193
submitted 1 year ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

prioritizing desire over utility tends to be a uniquely capitalist trait.

I don't think that's necessarily true either but that's not the original claim. The original claim is the whole point of capitalism is turning people into addicts or praying on their addiction. I don't really think that's true. It may be some of the point, but I don't think it was as bad as it currently is until very recently.

I think it's a relatively new phenomenon that has to do with weaponizing recent scientific advances in knowledge of human psychology and neuroscience. We didn't always know why gambling was addictive to people, but now we do, and what this guy is terming limbic capitalists take special care to weaponize that new knowledge against us (for instance, using smart phones).

Think "gamification"... That just wasn't really a thing 30 years ago. That's what the author is saying. Decades ago it was maybe cigarettes and alcohol. Now you have drug companies pushing prescriptions, Facebook and shitter tweaking algorithms for "engagement", and even just the whole smartphone ecosystem in general: notifications and micro transactions.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

I kinda agree with you but don't.

Capitalism is about maximizing profit.

Which isn't technically the same as "turning people into addicts".

But maximizing profit is mathematically about maximizing sales and profit margins. Which is most powerful when maximizing demand or desire. The most potent form of demand is addiction.

So addiction isn't necessary a design purpose of capitalism, but it's emergent.

And it's not new, it dates back to the 1700's: https://www.etymonline.com/word/addiction

Government regulations combat capitalism exploiting addiction with varying success in verying industries over the last several hundred years.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think we fully agree. I mean there were things like trading companies selling opium to villagers as well to reference a historical example.

I just think what he's calling limbic capitalism is way more prevalent in the range of sources it comes from and who the targets are.

I think summarily what's changed is that in centuries past people didn't gather round a conference table with an understanding of human psychology and nuero science and ask each other, "how can we get 5 year olds addicted to our iPhone game?". And while it's likely a slight exaggeration to say they're literally doing that now...I don't think it's very far off.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yup I think we fully agree.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
193 points (91.8% liked)

politics

18852 readers
5153 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS