Well, let's say ads work. I am not convinced, but you're persuading me. :)
Can't outlaw them - we still need them to quickly inform & educate the masses. The governments will definitely use them even if just for "good" purposes. Who will define "good" though? In a world without ads people will not build an immunity and any ad will have such an effect that the temptation to use it will become irresistible to anybody in power. And mark my words: they'll use them for worse stuff than smoking and eating.
Also, we'll loose all ad-supported free stuff. And there is a lot there, like pretty much all media. The poor will be the most affected, too, since stuff can be paid with money or attention and they have no money.
> Tobacco industry
I don't know any smoker that is not aware of the dangers. But what they get out of it makes it worth it to them. Believe it or not, most people do not live to maximize their life expectancy, they have other criteria as well - like pleasure or enjoyment of life. Otherwise everybody would start their day with 4 hours in the gym and walk everywhere.
> After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly.
I'm sure there were many other measures taken as well.
> the obesity epidemic [...] believe advertisement has something to do with it
How about the food pyramid pushed by governments that was full on processed carbs? How about the vilification of fat & meat made by the medical establishment I believe? How about people naturally choosing comfort and pleasure over hard work and restraint? How about partners working both with little time left to chop and cook at home?
I doubt you need ads to explain the obesity epidemic.
> I've never seen an ad for not eating. I've never seen an ad for not buying a pair of shoes.
Because we must eat and have shoes - we can't not buy food or shoes. None of those ads made me buy, they just influenced my purchase decision. And I see plenty of ads for health advisors and nutrition experts that tell me to eat more veggies and less sugar. Maybe they are not on main stream media, but alternative media is full of them.
> The trick is getting them to do it and letting them believe they made the choice.
If I wanted to protect my kids from that, I would expose them to more ads, not less. Because they would be even more vulnerable to ads if they saw fewer of them.
I believe that for the best ideas to win, we need to debate more, read more and learn more - not to burn the "bad" books.
Can't outlaw them - we still need them to quickly inform & educate the masses. The governments will definitely use them even if just for "good" purposes. Who will define "good" though? In a world without ads people will not build an immunity and any ad will have such an effect that the temptation to use it will become irresistible to anybody in power. And mark my words: they'll use them for worse stuff than smoking and eating.
Also, we'll loose all ad-supported free stuff. And there is a lot there, like pretty much all media. The poor will be the most affected, too, since stuff can be paid with money or attention and they have no money.
> Tobacco industry
I don't know any smoker that is not aware of the dangers. But what they get out of it makes it worth it to them. Believe it or not, most people do not live to maximize their life expectancy, they have other criteria as well - like pleasure or enjoyment of life. Otherwise everybody would start their day with 4 hours in the gym and walk everywhere.
> After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly.
I'm sure there were many other measures taken as well.
> the obesity epidemic [...] believe advertisement has something to do with it
How about the food pyramid pushed by governments that was full on processed carbs? How about the vilification of fat & meat made by the medical establishment I believe? How about people naturally choosing comfort and pleasure over hard work and restraint? How about partners working both with little time left to chop and cook at home?
I doubt you need ads to explain the obesity epidemic.
> I've never seen an ad for not eating. I've never seen an ad for not buying a pair of shoes.
Because we must eat and have shoes - we can't not buy food or shoes. None of those ads made me buy, they just influenced my purchase decision. And I see plenty of ads for health advisors and nutrition experts that tell me to eat more veggies and less sugar. Maybe they are not on main stream media, but alternative media is full of them.
> The trick is getting them to do it and letting them believe they made the choice.
If I wanted to protect my kids from that, I would expose them to more ads, not less. Because they would be even more vulnerable to ads if they saw fewer of them.
I believe that for the best ideas to win, we need to debate more, read more and learn more - not to burn the "bad" books.