It's not entirely clear what you're asking, but I'm assuming you're trying to argue for why society doesn't need to happen (or form). If so, then you could point out that many people go off the grid and live out in the woods far from society. The drawback though is that they have to do everything themselves and cannot rely on anyone else. That means they need to
- Grow food for themselves
- Make sure to get clean water
- Build shelter
- Fend off wild animals
- Make sure to stay warm
- Avoid getting disease
- If the person gets a disease, then they need to figure out how to cure it (if possible)
and so on. That's just a small list and I'm sure its much more extensive. If a person is in society, then they can rely on others to grow food for them (eg: rely on a grocery store) and keep animals away (through the use of animal control), and you get the idea. All of these tasks can be subdivided amongst many other people so that the single person isn't overwhelmed with all this. It's the concept known as "division of labor" and "specialization in economics". Also, things like the treatment of disease is likely outside the realm of any common person's knowledge, and it's better to rely on doctors instead.
So in short, it is possible for individuals to live off the grid entirely, but doing so is vastly inefficient because of the many tasks they have to do to survive. Humans have found it much more beneficial to come together in groups to form cities, towns, etc and it's just a natural human habit.
Even if you don't account for any of this, there's the drawback of no social interaction. Unless the person is completely fine without talking to people, then they would probably miss having friends, family, loved ones, etc. Though I guess you could argue that families could still exist but society overall would not. So it depends on how you define society and how large a scope you provide.