[Ray20]

The fact is that not all people exhibit the described behavior. So the actions of corporations cannot be considered unambiguously bad. For example, it will help to cleanse the human gene pool of genes responsible for addictive behavior.

[lightbulbish]

I never suggested they were unambiguously bad, I meant to propose that it is a valid concern to talk about.

In addition, with your argument, should you not legalize all drugs in the quest for maximising profits to a select few shareholders?

AFAIK, the workings of addiction is not fully known, I.e. it’s not only those with dopaminergetic dispositions that get ”caught”. Upbringing, socioeconomic factors and mental health are also variables. Reducing it down to genes I fear is reductionist.

[Ray20]

> it’s not only those with dopaminergetic dispositions that get ”caught”. Upbringing, socioeconomic factors and mental health are also variables.

So we not only improving our pool of genes, but we also conduct a selection of effective cultural practices

[ch_fr]

A quick glance at your other comments shows that your account seems to be purpose-built to come up with the most inflammatory response every single time, you might very well just be a chatgpt prompt.

[quirkot]

Counterpoint: eugenics are bad.

You are saying suffering is allowable/good because eventually different people won't be able to suffer that way. That is an unethical position to hold.