Should Addictive Tech Come With a Health Warning?

holy_calamity writes "Academics researching how technology addiction affects businesses and employees say 'habit-forming' gadgets like Blackberries should be dispensed along with warnings about the effect they can have on your life. 'We don't want to be in a situation in a few years similar to that with fast food or tobacco today. We need to pay attention to how people react to potentially habit-forming technologies.'"

Comments

Absolutely Not

[milsoRgen]

Any behavior comes with a risk of psychological addiction. To stipulate a health warning on devices is absolutely ludacris.

Re:Absolutely Not

[cuantar]

Oh no! Help us, Nanny State! We need you to save us from our pathetic lack of willpower, responsibility, and maturity!

Re:Absolutely Not

[lgw]

I know! How about we let adults choos for themselves whether to indulge in self-destructive behavior if it makes them happy. We could just decide that freedom was more important than safety. It's a revolutionary idea.

Or, I dunno, we could arrest and imprison someone for their own safety if they decide not to wear a seatbelt, or a not to wear a motorcycle helmet, or eat to much fast food, or whatever else someone doesn't like today. Think of the children! Freedom is scary, and we'll save a couple bucks on health insurace -- its win-win!

Re:Absolutely Not

[khayman80]

You've uncovered a basic point of contention regarding the role of government. Some people believe that the role of the government is to protect citizens from themselves. This mindset results in alcohol and drug prohibition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be drinking or smoking pot, so we're not going to let you"). It also results in religious laws like Sharia and the Inquisition (i.e. "we know how to run your life better than you, and we believe you shouldn't be worshipping any god but Allah/Jesus/what-have-you, so we're not going to let you. Oh, and go to prayers/church every couple of hours/week or we'll stone you to death/burn you at the stake. Again, this is just for the good of your immortal soul.")

(Note that you may disagree with the particular reasoning employed in these examples. In fact, I hope you do- I intentionally chose extreme examples. My point is that by accepting the fundamental premise that the government has the right to protect you from yourself, your position is only quantitatively different from these policy disasters.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with this kind of reasoning. I think that governments should treat their citizens like adults, in the sense that we're capable of making decisions about our own lives/bodies and living with the consequences, be they good or bad. Maybe the decisions we make aren't the best possible ones, but they're our mistakes to make. I'm not an anarchist, though; I believe that the government has a very real and important role to play in the sense that they protect citizens from the actions of other people.

So, in a sense, I'm irked that people like Hillary Clinton (who apparently believes that health insurance should be forced on everyone "for their own good") are treating me and my fellow citizens like preschoolers. But it's deeper than that. You see, I think that the only real purpose the government serves- to protect us from deranged people by keeping a police force/armed forces- effectively means that they need to hold a monopoly on power in the country. While I think I have the right to defend myself against aggression in my own home or car, it would be madness to suggest that I should be able to chase down burglars vigilante-style into the night, firing my automatic weapon at their car with my left hand while driving with my right. This is a job that should be left to trained police who have the resources and backup to perform such a manhunt without endangering bystanders.

Unfortunately, this monopoly on power carries with it a strong predilection to abusing that authority (as anyone who's been on youtube lately can see for themselves.) So I'm loathe to give the government any powers over me and my fellow citizens that aren't absolutely necessary. The potential for abuse is just too great.

A common objection to this argument is that the alternative is simply tyranny via corporation rather than tyranny by government- "at least the government is elected". I completely disagree. However evil and corrupt corporations are, they don't have the right to bust down my door at 2am and kill me or (if I'm lucky) drag me away to spend the rest of my life in a small cement room. I think this is a very important distinction, and that's why I will never agree with handing the government any more powers than are absolutely necessary to safeguard my rights to take action to preserve my life, liberty and property.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Kral_Blbec]

For most situations I would agree, however with seat belts there is a factor in which your decision effects others around you. If your own decision will kill you and only you (ie motorcycle helmet) then its your choice to take the risk. But if you are in a crash without a seatbelt then you may be thrown out of the car. This presents a danger to others by 1) having another obstacle in the road. You may be thrown into oncoming traffic and cause a secondary collision. 2)losing control of a vehicle that you may have been able to control had you remained in the seat, and thus cause a secondary collision.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Exactly. A large number of people making bad decisions often affect more than just themselves. Just take a look at the sub prime scandal, those bad loans may just pull the entire nation into a recession. You may get laid off because some idiots signed mortgages they were never able to afford. Should the government have taken action, restricting their freedoms to prevent them from screwing you over? Its a tough question.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Any accident is going to leave obstacles in the road. Unless you are also going to advocate that other items (e.g. cell phones, dogs, shopping bags) this is a pretty weak argument. I would love to see some data on seatbelts preventing secondary collisions.

2. If you were thrown from the car that means your car experienced a rapid slowdown and is likely no longer 'out of control'.

The people most affected by other people not wearing seatbelts. People in the back seats have a habit of smashing into the people in front of them. Yet, oddly, the back seat is the most likely place (depending on your state) wear seat belts do not have to be worn.

This is all a bunch of nonsense, though. Anyone getting in a car is accepting risk. Arguing that other people not wearing seatbelts substantially increases those risks is absurd.

Re:Absolutely Not

[notwrong]

There are potential costs to others if you don't wear a seatbelt, but I don't think that's the main reason they are compulsory in most Western jurisdictions.

The risk of death and severe injury is reduced when people wear seatbelts. Premature death and debilitating injuries carry real costs to society, such as lost productive capacity, medical services and long-term care, in addition to the personal and emotional costs to the victims and their families. It is prudent social policy to attempt to minimise these costs.

In my opinion, mandating seatbelt use when travelling on public roads is a reasonable component of the social contract you agree to when being granted your driver's license. If some people don't like this impingement on their freedom, that's fine - don't drive or be a passenger on public roads.

Re:Absolutely Not

[Jasin Natael]

I think you forget the most important point to justify the social contract: If the driver at fault has to pay medical bills for the victim by law, then every potential victim has a legal and moral responsibility not to die or become maimed unnecessarily and thereby become an onerous burden for other parties.

Don't wear your seatbelt if that's your choice, but (win or lose) don't take me to court when you lose an arm or break your clavicle. And don't let your family harass me if you snap your stupid neck.

Personal Responsibility

[Doomstalk]

Personally, if there's any addictive activity that I think should have a warning associated with it, it's foisting responsibility off on another person or object. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, it seems.

PSA: Sanitation, Agriculture Habit Forming

[chkn0]

Public Service Announcement: Habit-Forming Technologies

It has come to the attention of this institution that certain technologies and innovations developed over the course of human history may, in retrospect, be habit-forming and could lead to addiction. Citizens are encouraged to exercise caution and restraint in their use of the following list of technologies and are further encouraged to be vigilant for the sake of their friends and family members, lest they become too deeply involved in these potentially dangerous activities.

Help is available. If you or a loved one, friend, or acquaintance finds himself or herself excessively attached to one or more of these technologies, contact your local branch office of the Ministry of Progress immediately.

List of recognized potentially habit-forming technologies:

• Tools
• Fire
• Language
• Clothing
• Artificial Shelter
• Domestication of Animals
• Agriculture
• Ships
• Writing
• Wheels
• Plumbing
• Sanitation
• Lenses
• Internal combustion engines
• Refrigeration
• Electrical distribution
• Radio
• Semiconductors