Technology Is Addictive and Unhealthy

Since you're so much more aware than me, what do you think we should do to stop this corruption? I'll hazard a guess that the majority of people won't be bothered.

Controversy surrounding technology and society aren't new. For example, social media restricting face-to-face contact and the debate about anonymity.

How can you beg to differ about the benefits? Technologies benefits are immeasurable - they have completely changed the way we can access and transfer data, and most of this is for the better. Again, the fact that you are able to link this article to us and express your views is because of technology.

The problems are there and they do need to be tackled, of course. However, claiming that this could lead to extreme depression on a scale that can 'easily' cause social collapse is fairly wild speculation on your part, and I assume the social collapse part is unfounded.

I have no issue with raising the problems that technology may have, but to deny its benefits when every person uses it every day is asinine. Technology has been critical to advancements in any field of study, so it's worth keeping it in perspective.

Link




I certainly have seen people who suffer from this. People who can not live without their phone, who can not go a minute without sharing something to someone, who fear the loss of facebook and texting.

Who would have ever thought that technology was the new tool that damaged society, but will anything be done about it? Most likely not as the corporations responsible have far too much money and power, and many people do not want to admit their problems and addictions. Maybe this is why depression in the West is at epidemic levels and rapidly increasing?

Thoughts and opinion?

EDIT: Look at the denial in the form of neg rep because legitimate research was not already good enough to prove this point

I disagree. It is the misuse of technology that results in it being unhealthy.

Just as it is unhealthy to tweet every aspect of your life, it is unhealthy to spend every waking hour gaming - but we can strike a balance.

Too much of anything is bad. Tech included, but that doesn't mean it is inherently unhealthy.

my landlords daughter is 15 and we were in the car and she was whingeing and crying for a new phone charger

my landlord explained they had one that will charge any battery, the girl cried an refused because it would mean her phone being off for half an hour as its a put the battery on it type of charger

i honestly could not believe my ears

Erm, these points are new, though by new I don't mean a day old, but a few years old.

For all the benefits, it would not be justified if social collapse happened....which is where this is going.

Actually when the WHO have been saying for over a decade that depression will be the second biggest killer of people in the West, I think my point of social collapse is perfectly justified. Unless of course you think 30% of people or more suffering from depression will have no major consequences to society or the economy.

Controversy surrounding technology and society aren't new. For example, social media restricting face-to-face contact and the debate about anonymity.



How can you beg to differ about the benefits? Technologies benefits are immeasurable - they have completely changed the way we can access and transfer data, and most of this is for the better. Again, the fact that you are able to link this article to us and express your views is because of technology.

The problems are there and they do need to be tackled, of course. However, claiming that this could lead to extreme depression on a scale that can 'easily' cause social collapse is fairly wild speculation on your part, and I assume the social collapse part is unfounded.

I have no issue with raising the problems that technology may have, but to deny its benefits when every person uses it every day is asinine. Technology has been critical to advancements in any field of study, so it's worth keeping it in perspective.

My example about social media is not a day old. And issues about anomynity have been around a lot longer. I don't know what you're expecting but these types of issues have been documented and the idea that technology can damage society for whatever reason have been floating about for a while.

Completely unjustified assertion on your part. Not sure exactly what you mean by social collapse, but you're assuming a lot, including that the path to social collapse will not be intervened when people realise many millions upon millions of people are dying due to technology related depression.

I'm pretty sure the WHO have not been saying that this depression is being caused solely by the problems outlined in your OP. And, funnily enough, the internet can even help with depression by providing online anonymous help when many depression sufferers might not want to face-to-face.

And what's even more funny is that the internet (and technology) will probably be the major reason these types of problems are dealt with when the public are indeed informed of the impending depressions and social collapse. After all, what will be the media to transfer this information to experts, doctors and the general public?

Nothing wrong with raising points about technology and its adverse affects about society, but denying the benefits is ridiculous.

This. We should focus on the positives rather than dwelling on the negatives.

I don't think you read my reply correctly

Yet again, how is mass depression not as large a problem as I claim? Not only would it damage peoples mental and physical health, but would also cripple the economy, birth rates etc.
You are the one who is actually giving no reason as to why it would be of little to no consequence.

No one has looked into the cause of the depression, they just know it exists and looking at dates, coincides perfectly with the rise of the mobile phone and internet.
Unless you have a better idea or a reason as to why I would be wrong, I'm standing by my assumption.
People might not need anonymous help if they had the social chances which previous generations had?

Erm, on what grounds do you base that on?
So far it seems that it is addictive and stressful, thus besides telling everyone to go afk (which they would not), the solution is in mental aptitude and strength, not mass communication.

I'm just saying that the benefits will be crushed by the cost of the issues are not dealt with - take opium as an example. Medically it has been great, but only once restrictions where brought in did the benefits outweigh the cost. However can restrictions be brought in with how profitable these companies are? Most likely not.

As if anyone really cares about society or even the effects of technology on society. People are just concerned about their own lives (including their friends/families). They don't care for society as a whole. They don't care about strangers. All they care about is what makes them feel good (including their friends/families). After all, you only live once. Do people bother trying to help society in a paramount way? No, they just quote **** about how their day job is necessary for society, but in their own spare time, all they are themselves (including their friends/families). If the main way you help society is your day job, how pathetic. You care just as much as the average Joe. You are not special. You will not "save the world".

But that is the same as saying opium is unhealthy, just control how much you take - most people can not. Most people if given the choice will live on games or text until their thumbs bleed. They simply don't have the willpower to control themselves....not to mention, have no idea of the damaging effect it has on themselves and that it is actually addictive.

That's not the technology's fault though, is it?

With that line of reasoning you could say anything is unhealthy..

Cars? Unhealthy, they make you fat because it can replace walking. Some people would use their cars to go to the corner shop, and they do. Their choice.
The (landline) telephone? Unhealthy, because you don't have to be standing in front of your mates (i.e going to their house) in order to chat.
Paracetamol? Same again, if you take enough you could kill yourself.

Fact is, we have to take the good with the bad when it comes to tech.

Applied correctly it can do great things for society, but as always there's gonna be people who abuse what they're given - usually teenagers who don't know any better. But we can't let that stop us or else we'd be back in the dark ages with campfires and pointy sticks, but then those same teenagers would probably end up dancing in the fire, or eating poisonous plants because they don't know any better. We can't win - whatever the level of technology.

Sorry, I read that part too quickly. However, it's a pretty pointless argument when people may have different interpretations of new. In relation to the introduction of the internet on a global scale, it's been quite a while since the first issues about it have been documented. Regardless, this isn't groundbreaking or shocking information to people that know about something about this topic.

I'm not saying it's of little or no consequence, that's just another one of the many assumptions you've made. I am not the one denying the problems of technology to society; in fact, I have openly stated that they exist. However, I'm only trying to keep this in perspective - the benefits of technology have been incredible to every single field of study, including fields like medicine and science which directly improve our lives.

Mass depression is a massive problem, but valid evidence needs to be presented first of all, and that includes proving a causation (not just a correlation) between the two and the actual global impact of it. It's no use screaming mass depression if there is no evidence directly linking the two. Does that mean we shouldn't be cautious or try to attempt to fix the problem now? Of course not, but it doesn't mean we put blinders on and ignore perspective.

I base this on the grounds virtually all news stories that are unable to be accessed locally are broken by the internet, the tv or the radio (all forms of technology). This raises public awareness which will obviously be crucial. I also base this on the grounds that evidence, reports and journals about topics by experts are examined and improved on by other experts in the field through technology.

Your solution of mass aptitude and strength are useless focused locally in a community huddle if the world is at risk.

If a direct link is established between social media and mass depression and a 'social collapse' is impending, people will realise and spread the information. However, there are a lot of different causes of depression and the internet has almost certainly provided help to some of those in depression.

Why are you trying to blame inanimate objects?

The fact is that technology leads to problems and that these problems need to be dealt with.
You can go on about people having self control, but such a point is absurd seeing that the majority of people have always struggled with self control so why would this change now? And to make things worse, people know nothing about the issue to begin with.

To ignore these problems and put them off as little side effects would be catastrophic as the damage is permanent.

Not to be confrontational here, but I'm not the one blaming inanimate objects- you are. I was giving examples of your line of reasoning.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with technology. It has it's purpose and it's up to the people to not abuse it. That doesn't mean we should stop using it just because some members of the population take advantage of it.

I'm sorry, but if you were commander-in-chief of the whole planet, we would never advance. We would never put a man on Mars for example, because we might get a real life equivalent of Dr Evil who plans to destroy Earth's cities with a giant laser. We might never achieve a usable level of Nuclear Fusion, because someone might abuse it to create some form of weapon.

Yes, it can happen, but we have to risk it in order to advance.

There's always going to be an element of risk in anything that can push us forward.

Technophobia is not the solution. Education is.

So then you are denying that texting and email alerts are addictive and that multitasking with computers does not cause stress symptoms similar to PTSD?
Even though these are side effects, it still happens. Unless you are going to opt for complete denial, there is nothing to discuss about this point.




How is working in an office abusing technology? How where kids meant to know that sending text after text becomes addictive and before they know it, they need to seen a text?
You are making claims assuming people knew of the problems and where using the tech for something other than its intended purpose. Neither of which are true.





So you are going to claim that I am saying we should not advance (which I have never said anything of the kind) whilst arguing that hoping for the best is the only solution?




Haha, what a joke. How is education going for alcoholics and the ever growing number of heavy drinkers?
You have far too much blind faith in humanity to think that when someone, who is weak enough to be addicted to texting, is told to stop doing something because it is unhealthy, that they will actually give it a moments thought.
Sorry to tell this to you, but they won't give a **** about it as they would just want to send another text about someone who just told them something they did not like. Either society needs a massive revamp or laws need to be brought in to restrict certain activities eg. only send 100 texts a month on any phone.

My point I suppose, is that there's always going to be an element of risk.

We are always going to make mistakes, we're only human after all, and we do naturally have addictive personalities, but it is those same addictive personalities that create great scientists such as Einstein. Conversely, that same trait creates psychopaths as well.

It's something that's always going to exist, and people have to make mistakes in order to learn from them. If you put a limit on texts, they're only going to find another form of communication - they'll just make the same mistake there, instead. People learn self-control from making mistakes, and they'll always be susceptible until they do.

I do honestly respect your opinion, but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make mine right either - it is just that, an opinion. You have every right to live your life the way you choose, but don't try to deny people the most basic human right - free choice. They have every right to make a mistake, it is their choice.

With that, I'll leave the thread, as I've said everything I can say.

Actually the bit about addiction and release of cortisone is fairly new and now gives medical backing to what has really only been a moral argument previously.

So depression being the second biggest killer is not problematic enough for you?
Yes, evidence needs to be gathered linking the two points, but if you go on core facts of depression, triggers etc, and then the issue of technology, their is a lot of overlap when it comes to lack of socialising, inability to communicate etc.

But most people actually fail to finish an article they start to read on the internet (shown in a study). This is why the internet does not help with multitasking but leads to stress and retardation.
And then to presume people would actually act on such information is slightly naive. People know smoking is bad, but still smoke etc.

Again, why would they spread it? You are assuming that everyone would; take notice, give a ****, then act on it.
The average person has never thought like that and will not any time soon. The most that would happen is that it would be in the news for a week or until something else came up and everyone would go back into hiding in their homes.

As you do not think tech has caused depression, then what has? Life has never been easier, living standards are incredibly high etc, so why do so many people hate life?

Yes I know, but problems about technology in relation to society are not relatively new. They have been suggested for a while.

First, depression right now isn't the second biggest killer; that's just a projection for 2020. Second, depression is a major problem but there are many more factors that may contribute to it than just the internet. That could include school or work related issues like bullying, or trying to live up to celebrity models. Technology isn't the only factor. That's like saying coronary heart disease is down to only a poor diet; no, it's not, it's multifactorial even if factors are related.

I'll hedge my bets that at the risk of impending social collapse due to depression caused by the internet (which is a MASSIVE issue), people will intervene. First, please provide the evidence to suggest anything of the sort will happen. Speculation isn't and will never be sufficient.

I'm positive you're ignoring the bulk of my posts. I have never stated that tech has not caused depression; I said that until evidence suggests that there is a causation, it is not correct to start screaming social collapse. Technology could be a major factor in mass depression, but it isn't the sole factor. More research needs to be done on this.