So should we ban colas then?
Carbonated sugary soft drinks have been long known to cause health ailments like obesity, diabetes. They are quite addictive. They are easily available in every nook and corner. Why, then, do we let them be advertised as ‘happiness.’ Isn’t that misleading? Isn’t it the responsibility of the makers of the drink to be more conscientious about what they create and how they sell it?
Well, wait.
There is a ‘ circle of harm ‘ that these products can reach. When we consume sugary drinks, we harm our health. We are very unlikely to cause harm to anyone else under the impact of sugar.
Then, there is a scale of harm as well. Sugary drinks can only reach so many people. They are not necessarily enmeshed with our lives- how we communicate, how we do business. They do not alter our experience of reality.
Then, there is also ‘ explicit consent ‘ built into their business model. When a customer pays for their product, she is explicitly taking responsibility. She might be ignorant of its ill effects but the seller isnt necessarily hiding it. (The ingredients have to be listed as per regulations in most countries).
Now about the ‘real’ problem.
Technology, since time immemorial, has been a double edged sword. Every invention is created to serve a group of people or the world at large. Even the innovations in war weaponry were created with an intention of being beneficial to at least one group of people. However, the same technology that makes life easier can be used for our world’s detriment as well. Fires were created to cook food but can also burn houses. Televisions are a source of entertainment and information but can also be the source of propaganda and misinformation. Automobiles are for commuting but can also be used as a weapon to kill. As technology progressively makes our homes more comfortable, this very comfort might be causing us a loss of health.
However, unlike sugary drinks, technology products that play with our perception of reality can create harmful consequences for us and can lead us to cause harm to each other. Their circle of impact is much wider than that of sugary drinks. Unlike the overly explicit process of drinking a beverage, manipulations of the mind are subtle. The ‘free’ products are not taking explicit consent from the users for these manipulations. The combination of habit forming products along with an ‘engagement’ driven business model has the potential to cause harm at scale for unsuspecting users. Under the garb of ‘choice,’ people’s decisions are exceedingly being controlled by algorithms.
Yet in both the cases — of sugary drinks and technology products, some amount of responsibility does lie with the consumer as well. The difference though, is that habit forming products can cage people in and make it very difficult for them to exercise ‘free will.’ Even if a handful of people ‘choose’ to stay away, they will not be able to escape the effects of these products in their surroundings.
There is not much case for sugary drinks to be banned. And tech products are so enmeshed in lives around the globe that they cannot be banned. ‘Convenience of information’ is a very thin line to walk. More centralization means better scrutiny but lesser convenience. Complete decentralization results in fake news floating all around with hyper convenience. A combination of policy changes, tech changes and consumer awareness changes will be required to shift the tides from a ‘circle of harm’ to a ‘ circle of benefit.’
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
