[crwalker]

> "there's nothing wrong with allowing near-infinite screen time ... it's not the screen that's the problem"

I beg to differ. Humans aren't built to sit and look at screens 1-2 feet from their face all day. There aren't infinite hours to choose from. There are 24 today. Every hour spent on the screen incurs a tremendous opportunity cost: exercise, adventure, socialization, cooking, grooming, sex, sleeping, etc.

Digital and real-world goods are not fungible because humans are embodied.

[thrmsforbfast]

That's true. I perhaps should have put "allowing" in italics to emphasize it's the permission to use, not the actual use, that's unlimited.

No one worries about allowing 24/7 access to a microscope, because although "microscope addiction" is I suppose possible, it's so bloody unlikely that we don't worry about it.

I think certain computers are similar to the microscope in this respect (e.g., an apple ][ with nothing by apple basic).

Obviously, excessive screen time is always bad. The point is that if you can limit what's on the screen (e.g., an apple basic interpreter), people (even/especially children) will self-moderate their screen time, so you don't have to worry about moderating access to the screen (similar to the microscope).

Obviously, if my child starts spending 10 hours a day looking through a microscope, I'm going to intervene. Ditto for BASIC programming. But I don't feel the need to, a priori, restrict access. The odds of either of those things happening (esp. in a way that's not healthy/constructive/short-lived) is so low that I don't worry about it.