Riddle me this:
Agent 1 uses a chemical substance to harness your neurological addiction pathways to make you engage in a behavior (repeatedly buying a drug) that makes them money. Sadly, this behavior also undermines your health and relationships.
Agent 2 uses a behavioral technique to harness your neurological addiction pathways to make you engage in a behavior (repeatedly posting and scrolling on their app) that makes them money. Sadly, this behavior also undermines your health and relationships.
Agent 1 is a menace to society deserving of punishment.
Agent 2 is an innovative business leader deserving of admiration.
@brennan Or they're both just making a living by providing services to meet a demand.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either of these.
You could even frame grocery stores the same way: "harnessing your neurological hunger pathways to make you engage in a behaviour."
I am curious about the inconsistency implied by the last two sentences of my prior post.
Your view, that "there's nothing inherently wrong with either of these," is more coherent, as would be the view that *both* are inherently wrong.
Either of these seems to me relatively more consistent.
@LouisIngenthron Make sense?
@brennan Sure, but I don't know that there are many folks who hold those opposing opinions.
Most who demonize drugs likely also demonize social media.
@LouisIngenthron That's good to know. Some institutions (e.g. US & EU law) evidently take a different view.
@brennan They may now, but both are heading in the exact opposite direction.
Marijuana legalization has been gaining major traction in the US for years. Meanwhile, legislators are constantly proposing bills to regulate social media.
@LouisIngenthron I see.
The broader question as I understand it is how we care for one another, even as we develop more effective and subtle ways of controlling one another. What, if any, obligations do we have to ourselves and to one another in this context?
@LouisIngenthron Agreed. However, my question ("...how we care for one another, even as we develop more effective and subtle ways of controlling one another") inquires precisely about the subset of the problem that is *not* old.
@brennan I disagree with your core premise. If anything, it's more difficult to control people today than it used to be, due to the widespread availability of knowledge.
What you describe as "being controlled", I describe as "making choices".
Just because drugs and social media activate the pleasure centers of our brains doesn't mean we have no agency to choose whether we want to engage in them.
@LouisIngenthron I appreciate your respectful disagreement.
@brennan It's a problem as old as humanity. Some people have self-control. Others don't.
Those that want help, you can help. Those who don't, you can't.
Many folks try to treat this as a modern problem, but at its root, it's really not.