> Not to mention the many inconveniences this would bring about.

This is what reinforces the problem.

When we choose conveniences, we reinforce them. This makes it harder to get away from the things that brings us that convenience.

Conveniences to be able to get a hold of anyone in seconds rather than waiting. Believe it or not, there was a time when we were just, not available. It was OK.

Did that mean that things were a little more challenging? Of course, road trips or going anywhere new meant more upfront planning. Not knowing where your children were brought anxiety which meant rules. However, it was all manageable. By ALWAYS choosing conveniences, we shut the door on alternative options which in turn make it harder to deal with inconveniences.

▲

Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The other side of this coin is that not everything about the past was better.

I’m struggling to see how having anxiety about losing your children is better. I’m struggling to understand how knowing where they are would lead to having fewer rules.

I struggle to figure out how my friends being more available to text is a negative. What was character-building about calling them on a landline or losing contact with them entirely as an alternative?

I got chicken pox as a kid, that doesn’t mean my kids should get it.

I’ve had arguments like this with my parents about urbanism. When they grew up, the city was dirty, crime-ridden, etc. They also grew up during a time when the automobile was like the tech industry of their day. It was an innovation that changed their lives for the better in their opinion and lived experience. Their house got bigger, their car got bettter and lasted longer and their neighborhood got cleaner and safer, in their eyes.

My parents feel like trying to use the car less and switching to public transit or cycling more is like denying progress. What was the point of all that innovation and progress if we are “going backwards” in their eyes?

The end result of these discussions isn’t that I don’t believe in urbanism anymore, but I’m now more accepting of their point of view on the subject. I see their viewpoint as more valid than I used to. There’s nothing horribly wrong about their way of life even though I don’t necessarily want to adopt many aspects of it.

▲

kxrm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am not certain but I think you missed my point.

I am not saying that those things have no value. The opposite is definitely true. However, you are accepting a lot of baggage by reinforcing the systems that bring those conveniences. Now, you MUST have a cellphone or you are a Luddite. You MUST have a cellphone or you can't read a menu at a restaurant, unlock the door to your hotel room or access your bank funds.

You now have lost digital sovereignty to large corporations because you need to be able to get a hold of your kids within seconds.

All conveniences come with costs that you and society must bare.

▲

Grombobulous an hour ago | parent [-]

Last two sentences of your first paragraph are definitely not the sort of thing I was trying to say is okay.

I also don’t think some of the conveniences I talked about have much of a cost. My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.

And I’m not sure if digital sovereignty matters if the alternative is digital abstinence.

That’s like saying “When you buy a Toyota Camry your life is beholden to Toyota, you should just walk to your destination.” The trade-off isn’t really even, is it?

	▲	Zambyte 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Car dependency is an excellent parallel. People buy cars on the promise that they should expect freedom of movement, but then they arrange their lives so they can only go where roads have been paved, and arrive where buildings have been demolished for parking lots. They become financially dependent on oil extraction in the Middle East. They become incapable of getting anywhere alone when they lose the ability to drive, due to ailments or age. So why do we do it? Because we can't imagine living without the convenience of our phones.

▲

gib444 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not a parent and a bit autistic so excuse the unemotional reply but surely there are other ways not to have anxiety about your children surely?:

Teach independence/self-defence/street smarts, encourage weight lifting for older kids, therapy/meditation for yourself (some anxiety is natural of course!), move to a safer city, have more children (easier to pair them up on adventures, plus less subconscious physiological fear of losing your one and only child), distract yourself and stay busy, go with them to places the first few times to assure yourself then take off your training wheels. Or just say no to certain things.

It doesn't seem to me a special case of anxiety that can only be addressed by spy apps and knowing you might be able to instantly contact them.

▲

jethro_tell 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

lol, have my kids carry a phone or have more kids so the can be paired up.

That’s a wild thing to say out loud. And absolutely doesn’t solve the problem. Kids need to have their own friends and own social circles if you want to teach independence.

	▲	gib444 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I said /easier/ to pair up and I didn't say they shouldn't have their own friends.

▲

Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Knowing where they are isn’t necessarily “installing spy apps,” it can just mean being able to call them or text them.

“Move to a safer city” is a lot more expensive than a phone plan. A lot of people don’t have that luxury.

I agree that all the things you talk about are life positives but the way I see it, giving a kid who is old and mature enough to use one a cell phone is like a $15/month cost proposition for an outsized benefit of being able to contact them.