[futureshock]

I think it gets used a lot here because it’s a compact way to say “the world works in the way that it does because we have set it up to reward certain things and punish other things. This isn’t a static feature of reality, but something we are choosing as a society and can change.”

Don’t see it as reductionist, more like a callout that we’re dealing with a social feature, not some physical law.

[Solvency]

"why do octopi have camouflaging capabilities? because of natural incentives!"

it's essentially a trite truism/platitude. you can apply it to everything and if you don't want to delve deeper, why say it.

[futureshock]

I think that’s incorrect. octopi have camouflage because of natural selection.

Incentives are things that humans create, intentionally or unintentionally. There are the selection pressure of the human cultural world but they are the opposite of natural. They are the things we can choose to change. By calling them out, we implicitly question if we should be changing them.

It can end up being a bit pseudo-intellectual on HN (say it ain’t so!), but there is a real rhetorical context in which it makes sense to talk about incentives.