You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. I have found that unfettered access to it is reducing life quality, and I'm not waiting for twenty double-blind peer-reviewed studies to show this obvious reality.
It is much healthier to admit that we have limits, that we are fallible in the face of such overwhelming pleasure, and accept the approach of physically distancing ourselves from the internet.
By this logic, all humans are incapable of performing any task due to the existence of the internet. Some yearn for a simpler time, when all humans were incapable of performing any task due to the existence of television, radio, books, friends, meteorology, the opposite sex, or beer.
But if you would rather be distracted by trees and bugs, remarkable vistas and epic adventures, feel free to continue using this narrative to get what you want.
Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency, it reduces our agency due to the fallible nature of self-control.
Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does. Some things are more addictive than others. To claim that meteorology and the internet have the same risk to our agency is absolutely absurd.
Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether.
> Firstly, the internet does not permanently and completely eliminate our agency...
> You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful.
Which is it? Is the draw of the internet simply too powerful to ignore? Or is it possible to partially ignore this distraction?
> Secondly, all of the other activities you listed do not reduce our agency to the extent that the internet does.
Internet access reduces your agency? Sorry to hear that. Internet access increases my agency.
> Thirdly, establishing distance from the internet (e.g. not involving computers when they aren't necessary, using the computer at the library instead of keeping one at home, adding restrictions to a smartphone or using a dumbphone) is not the same as giving it up altogether.
> We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet.
You're excusing convenience. If the internet is so harmful, why risk any contact? And are all parts of the internet equally harmful?
Back to the original point, if you don't want to use the internet, then don't. But if you don't want to use the internet, why are you using it to tell other people that you don't want to use it?
You can love something to pieces, yet still find yourself unable to do it, merely because the draw of the internet is too powerful. We are not optimized to deal with the stimulus of the internet. I have found that unfettered access to it is reducing life quality, and I'm not waiting for twenty double-blind peer-reviewed studies to show this obvious reality.
It is much healthier to admit that we have limits, that we are fallible in the face of such overwhelming pleasure, and accept the approach of physically distancing ourselves from the internet.