TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Debate: Video games are the drug of the century

Video games are constantly progressing towards characteristics similar to drugs. If we look at a huge point brought up in the speech mentioning how ancient "lydia" (i think) used video games to cause the people to ignore or forget about the necessities to life such as hunger. This effect is very similar to the effects of many drugs like acid which are used to dull sense of reality and enter an external world to forget the problems in reality. This is one of the many things that video games have in common within drugs.

So the debate is are video games being used for beneficial reasons like teaching values of never giving up on a mission and knowing the possibility of accomplishing important objectives. Or are video games like World of Warcraft offering an alternate world for a person to escape to and allows the creation of an avatar that reflects the person they wish to be and the existence in a world different from reality?

Please if you are arguing one side think of arguments that oppose your own point of view and offer them as well only because i would like to hear both sides and it will allow for a much better debate and allow for you to articulate your argument in more depth.

Topics: Video games drugs
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 29 2012: Why on earth has everything we do have to have 'beneficial reasons'? This is why any 'workaholic' still is socially more accepted than any 'gameaholic', even though a 'gameaholic' is only destructive to him- or herself.

    Isn't any scientist, writer, artist or whoever in 'flow' nothing but 'on a trip'? Doesn't all of them forget to 'eat' in this creative phase? And wouldn't our economy give literally 'anything' to find a way to get employees on a daily basis in this state of 'trance'? So what makes the one drug 'bad' and the other 'good'? Just the bucks earned rather than spend on them?

    To me any destructive addiction should be avoided and help offered to those who are in it. But there are smooth transitions and double standards involved in this matter.

    Diablo III put me on a diet for 7 days and I guarantee you, that the same time would have been more accepted in any religious fasting week. Why? Because the one cause was 'just' entertaining? Isn't 'entertainment' actuall nothing but the key to 'flow'? To me it is, and the use of the term 'drug' only comes into discussion, if 'entertainment' is used for 'entertainment' reasons only and in which no gain in GDP or high school grade was made.

    To me the 'drug of the century' is the stock market in which 'gambler' can knock down whole and even real countries. Here I would start first with 'anti drug campaigns' to free people off their addiction to breed more profit... Yet this seems to be accepted somehow... why? ;o)
    • Nov 30 2012: Trust me I myself played WoW for a long time! I don't think all games are bad and entertainment is a bad thing. But just like the amount sedatives given before surgery it needs to be the right amount and to much sedative can result in a coma and to little could result in a really shitty surgery. Just like everything else in the world there needs to be a balance between too much and too little and there is nothing stopping people from throwing their lives away because of an addiction to a game. People don't know what too much gaming looks like and people need to be aware that video games are dangerous in excess....
      • thumb
        Nov 30 2012: I absolutely agree with you and that's why I stated:

        '... any destructive addiction should be avoided and help offered to those who are in it.'

        In addition to this I was trying to make the point that if it comes to this pathologic imbalance, we are more likely to damn a 'video gamer' than a well accepted and respected manager in 'workaholic' mode. Both are suffering the same imbalance, yet a video game becomes a 'drug' and a career trip becomes a role-model. To me this is a double-standard and should be seen as such.

        As you rightly state, that there is '... nothing stopping people from throwing their lives away because of an addiction to a game', so there is also 'nothing stopping speculators and hedge-fond manager from throwing whole economies into 'melt down' of an addiction to profit maximisation'

        Both is pathological but only the video gamer is seen to be 'on drugs', whereas the gamer is the only one who is damaging just himself and nobody else.

        This contradiction in perception of addictive behaviour is what I wanted to underline here, and it was not my intention to advocate any 'pro addictive gaming'.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.