3 ms·

I’ve said for years that the 20th century saw humanity for the first time having to learn to live in a world of infinite sugar, fat and salt. The 21st century

by 300bps 5y ago

I’ve said for years that the 20th century saw humanity for the first time having to learn to live in a world of infinite sugar, fat and salt. The 21st century will be about learning to live in a world of infinite information. We will all have to be mindful of whether we are consuming the mental equivalent of broccoli, donuts or anthrax.

jacquesm 5y ago
Good stuff, really. I like the analogy between sugar, fat, salt and information, though infotainment may be a better term for the stuff we are addicted to.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Yes, just as some cultures have very specific meanings for concepts (like the famous German compound words, or the variety of words the native Inuit language uses to describe types and formations of snow), we should probably develop more specific words than just the generic all-encompassing “information” or “data”. Infotainment is a good one, but we will need many more!
hindsightbias 5y ago
HFCS, fat and salt
dredmorbius 5y ago
Yes, this. Humans as a race have evolved to be able to short-cut our own motivational and behavioural control systems. Or more precisely, for one group to manipulate anothers' motivators to serve the interests of the manipulator rather than the party served by those factors. Wants are a means to an end. They are not the end itself. That is, wants are evolutionarily-derived (or sometimes culturally-instilled) drives or motivators which should result in improved fitness. Think of these in terms of emotional drives, tastes and our responses to them, favouring aesthetics (symmetry, balance, smoothness, etc.) Those evolved in an environment which was itself not counterevolving to feed those drives faster than they could emerge. That's not to say that there isn't co-evolution occurring: fruits, say, evolve to be sweet to attract animals which will eat it and spread seeds. But *there is no "fruit sector" specifically engineering high-sugar fruits with a response cycle of days or weeks or months. Even human breeders typically take years or decades, and natural selection generally takes much longer. Motivators evolved to find things in the environment which improved overall fitness. "Give them what they want" is engineering rapidly to appeal to psychological behaviours in ways that exploit them specifically to the interests of the engineer. (Or more likely: the investors / shareholders / VC behind them.) If you're gaming the want itself directly, you lose the argument that what you're providing is at the choice of the target, because you've coopted that choice to your own interests. https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/107453533345126190 https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/107453533345126190
- 300bps 5y ago
  Very insightful response. Taking your fruit analogy further - some fruit evolved to be poisonous to mammals because birds spread their seeds further. Also liked the manipulation point you made. It’s why you have things from the 20th century like soda companies and McDonalds and all the other organizations just “giving people what they want”. Now in the 21st century we have Facebook, Instagram and the like similarly low-level poisoning people.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    The marketing excuse has long bothered me, though it took me years to put my finger on just what the issue was. The Mastodon thread linked above is where I first articulated it. I'm aware of some similar work and concepts (especially "paradox of choice" research), but nothing as yet that lands close to what I've come up with. I've got a few feelers out for any possible earlier work. If there is an extant similar concept, I'd love to hear of it. (If anyone comes across this later, email me, HN username at protonmail.)

by 300bps 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Good stuff, really. I like the analogy between sugar, fat, salt and information, though infotainment may be a better term for the stuff we are addicted to.

ModernMech 5y ago
Yes, just as some cultures have very specific meanings for concepts (like the famous German compound words, or the variety of words the native Inuit language uses to describe types and formations of snow), we should probably develop more specific words than just the generic all-encompassing “information” or “data”. Infotainment is a good one, but we will need many more!

hindsightbias 5y ago

HFCS, fat and salt

dredmorbius 5y ago

Yes, this. Humans as a race have evolved to be able to short-cut our own motivational and behavioural control systems. Or more precisely, for one group to manipulate anothers' motivators to serve the interests of the manipulator rather than the party served by those factors. Wants are a means to an end. They are not the end itself. That is, wants are evolutionarily-derived (or sometimes culturally-instilled) drives or motivators which should result in improved fitness. Think of these in terms of emotional drives, tastes and our responses to them, favouring aesthetics (symmetry, balance, smoothness, etc.) Those evolved in an environment which was itself not counterevolving to feed those drives faster than they could emerge. That's not to say that there isn't co-evolution occurring: fruits, say, evolve to be sweet to attract animals which will eat it and spread seeds. But *there is no "fruit sector" specifically engineering high-sugar fruits with a response cycle of days or weeks or months. Even human breeders typically take years or decades, and natural selection generally takes much longer. Motivators evolved to find things in the environment which improved overall fitness. "Give them what they want" is engineering rapidly to appeal to psychological behaviours in ways that exploit them specifically to the interests of the engineer. (Or more likely: the investors / shareholders / VC behind them.) If you're gaming the want itself directly, you lose the argument that what you're providing is at the choice of the target, because you've coopted that choice to your own interests. https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/107453533345126190 https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/107453533345126190

300bps 5y ago
Very insightful response. Taking your fruit analogy further - some fruit evolved to be poisonous to mammals because birds spread their seeds further. Also liked the manipulation point you made. It’s why you have things from the 20th century like soda companies and McDonalds and all the other organizations just “giving people what they want”. Now in the 21st century we have Facebook, Instagram and the like similarly low-level poisoning people.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  The marketing excuse has long bothered me, though it took me years to put my finger on just what the issue was. The Mastodon thread linked above is where I first articulated it. I'm aware of some similar work and concepts (especially "paradox of choice" research), but nothing as yet that lands close to what I've come up with. I've got a few feelers out for any possible earlier work. If there is an extant similar concept, I'd love to hear of it. (If anyone comes across this later, email me, HN username at protonmail.)