1. The world's best reading app

    Great articles, no ads. Get started for free.

    The New York Times CompanyNELLIE BOWLES3/23/1911 min
    16 reads4 comments
    The New York Times Company
    16 reads
    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • Pegeen
      Top reader this weekReading streakScoutScribe
      3 years ago

      Even if the information in this article is not entirely accurate, I don’t think we can argue that technology is allowing for less and less human contact. We can literally get almost all our “needs” - food, clothing, entertainment (books, movies, games) without ever leaving our home. We can even “visit” our doctors on line. I happen to be a person who enjoys the everyday simple interactions with people I come across when grocery shopping, going to a book store, a movie or shopping for clothes. I often find these exchanges to be surprising, interesting and uplifting. I guess it all comes down to balance. I love being home but also being in the mix of strangers and the opportunities it creates for connection.

    • erica3 years ago

      It's so untrue that "screens are disappearing from the lives of the rich." Worse than being poorly researched, this article manipulates facts to make the point that poor people spend more time on screens and rich people spend less time on screens. I didn't read anything in this article that convinced me of that. I live in The Bay Area, and the richest people all work in tech and are "connected" at all times, and their kids all play on tablets and phones.

      This comparison is unreal: "The first Apple Mac shipped in 1984 and cost about $2,500 (in today’s dollars, $6,000). Now the very best Chromebook laptop costs $470." Of course the first ever Apple Mac cost more than the shittiest laptop in 2019!

      It's tragic and terrifying that people spend so much time in front of screens. A lot of people are writing about the negative impact of technology on humanity. This author just wants to make the more original argument that tech use is inversely proportional to how much money you have. Unfortunately, I don't buy it.

    • turtlebubble
      3 years ago

      This was really good. I didn’t understand exactly how the virtual pet was going to play into the title thesis but it’s a pretty great example. Except I don’t think screens are necessarily to blame.. I think low income elderly people have always probably experienced a lack of human contact. And government funded healthcare workers could never provide the kind of attention they want and deserve.. maybe the screens are filling a void more than replacing something that was never there.

    • bill
      Top reader of all time
      3 years ago

      Ten! ten! ten! ten!!! Read this. Share it with everyone you know.

      Nellie Bowles is Rachel Carson. This is our Silent Spring.

      When aliens come down to see the wreckage of this planet, they’ll see technology everywhere—screens, fossilized, strew about—and they’ll understand exactly what happened.