[jtheory]

It runs the gamut, of course -- someone's out there building an awesome campaign to advertise a blood drive, right now.

But most advertising basically using psychological tricks to push you to want & buy all kinds of stuff that really make a negligible difference in your quality of life, if they add anything at all.

Worse, the best way to convince you that you need X is to convince you that you have an X-shaped hole in your life. That desirable mates are looking for a [your gender] with X. That your neighbors/friends/colleagues/rivals have X, better X, newer X, etc. and are wondering about you.

It's not real, and it's actively harmful -- we find happiness/contentment by being self-aware, by learning what things really matter to us, and finding ways to focus on & improve those parts of our lives; this most commonly doesn't involve buying anything at all -- often it involves getting rid of a lot of stuff and leading a simpler life.

But who has time for clear thought and introspection, nowadays? By default advertisers want you distracted and discontented, your thoughts teeming with desires and urges, racing along on the hedonic treadmill....

[xenophanes]

Why do you think blood drives are good? Why wouldn't it be better if the standard thing was to pay for blood? If it was typical to pay donors for this kind of thing (organs too), wouldn't that better ensure plenty of supply than making charity the primary source?

[jtheory]

There's a big debate about this, though it's a tangent to this discussion. But it boils down to how adding money into the equation tweaks the incentives of those giving blood or donating organs in a way that's not necessarily good.

One obvious way -- suppose you're filling out a medical history form before providing blood or an organ, and you know that ticking "yes" to a question will disqualify you. You really need the money -- will you be honest?