Funny. All capitalism did to me was turn me socialist.
Trump killed any dopamine hit I could get from social media. That shit lead straight to depression.
In fact there is very little that even excites me beyond sports, but I’m a Broncos fan so no dopamine hits there.
Lucky I have hobbies and Colorado is awesome or lide would be pretty terrible.
Dopamine hits are definitely a path to depression.
Immediate gratification, especially if it’s semi-randomly applied, rewires the brain to specialize it for low-effort-low-reward activities, which basically makes success in the real world less likely, making the real world overwhelming, leading to a partial freeze response which is aka depression.
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.
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.
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.
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.
our disposable approach to consumer electronics robs our generation of a sense of historical provenance.
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.
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.
There’s another article I’ll drop here that talks about how cigarette manufacturers, once their addictive schemes were found out, went on to make Kraft Foods and Nabisco (who make oreos). Using their background in peddling addictive substances, they utilized the same model by creating “hyper palatable foods.” basically, foods full of carbs and sugar, that trigger the dopamine response in your brain.
This means they were able to make Oreos as addictive as cocaine.
They drove people to early death from lung cancer, emphysema, and COPD, and when their scheme was found out, they started driving people to early death from diabetes, heart disease, and every other condition that obesity exacerbates.
There are currently class action lawsuits going after opioid makers for their lies about the addictive properties of their drug (FUCK THE SACKLER FAMILY), why not these Kraft foods too?
They also went on to work for fossil fuel companies to use what they learned lying to the public about cancer and cigarette connection and used it for climate issues. One example was called I.C.E. who bought ads in magazines that showed a chicken holding a snowball and saying some crap like “global warming yet we had snow in July in …” They had their memos leaked and you can read them all describing how they need to target groups especially men aged 40+ because they are easy to persuade. They thought so little of the people who ate up their gimmicks
Turning? This has been the goal and process for a long, long time.
Marketing corps are pretty effective and quite predatory…ACT NOW ONLY 5 LEFT IN STOCK.
If that works on someone, it’s not because the marketer is smart, but because they know how to cast their net where the dumb fish are.
583 OTHER PEOPLE ARE READING THIS COMMENT, QUICK ACT NOW
Material gang stand up
Capitalism is based on addiction… Sugar, tobacco…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Think, for example, of all the apps and platforms specifically designed to hijack our attention with pings and dopamine hits while harvesting our data.
I spoke to Courtwright about the problems this has created, why the battle against limbic capitalism is seemingly endless, and if he thinks we’re destined to live in a consumerist dystopia.
But what’s happened in the last 100 years or so is that more of these commercial strategies come from highly organized corporations that do very sophisticated research and find more ways to market these addictive goods and services.
So again, the demand, “I’ve got to eat something,” was always there, but what the processed food industry does, because it’s so competitive, is create products that will provide the calories and nutrients in ways that act like mood-altering drugs.
Sure, everyone needs to eat, but not everyone needs to tweet or buy 13 pairs of sunglasses or own a closet of products that add nothing to their life apart from marking their identity and status for other people.
And we have tax policy, we have potential structural limitations, we have lawsuits and big class action cases that pose serious problems for American limbic capitalists.
The original article contains 1,959 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 90%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That is the intent, and I know it is getting to me, I can’t see someone eating a burger without needing to get fast food brand.
Joke on them i’m already an addict
