Are we more stressed than we used to be?

Probably. Our stress system is attuned to acute, temporary threats such as a hungry sabre-toothed tiger that prehistoric man had to flee from or fight. Today’s stresses, such as the pressure to achieve, are more prolonged and constant: we are almost always ‘switched on’. As a result, our stress system does not recover as well and we experience more stress-related symptoms.

We often read in the news that we are increasingly experiencing stress. Stress is your body’s response to a threat from the environment. Previously, in prehistoric times, that threat consisted of acute danger, such as the aforementioned hungry sabre-toothed tiger. Nowadays, our stress system is still the same as that of prehistoric man.

In a stressful situation, you first produce adrenaline. This stress hormone triggers the well-known fight-or-flight response: your heart rate rises and your breathing speeds up. Next, cortisol is released. This hormone makes more energy available to the brain and muscle cells, for example, and increases the blood pressure. At the same time, it temporarily inhibits digestion and the immune system, giving you more energy to deal with the threat. When the threat disappears and you relax again, the stress system recovers on its own and the release of stress hormones drops. So stress is not bad – in fact, it is necessary for survival.

These days, however, we don’t need to be afraid of sabre-toothed tigers. The stress that many people experience now is of a very different nature: pressure to achieve, work pressure, or study stress. Even this kind of stress is not always bad: a little stress before an important presentation or an exam can help you to perform better as it increases your focus and energy. But if stress is prolonged, it can get unpleasant. In this case, the stress system no longer gets a chance to recover, which can lead to complaints such as sleep problems, memory problems, reduced immunity, and cardiovascular disease. These are increasingly common – not only comparing prehistoric times with today, but also comparing the 1990s with the 2010s, American researchers found. Perhaps this is because we are constantly exposed to stimuli. You can check your work email anywhere, and otherwise the news websites remind you of all the problems in the world, or social media pressures you to ‘be your best self’. If you get stressed by this, it is difficult to calm down again – the ‘threat’ does not go away and your stress system cannot recover. This is probably why we are more stressed than we used to be, because our bodies cope better with a short, acute threat than with the long-term, constant stress of today.

Would you like to read more? Sapolsky, R. M. (2005). Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. Henry Holt & Company: New York, NY, USA.

Yes, it’s possible! Dying is not only a biological but also a social process. After a death, the bond you have with a loved one does not suddenly disappear. These relationships change, fade, or intensify, depending on the time and place. Some people talk to the deceased or propose a toast to them on their birthday at their grave. Or they might write letters to keep them updated on everything going on in their life.

What exactly does it mean to ‘be dead’? In the social sciences, a distinction is made between biological death and social death. Biological death takes place when the brain functions are irreversibly, permanently, and completely lost, meaning there is no way back. Social death occurs when a person’s identity fades, for instance when a person is no longer remembered. This can happen after a death, but also during a person’s life, for example due to extreme loneliness, exclusion, or illnesses such as Alzheimer’s.

Often, social death occurs gradually after someone has died biologically. The relationship you have with a loved one does not suddenly disappear, but persists and develops. People talk to their deceased loved ones, for example at a memorial, or experience their presence through material reminders in the home such as photographs and clothing.

The relationships that people have with their deceased are dynamic and change over time. This does not just mean that people may experience more or less intense bonds at different times, depending on their grieving process, but also that the deceased continues to develop socially. For example, you often see birthday cards on graves in the Netherlands that show the deceased getting older, even after death, as someone who died at the age of 47 may be congratulated on their 50th birthday. The deceased are also informed about new members of the family through cards announcing a birth. And then there are the drinks that, as the glasses and bottles on graves testify, are drunk with the dead.

In summary: in social terms, dying is a gradual process and the living maintain relationships with the dead. These relationships change, fade, or intensify, depending on the time and place.

Contrary to what many people think, drugs are not legal in the Netherlands. However, we are tolerant of soft drugs, such as cannabis. The government tolerates the possession of five cannabis plants and five grams of soft drugs, and cannabis cafés (coffee shops) are allowed to sell small quantities under strict conditions.

The tolerance in the Netherlands towards soft drugs is called the policy of tolerance. Under this policy, certain offences under the Opium Act are not actively prosecuted, such as possession of a user quantity of drugs. This includes five grams of soft drugs, five cannabis plants, half a gram of hard drugs, or one pill. One of the best-known parts of the policy of tolerance is the sale of small amounts of cannabis in coffee shops. Coffee shops are allowed to sell a maximum of five grams of cannabis per person per day to people over the age of 18. They are also allowed to stock a maximum of 500 grams of cannabis. This policy of tolerance was introduced in the 1970s to separate the markets of hard and soft drugs and thus reduce the health risks of drug use, reduce crime, and prevent public nuisance.

But there is a strange side to this policy of tolerance. Sales in coffee shops are tolerated, but growing cannabis is prohibited. This means that coffee shop owners are currently forced to supply their shop illegally. For years, a debate has been going on in the Netherlands about whether cannabis cultivation should be legalized. Proponents say that legalization protects health because it makes it easier to monitor quality. In addition, crime is reduced because coffee shop owners no longer need to deal with criminals. Opponents, on the other hand, say legalization poses health risks and leads to an increase in drug use.

In 2020, the government launched an experiment called ‘the closed coffee shop chain’. This is an experiment in 11 municipalities with the aim to investigate whether it is possible to control cannabis growth and supply to coffee shops. Legislation has been amended for this purpose, so that production, distribution, and sale within the 11 municipalities are no longer subject to prosecution. The experiment had a long preparation phase, but the first regulated cannabis has been on sale in coffee shops in Breda and Tilburg since the end of 2023. The other participating municipalities will follow during 2024.

Although the Netherlands was long known for its liberal soft drug policy, other countries have since overtaken us. For example, cannabis cultivation has been legalized in some states in America, as well as in Canada and Uruguay. Our neighbours to the east have also taken an important step towards a more liberal cannabis policy, and from 1 April 2024, adults in Germany are allowed to possess 50 grams of cannabis and grow three plants for their own use.

Political parties use personalized ads on social media to get your vote: so-called microtargeting. This means that you might get to see a different message than your neighbour. While this is not done as surreptitiously here as in the United States (think Cambridge Analytica), regulation may still be wise to ensure a transparent debate.

Political parties will stop at almost nothing to win votes. These days, personalized ads on social media are one way in which they do this. The underlying technique is known as microtargeting: using data analytics to present a tailored campaign message to a specific target audience. For example, a senior citizens’ party might specifically target the over-50s with a message about the desirability of a new pension system. In this way, there is something for everyone.

Since the scandal surrounding the British data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica, concerns about microtargeting have increased. The company allegedly leveraged the personal data of millions of unwitting Facebook users to take advantage of the psychological characteristics of voters, providing services to both Trump and the Brexiteers. In the Netherlands, no such covert influence operations have yet taken place, for several reasons. For instance, political parties in the Netherlands have modest campaign coffers compared to those in the United States, there are strict European data protection rules, and one vote in our multi-party system does not make the difference that it does in the duel for the White House. So smaller budgets, limited opportunities, and reduced incentive. No need for panic then.

Nevertheless, targeted political ads on social media are also a popular tool in the Netherlands. This does carry risks: there is a danger that voters will only hear one side of the story, and that political opponents will not have the opportunity to contradict it. Part of the debate is therefore conducted behind the scenes. In the worst case, conflicting promises may even be made to different voters that cannot be met at the same time. Microtargeting can thus encourage voter fraud.

The question is, therefore, whether the government should introduce rules to regulate this. These should not go so far as to impact the freedom of expression of political parties, and so restraint is called for, but at the same time, the code of conduct jointly adopted by political parties and platforms seems a bit too informal. It is up to the legislator to find an effective solution that also respects fundamental rights. In any case, transparency requirements could be considered: microtargeting is allowed, as long as parties are honest about it. It should then be clear to voters who is reaching out to them, why, and at what cost. However, the announced Dutch law may come a little late – the European Union has moved a lot faster in this area.