It's very difficult to objectively evaluate whether something is universally "worth it" or "hollow" (I'm using terms from the original comment). You have to place yourself as the ultimate judge of "long term" worth, which is a doomed proposition. You're entering the realm of philosophy (or religion, of course).
Why is long term always better than short term? Aren't there people who enjoy junk food, and in fact love it? Is going to the movies a wasteful act, since most movies don't give you long term enjoyment? Is playing videogames? Is having sex with a person you don't intend to marry something that will "leave you hollow"? Is casual sex worthless, or is it only a problem if you pay for it?
I'm not taking a position on the broader question, but the blithe "it must be worth it because people pay for it" is simplistic to the point of being wrong.
But your counterpoints (drugs & junk food) are trivially disproven: for a lot of people, those are truly "worth it". Why, I still remember an argument I had here on HN, years ago, where I said real homemade burgers were way better than McDonald's, and had more than one people reply to me with "nah, sometimes I really want a McDonald's burger, I really enjoy them".
As for prostitution, you have to admit such a long tradition of existing -- the "oldest profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's indeed worth it to a lot of people.
I'm not making a moral argument, by the way. Only your own personal convictions, or your religion's, can tell you that.
> But your counterpoints (drugs & junk food) are trivially disproven: for a lot of people, those are truly "worth it".
Where's this trivial disproof? Citation needed.
> You have to admit such a long tradition of existing -- the "oldest profession", as the saying goes -- is strong evidence that it's indeed worth it to a lot of people.
No. It's strong evidence that a lot of people momentarily decide to pay for it. That's not at all the same thing, because addiction exists and is fundamentally not a phenomenon of rationality. A lot of addicts explicitly recognise that the thing they crave won't, and doesn't, make them happy.
Citation needed? I take it you don't trust my word? Because I provided one.
As for your second point about addiction: you are entering the realm of the highly subjective, randomly deciding which things are addicting and which are worthy. I'm uninterested in that discussion. How do you even determine which things are capable of bringing people long term joy and which aren't? Are videogames worthy? Are movies? Is the fleeting less worthwhile than the permanent? Etc.
> As for your second point about addiction: you are entering the realm of the highly subjective, randomly deciding which things are addicting and which are worthy. I'm uninterested in that discussion. How do you even determine which things are capable of bringing people long term joy and which aren't? Are videogames worthy? Are movies? Is the fleeting less worthwhile than the permanent? Etc.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me about which things are or aren't worthy. All I'm claiming is that it is possible for something to be addictive and not worthwhile, and so to show that something is worthwhile you need to do more than showing that someone was willing to pay for it. Do you disagree with that much?
Why is long term always better than short term? Aren't there people who enjoy junk food, and in fact love it? Is going to the movies a wasteful act, since most movies don't give you long term enjoyment? Is playing videogames? Is having sex with a person you don't intend to marry something that will "leave you hollow"? Is casual sex worthless, or is it only a problem if you pay for it?