My kids are 9 and 7; one in the public school system, one private. They both can read a clock — it was taught. Perhaps not as well as I could at their age, but they get it. If it becomes necessary for them to sharpen their skill, they will do so themselves. Not reading analog clocks is hardly a sign of stupidity. I frankly couldn’t give a shit if they could or couldn’t. I also think learning cursive is mostly pointless in this day and age, but both do it, not just because they were taught but because they find it interesting— which I find a better way to learn anyway. And—hey— since all my clocks are set to 24 hour time, they figured that out, too. You’d be surprised at how many people can’t subtract 12. That’s not stupidity either. That’s just not being used to it.
This argument is simply elitist nonsense. The skills you happen to possess are not inherently more valuable than other possible skills. What matters is how effectively they allow you to navigate society, and what they let society accomplish. If analog clocks become obsolete, there would be zero impact on how rich and fulfilling human lives will be, or in what humanity will be capable of accomplishing.
Exactly, because of elitist attitudes like the one above.
Digital watches/clocks haven’t been cool since the 1970s. (Everyone still has a Casio F-91W, though.)
I notice that image shows the time didgitally, but it uses analog-looking graphical displays for some other things.
Analog clocks show time differently, which may lead people to think of time differently (continuous and cyclical), in a way that may or may not be significant.
I’m teaching my son both. He’s fascinated by watches and time pieces, mostly because of the numbers, but he picked up very quickly on how time works. As long as analog clocks exist, I think it’s a useful skill to have. It’s not that hard to learn.
One thing that didn’t exist before, as far as we know, is the mental health crisis which has emerged in most developed nations, particularly among young people. The upshot of there being more of everything is that people are now constantly bombarded with examples and evidence of how terrible the world can be, which is existentially distressing. Putting up with sexism sometimes is less stressful than putting up with it all the time. Knowing that a terrible event happened is less stressful than knowing in painstaking detail everything that occurred because of being constantly flooded with information about it at the behest of advertisers. When you look at young people today, their entire worldview has been informed by the Internet. I don’t think the human mind was evolved to hold all of the world’s troubles like that.
That’s one factor that could very well be contributing to the mental health crises. Other possible factors (maybe just WAGs, but they make sense to me) may include:
- Comparing our own real lives against the idealized and sanitized versions of other people’s lives that they choose to present on social media.
- The fact that we carry around devices that can constantly give us little hits of dopamine is messing with our brain chemistry.
- We’re sleep-deprived because we stay up too late playing on our phones or computers.
- The time we spend online replaces time spent In Real Life doing things that are more conducive to mental health, like connecting with people, connecting with nature, and exercising.
And yet, none of these are things we have to do, just because the internet is available. The internet is a good thing if we use it wisely.
I think that’s entirely too optimistic about human nature. This personal responsibility line doesn’t work for poor people or fat people or drug addicts and it doesn’t work for people destroying their mental health on the Internet. Humans have weaknesses, corporations will exploit them by any means necessary if there are dollars to be made. You’re expecting an individual fallible human being to hold up against billions of dollars of research on human behavior, and it’s not going to happen. To expect all that from a teenager who doesn’t even have a fully developed brain is even more unrealistic.
Nobody is seriously proposing ending the Internet. The question is whether we’d be better off without it. It seems to me from a purely utilitarian perspective, it harms more people than it helps. Keeping in mind that “I find it convenient to learn about things” is not remotely in the same neighborhood of impact as “I experience sexual harassment and threats on a daily basis” or “my killer livestreamed his murder of me to galvanize and successfully inspire other Nazis to commit similar acts.”
We’re at a point, however, where being online is necessary for most people, since community spaces have collapsed and there are no real social alternatives outside of religion. Keeping individual kids from social media would arguably make them even more depressed because we’ve allowed it to become necessary for teens’ social engagement. So there is no immediately obvious solution that wouldn’t require substantial policy change.
You know where I learned all this depressing stuff?
My memories of my school days is there were definitely people who received threats and harassment on a daily basis, in person, if they were different. They were a lot more of an immediate threat than someone thousands of miles away that can easily be blocked.
Are you imagining a world where Walmart, Target, Safeway, Kroger, Home Depot, Lowe’s, Staples, Office Depot, Walgreens, CVS, Kohl’s, JC Penny’s, Macy’s, etc. no longer exist?
Because the logistics operations of those companies have not gone away simply because some people shop online.
Walmart has the largest non-military logistics operations in the world. The existence of the internet is not about to change that.
I have no insider info, but I’d imagine that said logistics depend quite a lot on a functioning internet these days.
But the vast majority of people don’t receive death threats on a daily basis, or are murdered (once) for the benefit of an online audience. A counter-argument here is that people with embarrassing, debilitating or otherwise unusual problems can seek help and support from a global pool of people, when previously they couldn’t. Parents of disabled children, people with PTSD, those born with rare genetic conditions (etc.) can reach out to others and form support networks far more easily than they once could.
I’ve no doubt it is - no disagreement there. But other factors contributing to young people’s plummeting mental health could be that they - unlike previous internet-free generations - actually understand how dire the world is which they are about to inherit:
- Zero chance of home ownership without sizeable inheritance
- Beginning adult life with a huge burden of college debt
- Far diminished disposable income and relative quality of life compared to previous generations
- Climate crisis, and other environmental catastrophes
The internet isn’t to blame for any of these things, but it can be credited for making young people acutely aware of them.
It’s possible that the Internet increases unhealthy rumination on these issues, and evidence shows that the tendency to ruminate is a major factor in depression and anxiety.
I’m floating in that boat as we speak. What good is fixating on these things if I can’t do anything about them? I vote Democrat, I encourage policies that improve these things, but I don’t benefit from complaining about them all day long. (Sidebar: literally complained about them today, damn near started a whole thread about it!)
I’ll allow that my view of the Internet may be filtered through how terrible it is for people like me, people prone to negative thinking in the first place, people with ADHD and poor impulse control, people who are sensitive to cruelty, people who are bored and lonely.
Perhaps the problem would best be framed as a comparison within certain domains rather than across all domains. Is it better for mental health? No. Is it better for research and scientific progress? Probably. Is it better for entertainment? Without question. Etc.
I noticed this question and have to ask, how would such a study work? Obviously you cannot use just basi long-term data because, at least in the US, the education system has been under attack for about as long as the intertubes have been around (longer, really).
Could a control study be done? maybe, but the confounding variables would probably end up being too confounding, and I doubt you could get a large enough sample size.
And then, of course, which test scores? Some are much more likely to be sffected than others. In the end, I doubt there is a meaningful answer to this.
Well world book and Britannica would be happy they’re revelant again although I think EB is on line tho
if the internet goes down permanently, the first thing you should do is buy stocks in telephones! They’ll skyrocket 500000%.
we’ll all be back to phone calls.
Telephones (landline or cell) won’t work, since all phone traffic goes over the internet now. Walkie-talkies will do ok, though you’d better stock up on batteries, since the battery factory depends on a supply chain that requires the internet.
I’ve changed my mind and decided the Internet is a net gain. I know so much more than I would know without it. Today I learned what a pulse was (in the food sense.)
Social media can burn in the fiery pits of hell (present company excluded, of course.) Okay, I should say algorithm-driven social media can burn in the fiery pits of hell.
But there is a lot more to the Internet than social media. And that’s important.
Western Union ended its telegraphy service a decade or two ago. IIRC the only thing they do now is “wire” money–really via the internet I’m sure.