Smartphones, once hailed as tools of empowerment and connection, may now be functioning more like biological parasites than technological aids. That’s the argument put forth in a recent article in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy by Rachael L. Brown (Australian National University) and Rob Brooks (UNSW Sydney), who apply evolutionary theory to our increasingly fraught relationship with mobile technology.
A shift from mutualism to parasitism
In evolutionary biology, a parasite is defined as an organism that benefits from a close relationship with a host while causing the host harm. The smartphone, the authors argue, fits this definition. While these devices once offered clear mutual benefits—navigation, communication, and information access—those benefits have increasingly become overshadowed by the costs.
The smartphone-human dynamic originally resembled mutualism: a win-win association not unlike gut bacteria aiding digestion. Over time, however, the relationship has become asymmetrical. Smartphones now dominate attention spans, interfere with sleep, and negatively affect mental health, while extracting user data to fuel advertising algorithms.
Designed for dependency
Modern smartphone applications are not passive tools. They are purpose-built to maximise user engagement, often through mechanisms that exploit psychological vulnerabilities. Features like infinite scroll, intermittent notifications, and algorithmic content delivery are engineered to keep users hooked. As Brown and Brooks note, the goal is not to serve the user but to generate behavioural data that can be monetised.
The result is a system that prioritises corporate interests over user well-being. Apps collect intimate details under the guise of helpful features—like fitness tracking or digital journaling—but ultimately use that data to reinforce usage patterns and deliver targeted ads.
Why regulation matters
Evolutionary theory also suggests that when mutualistic relationships shift toward parasitism, a balancing mechanism is required. In ecological systems, this takes the form of “policing” behaviours—like reef fish punishing cleaner wrasse when they cheat. Brown and Brooks argue that similar policing is needed in the digital ecosystem.
They point to collective action, not individual discipline, as the most promising path forward. Personal restraint is often insufficient against systems designed with billion-dollar behavioural science. Instead, regulation—such as restrictions on addictive app features, limits on data collection, and bans on targeted advertising to minors—could help recalibrate the relationship.
A difficult dependency to reverse
Smartphones have become integrated into essential services, from banking to healthcare access. This embeddedness makes opting out virtually impossible for most users, even those aware of the exploitative dynamic.
Brown and Brooks conclude that the smartphone's parasitic nature is not accidental but structurally embedded in how digital economies function. Reclaiming user agency may require a complete rethinking of the incentives that shape tech development today.
