non-humans, but have lower maintenance costs. All of this needs to be consistently assessed and adjusted. Selecting your relationships is selecting a portfolio of investments: you assess the value of each asset, how they perform relative to each other, which assets should be bought or sold, how large to size them, and how they are positioned to succeed in the current environment. In the end, you want a portfolio with significant upside and minimal downside.
Building Relationships
Once you have a relationship, you then need to go about building it to reap the rewards. There are several ways to view this process. In essence, it is a reciprocal one where both parties need to provide value. I will outline my framework, but I’ll again stress that there are many ways to think about and characterize the process. I view mine as concise, fairly complete, and memorable; it’s important for it to be concise and memorable, as I need to use it quickly and without reference all the time. So, after an initial match of potential value is established, I contend the relationship will be built on respect, care, trust, sharing, and staying. These behaviors cycle repeatedly over time to build and form relationships. The order is flexible and evolves, but I’ll outline what seems like a sensible general evolution. It may start with respect, which signals that you are safe to approach and that you view them as worthy of a potential relationship. Over time, respect grows and becomes critical to human-dependent desires like identity, social status, and belonging. Care often appears early as well, with small favors and polite exchanges signaling interest and capacity for reciprocity. Care also becomes important for many desires like intimacy, belonging, parenting, and reliable advice. Trust is established over time but is granted early on in small pieces to display willingness to be reciprocal on sensitive and important matters. Trust continues to be important, as you want your most sensitive topics to be treated carefully and often in private. Trust likewise is important for desires like intimacy and group identity. Sharing is an essential feature and staple of all relationships. It is the favors, advice, and emotional support, and it enhances desires like group identity and intimacy. Sharing is usually balanced in new relationships but fluctuates over longer time scales in more developed ones. Lastly, staying is critically important, as relationships take time and work to grow. Both individuals need to believe the other is committed to the cause, as the future is often where most of the value lies. This devotion needs to be clear throughout. Improvement along all these dimensions leads to positive outcomes for both parties.
Conclusion
It is important to have relationships, as some desires can only be fulfilled by other people, and relationships tend to be efficient ways to obtain even non-human-dependent desires. The full split of dependent and non-dependent desires isn’t clear to me, but I’m convinced that split exists. It doesn’t seem to matter who the specific person in the relationship is, as there are plenty of humans with a variety of value-inducing abilities; however, specific relationships generally become valuable and harder to replace over time. There are different ways to arrange your relationships to extract these values, but I’m inclined toward the following: a close layer with the SO at the top and a few close family and friends; a middle layer of friends and family; and a bottom layer of acquaintances. There are also many ways to describe how to build relationships; I find the framework I laid out helpful but by no means precisely correct or the only one. In that framework, I describe how to find relationships, then how to build them through respect, care, trust, sharing, and staying. As that process develops over time, one builds relationships that can provide meaningful value to their life.