41 - Love in the Time of Big Data feat. Alfie Bown

Big tech companies tell us they’re our servants, existing to fulfill our desires more cheaply and conveniently than ever. Alfie Bown doesn’t think so. He thinks Deliveroo, Tinder, Pornhub  etc. aren’t just giving us what we want, they’re shaping what we want. He reckons our tech overlords are secretly remaking humankind on the level of desire. 
 
We chat about Chinese cars that know what you want to eat and why time travellers don’t get horny. 

Bown is the author of a new book called Dream Lovers: The Gamification of Relationships

Transcript

0:00

Okay, so today on good. In theory, we have Alfie bound and that Yeah. It's, brown without an R and not bow with Yeah, no, that's totally right. And yeah, it's unusual. Yeah. Cool. Well, down the history I think I had some medieval peasants in my ancestry who just couldn't spell them. right, right. Yeah. Well, I mean, um my last name is a Anglicization of a Chinese name and they just kind of chucked in an R, which I guess they weren't that good at saying before. So it's mark instead of Mach. Anyway, Alfie is the author of a lot of books, including enjoying it, candy crush and capitalism, the PlayStation, dreamworld, a new book. We're going to talk about today called dream lovers, the gamification of relationships. So in general, Alfie talks and writes and thinks about tech and its effects on politics. And, um, The most recent book is about desire and how new technologies love technologies, dating apps, dating simulators, porn, and so on are changing nature of human relationships. So welcome Alfie. Hi, thanks for having me. And, you did mention one other project you're working on that I I'd love to tell people about which is Sublation press. Could you tell us Oh yeah, that's great. That's right. I'm one of the new editors of a new, a new publishing house. Sublation press and a media company. So ablation media can be found on YouTube at the moment, but the, the proper launch is coming. Uh, and it's just a theory publisher. So it will be in, in many ways, uh, and politics, but you know, it'd be interesting to your listeners. I guess we'll be publishing books, but also, podcasts, YouTube videos, a whole kind of media thing. So people should check out. That'd be great. nice is it is any of it up yet? You got a YouTube channel All of that is fully up and running. So that's, that's all there for people to see and there'll be more. All right, so it's Sublation press on YouTube, check it out, everyone. So you should media. Great. So let's get into this book, dream lovers. I really liked the book it's full of interesting ideas and, you know, stuff I know is going on in the world that I had never heard of. So let's just start at the basics. This is about how tech is changing desire. Can you give me an example how that happens? Because I can see how tech help us fulfill our desires. Like I want something and then I can use, I don't know, Uber eats to get it. but how, how does tech change our desire? Yeah. I mean, that's a great question and the way you phrase it is it's really helpful. I think because it's exactly what I argue in this book is that tech does not help us get what we want. That's the kind of wrong way of thinking about it. And that's the way that the sort of Silicon valley techno capitalists would, would want you to think about it, right? You already have your desires and we just help you get that. A and this is why it's difficult to live without Facebook or without delivery or UberEATS or whatever, because these things allow you to get what you want quicker and easier. It before. And my argument is to kind of flip that around and say, well, actually these technologies are more interested in changing what it is that you want, then they are interested in giving you what you want. Uh, and so I was able to kind of argue this in a kind of quirky way by saying that this is a kind of revolution in desire, but for the most part, it's a kind of corporate revolution in desire. Uh, but let me give you an example, like this is example, I mean, people that have heard me do podcasts before would have heard this because I always use this example, but, um, um, I feel like it really embodies this situation. And it was, it's kind of funny story from when I went to Hangzhou, I was in hangar in east China. It's an amazing city, like a amazing place to think about tech because it's a really ancient Chinese city with loads of old architecture and stuff. But it's also where Alibaba, uh, is, is based and was, was born. And so it's also, um, it's like a prototype city in some ways for Alibaba, Alibaba's kind of, they call it city brain, uh, and they have this place there called cloud town, which is their kind of Silicon valley. So they're using this. just Allie for the, for the, for the list of Alibaba, is this like a, what is Well, well, um yeah, the, the second biggest, um, tech company in China, I mean, people probably know from who Jack is the, he was the, the, the, the founder of Alibaba? huh. but yeah. So, so basically along with tents and who own we-chat, It's your sort of major, uh, you know, tech company, giant tech. companies. So it's what, you're in this yeah, It's like the Silicon valley of yeah, run by yeah, bajillionaire Jack exactly, exactly. And, um, I was actually given a talk about. Uh, we chat, um, which is the Tencent one. And at the end of the talk, these two lawyers say to me, and I thought to myself, oh shit, I'm going to get in trouble. You know, because I've been slagging off. Uh, and we, we chat, you know, outpost to the Beijing government. So I've, I've been slagging off these things. I'm going to get in trouble there. And they said, oh, you, you, you hate, uhm, you hate we-chat you hate Tencent. And I was like, Yeah. yeah, I do. And they were like, oh, you must love Alibaba. And I was like, what's what, you're both evil. What are you talking about? But it turns out there, there is a history that the people from Hangzhou are actually quite proud of Alibaba and you know, it it's it's marketing campaign is this guy local thing. So there are people in east China there who, who sort of have an allegiance to this tech overlord and not the other one. Right. That's hilarious. It's like, oh, you know, you hate Facebook. You must love Google. Right? Exactly. Exactly. So it's slightly different way to think. But anyway, these guys said you want to come and, uh, um, you know, they weren't bothered at all about my critiques, I suppose it shows my Western assumptions about China as well, where we're off the mark. They invited me to cloud town and showed me all this technology and, you know, there's amazing stuff there. They showed me like, uh, traffic lights that, um, use facial recognition software to tell how old you are. They like count your wrinkles and then decide how long you need to cross a road based on the age of your face and stuff. So the old people can have a longer, you know, and anyway, the most I asked the guy who was taking me around, what's the most coolest thing you got, you know? And he said, it's this car. And it was a, it was a, this is an old now, you know, this was in 2018. Uh, and it was a car made by Alibaba and Rover, which I think is a German car manufacturer. um, and basically I was expecting him to say, oh, you know, this car is fast and it, or it's super safe. It can't crash. Or, you know, it can fly or something, but he was like, no, it knows when you're hungry and what you might like to eat before. You know what you might like. And at the time I thought I'll give over. I didn't think much of it. I just thought I followed, you know, but, but when I later thought about this and all I asked, uh, why, you know, so what, why does that matter? And it turns out that basically what's going on is you don't even know yourself that, you know, say at four o'clock on a Tuesday, you might like a Japanese ramen, but the car knows because it's synced up with your smartphone. It reads through your history of movements of your photos, whatever else. And it learns your behavior patterns in a really interesting and detailed way. And, and it knows at four 20, what you might be likely to want at four 30. So it then nudges you, it says, okay, why don't you go to this place, uh, that, you know, the car can say to you I'll even drive you there. You know? And, um, I got, when I asked why he said, well, it's simple. Really? We just can drive traffic away from places that take cash. Oh, places that take we-chat pay and drive people towards places that take Ali pay, which is Alibaba's kind of payment system. uh, in a nutshell, have this car that tells you what eat, want to eat, but it's to like get you into the, yeah. In a nutshell, I mean, I can see why a car, you've ever had a conversation with a partner or something like, where do you want to eat? It'd be nice to appeal yeah, yeah. It'd be nice if someone did. Uh, well, I think it on its own, you know, the example on its own doesn't sound like hardly sounds like we're living in this dystopia where our desires are controlled, but it's, uh, it's, it shows a more fundamental and much more widespread thing about, you know, what is often called predictive technology, right? Predictive technology is technology, which predicts what we're going to want and tries to give it to us. But it shows that it's also interested in nudging you, right? Slightly changing, slightly modifying what it is that you want, right? So that it can have its own benefit. And in this case, it's a simple benefit. It's just that the company wants the naught 0.1% profit that it gets from your you're using its own payment system. But what the, the bigger broader point is that these new technologies are, you know, they are predicting what we want and in a sense, giving us what we want, but they also have each their own agenda, which is kind of gently nudging our desires and our hours in different directions, which is not just to suit us, but to suit them. Okay. So I think that's super interesting. me just extrapolate a little bit from this, uh, from this magic car that tells us what we Yeah. Um, so the, the, like the, the dystopian end game is that the, the car tells us everything that we want. So the things, when we even think about what we want, we're just getting fed the information from this Weechat card that will only take us the businesses and the restaurants on that network in the Yeah. of the world. Just be kinds of becomes invisible Terra incognita, because they're on 10, the 10 cent, or something like this. I suppose the literary speaking, the critical. Technology here is the smartphone rather than the car and the way the car syncs up with that. But yeah, I think in the dystopian end game of this. you know, the phone literally decides what you want when you want it and how you're going to get it and through which mechanisms. And, and I actually think we are already in that kind of world, you know? Well that's what I was going to say is because, uh, you know, the way your, the car is a cuter example, but I mean, other websites like Yelp have had similar effects, right? You really saw a change. At least I think I saw a change in patterns to restaurants on, uh, online reviews. So whatever made these top 10 lists, whatever had the highest review in Toronto for, I don't know, Korean food or all of a sudden it became really crowded because people, they felt like a certain kind of thing, which one's the best did consult the, rating Yeah. reviews from strangers became a huge deal. Yeah. I do like already are living there to a big extent. Yeah. And I think we also need to, uh, you know, alongside those examples, which seem not exactly innocent, but just kind of less corporate we can. I think it's also important to have, like, you know, in mind companies that do. In a much more nefarious political way, companies like Palentier and, you know, what was well-known with the Cambridge Analytica saga over here in the UK, you know, basically kind of, um, you know, consultancy firms that are data that use data-driven approaches towards manipulating certain outcomes in the, in the wider cultural and political world. You know, so the logic of a company like Palintir, who basically helps you recollections, you know, by using data approaches and, and, uh, targeted advertising of, uh, various complicated kinds is not that dissimilar to what you see at Alibaba. So I think, yeah, that's, there are new patterns, um, through, and it is all through the internet and our smartphones and, and now computers. Uh, but there are new new strategies through which, um, you know, we can be sort of reshaped as the sort of citizens on the feet of the future, who, by what way, What we're told when we're told, who vote for what we're told when we're told, and it's all of this is happening for a kind of data-driven transformation of desire and stuff. So it's not, it's not just about corporates, it's sort of political motivations. Why we might be influenced in certain ways. great. Okay. So I get that our desires and where they're pointed can be, uh, manipulated by these nefarious giant corporations GARS websites, et cetera, new tech, let's narrow it down a little to because that's the topic of the book Yeah. you know, it's about, it's about how people love, how they find connection. You you argue that tech is even changing how that happens. So can you give me some examples of how it's working in that I mean, I suppose one way of thinking about this might be through dating apps, which we haven't really talked about. Um, you know, and they, a huge one. yeah, into it. Yeah, I mean, there's, there's, um, I think what interests me about this is the kind of, and there's a long history of it. I mean, from the beginning, dating apps have always been oriented around these kinds of particular groups. So you get things like, um, you know, guardian soulmates or which is a popular one. in the UK. That's very important. It's actually, um, it. finished this year, um, Was it real, like I thought maybe people were just writing those ads is trolls, you I mean, I think there are some fake ones, but it was very much the real thing for years and years. And that would just sort of middle class one. And then you'd have your sort of, you know, OkCupid, which always would always start, okay, keep it away. Start with these questionnaires about who are you. And then it boxes you into a certain thing. You answer a hundred questions and matches it with a metric from another section. Actually, they were using strategies that data-driven companies use before these different companies were really doing this stuff way before the explosion of like Cambridge Analytica and those kind of our awareness of these companies that were using data to sort of move things the way they want to. Um, but I think this, and then you get question harmony, that's an old one. And then of course you also get these, um, spoof and borderline spoof ones. Like there's, um, there's a dating site for farmers. That's a spoof one. Um, but there are also some real ones, like there's the AtLast affair, which is a dating site for an rans. Um, I had a good laugh at that one. Like when I saw Yeah. ago, but I, yeah, it was never quite convinced. It was but I think what's happening here is, you know, a kind of, um, a kind of filter bubbling, I suppose, to use the sort of general discourse, a kind of filter bubble of relationships. Uh, and, and, um, I think this is super interesting. And then you actually see sites like trump.dating, uh, and there's a sort of socialist one could read Yenta, you know, and I think, you know, this really actually is a embodiment, a symptom of where our political landscape is at the moment. You know, the fact that, uh people, people see desire. This is, this is a connection between something like Trump debating is a perfect connection between desire and politics. It's basically saying, you know, if, you know, w we want, what ideally we'll have is a society where there's a kind of us. And then, you know what, we will build relationships with people within this, uh, bubble and not outside. And our desire will operate only within these limits. And, and that is extremely interesting, I think, and kind of frightening. I, yeah, I mean, for sure now, but you said something there, right? You said that these websites like trump.dating, and I don't know, I'm skeptical about how popular that Yeah. Yeah. That one's kind of maybe. but, These kinds of politically oriented dating apps are a symptom of our political landscape. Now, obviously there might be a feedback loop, but if, if the dating, dating stuff is a symptom of politics, then how is it a cause of politics? Right? So is it that the apps and the tech are shaping our desires and have political agendas, or is it that we have political agendas and it's a more polarized time. Therefore, um, these apps are responding to Yeah. I mean, I think, um, I think, um, I mean, And this, this was one of the things I really tried to sort of get to in the book, because it's clearly not, it's clearly not one or the other, you know, these things have to work kind of dialectically or in a, as you say, like a kind of feedback loop. So, because for example, you know, obviously. Like, obviously you do, there is an existing, for example, something like Pokemon go, um, you know, there is an existing design for this kind of a Pikachu or something. Right. And then the app, you know, allows you to go in and get this peak true. And then you do that. But then that. does not just. That doesn't just give you something that you already wanted. Right? The PQ is X as existed before existed in the nineties or from 96 or whatever. So there's a history of that desire and it has to come into be, and then, but then the technology doesn't just stop it. Doesn't stop at, uh, giving you what you want. It also kind of modifies that hotel or gets that desire to kind of turn a corner. So, you know, there's a difference between, I mean, so you could speak to someone if we just like time traveled to the, uh, sixties, I'm sure we could find someone who said, well, I'd only go, I'm a socialist, I'd only go out with another socialist. Of course we've already, we've already had, there's a longer history of wanting to find a partner with a similar political agenda to you, or maybe from a similar class to you. Yeah. But when that becomes kind of formalized as a piece of technology, which inherits that desire and makes that the norm and then becomes, um, that then becomes a starting point for desire instead of like the end point, you know? So, so it's. This is why it's complicated. I mean, and, and you know, when a good example of this is when OkCupid got in trouble for being racist, because they were like match. People only with people that same races is that it's kind of broke out into a mini little scandal. And, um, you know, actually was really interesting cause some right-wing kind of data people started saying, well, this proves, this proves that we should have a kind of eugenics, you know, because people do desire. The people that are like them, we should stick to our race groups, you know, but then, And then OkCupid answered this by saying, look, it's not our fault because we only respond to what you desire. So if you look out there in the population of racist, how can we be to blame when the algorithm is racist as well? But of course that's not, that's not a sufficient answer, is it because it's all very well that obviously racism exists in the, in the population when it becomes immortalized in an algorithm, which then is the blueprint for how society will function. You're embedding that racism deeply into the structure of a society, right? Which is why facial recognition, software picking up racial biases was a massive issue. So I think. so it kind of comes back it's, you know, you feed a little bias into the system, but then it builds a system that has Yeah, bias default built into it. And so when you go to it, like kind of just reinforces this, like, uh, exactly. that we don't want in people's in people's That's exactly it. That's exactly it. so so yeah. like that reasoning conceptually, but I do want to push back a little on it empirically. Um, and so it seems the point you're making is that OK, Cupid other dating apps are kind of people based on similarities, class, race, whatever. it's sort of, they're getting people that are too similar and putting them together and that's making it harder. Starts out and the machine is assuming you want someone similar and that's where they hit send you first. They're kind of nudging you in that direction. But in my experience, at least when I use Tinder, I would, part of the big appeal to me was that it would get me out of the kind of closed loop of my social circle. So when I was an academic or, before when I was a grad student, then I can meet all the graduate students and lawyers and professionals that I Yeah. But to kind of like break out of that social group, you need some other pretexts. And I found that, especially in the early days before they started asking people for their educational background, Yeah, uh, was really good for that. They had this aleatory element that did break people out, and there yeah, be some empirical backup. They've done some studies and they found that either, either that online people who meet online. Create more diverse couples or at least it's the yeah. but it doesn't seem to indicate that they're sorting people according to race as a Yeah. Okay. So I mean, what, what I think about that? I mean, I, I, I, I don't, yeah. I don't really, uh, I prefer to just make wild conjectures than, uh, look at real evidence, but, but I think you are on something with it. And I, I, I sort of, Um, but I mean, I think maybe for me, the key thing in what you said was, it's interesting that you said, especially in the early days, cause again, this is not evidence. Um, but I'm gonna say it anyway. Um, but my, um, my impulse, my impulse is to say that. theory do not be, do not be or bound by empirics. Yeah, exactly. No, but my I'm not. I teach the history of the ins and outs, what I teach in my union and I love teaching this degree is extremely interesting. And one of the things we look at is history of social media. You know, basically it's this common to, to say this, I suppose, but to cut a long story short, you know, when the internet exploded, there was this sense that it would be very democratizing, completely equalizing break down a load of, you know, existing limitations and in the kinds of people you could meet. And it would essentially diversify, things quite significantly. And I think in early social media and perhaps in early dating sites, you actually do see that reflected out. So people who, if you, I mean, I'm somebody who hasn't probably experienced that anecdotally, because I've only ever lived in like London, Hong Kong, you know, major cities, but you know, certainly for people who live in. More remote areas. Then those main, the least remote ones, they were highly likely to meet people outside of that sort of relatively small group or network. Um, and that would kind of diversify things. And the internet clearly had, I would say hard rock and perhaps still has loads of potential to play that role. And this is what is so frustrating about the way in which new forms of social media have come to organize and structure us because they should be doing the opposite. The internet should be a place where we could absolutely diversify and break out of class, gender, race, educational, bubbles, and create new forms of solidarity across communities in new and interesting ways. And I believe, I do think this desire would function in those ways. You know, we would, they would, there is that you would find desire operating across those boundaries, but. That is not in the interests of the people who unfortunately have taken essentially stolen the internet away from people. And it's no longer this open space that was given to, us by Tim Berners Lee for free. It's a space that is run by a very small group of power holders in whose interests it is to organize us into groups and curates us into groups and prevents us crossing those board resets. So basically I don't, I can't. to, I want him to separate two points there, right? Okay. So, so point 1 is this sort of consolidation of the internet before there was like, it was open, it was free, you know, the, the meme way of putting it that, uh, you know, has stuck in my head for years. You know, in, in the nineties it was the internet is going to be millions of sites, all different from one another. And now it's four sites that are only made up of screen-grabs of each Yeah. Uh, and, and that's, that's fine and frightening. But why is it that it's in their interests to sort people into categories and make sure that desire doesn't cross those categories? Cause again, at least if it's the intuitive identity categories that people are thinking of, it doesn't seem like that's substantiated. Right. It does seem like, know, if, uh, I don't think it's deliberate. No, I don't think that the, I think it comes down to the way in which they, um, organized people for advertising purposes. Like, so they wouldn't necessarily, I don't think the, you know, the overlords of Twitter and Facebook, I mean like kind of think they're capable of it. You know, you've seen Zuckerberg talk in front of this, you know, they didn't say Right. Let's create there so that, um, you know, so that we can have a future playing politics, but they just wanted people organized in that way, because it partly because when they start selling advertising space that that's efficient. So you can say people who drink lattes that also watch our house cinema, that's the people we should send this particular message to, you know, so quite simple, but then then very quick. People realize and can companies mobilize realizing, oh, we can actually use this to concretely. And if people even start self sorting a bit, then eh, companies, they noticed that these people Yeah. and they can act on those groups and that kind of solidifies Yeah. And, and for me to try and try and reconnect this to tomorrow, because I suppose this stuff been said, but to recap to this question of desire, like it's difficult to do, but I think, um, I think what you're looking at there is that is connected to this whole logic of the space where it's like, well, these people want this and these people want this and these people want this. So let's create these bubbles around these groups and what that does, it means that you know, that that also trains you to, to want those things, you know, you Yeah. you're so, so I think, yeah, I think it's absolutely yeah. I was working on an article a couple of years ago about politics in, in dating. Actually, and, uh, I never, I never saw the light of day, but I did do some really interesting research. talked to some people from, uh, you know, the IAC group, OkCupid, whatever. And, they shared some of their data with me. And what this woman was saying was interviewing was that for the past 15 years, actually politics has been becoming more and more important to people in terms of dating. So people have started to sort themselves and all this recent stuff about first, you know, OkCupid, but all the apps have kind of followed suit allowed more political options. They're kind of following what people were doing. People were posting more photos with campaign t-shirts or, or writing political things in their bios, you could see it happening. A lot of these apps are responding by allowing to state your political affiliation or state more. They go from say, can choose liberal conservative. Cause now, now there's like nine or something on some of oh, really? That's really interesting because, um, I always found that interesting that Bumble had like liberal, conservative. But not didn't have any sort of socialist or left leaning. Yeah. So anyway, okay. Yeah. Well, the thing is for him, for it to make sense, I guess it depends how niche you want to go. Right? So Yeah. for corporations to sort people into groups, the group has to be big enough to Well, yeah, that's it. That's it. That's it. That's it. um, So, so if you can keep them in relatively large chunks, great. But if the smaller chunks, you know, if there's enough and Narcos syndicate lists, Yeah. uh, a location-based dating app, then, then believe me, there there'll be an option on Yeah. I think. So let's, let's maybe come back to this topic of, technology and desire from a, a slightly different direction, because one of the things I liked most about your book is just all these insights that has into how desire works. of course, it's sort of in general, cause you draw a lot on psychoanalysis and some a theory. so there's stuff I'd love to get into. And how do you explain some of these points about desire and then maybe bring out how that operates with tech. So I love all this stuff where you're cutting against, the idea that people have, these natural desires that they're just trying to satisfy. And so one of the big points you make is that desire is always social in a number of ways. not just our own personal desires. So tell me a bit about that. How does, how do we get these Yeah, right. No, I think that's a really interesting, important question. And like part of the, the background, I suppose what I'm saying in all these conversations we're having and like, I mean, I guess some people exist who will like, uh, argue against this and say that there are certain things such the thing as natural desire. And, you know, ultimately that doesn't matter if those, you know, I don't need to convince every biologist or whatever, because you know, our desire is so mediated by, uh, technology and media. Um, and I mean, technology in the sense of the long history of technology, you know, so that, that it doesn't really matter anymore if there is a natural desire because we've come so far from it that, it's kinda negligible, I would say. So, I think we'd love, this is a interesting way into it, you know? Clearly, we could say that from at least the 19th. Well, maybe even the medieval period, like with courtly love and romance, you know, look at like Shakespeare and so on. You know, literature begins to play a key role as a technology, which, um, you know, influences what love is. And it does. Of course, no one's going to argue with that. Literature changed. What romance was, it changes, expectations about families' relationships, you know, it T in a way, literature teaches a population how to love that's. That's what it tried to do and succeeded in doing. love that. So like everyone's reading, everyone's reading Yeah. and, uh, And sure. There is. their relationships at. Well, I mean, it's not quite as direct as that, like, but, but clearly, you know, there, there are so many features of society which borrow tropes and, and learn from our co that's. The role of culture, you know, is to sort of shape a society in that way. So, you know, and then, and then at. a certain point, you know, films, probably Hollywood films take over, you know, and I know it's almost a cliche to say that, you know, you know, Hollywood romances and chick flicks and whatever, you know that, but they do, they. brain Rum comes, you know, they, they play a role don't they, they don't, they don't tell you exactly what to want and you don't desire exactly what you're told, just as in the same way. You don't want to shoot someone because you've played a video game about shooting, but our products have of culture do, do, they are technologies, which shape romance and shape, love, and shape design. And now, and so my book kind of tries to say that it was trick, or maybe we could even say it was a religion that did that first. Then it was literature. Then it was films. Now it's algorithms. And so we've been from a kind of history where the main thing, which shapes love and desire has changed and, and a world where religion shapes, love and desire is well different to a world where algorithms shake, love and desire. So how do we make sense of like the present moment in relation to this history where lots of different things have shaped, what we kind of think of and how we love them and stuff. in the book you make this point using a de Beauvoir, right? And you talk about how she says that can learn about love, romantic love, and then that's what you want. You want this kind of relationship and you see how it is, and then you have sex with someone and then all that desire you have to be in a certain kind of romantic relationship. Put that on the person that you're having sex with and that's how you fall in love. But point here is that the way you even get this idea of what romance and love is, is a kind of social indoctrination. And then that gets put on individuals rather than you just meet someone and then naturally have all these, all these feelings. Is Yeah. that Yeah, absolutely. And you, I mean, you know, you don't naturally know. I don't think anyone still thinks that, like, but like, imagine if you went back, I'm trying to think of the most simple way to put this. Imagine if you, like, I mean, I suppose the movies, some movies do show it as possible, but if you went back to like the Medi, like my view is this. If you went back in the time machine to like the full thing century, it would be literally impossible to experience probably desire and maybe even love, I mean, certainly love and maybe even desire because you know, you wouldn't have you, wouldn't the objects that you have been trained to feel desire for literally did not exist that you know, so whereas, you know, the, the movies would have, Okay. Okay. All right. I like, I like this. This is counterintuitive. I go back to the middle ages. And all of a sudden Yeah. So the movies would have you, my desire don't you, you basically, I desire other yeah. but there are other people, so Well, no, I think you've been to the movies that have told us to think you want, you go back there and suddenly there's a lovely blonde damsel or something, and it's love at first sight. and Ted, they go back and they fall in love with princesses. But, but in reality, I think you would arrive there and your desire, which basically would not existed because the objects that you have, you know, coming to desire how we've changed, we would change so much. They just literally wouldn't exist the objects of your day anyway, so completely stupid Do example, but get hungry as well? We would Rob, We would not get hungry for any of their food as uh, we would have to, I think we would have to eat in a, it would be like eating, you know, Soylent in the, in the spaceship. You know, you wouldn't get the pleasure from eating. Yeah. Well, I, uh, It wouldn't taste good. I'm pushing back a little, but I've been to medieval art museums and I will say, Okay. What about this example? um, I don't think an avocado tasted as good before Instagram. um, oh, okay. That's look, I think that might be right, but I want to, uh, get into that a little more because one of the other really interesting points in your book is about how. Okay. So we're talking about literature affects people's desires, right? Literature tech of all kinds. Sometimes it was religion. Sometimes it was literature. Now it's these platforms. And of the things that has changed, that you bring up nicely in your argument is that because our desires are now so much mediated by our smartphones and social media, rather than other, uh, impersonal experiences, they become much more based on visual and auditory stimulus, because you can't smell and taste online. You can't post what something tastes like. So all you can do is take a photo of it and post that. And now that changes, like maybe our relationship to food maybe other people, we want them to be photogenic in and postal. Yeah. Taste is, is part of this book because of this thing I was saying before is it's intimate. It's, it's supposedly natural, uh, like sexual desire. We often think of taste as something chemical. Um, but, , there's obviously more to it than that. And it shows that that all senses and including things we find instinctive often find instinctive are wrapped up and technology is offering an opportunity for those things. Even the deepest things like our very senses, which we often think of as biological, rather than ideological can be manipulated and put to use in these kinds of systems. So I guess that relates to this thing about, you know, and, and it's actually, um, you know, The theory comes from Roland Bartz who wrote this great book, a lover's discourse, um, where he basically says that when we experienced desire for the first time and he uses these great words, like ravish mints, you know, when you see something and you're like ravished by it, or, um, an admiration, like when you were enamored by something, when, when you see something and just feel that sort of first initial burst of desire, where suddenly you really want that thing. Right. And, um, he, he says that the most important thing is not the object itself, but the scene in which it appears. So, you know, he gives great examples from literature as well, but basically like, um, you know, when you, I mean, I think Romeo and Juliet scene, even if you just picture the basil and film where they meet through the fish tank, get the party and so on. And on the one hand it's presented as something that happens between subject and object between the person and the thing that they desire. Um, but on the other hand, clearly, it's, it's also the whole scene, right? The fish, the tank, the party, the families, the background, the network, which makes desire possible. uh, and he is deliberately used in that sort of a drama, a language from drama and theater. Right. That's the scene is organized. you, did you see world Yeah, uh, he first sees Cassandra she's onstage playing and Dreamweaver's starts playing yeah. that's It's not enamoration and that's deliberate. That's a comment on that. Got totally, that's a great, great example of it. Um, and, and so anyway, the point is that now. This scene is now more of a screen, you know, and the way in which apps like Instagram, but also dating apps, which are kind of like tender whatever you might want to let the way in which they present us with these objects of desire and allow us to sort of, you know, even deliver Rue or UberEATS, allow us to sort of flick through or browse these objects of desire that curate in a scene where desire is possible and asking you to be the, yeah, Wayne's weld cards. There'll be a Romeo Juliet and, and feel that. okay. So, my pushback on that is that when you picture, Cassandra in Wayne's world on stage or Leo and Claire Danes, looking at each other through the fish tank, you can see what, how this is a romantic scene where people might fall in love. But when you're just looking at a dating app, scene, isn't great. What is happening though? And I think this is interesting is people are, without the theory are intuitively trying to set their own scenes to construct themselves as objects of desire, which is why people are always taking of themselves in front of like backgrounds. They're like big lineups. If there's a stunning view, everyone wants to just instead of sitting it to go have a photo in front of it, It seems like it has to do with this kind of scene setting, but that individuals have become more aware of it because now the technology has created context in which they can, they can set their own scene. Um, it's sort of made it obligatory and it's really changed this kind of self presentation people have become without the theory, really aware of how important it is, how important scene setting is and presenting themselves as objects of desire or interest. So. Yeah, I guess, I guess that's my response to it. And I think that's like a, I don't know. What do you think about this yeah. a pressure to, to start setting our own scene? Whereas people might not have been as attentive to this point before gave Yeah. the power and therefore the obligation to be more attentive to the scenes that we No, I think, I think, I think that's right. So, and I think that's, that's part of it, you know, I don't quite think it's, I don't quite agree so much about the question of the platform, just providing you with the interface and you being the one who sets the scene. Because I think, you know, for example, this has dramatically changed, you know, and I'm also really interested in like, I guess what you call it, hacker culture, or like older histories of the internet. Like, you know, I think the fact that you can't move your profile picture from the left hand corner on Facebook is extremely, perhaps. You know, and I, you know, on, on my space or something you could have done, you know, uh, or on gopher, you know? Yeah. Yeah. So, but, so I think that the, um, what is often appears like, oh, you know, all of the decisions are yours. Like Facebook, the way let's say that as an example, but Tinder hinge, Bumble, you know, all of the decisions are yours. We just lay them out like this. But the process of them all being laid out in the same order is extremely influential in, in, in setting the scene of what this world is like. And so, yeah. and, and I think then you see, don't you, what the PA then your point can really comes in. You see people taking decisions in making decisions of actual Right. down to what they eat and what they do, because they already experienced the thing as if it was displayed in this interface that they can imagine it being displayed in. So like, I'm not saying I'm not talking about just, you know, Uh, 16 year old, 17 year old Instagram influence influences. I'm talking about 50 year old academics. They don't even realize they're doing it, but you know, we're so conditioned to read our world through a platform like Facebook that we begin to actually do things subconsciously because that's how they will be read. Right. Absolutely. But this is, I mean, this is the point that I think is really interesting and that I was trying to get Hmm. that so much that, you know, these corporations have the power to set the scene and present some people as desirable and not, but set the terms for self Yeah. and that will obviously edit some people in and out, but also change the way everyone sees themselves. Because not only are you presenting yourself to other people, you're also presenting yourself to yourself and, um, Hm. that'll change like your identity and, uh, Yeah. desires and what you want to do. Yeah. And, and I think it very much does, you know, I think it very much does. Yeah, good. Um, One of the other ideas in your book that I wanted to talk about was. This idea of peak libido, the kind of. Societal shortage of desire. So. Could you tell us a little about. That. Well, I mean, I'm just taking, I'm taking this directly from a book I'd really recommend to listeners, which is by Dominic Patman, uh, which is called peak libido, And it takes this concept from Stiegler, which is basically, and peak in the sense, like kind of like peak oil, uh, you know, like basically the idea that, it's, it's all yeah, the idea that desire, this is in a sense of society without desire, Uh or, or desire. We are just, there's just a few little bits left, which we're running off as a society. why do we have so little. Yeah. I, when I first read this book, I thought this is interesting because it's the opposite of what I think. I think that we are a society where, which is primarily running and B and all the conversations we've had today are based on the idea. Desire is, is really at the heart of society and where we're being held, desires are being used. But in, in a, in a sense, I think both can kind of be true. Um, you know, I think that, yeah, and I suppose what I ended up sort of coming to the conclusion I ended up coming through on this was that I think we do have a lack of desire. And I think, you know, the stats, I mean, I said, as I said to you before, I don't do much stats, but you know, there is less sex going on, uh, than, um, there was, and I, I think there's less enjoyment of food, probably despite the parents, sister, the country, you know, despite, uh, despite a obsession with stem. eats first, you know, So I think somehow what's happened and I don't know the solution, but somehow what's happened is our, our technologies and our politics together managed to conjure up a situation where desire is, is kind of in a peak condition. There's not much of it. And instead we get all these kind of weird micro. Micro desires that we're going to follow him one after the other, um, in a sort of horrible failed attempt to feel. it's like instead of, instead of, you know, working up an appetite and like going for this really lush meal instead, just like scrolling through endless, uh, food accounts the kind of, you know, use it like zombified simulacrum of yeah, desire. yeah, Uh, instead of going out and meeting the love of your life, you're, uh, you know, swiping on a. Instead of building. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if I want to go, goes as far as saying the love of your life, you know? Um, but, but instead of building more, um, significant, Uh, relationships and experiences, which produce desire and allow it to exist. Yeah. Where, where, um, instead going yes. Desires on bees, lemmings desire, lemmings. That's what we all are. when one point that you make about this, that, uh, that like it relates to the peak libido point is you have this really interesting point about how on the one hand, all this, uh, tech and social media in a way it inflames desire, but it's also always disappointing somehow, like both the digital object, um, is disappointing in a way, but also when we get the real thing, also disappointing. So how does that, Yeah. Yeah. But I did know that, that, I remembered that now I'd forgotten. I wrote that. Um, no, uh, yeah, I mean, I've found that I dunno what I meant, but I, I found it fascinating, but because I've read the arguments, both sides, but Uh, you know, well, the problem with, when you talk to people about dating apps, you commonly hear well, when I got there, they weren't, they didn't look as good as their profile. um, but, and you also, you also get it the other way rounds, you know, uh, you know, like, oh, Well, all I'm getting is this digital thing. It's not the real thing. You know, I'm, I'm watching porn because I. Find sex kind of thing. Um, you know, so you get both arguments from very different political and social kind of quarters. Um, and I found that really interesting because what, what you're saying there is the whole, the whole way we normally think is, you know, it's this division between the real and the digital but actually what unites them is that they're both kind of unfulfilling. Uh, so, so yeah, it's, it's not, it's not, and that way the digital rural world may just be as real as the real and that's exactly why I think perpetually disappointing. As Well, I think that's right. And it's not. Yeah, but it doesn't. Hmm. I dunno. I don't know if it needs to be that way, but, but there's, there's something about the, yeah. There's something about the digital object that, yeah. I mean, again, the example works perfectly for a burger, doesn't it? ways. Yeah. I mean, Um, which is that the, the picture of the perfect yeah, or the perfect sexual partner or yeah. that, because it's only an image, like a promise of happiness to Yeah, It's, it's exciting because it promises you something that you can project yes. Yeah. And in a sense, yeah, encounter with the actual object, um, can be disappointing because yeah, not live up to yeah. Like Michael Douglas in. on the one hand. Yeah. You're disappointed. Cause it's not real, but on the other hand you get what's real, but you're disappointed. Cause it's. Yes. Uh, a distant enough screen for your Exactly. Exactly. So, so That's I think that's quite right. A distant in our screen and be like, yeah. When you still got the burger, I was thinking about that seat in falling down where Michael Douglas goes to the Wendy's and the picture of the burger, it's in my head. Yeah. and then that's what triggers the sort of outburst. And I think that's interesting because the film is saying that actually this is too much to handle this gap between the, Uh huh. Uh the advertisement. There's this little Image. But, but anyway, Yeah, and I, I think, um, I think what's important there is, is that that's how desire works, you know, so, you know, Yeah, so we need to, we need to Wade through this. We need to understand that that's how desire works, you know, and psychoanalysis has, has, uh, I guess, uh, provided a kind of framework for that, but then we need to then Wade through this digital world we live in, not by the, it's obviously not enough to think about this real life. Isn't good enough or the digital isn't good enough, you know, and that was, that's where I, I I'm aware that through most of what we've talked about today, I seem quite. Pessimistic. And like I'm saying all of this is bad, but I don't, I don't want, I don't think this can be sold by, uh, escape, escaping the digital and going back to reality. I don't think there is reality outside the digital one. I, you know, when people go and live on a commune and, and, you know, get so one with nature or whatever it is, they do, I think this is the wrong solution. You know, there's this, there's no way of going back, you know? So we need new ways of thinking about the questions of desire and digital and real life and things like that. We need to, we can't go backwards and, and I'm certainly not, you know, even though I think the situation is kind of bleak at the moment, I, I don't want us to, I don't want this to be interpreted as like a criticism of technology itself. Um, you know, it's not that at all. It's just that, you know, I suppose what I think is. We need to reshape desire, um, for our own political agendas, rather than just letting ourselves be the desire lemmings of Right, or whatever it is that we are. Don't, don't let, don't let OkCupid set the terms, Yeah. uh, that we follow, but try to set our own terms that will make world actually a better place instead Yeah. And, and I mean, I won't, tagline, a you know, I won't go go into them, but I, in the book I did three like playful kind of semi serious semi joking suggestions, like little chapters, which suggested how we could redesign technology. Like one was like for a wearable device. Like how could we imagine a, a progressive wearable device, like a Fitbit, uh, you know, Uh that's the part of the smart condos. And one was, Uh, a dating simulator, video game dating simulator that would have some kind of progressive sexual politics. And one was that. A dating app, you know, how could a dating app actually serve progressive social and cultural policies, right. Politics, rather than the ones that we're currently seeing. And I, you know, those are not, even as I say, they're, semi-humorous in the book, they're not even worth discussing, but, but they do indicate that, this is kind of the way I think we should go. Not, not rejecting technology, but think it's like they're well worth discussing, you know, but, uh, I mean, but that's the point it's like if the point of your discussion there is that, at least as, as I understood it is that now people think of, okay, what is the need? What is the pain point? As they say, in corporate teas that this tech can solve, what can we give people that they want? So they'll give us money. But you're saying actually what you haven't noticed is you're changing what people want. And if once we know we can do that, we can do it on precisely. and, and we can, you know, try to shape desires in a way that we want them to be Exactly. that happened to be most profitable for. Yeah. I mean, you've put that in a much better way than, than I did. You know, when I said that, you know, yeah. It's w we don't need to be, you know, lemmings where, you know, if we, if we recognize the point that we are desire is changing, this is great. And I go back here to someone like Donna Haraway, you know, in the eighties, uh, you know, she was writing from this kind of cyborg feminist perspective, that the fact that our technologies are changing us presents an, a massive opportunity for feminism, because we can actually think about moving out of the patriarchal structures that we've been in and using technology to get us there. I think this is a similar moment in a certain way, but, if we acknowledge that we are in a moment where our desires are being radically changed by both political actors and corporations, if we acknowledge that's true, then that means we can also change desire for, for the better. And we, and we should. but, okay. So, but then it's not that we don't have to be lemmings it's that we are lemmings, but we can also be the player who controls the lemmings. Right. Um, who, who sets the terms for our lemming like behavior? Exactly . And we will never have full control of this process. No one does. But what we can do is try to yeah. Reshape our technologies in a way, which we think, yeah, this is a, uh, culturally, socially, or personally progressive way in which the technology could function, uh, on us as people. And I think, I think it would work, you know? Yeah. I look, I would, I would, I want to see, I want to see everyone Yeah. Uh, before I let you go, I want to just pitch one more idea. That came to me when you were talking about peak libido and zombified desires, and this is a little kind of obscure inside baseball, but I'll give it a shot. So what I was getting from the peak libido point was part of the reason why desire is so exhausted is because it's being expended on all these little micro zombified ersatz, desires, um, porn, rather than sex or love, et cetera. Now, if you think of ways people have tried to increase desire. One of the things you'd think of, especially when we're thinking about porn is a kind of no fap movement, which, uh, this right-wing thing kind of proud boys are supposed to not masturbate and that it's going to increase the like energy and desire. Uh, that they have that they can then turn towards other things. So, so, so what do you think about this as like one of the responses to the exhaustion of desire, Yeah. is already being kind of appropriated by weird fringe right-wing Yeah. I mean, actually I'm happy you said that because it's part of the book we didn't mention at all, is that some of it, I did, some of the stuff I wanted to look at was that weird stuff. You know, I looked at this group, um, sexual market value group and the sort of, you know, basically Chan board, uh, you know, right wing, um, all right. Oriented kind of subcultures who, unlike the Trump communities would be somehow loosely connected to this, but there are, there is, are all pickup artistry communities. I also look at like, you know, so I think this is really important and all these weird symptoms in, in, in, uh, in Nina powers, new book, she talks about the no FAP stuff. The, that her book is called what men wants. Um, and it's really interesting. And I think that, yeah, what you, what you're seeing here is I think the way you put the questions, right? These are symptoms of, you know, these things are not well. Well, we often see these presented in the media or by others. We look at these kind of weird, Uh, weird culture deciding to do something X, Y, Z way. And it's patriarchal it's right wing. It is you know, it is a patriarchal right-wing way of conceiving the problem, but it's also a symptom to our wider kind of capitalist I'd say. is it true that not jacking off is right way? uh, yeah, I wonder maybe. I'm sure that's certain certainly there's a historical precedent. It wasn't invented by Gavin McInnes yeah, I think the no fat thing may be, but yeah. Yeah. But no, I suppose my point is that, you know, I think we shouldn't. Yeah, I think these were okay. This is the point. I think the weird communities of subcultural people who we sometimes maybe mistakenly or rightly associated with the REITs have actually kind of got the right idea in a weird backwards way, because they are at least trying to, Uh, do something with this problem of this kind of capitalist desire economy that we're in. Whereas the left tends not to. And that's not always true. I mean, they are interesting like sex tech groups on the left, there are interesting like experimental, uh non binary and trans brothels, which use like weird sex robots, trialing new forms of sex tech and things like that. I think that's all important and useful and positive. And I, I think for the most part, yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, so, so we've got a weird situation where the DV, all the deviancy seems to be happening on weird subcultural right-leaning communities. But what we actually need is a left deviancy on all this. Yeah. Yeah. which probably wasn't Look, I love that. I mean, the, problem is that, um, the power of deviancy has been appropriated by the yeah. Yeah. yeah. that's where we are. Isn't it. And in other ways, too, you know, so, so yeah, I think, um, yeah, no one thing is interesting. Hey, I think that's probably a good place to leave it, but thank you so much for coming on. That was super interesting. And you know, you've mentioned tons of stuff. is a, this is a short book. It's like 140 pages long, but it's rich. was, There's a ton of other stuff in it. So, you know, If, you want to learn more about what smart condoms are, , or porn and deconstruction and psychoanalytic theory, uh, it's a lot of fun to read and, it was a lot of fun talking. So thanks Alfie. That was yeah, it was really fun. Thanks so much for having me on and thanks everyone for listening as well.