As a freelance writer I’ll usually avoid topics that fall into the “well d’uh” category.
Turns out I’ve been limiting my career path…
Capitalism turns people into addicts? No shit… that’s entirely the point of capitalism. It’s literally the defining characteristic.
Shit…I have an article in my hard drive right now about how our disposable approach to consumer electronics robs our generation of a sense of historical provenance.
I’ve never even considered publishing it because to me it falls into the “no shit… everyone already knows that” category.
Has never gone through the proper final edit. But my central thesis came when I was watching Antiques Roadshow and my brain tried to reconcile a pocket watch carried by a civil war soldier; engraved and handed down through generations until it lands in a museum in 2021 (when I began working on the article).
While in comparison, a modern smartwatch, that literally no one cares about once the company stops supporting it with software updates.
Certainly there are modern objects that will find a home in the museums of tomorrow (the first iPhone, for example). But as a writer (who went to university initially for archaeology) interested in artifacts from daily life, our generation’s place in the museums of the future is effectively erased because we have nothing to preserve that anyone would honestly give a damn about.
By creating a world dominated by disposable things, companies have effectively taken control of our very legacy. If the only item worthy off being studied is one of corporate significance (the first iPhone, the first smartwatch, etc…), then we lose our personal connection to that legacy.
It’s obviously more complicated than all that, and delves into how we study the techniques of individual potters and painters, for example. If I ever get it publication ready it would be a miracle.
No shit… that’s entirely the point of capitalism. It’s literally the defining characteristic.
Eh, not really. I mean, it pretty much is now, but as the guy in the article says, it’s fundamentally different to sell juul than it is to sell like shovels or some regular product.
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.
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.
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.
I can’t get over “d’uh”. Where on earth did you get the idea an apostrophe is needed? I’ve seen all sorts of weird spelling and punctuation but this is a first for me.
As a freelance writer I’ll usually avoid topics that fall into the “well d’uh” category.
Turns out I’ve been limiting my career path…
Capitalism turns people into addicts? No shit… that’s entirely the point of capitalism. It’s literally the defining characteristic.
Shit…I have an article in my hard drive right now about how our disposable approach to consumer electronics robs our generation of a sense of historical provenance.
I’ve never even considered publishing it because to me it falls into the “no shit… everyone already knows that” category.
let me have it doc, you’ve found your audience
Has never gone through the proper final edit. But my central thesis came when I was watching Antiques Roadshow and my brain tried to reconcile a pocket watch carried by a civil war soldier; engraved and handed down through generations until it lands in a museum in 2021 (when I began working on the article).
While in comparison, a modern smartwatch, that literally no one cares about once the company stops supporting it with software updates.
Certainly there are modern objects that will find a home in the museums of tomorrow (the first iPhone, for example). But as a writer (who went to university initially for archaeology) interested in artifacts from daily life, our generation’s place in the museums of the future is effectively erased because we have nothing to preserve that anyone would honestly give a damn about.
By creating a world dominated by disposable things, companies have effectively taken control of our very legacy. If the only item worthy off being studied is one of corporate significance (the first iPhone, the first smartwatch, etc…), then we lose our personal connection to that legacy.
It’s obviously more complicated than all that, and delves into how we study the techniques of individual potters and painters, for example. If I ever get it publication ready it would be a miracle.
Eh, not really. I mean, it pretty much is now, but as the guy in the article says, it’s fundamentally different to sell juul than it is to sell like shovels or some regular product.
You can get shovels just fine under communism, because they’re a useful utility.
I would have to agree, 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.
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.
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.
Yup I think we fully agree.
I can’t get over “d’uh”. Where on earth did you get the idea an apostrophe is needed? I’ve seen all sorts of weird spelling and punctuation but this is a first for me.