Head -pedics, fleas and camps were the companions of humanity through our evolutionary history. However, the greatest parasite of the modern era is no blood -colored invertebrate. It is an elegant, glass-fronted and toxicity in design. Its host? Every man on Earth with a WiFi signal.
Far from being benign tools, smartphones parasitize our time, our attention and our personal information, all in the interest of technology companies and their advertisers.
In a new article in the Australasian magazine on philosophyWe argue that smartphones present unique social risks that sharply focus when viewed through the lens of parasitism.
What exactly is a parasite?
Evolutionary biologists define a parasite as a kind that benefits from a close relationship with another species – its host – while the host costs.
The Head louseFor example, it depends entirely on our own species for their survival. They eat only human blood, and if they reject their host, they survive only a short time, unless they are lucky to fall on another human skull. Against our blood, head lice give us nothing but an unpleasant itch; This is the cost.
Smartphones radically changed our lives. From navigating cities to managing chronic health diseases like diabetesThese pocket-sized pieces of Te Techniko make our lives easier. So much so that most of us are rarely without them.
However, despite their benefits, many of us hostage to our phones and slaves to the endless move, unable to completely disconnect. Phone users pays the price With lack of sleep, weaker offline relationships and humor disorders.
From reciprocalism to parasitism
Not all nearby species -relationships are parasitic. Many organisms that live or within us are useful.
Consider the bacteria in the digestive paths of animals. They can only survive and breed in the intestine of their host species, feeding on foods passing through. But they Provide benefits to the host, including improved immunity and better digestion. These winning-win associations are called mutual.
The human-intelligent association began as reciprocalism. The technology has been useful to people to stay in touch, navigate with maps and finding useful information.
Philosophers have talked about this not about reciprocalism, but rather as phones are an extension of the human mindsuch as notebooks, maps and other tools.
Of these benign origins, however, we argue that the relationship has become parasitic. Such change is not uncommon in nature; a reciprocate can evolve to become a parasiteor vice versa.
Smartphones like parasites
As smartphones have become almost indispensable, some of the most popular programs they offer served to the interests of the companies and their advertisers more faithfully than those of their human users.
These programs are drawn In order to strip our behavior to Keep us scrollingClicking on advertising and calming in porch.
The data on our moving behavior is used to further this exploitation. Your phone takes care only about your personal fitness goals or desire to spend a more quality time with your kids, until it uses this information to adapt to better catch your attention.
So, it can be useful to think about users and their phones as similar to hosts and their parasites – at least some time.
While this accomplishment is interesting in itself, the advantage of watching smartphones through the evolutionary lens of parasitism comes in its own consideration, where the relationship could direct itself-and how we could prevent these high-tech parasites.
Where comes the police in
On the Great Barrera Reef, BlueStreak Cleaner Wrasse Establishing “cleaning stations” where larger fish allow the Wrasse to feed from dead skin, loose scales and invertebrate parasites living in their branches. This relationship is classical reciprocalism – the larger fish lose expensive parasites and the cleaner Wrasse feeds.
Sometimes the cleaner “cheats” and strikes their hosts, pulling the scale of reciprocalism to parasitism. The fish cleaned May punish criminals Pursuing them or retaining further visits. In this, the reefs -fish show something evolutionary biologists see as important to keep reciprocities in balance: police.
Could we adequately police our exploitation with smartphones and restore an net-useful relationship?
Evolution shows that two things are key: ability to detect exploitation when it occurs, and the ability to respond (typically through withdrawal of service to the parasite).
A difficult fight
In the case of the smartphone, we cannot easily detect the exploitation. Technical companies that draw the various functions and algorithms to keep you pick up your phone does not advertise this behavior.
But even if you are aware of the exploitative nature of smartphone programs, answering is also more difficult than just lowering the phone.
Many of us depend on smartphones for daily tasks. Rather than remembering facts, we discharge the task to digital devices – for some people, This can change their cognitive and memory.
We depend on having a camera to catch live events or even just register where we parked the car. This Both improve and limit our memory of events.
Governments and companies have only further cement our dependence on our phones, moving their service delivery online through mobile programs. Once we pick up the phone to access our bank accounts or access government services, we have lost the fight.
How, then, can users compensate for the unbalanced connection with their phones, returning the parasitic connection to mutual?
Our analysis suggests that an individual choice cannot reliably get users there. We are individually passed by the massive information about technology companies holds in the host-parade weapon race.
The Australian government Sub-age social media ban There is an example of the kind of collective action needed to limit what these parasites can legally do. To win the fight, we will also need restrictions on App -functions known to be toxicand about the collection and sale of our personal data.
Rachael L. BrownDirector of the Center for Philosophy of the Sciences and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Australian National University,, And Rob BrooksScientific professor of development; Unsw sydney
This article is republished by The conversation under license on creative community. Read the Original article.
