What if Everything New is Worse?
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s pretend that everything new that we’re doing is actually worse for our kids than whatever it’s replacing. Since the chronological bias (new is better/old is worse) is strong this might be a harder exercise than you think.
But let’s try one.
Electric scooters
are not an improvement over foot-powered scooters. You don’t have to suspend
reality here and pretend electric scooters aren’t faster or easier to use. But
think of the tradeoff. What was “improved”? Then consider whether this trade
off is worth it.
For me, this one
is a definite no. As a toy, not only were manual scooters dangerous enough (they
were the number one toy that sent kids to the ER in the last 10 years according
to data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System) but all the
things that are being improved are features not bugs of the original. Scooters
are for exercise so they should require effort. Also, they’re for kids so they
shouldn’t go 40 mph. The fact that they’re manually powered is actually a built-in
safety feature.
Or how about this
one. Personal water bottles are not an improvement over public water fountains.
Let’s consider the tradeoff.
From what I can
tell, humanity’s history can be broken into three eras:
Antediluvian (The
Garden of Eden to the Flood)
Chronic dehydration (The Flood until 2000)
Overhydration (2000 to present)
My kids are right
on the cusp of the first generation to have been raised always within reach of
a reusable water bottle. So one tradeoff is that kids today are certainly more
hydrated than kids 30 years ago. That seems like a win. Except, some of them
seem to downright panic if they don’t have water with them all the time. Like
when running an errand to the store, walking to the park, or getting the mail.
Alright that last one I made up – but it’s inspired by true events.
Anyway, this may
be an example of an improvement that really is an improvement. The chronological
bias isn’t always wrong. But, if this really is an improvement, why do so many
of us born in the chronically dehydrated era not feel like it is?
Alright, one more,
and surely you knew this was coming. Video games are not an improvement over
board and card games.
Video games have
certainly supplanted board games as the preferred childhood entertainment. The
question is, is that a good thing? What’s the tradeoff?
If you put them
side by side it seems more like comparing apples and oranges than comparing different
types of games. The nature of board games is essentially social, to bring
people together in person (even if it’s just to haggle over the price of
Boardwalk). The nature of video games is individual and to sustain your isolation
in virtual reality.
There are
exceptions to those generalizations on both sides but the tradeoff can be seen
in how we define entertainment. Do we prioritize entertainment for me or for
us? Or think hoe far entertainment has gotten from the art that used to
comprise it?
Board games like
trivial pursuit were a long way down the road from the more edifying
entertainment of say the Renaissance. How much further are first-person shooter
games?
Here ends our
thought experiment.