[jerf]

Mmmmm... interesting thought, but I don't think I can agree that all life reduces to people exploiting other people's addictions, and wiping away the deliberate attempt to produce addictive games for money wipes away a fundamental part of the reason many of us have contempt for Zynga.

[nsomaru]

Sir,

A large portion of "Life" today consists of the process of creating desire for the unecessary (U) by association of these U's with basic human desires (sex, food et al.)

Thus the economy is born and a constant insaitable need for growth, when conceivably in a different system for a global, connected, technologically advanced race such as ours, there could be plenty for all, and we could all be provided for. (Note (1) This smells of Utopia, I admit I don't know how we would deal with boredom -- perhaps via extraordinary expressions of the creative act?) (2) The point is that the current system is a paradigm, and to sustain itself must maintain separation of "have's" and "have nots", and thus must consist in some exploitation, lest the division be destroyed and the labour force caused to cease to exist. The only way such a labour force remains in check is that there most be "money" which is "earned" via a "job" and is "required" for the meeting of basic needs and thus is what makes you win in the "struggle for survival". )

[RegEx]

This is very articulate nonsense. Not all purchases that grant utility encourage addiction, so your economics lesson doesn't apply to most of the things we buy.

[jerf]

Even if I stipulated your point, which I don't, all Life is not economic transactions, either.

And I don't think you established a connection to addictiveness either. (Your attempt requires me to agree with allowing you to decide what is "(un)necessary" for me and everybody else, which I do not concede.) Food, shelter, water, clothing, furniture, and the other human needs are not addictive. Even sex is generally not addictive.

[nsomaru]

To you and RegEx, below: Good day, Sirs.

Thank you for the compliment.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and perhaps anything I may have said to offend. The misunderstanding, I believe, stems from the fact that we define addiction differently. This is a matter of philosophy and opinion, and unless you would entertain me there I fear we would be communicating as one German to an Aboriginal, that is, not at all.

For what it is worth, I present my definition: For all objects and beings (X), addiction is that state whereby contact with X does not actually yield any utility (happiness, satisfaction, what ever you want to call it) but non-contact therewith is a source of discomfort. It's like an extrapolation of diminishing marginal utility, which, I must confess, I know little about. This definition of addiction is somewhat broad, but includes the narrower, more conventional versions, and contains a deep insight about human nature and the overcoming of addiction(s) in general. That is beyond the scope of this response.

It is also based on personal reflection and experience, which conventional scientists would deem "anecdotal" or not "statistically significant", but to me, this is a valid source of knowledge, especially if you have a strong, logically consistent metaphysical system which presents isomorphisms, as it were, with your own experience of Reality.

edit: Typo's