A Specific Anti-Technology Bias

Novel technologies and practices sometimes face opposition from people who have become accustomed to a different lifestyle simply because they are new, and therefore somewhat foreign.  For this reason, electronic screens have received criticism now that they are commonplace to the point of permeating daily communication, the workplace, and the educational system.  Children may be scolded by their parents for preferring to spend free time using screens of some kind instead of playing outside, and young adults might be dismissed for their so-called "addiction" to electronics.

If objections to prolonged screen use for entertainment are based in a call for "balance" in recreation, as if balancing time spent in front of a screen and time spent partaking in hobbies that do not use screens is of any significance, then the parents making them would also object to children spending all of their time playing outside or engaging in other hobbies that have nothing to do with electronics.  Inconsistency here reveals they are either just using whatever argument they can, no matter how irrational it is, or that they have truly not understood what this kind of "balance" would require.

It is not the case that such people would be particularly familiar with the laws of logic, which means that they will almost never try to argue against widespread use of devices like smartphones, game consoles, and tablets on strictly logical grounds.  When pressed, people who dislike or discourage the use of screens will either try to appeal to a conservative type of moral framework that glorifies the "old days" or find some scientific reason to insist that screens are unsafe or otherwise damaging.  Of particular popularity is the idea that using screens for hours a day degrades eyesight.

In cases where screen usage is connected with the workplace or the shallow, non-rationalistic education system, suddenly these concerns are often ignored or forgotten, of course!  This alone shows that most anti-technology advocates are at least inconsistent enough to just selectively act upon or embrace their own premises.  Not only is it asinine to look to pure reason for a basis for avoiding or hating screens (only assumptions and non sequiturs await), but there is also no scientific evidence that regular, prolonged screen usage permanently harms the eyes.

Prior technological norms may be subjectively more appealing to some people who grew up with them, but appeals to tradition are just as inane as appeals to novelty.  Any attempt to claim there is an alleged non-subjective reason for people as a whole to avoid screen usage is uprooted by its own fallacies.  Exposing the stupidity and folly on display is a simple matter.  The objections to screen usage can then be seen for what they are: personal biases against technology that have nothing to do with either logic or science.