A supernormal stimulus, or superstimulus, is an exaggerated version of a stimulus to which there is an existing response tendency, or any stimulus that elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved.
Source. Emphasis is mine.
Optimizing for superstimuli to the detriment of human health, as is currently happening with fatty and sugary foods, is one tangible way in which capitalism$^{1,2}$ hurts people. This particular situation is not a failure state for capitalism, a point at which it must either adapt or die, as it does not significantly decrease the productivity of capitalist societies relative to non-capitalist ones — not only have technological advances made fitness less necessary, but those non-capitalist economies which are competitive in the slightest are so enmeshed in the global economy that they, too, are suffering from the same problems (see e.g. China’s rapidly rising obesity rate).
Technological progress, however, is beginning to make it possible to optimize for superstimuli in a way that will significantly decrease our societal fitness. In the near future — perhaps in one or two decades — artificial intelligence and virtual reality will allow us to produce interactive multimedia formats which serve as superstimuli for the mind:
Games that personalize themselves well enough to players that a person of average psychological constitution will not stop playing them except to maintain the necessities of life. (Though, even the current generation of blasé MMORPGs can, in exceptional cases, cause some people to ignore even these necessities).
Full-sensory virtual erotica, completely customizable courtesy of artificial intelligence. AI Dungeon offered the proof of concept here; supposing that progress won’t slow down over the next twenty years (indeed, it’ll likely increase), we can only expect massive increases in quality and consistency, as well as the expansion to multiple sense domains.
Romantic and social impulses can and will be fulfilled by AI as well. We don’t have to ait very long: Xiaoice (wiki, news article), a popular source of emotional support for millions of lonely Chinese men, is an "18-year-old who likes to wear Japanese-style school uniforms, she flirts, jokes, and even sexts with her human partners".
While it’s been banned from many messaging platforms, including WeChat, for generating unfavorable political opinions, this seems to be at most a minor obstacle. I, for one, can’t wait for my digital paramour to mesmerize my beguiled ears with the melodious beauty of Xi Jinping Thought.
Social media that serves you exactly what it figures will keep you engaged. Facebook, Twitter, and existing platforms are already good at this, with terrible consequences, but they will continue to get better; not only is there an endless amount of improvement to be made along the axis of intensity, with existing models simply getting better at what they do, but as computing devices get faster, more user-friendly, and more ubiquitous, new jumps in modes of delivery and networking will be made as well.
For instance: The main barrier to a pair of augmented reality glasses that allow you to look at someone and see their hobbies, relationship status, and political opinions is computing power, a barrier that only grows weaker each year. While it may seem that social media has already created a great deal of political polarization, we’ve barely scratched the surface.
These technologies will collectively raise the willpower waterline required for people to channel their energy into productive efforts: a significant proportion of the population, perhaps barring those with certain personal quirks like blindness or a disdain for computers, will be sucked in, incapable of contributing to productive efforts except when forced to by considerations such as survival.
We’ll get more entertainment from games than from real life, more fulfilling social interaction with programs than from real people, and what social interaction we do have with real people is likely to be guided solely towards polarizing topics like politics. It’s yet to be seen whether our society can continue to thrive with so much of its members' excess energy siphoned by these new technologies, but, even if it can, it will certainly lose any advantage it previously had against authoritarian societies capable of curbing the proliferation of said technologies; even if it is capable of thriving on its own, it will no longer be able to outcompete non-capitalist societies.
We are not totally clueless, though, and as we begin to see the disastrous effect of AI/VR-enhanced media, many people will call for the suspension of development, control of distribution, or even the destruction of all such technologies. As such action is necessarily incompatible with both a free market and the (prima facie) will of the people, this must involve an authoritarian turn. I see three major directions that responses to this new revolution will go down:
