Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Jordan's avatar

You wrote: "If the hour estimates from 1500 are remotely accurate, and if behavior then was roughly adaptive, then we’d need the value we get from fiction to be far larger today, to justify spending eight times as many hours on it." I think this fails to compare MARGINAL values. A 16th-century Medieval peasant could substantially improve the welfare of himself, his family, and his community by spending an extra hour of scarce daylight working; spending an hour consuming fiction came at a heavy cost. What is the cost now to spending an extra hour of one's evening watching tv instead of sleeping? Electric lights are cheap (unlike candles) and tv is cheap (unlike plays). The value of one fiction-hour in 2025 is probably much less than in 1525, but it might still be rational to consume more of it, both from the standpoint of the individual and of the species. I think you are on stronger ground arguing that our fiction is maladaptive, than arguing our consumption levels are.

Pai, the Peregrine Wayfarer's avatar

Like sugar and porn, fiction/leisure/entertainment is probably something along the lines of stuff was supposed to point us in the right direction, and maybe serve as a little treat now and then, but has potentially become a maladaptive super-stimulus in modern times. Probably will be as hard to combat as things like sugar and porn, too. Good luck!

30 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?