How many of us have thought about quitting social media but never actually had the courage to do it?
(I actually did it over 10 years ago, and I don’t regret it)
But just to illustrate the point, let’s say you’re thinking about quitting social media—you’re forced to think it through and consider whether you really want to do it. How will you keep in touch with the people you met during your last vacation in the Maldives? Or how will you manage to organize an event for more than 50 people without the help of the connections you’ve built over months and months? Or even, where will I organize my photos in chronological order, along with the notes and connections that are so easily visible on popular platforms?
Let’s imagine another example now. Let’s imagine we’re thinking about emigrating. We don’t like the government or the local population. But on the other hand, the country’s healthcare system, tax structure, communication networks, and infrastructure are above average—and frankly better than those of the country we’re thinking of moving to? Even if we don’t care for the government or the people of the country we want to emigrate to—or return to (since we may have only left our country of origin for financial reasons)—won’t we still have access to all the other amenities and benefits?
Yuval Noah Harari addresses precisely these issues. He calls them “The Luxury Trap.”
And this concept has long been used by many cultures and many prominent figures throughout history. One of the first people to discuss this problem and this phenomenon was Publius Cornelius Tacitus.
Tacitus, a Roman politician, describes a civilization that was, in a sense, enslaved—not through the use of force, chains, or whips, but in a far more subtle way that required no act of violence. It was accepted by those who were, in a sense, controlled and subjugated.
The Roman Empire was built on the back of remarkable military genius. But it did not require subjugation by the force of swords.
It was the passion, desire, and love that the “slaves”—or the people—had for luxury and for an easier, more comfortable life.
Tacitus noted that the Britons were not enslaved by chains or goads, but rather by their desire for fine wine, hot baths, and lavish, elegant feasts and banquets.
Comfort and complacency transformed what had until then been a nation of warriors into a peaceful and gentle people.
It’s a tactic that has been repeated throughout history. It’s seen whenever a technology, service, or luxury good—which simplifies life or makes it more comfortable—becomes so essential and normalized that we could no longer go back to a time when that convenience didn’t exist or wasn’t available.
That is when what we once merely desired has, at that moment, become a necessity.
When we need something—or someone—we are giving that thing, or that person, power over ourselves.
This is equally true in abusive interpersonal relationships, as well as in the recent stages of techno-capitalism and its characteristics.
The task of philosophy must be to analyze these connections—these bonds and chains—which, for what they are and represent, we accept of our own free will, rather than seeking to break free from them and return to what we would previously have had to live without.
Are we willing to make that sacrifice in favor of something different, which might even be better in the medium term?
Image by NoName_13 from Pixabay
Original text written by 
