I have recently started thinking more about the discourse surrounding social interactions. It is quite interesting: people claim they want more social interaction, yet we are more connected than ever. Most people who discuss this topic love to “yap” about the “lack of connection,” which I find silly. The fact is, people are connected. Claiming that online connections aren’t “real” is objectively untrue, yet this narrative persists.

Many scientific studies have demonstrated that the level of rage people feel today—and the so-called “information bubble”—isn’t quite what we think it is. In many ways, the “isolation” narrative is pure fiction, yet many still claim the opposite of the truth.

This reminds me of the food industry and its propaganda.

Social media companies, like food companies, profit from our biological drive to be social. Like anything capitalism is good at, it has created wealth and abundance. We now have an unbelievable abundance of both food and social interaction, but humans simply weren’t designed for this volume.

In the ancient past, social interactions were few and far between. There were only a few people you interacted with on a daily basis. Whenever you encountered a neighboring tribe, you had to ensure you were on the best terms possible. People evolved a natural kindness toward strangers—perhaps even too much—because you could never be “too social” in the past. It was always better to have more friends than you needed than to have too few when you were in trouble. It’s exactly like food storage.

Social media companies have reduced the “cost” of socializing to an insanely low level. In the past, to socialize with friends, you needed a reason—sharing a meal or playing a game. You had to physically travel, schedule a time, and find a place to meet. During the interaction, you had to constantly read the other person’s mood and try to make a good impression. In older times, you even had to change your clothes just to join a social setting. All of these factors created significant “friction” for social interaction.

America, with its egalitarian culture, already had a relatively low social cost, and now it is exporting these low-cost interactions to the rest of the world. Now, to get a social fix, you just type on your phone or scroll. You don’t need to think, and you don’t even need to pay attention to the other person. It really is “junk food.” People can now talk to someone in a different country and worry about their problems, whereas in the past, the number of people you could possibly care about was probably fewer than ten.

This, of course, is not healthy, yet no one is providing a good solution. Many recognize that social media is like junk food, yet they aren’t giving the same advice we give for food consumption. It isn’t just about the quality of the connection; it’s about the amount. Even the best fresh, organic food is bad for you if you eat too much of it. Social interaction is the same. The answer isn’t necessarily just forming more “in-real-life” bonds (though that helps, because like a diet, adding restrictions reduces consumption); it’s about reducing social interaction in general.

We aren’t even at the “GLP-1” stage yet. We don’t have a drug to reduce the human desire to form bonds. In fact, we are in a “negative” stage: it’s as if everyone is overweight, but the experts are telling us to eat more, just as long as we “eat healthy.”

I’m not a researcher, and I’m not going to solve this entire problem here. But I want to bring attention to the right approach: we don’t want to destroy food companies because they provide food, and we don’t necessarily want to destroy social media. What we ultimately need is a “metabolic” fix—something that allows people to control their desire for constant social dopamine. Anything else is likely on the wrong side of the issue.