[cubano]

So in the end, you envision addiction destroying humanity.

It's an interesting insight but I can't really see it happening the way you describe.

There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes.

Yet, only a small percentage of people, around 5-10%, seem to have the addictive personality required to completely disengage from reality and destroy their lives with these substances.

The human species has millions of years of evolutionary programming to survive the nuerodystopia you predict.

[NathanKP]

People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

On the other hand people who lack things that give them the natural dopamine trigger tend to get highly addicted to chemicals that trigger the dopamine release artificially.

I'll admit I'm a highly pessimistic person but from what I see we are trending more and more towards automation and AI that will remove the need and even the possibility of having many of those natural dopamine triggers.

Imagine a world where its impossible to invent or create anything new because an AI more capable than you has already created it, and what's more the frontier of what the AI is capable of is expanding faster than your mind can physically catch up with so you will never be able to match it, ever.

And in this world when it comes to work or art there is always an AI/robot that can do it astronomically better than you can. Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding.

My nihilistic prediction is that our evolutionary programming won't be able to keep up with technology past a certain point, and instead we'll just be held back by our animal programming.

[Retra]

>People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug.

That sounds like something you should back up with unambiguous evidence.

[tremon]

I urge you to look up that evidence for yourself, it is easily found. There is both empirical evidence, from e.g. rats, and sociological experiments, from rehab centers.

Also, I reject your use of "unambiguous". Ambiguity is a given, we're not discussing a mathematical proof here.

[CamperBob2]

The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.

[kalmi10]

I seem to remember a study that attributed this behavior to the captive environment of the subjects (rats), and once the environment was changed, they weaned off on their own. Can't find it right now, but will keep looking.

Edit: sibling post found it, apparently its results couldn't be replicated :/

[deepnet]

Rat park was a replication, it was inspired by disregarded evidence of soldiers returning from war.

Most Soldiers who were using 'addictive' drugs simply gave them up when returning home.

A small but constant percentage didn't ~3-5% - Alexander postulated that these types will become addicted to something and it was genotype & circumstance that led to addictive behaviours not the drugs themselves being chemically addictive.

Bruce Alexander has stated that this evidence led him to try to confirm it with his Rat Park experiment.

He plainly showed it was the inhuman conditions that led rats to kill themselves with drugs, well performed, proper controls.

Flew in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy and the political capital of the drug war boogeyman - so no funding for replication. Career suicide to replicate it back then.

It is pretty obviously true, there is hardly a human activity without an associated -oholicism.

[not_kurt_godel]

Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

[misja111]

Well written answer but there's a contradiction in what you're saying. You say: "Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding."

And your conclusion is that the result of this will be that people will get addicted on drugs rather than seeking relationships with other people. But you just said that most people will have relationships with instances of AI instead. So people will not get addicted on drugs, they will just have amazingly happy relationships with uber social AI instances.

[kaybe]

A less pessimistic view on the future would be not a divergence of humans and AI/computers but a co-development. If we can merge we might be able to keep up.

[ams6110]

I know a lot of people who hate or are ambivalant their jobs, have bad or no relationships/sex, and are not drug addicts or even recreational users.

[dev1n]

We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers.

- John Steinbeck [1]

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-dang...

[Razengan]

They are "dangers" only when your neighbors don't have them. When the whole world has success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure, there's little reason for anyone to become agitated and attack someone.

At least until we run into an agitated alien species with better toys than us.

[Malician]

"There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes."

Yeah, but consider something that directly stimulates the brain - the best first hit of heroin anyone has ever experienced, under the best conditions, would be nothing by comparison. We can't even imagine the results of that kind of hit.