Timeline for How could you modifying humans to make us resistant to technology addiction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2020 at 6:55 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Nosajimiki: And extensive partying doesn't interfere with daily lives? | |
| Sep 28, 2020 at 16:46 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @jamesqf "to go out and party on weekends" is not the same as interfering with their lives. I am saying that 50% teens report that their technology usage creates obsessive behaviors that interferes with their daily lives. A lot more than 50% of teens just use tech on a regular basis. | |
| Sep 19, 2020 at 17:09 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Nosajimiki: I think you are rather over-using the word "addiction" (as contemporary society often does). I think you're also mistaken in thinking that habits & behavior patterns formed as a teen will persist in later life. For instance, where I grew up it was the norm for most (far more than 50%) of teens (& people in early 20s) to go out and party on weekends, drinking lots of cheap beer & wine. What fraction do you suppose continue that behavior throughout their lives? | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 16:15 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @jamesqf In general, people are much more prone to addiction to things that are introduced early in life. This is going to be a population where trends seen in teens today are reflected in older age groups. that said, it does open up the question about what is up with the 1/2 of teens who are not addicted to their tech. If you could answer what about their nature makes them different, that could be a good answer, but I believe the differences most lie in environmental factors. This is a situation where the environment is optimized for addiction; so, I want to rewire nature to beat nurture. | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 15:54 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Nosajimiki: "9% identified as having a tech addition problem", 100 - 9 = 91%. I think that qualifies as "most" :-) | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 19:38 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @jamesqf In the past few years about 5.7% of the general population identified as having a possible substance abuse problem, 9% identified as having a tech addition problem, and nearly 50% of teens reported tech addition problems. As our teenage population ages into the general population, under current trends, tech addition could easily become 10x as rampant as substance abuse. | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 17:51 | comment | added | jamesqf | Your question is based on a false assumption. Most humans are already resistant to technology addiction. They may (or may not) find particular technologies useful, convenient, or entertaining, but they are far from being addicted. | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 14:15 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @Otkin I've added a section to the question that I hope better outlines the powers and limits of the tech industry. In short, yes the government has the money, but logistically they are limited by having to go through the tech industry to get information about such programs to people who need it. | |
| Sep 17, 2020 at 14:12 | history | edited | Nosajimiki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1190 characters in body
|
| Sep 17, 2020 at 6:44 | comment | added | Otkin | I will need to do a little bit more reading prior to writing an answer, but I also need to clarify one more thing. Is it possible for the government to launch and promote big social programmes? And how much money does the government have? | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 19:11 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @Otkin They are able to prevent the government from making any meaningful changes to the way they design and distribute their products. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 18:38 | comment | added | Otkin | How strong is the tech lobby? Addictions are a result of nature and nurture. If governments cannot do anything to reduce the exposure to addictive technologies, genetic therapies might be either ineffective or produce extreme changes detrimental to society. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 18:08 | comment | added | Alexander | I think what we really have to is to increase pragmatism and reduce instant gratification reward. Before starting any activity, people would think about what it can bring to them eventually. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 18:04 | comment | added | Alexander | @Nosajimiki If we go that route, we have to reduce people's ability to understand symbolism and do abstract thinking. For a modern person, \$1 in a bank account (symbol) is almost as valuable as \$1 banknote (another symbol) and \$1 silver coin (has intrinsic value). If we reduce reliance on symbols, people would distrust banks and paper money and start hoarding coins. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 17:38 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @Alexander Yes, I expect my society will need some of that restructured to appeal to different reward systems. So a person may no longer be motivated by getting an "A" on a test, but if their allowance or some other tangible reward is tied to their grade, then ideally it should still motivate them. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 17:34 | comment | added | Nosajimiki | @Otkin Yes, and that is why I am looking for "least negative behavioral changes", not no behavior changes at all. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 17:21 | comment | added | Alexander | It would be tough. You see, many real life domains like education and career development include "points" and "badges" to reward performance. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 17:16 | comment | added | Otkin | Does it have to be genetic therapy? Genes related to addictions are the very same genes that are associated with the emotional sphere and various cognitive processes. Modification of those genes is very likely to result in other behavioural changes. | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 17:05 | answer | added | L.Dutch♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 16, 2020 at 16:48 | history | asked | Nosajimiki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |