Are smartphones the new 'opium of the people'?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Are smartphones the new 'opium of the people'?
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48923485
55 comments
Isn't that the whole issue with Skinner-box things, though? They're not something that you care passionately about, they're something that's 'nothing' but you find yourself clicking or scrolling through them anyway.
Well, religion for most people wasn't a passion either -- that was just for the zealots.
Agreed. Would you go to war over your phone? I think the analogy to faith kind of breaks down when you ask that question. I seriously doubt that anyone would be rioting in the streets over loss of access to Facebook. However I do think phones are like an “opiate” in that they have produced a lot of undesirable behavior in people.
Phones are the opium of the masses; religion is the methamphetamine.
Have you seen the statistics for young people showing that they are in significant decline for relationships, marriage, sex, drinking? My theory is that they are just sitting at home on their phones.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the...
Boom. Fully agree with this analogy. Religion stimulates, smartphones sedate.
Yeah i think this article is textbook case of shooting the messenger
If the "medium is the message" (that is, the medium dominates and enforces its norms over everything transmitted, e.g. by forcing people to echo bubbles, polarization, and centralized control by its very design regardless of what content is transmitted) then the messenger is the culprit -- and we should shoot the messenger.
the phrase 'dont shoot the messenger' exists for a reason. (the messenger has always shaped the message, even when it was a runner man)
>the phrase 'dont shoot the messenger' exists for a reason
And I've just argued why the reason is faulty, and we shouldn't hold it as true for modern media. I'd expect a counter-argument on that, not a reminder that it exists for a reason (as if I hadn't already considered it).
>the messenger has always shaped the message, even when it was a runner man
It's a matter of degree: the degree with which TV at the time of McLuhan, and now social media shape the message, is nothing like the degree previous "messengers" did it...
And I've just argued why the reason is faulty, and we shouldn't hold it as true for modern media. I'd expect a counter-argument on that, not a reminder that it exists for a reason (as if I hadn't already considered it).
>the messenger has always shaped the message, even when it was a runner man
It's a matter of degree: the degree with which TV at the time of McLuhan, and now social media shape the message, is nothing like the degree previous "messengers" did it...
> not a reminder that it exists for a reason
I really don't want to reitarate what people a lot smarter than me have written.
It's not different this time - the media have changed, but so have the Kings. No matter how many messengers they beheaded , the problems that Kings had did not go away. No matter how many people we deplatform, the problems of modern Democracy won't go away either. To me it seems people are going through a classic crisis of misattributing the blame: Modern political systems like democracy are ill-adapted for an increasingly individualistic, globalized world, and the problem won't go away after they regulate the media. (BTW i can't think of any case where shooting the messenger/media worked in the the long term in the past)
I really don't want to reitarate what people a lot smarter than me have written.
It's not different this time - the media have changed, but so have the Kings. No matter how many messengers they beheaded , the problems that Kings had did not go away. No matter how many people we deplatform, the problems of modern Democracy won't go away either. To me it seems people are going through a classic crisis of misattributing the blame: Modern political systems like democracy are ill-adapted for an increasingly individualistic, globalized world, and the problem won't go away after they regulate the media. (BTW i can't think of any case where shooting the messenger/media worked in the the long term in the past)
Absolutely, the phones themselves are only messengers
The real question is something like what are the implications of small-group level intimacy, but on a global scale. Just for starters - there are very many questions raised by this recent capability.
The real question is something like what are the implications of small-group level intimacy, but on a global scale. Just for starters - there are very many questions raised by this recent capability.
TV was worse. People looking at the box for hours really looked like junkies, motionless, blurred look, mouth open. At least phones are asynchronous in nature and the ~~addict~~ err people can still function.
I think the real opium of people nowaday is politics, no matter what politics. People really want to protest the hell out of something. It gives meaning and purpose, it unites, but also makes them very vulnerable to manipulation.
I think the real opium of people nowaday is politics, no matter what politics. People really want to protest the hell out of something. It gives meaning and purpose, it unites, but also makes them very vulnerable to manipulation.
you might be interested to dig into who "opium of the people" comes from. he's somewhat political!
Yep, but even Marx must have surely noticed the addictive nature of his theories
As someone currently plowing their way through Capital, I do not share this sentiment in the least.
I’d argue “hot takes” are a better form of what you describe. Or “complaining”, which is frankly easy with politics and always has been in a society with free speech.
I’d argue “hot takes” are a better form of what you describe. Or “complaining”, which is frankly easy with politics and always has been in a society with free speech.
I confess I have no idea what you're talking about. What "addictive nature" is there in Marx's theories?
It’s an inherently addictive thought that “the current system is wrong and there’s another system that would be better if only people would listen.” It becomes even more addictive when there’s other people willing to give you dopamine/affirmation for your beliefs. You see its addictive nature today in the sparse numbers of people who achieve “sobriety” from communism after becoming addicted to its theories.
What thing would not be addictive given that reasoning?
"Dopamine" make it sound sinister, but if everything which gives you enjoyment or feels meaningful is addictive, then basically everything anybody does by their own volition would be addictive.
"Dopamine" make it sound sinister, but if everything which gives you enjoyment or feels meaningful is addictive, then basically everything anybody does by their own volition would be addictive.
[flagged]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? and especially please not post in the flamewar style, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20434596? We're trying for a bit better than internet default here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don’t know what to tell you dude. My comments are substantive. What about them makes you label them unsubstantive? That seems extremely judgmental and censorious to me. I’m trying for a bit better than internet default too. But I don’t understand why you label my substantive comments unsubstantive.
Dopamine is a necessary neurotransmitter, there is nothing sinister about it. Even addiction is necessary , but we ascribe negative value to it when the repetitive behavior (not just any enjoyable behavior) becomes destructive to society. Addiction as pathology is not a strictly defined term - homosexuals in the past or sexually liberated women were believed to be addicted. So, it is largely left society to decide which addictions are "good" and bad, which generally politicizes the issue.
Have you read The Communist Manifesto, or Das Kapital? Is there a particular aspect you are referring to as being "addictive"?
I would argue "workplaces should be democratic" (which is a very rudimentary one-sentence synopsis of Marxism) is only an addictive idea if you consider democracy to be addictive in the same manner. And maybe it is, but then you have to ask yourself -- is an idea being so good that it becomes addictive a bad thing?
I would argue "workplaces should be democratic" (which is a very rudimentary one-sentence synopsis of Marxism) is only an addictive idea if you consider democracy to be addictive in the same manner. And maybe it is, but then you have to ask yourself -- is an idea being so good that it becomes addictive a bad thing?
put the phrase "opium of the masses" in its original context. Religion was the "illusory happiness of the people" for marx. 50 years later, one could say the same about Communism however. People believed in it , it made them feel good, but their belief ended up becoming a facade that masked their misery. I think this extends to politics in general, in particular Statist politics , which promise make the individual as powerful as a State, but usually end up making the State itself powerful by stepping on the individual.
[deleted]
Indeed he is ... Karl Marx [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
[Edit] Note to self - check other threads before posting links?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
[Edit] Note to self - check other threads before posting links?
On internet, reading is hard and typing is fun.
This article comes off far more as an author who doesn't actually understand religious groups than anything having to do with technology. I'm not sure they understand why people get addicted to the internet either. They clearly wanted to make a point, but it fell flat on all counts from my reading.
Getting "addicted to the internet" is like getting addicted to glasses or getting addicted to cars. It's a vehicle and the special thing about it is where it takes you.
Watched an interesting Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition the other day. At the time of banning alcohol it was blamed for all kinds of complex social issues, from the breakdown of the family to the loss of moral rectitude. Really, though, it was just a very visible scapegoat for things like changing economic structures (industrial revolution) and social structures (immigration).
To whit, my take is that the smartphone is the new opiate of the masses only to the extent to which it (and social media) are the newest things we like to blame for far more complex social problems.
Prediction: banning smartphones won't stop kids from being depressed, nor will regulating Facebook fix extreme nationalism.
To whit, my take is that the smartphone is the new opiate of the masses only to the extent to which it (and social media) are the newest things we like to blame for far more complex social problems.
Prediction: banning smartphones won't stop kids from being depressed, nor will regulating Facebook fix extreme nationalism.
It was certainly eye opening how addicted to alcohol we were before prohibition, and how it was perceived to be linked to domestic abuse (I personally think it was myself).
I wonder sometimes looking around the social scene in SF if more of a abolitionist influence on society today in terms of alcohol would be healthy. Not prohibition but rather being culturally skeptical of drinking in general, especially as we are making strides to legalize marijuana, which can’t kill you and won’t make you beat up your family.
Even as dispensaries opened, the social life still revolves around bars & restaurants which often serve alcohol. The one dispensary I visit which allows consumption on premise is a sterile, retail environment. Bleh. I much preferred the dutch coffee houses.
I wonder sometimes looking around the social scene in SF if more of a abolitionist influence on society today in terms of alcohol would be healthy. Not prohibition but rather being culturally skeptical of drinking in general, especially as we are making strides to legalize marijuana, which can’t kill you and won’t make you beat up your family.
Even as dispensaries opened, the social life still revolves around bars & restaurants which often serve alcohol. The one dispensary I visit which allows consumption on premise is a sterile, retail environment. Bleh. I much preferred the dutch coffee houses.
Religion is often used as an analogy to disparage some other phenomenon. Surprisingly perhaps, this is done by both religious and non-religious people. I guess for the non-religious people religion is in general mistrusted, while for religious people it is bad to treat anything beside "true" religion as a religion. So "being like a religion" is generally a bad thing regardless of who uses the phrase.
But using an analogy require you understand the phenomenon you are comparing it to. So what does religion mean? In this article, religion is about
- "a transcendental realm" (and so is youtube)
- meeting in congregations (and so is Google meetup)
- a hierarchy with devoted spiritual advisors at the top (and so is, apparently Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg)
But without even going into what the nature of religion is, it is easy to dispel this analogy. Because even in a highly religious society you can have non-religious organizations, meetups and "transcendental realms" in the form of fiction, music, art etc. So there is clearly a difference. Unless you are going to argue that everything is religion - which you can, of course, given a vague enough definition, but which also makes the term meaningless. If everything is religion then nothing is religion.
But using an analogy require you understand the phenomenon you are comparing it to. So what does religion mean? In this article, religion is about
- "a transcendental realm" (and so is youtube)
- meeting in congregations (and so is Google meetup)
- a hierarchy with devoted spiritual advisors at the top (and so is, apparently Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg)
But without even going into what the nature of religion is, it is easy to dispel this analogy. Because even in a highly religious society you can have non-religious organizations, meetups and "transcendental realms" in the form of fiction, music, art etc. So there is clearly a difference. Unless you are going to argue that everything is religion - which you can, of course, given a vague enough definition, but which also makes the term meaningless. If everything is religion then nothing is religion.
I always thought it was "opiate of the masses."
Me too. I suppose this formulation is easier for people to understand if they're seeing it for the first time.
It was 'opium' in the original German, but that means both opium and opiate when it's translated in to English. If you read the full quote[1] it's fairly obvious Marx meant opium in the sense of the drug derived from poppies that was commonly used in his era rather than the whole class of drugs in the more modern sense.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
Marx had it as "das Opium des Volkes"; so the "opium" translation is justifiable.
No opium is the new opium
Its smart bidirectional opium powered by mass scale machine learning and used to deliver ads and propaganda.
After the creation of cities and nation states, the smartphone is the next major step for the human race towards becoming a single superorganism. Maybe the last major step, seeing as full integration is probably a matter of many smaller advancements in the future.
Downvoted because people are terrified of the noosphere, or because our borg flavored implementation isn't what Teilhard de Chardin had in mind?
Unlike opium smartphones do not make you physically addicted and they do not have negative health effects in the same order of magnitude.
So what's the problem?
So what's the problem?
That's missing the point of the analogy, though; when Marx said that religion is the opium of the people, he wasn't referring the the addictive or negative health effects of opium. I'm not sure whether the point the article is making holds up to what Marx was getting at, but he wasn't saying that religion is literally an addictive drug; he was referring to the ability of opium to be used as a retreat from the stresses of life under capitalism. The full quote[0] is clearer:
>[Religion] is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
>Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
[0] Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx, 1843.
>[Religion] is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
>Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
[0] Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl Marx, 1843.
Thanks to the pharmaceutical companies, here in the US opium is the new opium of the people.
Slate Star Codex: Is Everything a Religion?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/25/is-everything-a-religi...
People sometimes anthropomorphize pets, cars, and computers by reacting to them the way we do to people, but that doesn't make them people. We religiomorphize by interacting with communities or ideas the same way we participate in religion, but that doesn't make them religions.
People sometimes anthropomorphize pets, cars, and computers by reacting to them the way we do to people, but that doesn't make them people. We religiomorphize by interacting with communities or ideas the same way we participate in religion, but that doesn't make them religions.
Given the stimulating nature of smartphone usage the proper drug analogy would be coke or amphs and not a sedating opioid.
Yours appears to have been submitted after this one.
Curious - is your conclusion based on the id? (Are those sequential?)
I assumed this one was more recent based on the timestamp that shows on the items. Currently, I see "4 hours ago" for this item, and "5 hours ago" for the link I submitted. But maybe there's more to it than that?
I assumed this one was more recent based on the timestamp that shows on the items. Currently, I see "4 hours ago" for this item, and "5 hours ago" for the link I submitted. But maybe there's more to it than that?
Huh. I see what you mean! It was based on when it showed up in my (supposedly only sorted by time) viewer, but yours definitely appears before the other if you go through the official “New” submissions list.
IDs are sequential and immutable. Timestamps can shift around as part of the re-upping process described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614. But I don't think that happened with either of these submissions.
The emotional tenor of my relationship with my phone looks — and, I'm sure — very different from the way people relate to their faiths.
Facebook, YouTube, etc don't feel like 'movements' to me, like the article's author said. At least, I don't have the passion that a 'movement' seems to imply.
For me, smartphoning is an emotional gray zone. Most of the time I feel close to nothing. I use it to blot out my worries and deal with the mundanity of my life.
Which makes it more like actual opium, IMO.