| > From Kahneman & Tversky, behavioral economics and cognitive biases, to the smartphone (and other screens) epidemic that rages everywhere the device is in use. That new inventions often have a negative impact shouldn't be surprising, but I think it's worthwhile to try to set this against all the positive aspects. I remember life before mobile phones, and from my perspective, they have provided far greater benefits than harms. Wide access to GPS and maps, instant access to emergency communications, and many applications that improve productivity and quality of life are far better explanations of why these devices have become so prevalent. > It's become extremely clear that "adults" are not very good at being rational and self-controling. Has it? I feel that this is a refelction of them not very good at "following the agenda of the elites," but that's hardly the same thing as not being rational. As a counter example, there are more guns than people in the United States, yet there are only around 12,000 murders per year. From that view, we're exceptionally good at being rational and exhibiting self control. Likewise, we travel trillions of miles on our roads, and they're not the complete disaster that you would expect from a population that's largely unable to self-regulate.
Similarly, general aviation is a thing that exists, and while it may seem largely regulated you would be surprised to learn exactly how much latitude a GA pilot has in operating their aircraft. > So the debate isn't really Control vs. Freedom anymore. Its more like Protection vs. Jungle Law. If that's the case.. why wouldn't you punish the abusers, rather than preempt the freedom of individuals? One is definitely a problem, the other _might_ be a problem. It seems like putting the cart before the horse to approach the problem in this way. |