What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"?
Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention.
(Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.)
There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric.
We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World.
If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.
> What choices are any of us free to make? How long are we going to continue the probable charade of the existence of some ethereal "free will"?
I'm free not to smoke tobacco and not to get drunk. Some people aren't. No matter how philosophical you want to get about predestination, the difference between being addicted and not is real and obvious to everyone.
Granted, the addiction is only pathological if it's harmful to the individual. The fact that internet addiction isn't physically visible as harmful was my very point.
Ordinary choices we make are different from addictions not because we lack choice only in the narrow realm of addictions, but because addictions are harmful to normative human goals like self-sufficiency (job), relationships, and such. But relationships and self-sufficiency are both a matter of degree, and there's fuzziness about where something is harmful enough to justify psychological/pharma intervention.
(Not that that's the only characteristic of addictions; they also seem to be very strong single-inputs (will this make me happy or be pleasurable now?) that are able to drive decision-making... short-circuiting all the other more normal evaluations, from a more balanced network of inputs: economic constraints, past experience, outcome prediction, social judgment... with immediate happiness normally only one factor, and often not even a very strong one.)
There are other behaviors besides addictions that are harmful to self-sufficiency and relationships. Many of them are treated as mental health problems, especially when they're severe enough. Some aren't, though, and are considered just someone being quirky or eccentric.
We (should) want to encourage diversity, while reducing the misery of people on the fringes who are engaged in truly self-destructive behaviors. But plenty of people we all know are only functioning in modern life because of medication—whether it's opiates, amphetamines, neurotransmitter modulators, marijuana, or whatever. Trying to improve people who are self-destructive is a noble goal, but when self-destruction seems closer and closer to the norm every day, intervention may make those people happier but it begins to reek of Brave New World.
If the world is so fucked up that most people are either too addictable or too depressed (or too something) to function without assistance, what does it say about personal happiness or a functioning society if that can only exist with enough drugs to coerce people into doing "standard" things: maintain a job, a home, some relationships, etc? It seems to me that either we have to accept BNW's dystopia as more of a judgment-neutral prophecy than a cautionary tale, or we have to start politically outlawing things that are causing people to be so addicted or so distressed that they can't maintain reasonable productivity and happiness without medication. Unfortunately, the second option would involve wreaking havoc on the conservative and libertarian ideal of free markets (and maybe parts of the 1st amendment too), so we as a society seem hellbent on sleepwalking our way down the rabbit hole to the BNW "drug-everyone" scenario.