Thanks to bestselling authors like Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge, the public has become increasingly aware of the rapid rise in mental health issues among younger people […] Their warnings about the destructive impact of social media have had an effect, reflected not least in a wave of schools across Europe banning smartphones.
While it’s good to draw attention to the rising rates of depression and anxiety, there’s a risk of becoming fixated on simplistic explanations that reduce the issue to technical variables like “screen time”.
[…]
A hallmark of Twenge and Haidt’s arguments is their use of trend lines for various types of psychological distress, showing increases after 2012, which Haidt calls the start of the “great rewiring” when smartphones became widespread. This method has been criticised for overemphasising correlations that may say little about causality.
[…]
Numerous academics […] have pointed to factors such as an increasing intolerance for uncertainty in modernity, a fixation – both individual and collective – on avoiding risk, intensifying feelings of meaninglessness in work and life more broadly and rising national inequality accompanied by growing status anxiety. However, it’s important to emphasise that social science has so far failed to provide definitive answers.
[…]
It seems unlikely that the political and social challenges we face wouldn’t influence our wellbeing. Reducing the issue to isolated variables [such as the use of smartphones], where the solution might appear to be to introduce a new policy (like banning smartphones) follows a technocratic logic that could turn good health into a matter for experts.
The risk with this approach is that society as a whole is excluded from the analysis. Another risk is that politics is drained of meaning. If political questions such as structural discrimination, economic precarity, exposure to violence and opioid use are not regarded as shaping our wellbeing, what motivation remains for taking action on these matters?
There are gradients to risk-aversion, and that’s certainly on the low end of the spectrum. But also, those same parents were the ones who were actively rebelling in the 90s or in the 60s and 70s, in some cases for very good causes that were worth risking injury or even a chance of getting shot.
We need those people, now more than ever. And despite it being a natural personality trait, risk-aversion is more pervasive than ever. We risk losing our freedoms to people with far more power than us, because we collectively decided that it’s too risk-averse to fight.
We are frogs boiling in water, unwilling to fix our situation, because there’s a risk of injury or death.
Injury is a lot easier to risk if you won’t be charged more than your entire net worth for treatment. If you haven’t experienced the misery of medical debt, and know how others live with it, it’s absolutely terrifying to think about having to live with, all because you tried to do something good.
I like to try to help others but I am selfish enough to admit I’d never run myself into debt or risk my life for someone else. I always respect those willing to do what I’m not.
The thing is, it’s not the fear of injury or death, it’s the fact that people have forgotten the idea of public engagement.
There was a story a while back about a Georgia family who got in real legal trouble for letting a 10 year old wander about in their own neighborhood.
I used to ride my bike all over town and I’d see gangs of kids doing the same. I was in Jersey City, NJ a while back and was surprised by the sight of elementary school age kids out alone.
Like I said, gradients. If people have a fear of public engagement, they certainly can’t get far enough to get past the fear of injury or death.
Someone made an interesting point.
If a stranger asked the average citizen for $5.00 in most cases they’d refuse the request.
If a stranger fell into a lake many people would dive in and try to save them, even if it was dangerous.