In two recently published studies based on solid scientific research, their authors argue that spending time in front of a screen devastates children and poses a threat to the nation.
Published in Germany in 2015, German psychiatrist and neurologist Manfred Spitzer's book The Disastrous Property of Screens is very similar to the book by French neuroscientist Michel Demurge about the dangerous effects of screens on children, published in August. The same mentions, remarks, warnings. A sense of satisfaction mixed with bitterness can be seen in both authors, who are the only ones who have long since started writing about the harmful effects of digital technology.
The French neuroscientist mentions, in particular, the famous statement of the writer Jaime Semprun: “When the environmentalist wants to ask the most disturbing question, asking what kind of world we are going to leave to our children, he is afraid to ask a much more serious question:“Which children will we leave the world to? ?"
These two books, based on scientific research, give the same answer: children who sleep less and less well, more dissatisfied, more isolated, overweight, more painful, more tired, more anxious, more depressed, more perverse, more aggressive, less attentive, less confident and less empathetic. This has a detrimental effect on their cognitive performance, mobility and life expectancy. The authors also note in the oldest of them and young people a sharp increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases associated with sexual accessibility through the Internet, and road accidents due to the addiction of young people to smartphones. The digital revolution has entailed the emergence not of the most educated generation in our history, but new barbarians,which of technological innovations know only primitive applications.
Manfred Spitzer wrote more than once in his book: "The dose is poisonous." In the foreword to the French edition of the book, he goes so far as to use the word "overdose", and believes that the social and economic costs of computer damage will be greater than current global warming.
In Western countries, children from the age of two look at screens for an average of three hours a day; at the age of 8 to 12 years - already up to four hours and forty-five minutes; teenagers from 13 to 18 years old use screens for up to six hours and forty-five minutes! … In addition, youth addiction to computers and the Internet often goes hand in hand with other addictions: alcohol, cigarettes or hard drugs.
In their books, Spitzer and especially Demurzhe refute the arguments of digital enthusiasts, "self-proclaimed" experts who always find a positive effect on screens in order to hide a lot of catastrophic consequences from informatization.
Finland, called an educational paradise by educators, has paid dearly for the digital craze. It is currently in the middle of the ranking table compiled by the International Student Assessment Program. Manfred Spitzer writes that "the idea of teaching children new technologies from kindergarten or from the first grade is tantamount to pushing them to alcohol within the same walls."
Promotional video:
In response to other optimists who claim that humans can and already knows how to adapt to new technologies, both authors argue that the brain is not designed for multiple tasks (be it a woman or a man). To deny such a truth is all the more dangerous since the active development of the brain ends by the age of 20. In other words: what was lost in childhood and adolescence cannot be replenished later.
Manfred Spitzer and Michel Demurger reject the authorities' desire to exterminate people with digital technology so that they can ultimately manage them without problems. The reason for the passivity in front of the ubiquity of displays lies rather in the economic benefits obtained from this.
Doubt, however, crept into them. They believe that digitalization in schools is in line with the desire to reduce the number of teachers, and Michel Demurger quotes from a statement of one politician he met: “Those who talk about saving on knowledge are a minority. More than 90% of tomorrow's jobs will be low-skilled […]. We all know the level of today's higher education degrees. This is for the amusement of others. […] The longer we keep our children at university, the more we save on social security.”
The other choice (and it is!), The dominance of screens over our lives and the theft of our personal data by transnational corporations is common sense, even if Michel Demurger rejects it, considering it contrary to science (according to common sense, the Earth cannot be round). For our children, there is nothing better than life: specific meetings that promote the development of speech, playing sports, or moments of loneliness and even boredom, conducive to thought and creativity. There are so many ways to be independent, to use new technologies in a reasonable, moderate and selective way.
Both authors also refer to legislative initiatives being taken in different countries to counter the harmful effects of screens. In South Korea, for example, every person under the age of 19, when purchasing a smartphone, must install a program that blocks access to sites with pornographic and violent scenes and also limits the time of using the smartphone during the day.
However, Michel Demurger is less categorical than the German psychiatrist, even if he acknowledges the strong symbolic value of some government measures. Rather, he relies on the discretion of his parents, to whom he offers seven rules to help protect his children.
Given the scale of the challenges they uncover, both Michel Demurger and Manfred Spitzer are well aware that the future of our nation is at stake. The question is about sovereignty. Manfred Spitzer makes this prediction: “It is safe to say that it is precisely those states that today are more in line with the model of competition, rather than cooperation, who will take seriously the risks and side effects of digital technologies. And above all, they will protect future generations from them, who will have a decent future. " Therefore, we must slightly correct the question formulated by Jaime Semprun: "Which states will we leave to the world?"
Laurent OTTAVI