World news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Why does everything feel so joyless? Welcome to the age of decadence without pleasure | Michèle Mendelssohn and Charlie Tyson
An opinion piece by Michèle Mendelssohn and Charlie Tyson argues that modern society has entered an era of "decadence without pleasure": despite an unprecedented abundance of distractions – doomscrolling, gambling apps, food delivery, pornography and AI chatbots – many people feel simultaneously overstimulated and empty. The authors situate this in a long tradition of anxiety about decadence as a symptom of civilisational decline, noting that such concerns, once the preserve of conservative critics, are now shared across the political spectrum.
They trace the concept back to excesses of the Roman emperors Elagabalus and Nero, through to the 19th-century aesthetic movement of Oscar Wilde, Aubrey Beardsley and others, arguing that earlier "decadent" eras often produced extraordinary art even amid perceived decline. Contemporary commentators cited include Ross Douthat, whose 2020 book The Decadent Society diagnosed cultural and economic stagnation, tech investor Peter Thiel's complaints about faltering innovation, JD Vance's 2026 memoir Communion warning of American "disrepair", and Italian theorist Franco "Bifo" Berardi's idea of the "slow cancellation of the future". The authors suggest today's version is distinct because it is technologically mediated and strips away genuine desire, replacing it with self-optimisation and hollow stimulation rather than the sensuous, creative excess of earlier decadent ages.
In short
- Modern life offers endless distractions but feels emotionally empty
- Article contrasts today's "decadence" with Rome and 19th-century aestheticism
- Unlike past eras, this decadence produces stagnation, not great art
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to the essay's argument point out that much of contemporary leisure has been reshaped by apps and algorithms that promise gratification but instead demand constant self-monitoring, from calorie-tracking to curated food delivery, leaving little room for spontaneous, embodied enjoyment. They argue that a culture saturated with wellness metrics and optimisation targets subtly converts pleasure into another form of labour, where even indulgence must be justified, tracked or improved upon. This view holds that something genuinely valuable, unstructured desire and the capacity to simply enjoy without measuring, has been quietly lost, and that naming this loss is a useful corrective rather than mere nostalgia.
The case against
Those who would push back argue that every generation romanticises an earlier, supposedly purer form of pleasure, and that framing today's habits as spiritually empty risks caricaturing ordinary people who find real satisfaction in convenience, choice and self-improvement. They contend that technology has in fact expanded access to enjoyment, allowing people to discover new cuisines, communities and experiences that previous generations could not, and that tracking or curating one's habits can be an expression of agency and care rather than its absence. On this view, the essay's critique reflects a particular cultural vantage point that overstates decline while undervaluing how differently, but not necessarily less authentically, people today experience delight.
Explained simply
The concept of "decadence without pleasure" describes a paradox in modern life: despite having unprecedented access to entertainment, food, communication and stimulation, many people feel empty and exhausted rather than satisfied or engaged. This observation sits at the heart of growing anxiety about contemporary society, where the abundance of distractions – from social media and gaming apps to food delivery and AI systems – seems to leave people overstimulated yet unfulfilled.
Concerns about decadence as a sign of civilisational decline reach back to ancient Rome, where emperors like Nero and Elagabalus epitomised excess, and have resurfaced regularly throughout history. In the 19th century, artists like Oscar Wilde embraced decadence as an aesthetic movement, yet even then critics worried that societies pursuing pleasure and luxury rather than virtue or progress were in decline. Today's version of this anxiety has crossed traditional political divides, with commentators ranging from conservative to progressive discussing whether Western societies have stalled culturally and economically.
What distinguishes modern decadence, according to the authors, is that it is driven by technology and algorithms rather than genuine human desire. Whilst earlier decadent eras produced extraordinary creative works alongside their excess, today's version offers self-optimisation and hollow stimulation in place of authentic pleasure.