| I think it's worth recognizing the impact that Gin had on 18th and 19th century England. It was at least akin to the meth epidemic across large parts of the US 15-20 years ago. Not saying we don't have alcoholism now, but the scope of it has dramatically changed. Some of it is that people recognize the dangers, some of it is that people have found ways to mitigate the harm, and some of it is prevention methods. People went into gin when it first hit the scene treating it like a relatively neutral new beverage that felt pretty good. They'd drank beer for centuries (small beers or regular), and it just seemed like a mostly harmless innovation. Or if not harmless, at least the harm wasn't as interesting as the positive experiences. We find ourselves in many ways in the same boat now with our tech. And the perhaps sad reality is, when we're talking about physiologically damaging innovations, these adaptations can take generations. Children seeing what they did to their parents deciding that they want something else -- parents who may have regrets but at least a difficult time detaching themselves from their addictions. Though also, in that process, some of them finding ways they can replicate to cease further damage. And, somewhat helpful, the regulation of the production such that some of the harmful aspects are removed simply by improving quality, giving people some of the experience without as many side effects (see: Bathtub Gin). It's worth noting what didn't work as well: prohibition. There are ways we can have a lot of the benefits of social media and dispense with the negatives. The brainrot dopaminergic algorithms. The constant surveillance. We can preserve the beneficial aspects: the exposure to diverse perspectives, and innovative ideas. And there is plenty of awareness that can be shared around just how harmful overexposure to even the best implementations can be. And we can iterate and adapt to see what works well for some people and what leads to ruin. The way out is through. |