devttyeu parent (dead)
[flagged]
That's only the case if you think that humans have some higher purpose than distracting themselves, though, which may not be the case for everyone.
Nit: Genocide isn't about numbers. And watching reels isn't dying, at least not in any other sense than an existential one.
Maybe that's about the wasted human potential that's depressing. Other than that, this analogy only makes sense when framed in terms of some philosophy - i.e. if you are "long-term utilitarian" I don't think it's correct to look at massive consumption of brainrot favorably, even though individual experiences are technically kinda pleasurable.
I think the classic midwit response would be to say that in order to determine if this is negative from a longtermism perspective, we'd first have to prove that:
1. this level of preoccupation is a new and historically significant phenomenon
2. the time not spent on scrolling would be spent on something else more productive
Both seem plausible, but they also seem like a couple of those tricky conclusions that seem naturally right but would fall apart with some research. For example, I think it would be better if we all spent time at cafes instead, but it's hard to say that that would result in better societal outcomes.