I don't necessarily disagree that phones might be harmful for kids' development.
I just don't know if they're nearly as harmful as say, repeated covid infections, a collapsing biosphere, a justifiably bleak vision of their future, or even a prevalent lack of agency, independence, and spaces for socialisation.
I'd focus on those first. Then phones.
@uint8_t @pezmico I knew someone would doubt it… The issue is complex, and yes, smart phones may not be so bad. In theory. But they are in practice. I don't have time to give a full answer, so only a couple of points.
Manufacturing v. length of the renewal cycle (forced by relevant apps no longer supporting OS versions older than a few years).
Infrastructure. Apps have a server part which consume a lot of energy. Not just genAI, but all the ad tracking and analysis. Engagement.
@uint8_t @pezmico Bonus: distraction. Smartphones make it easier to pay less attention to the real issues by wasting a lot of everybody's time.
I mean, not all time spent with a smartphone is wasted, but a lot of it is. Unnecessarily. Big tech could help improve this ratio, if only they wanted. They want exactly the opposite to increase their (immediate) profit.
@uint8_t @pezmico Er, can we agree on the problem statement?
Are you trying to prove that smartphones do not greatly contribute to a collapsing biosphere, or are you trying to prove that smartphones are not the greatest contributor to a collapsing biosphere? I have never claimed the latter, so maybe there is in fact nothing to argue about.
@ptesarik @pezmico my statement is that smartphones do not _significantly_ contribute to ecosystem collapse. you could achieve much better results by eliminating industrial animal farming, monoculture, car dependency, fossil fuel heating and electricity generation, than eliminating smartphones.
so unless the goal is the complete retvrn to preindustrial standards of living, maybe we should focus elsewhere from an environmental protection perspective.
@uint8_t @ptesarik @pezmico I appreciate you so much because I just went on a rant about this.
The last time I had to go to the bank was the fall of 2021 when I had to open an estate account and I did most of it online, unfortunately they made me come in in person.
Without a smart phone I would have to go to the bank in person fairly regularly. And the grocery store. And the doctors office.
I live in an apartment complex full of elderly and disabled people and when the Amazon van comes here they stop at at least a few apartments. It’s actually not better for each of us to get in our cars and drive to the city to shop for what Amazon brings us when the van can take care of three of us with one stop. (And yeah I know we can get delivery without a smart phone but people can buy a cheap smart phone for $20 and you can’t get a PC for $20.)
@ptesarik @uint8_t @pezmico I hear this argument but as a disabled woman who rarely has to drive 10 miles to the nearest city because I can bank and shop and process all kinds of errands on my phone from home energy is saved.
And I know people like to talk about the energy used by delivery trucks, but I assure you it takes less energy for a delivery truck to bring stuff to this apartment complex for a few different apartments than it does for each of us to get in our individual cars and drive to town to buy things.
But maybe the energy and the parts used on these phones really are more detrimental than me (and everyone else who never has to go to the bank anymore ever) getting in my car 3-5 days a week and driving around town for a few hours.
But you know what, even if it does use more energy than me running errands in person I live in the US where people have decided that disabled people don’t deserve to live, and I am unwilling to be infected with airborne viruses, so my smart phone literally saves my life.
But if you are one of those people who think disabled people don’t deserve to live I suppose you don’t think I should be getting groceries delivered anyway so I wasted my time here.
Ika Makimaki
Petr Tesarik
Z̈oé
Maggie Maybe