Re:A.I. Is About to Solve Loneliness. That's a Problem
by AlecSchueler on Monday August 04, 2025 @03:53AM
(#44783088)
Ok then use an example of tandem bicycles. Lonelier people are less likely to buy those. Why aren't we talking about that? Why aren't we asking the question of whether or not banning social media could have a positive impact on the tandem industry?
Re:A.I. Is About to Solve Loneliness. That's a Problem
by dpassens on Monday August 04, 2025 @03:03PM
(#44790066)
Mostly because cedws is apparently more interested in birth rates than in tandem sales. Personally, I can't say I fault them for that and don't understand why that's a problem because, going back to my original point, they're not suggesting that people who don't want children should be forced to have children.
Re:A.I. Is About to Solve Loneliness. That's a Problem
by AlecSchueler on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @09:57AM
(#44798038)
They're suggesting using the law the limit people's alternatives. You might not call it coercive but it's paternalistic at best. It's using the state apparatus and the monopoly of violence to limit people's choices in such a way that they're encouraged to choose to breed. I'll stand by what I said: it's creepy.
Not really. There are still young people who don't intentionally choose not to have children. Their birth rates might or might not increase without social media.
> your use of "just" is unfair here.
Fair enough, I'll concede that.
> I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily.
Because birth rates are much more relevant to the topic at hand than chocolate sales, no? More loneliness almost necessarily translates into lower birth rates while you can eat chocolate alone or with others.