Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I can't say I find "Instagram Face" to be attractive at all. It looks ridiculously unnatural, and evokes the same feeling as those ultra-SEO'd mostly contentless sites that flood search results.
I'm assuming here that "natural" is a result of what you (and I, since I feel similarly) are just used to.
Well someday they will have to look around them and see people with wrinkles... in real life.. unless they are too hooked to their phones to even realize this.
Why bother with only "fixing" certain things about your looks, whereas you can look like something/someone completely different? With AR advanced enough, I believe we will get to the point of multiple "realities" overlaid on top of the real one, which opens doors for so many interesting possibilities and applications. Don't like that pesky skyscraper blocking view of the lake from your apt? Luckily, there is a reality server you can subscribe to that has it removed. Or another reality server that acts like ad-block for real life.
When the AR tech matures and gets in the hands of an average person, I expect life to change in such a crazy way, that changes brought by wide smartphone adoption will look like a tiny blip in comparison.
Yeah it’s called “getting old” and one of the beauties of it is not caring for what others think about you or needing that acceptance feeling.
What's more, it's not just visual traits either. No, I suspect a lot of people feel an American accent is the 'norm' now as well, in part due to how much popular media originates in the US (and how many internet influencers seem to be from there).
And there are definitely quite a few stories of people assuming their own country/culture works like the US/Europe/wherever based on what media they watch and who they follow online.
Could be interesting to see a study about this stuff.
Edit: See this [1] lovely video to learn why it's a common misconception that his work has any relevancy to the Matrix franchise beyond superficial pop philosophy.
Stirner also doesn't advocate for his ideas on the basis of anything except self interest. The "dialectical" Frenchies will tell you a far different story about why you should agree with them.
That I can agree with you on. It is certainly dense material that frightens away those unwilling to be linguistically challenged when reading a book.
> interesting
Absolutely not. Look, I get Stirner is neat for being a proto-anarchist and all, but his value ends there. You seem preoccupied with the "fashion" of it (which itself raises questions) instead of with the philosophy being discussed. Engage with the ideas instead of resorting to this rhetorical BS that we both know you're pulling.
For example, your point that Stirner grounds his philosophy merely in self-interest -- what exactly does that prove? That his ideas are derivative and trite? I understand that Baudrillard's writing is a tough nut to crack, but to think that his work (and the rest of the French canon) is irrelevant because it requires more than egotism as its foundation is absurd.
I really don't like it. Though I will admit, such a fake face does tickle the fancy. As said, a supernormal stimulus. I guess when such make up can be applied in a second using technology, the world will change forever.
By the way, in "Stories of Your Life and Others" form Ted Chiang, there is a story where this sensitivity for beauty can be turned off, everybody does this but then someone stops doing it. It's a fascinating story, and very relevant, the story is "Liking What You See: A Documentary" [0]: "it consists of interviews with dozens of people at a high school in the US doing a pilot project with a future technique called “calliagnosia”. This is a neurological intervention that reliably and reversibly deadens that part of the brain that responds aesthetically to the human face."
The assertion that every picture of yourself is driven by a biological urge to reproduce is wrong. Humans do stuff for many more reasons than that.