Hacker News Reader

Comment by zwnow | Hacker News Reader

In both cases the whole society is affected. I have to pay into my countries health system for people who got sick by choice. Thankfully this isnt the case for people addicted to screens.

View on HN

Smoking related deaths are relatively cheap. In Canada a typical pack-a-day smoker pays an extra $5k/year in taxes, and then dies not long after they retire and start collecting social security.

A bigger burden are the healthy people who live into their 90s while their bodies slowly decay over the span of decades

Are those who develop mental illness as a result of screen addiction not sick by choice?

smoking, alcoholism and obesity are fiscal positives, not negatives.

smokers pay obscene amount of money in cigarette tax for decades only to die in their 50's or 60's instead of collecting the benefits of having also contributed into social security all their lives. most of them die suddenly from a heart attack or after a short illness.

Its not that simple. Smokers that dont die suddenly (how many are those actually?) dont die much earlier because healthcare improved and also:

- kill/cause damages through passive smoke

- can/do cause enormous health bills (my dad struggled on for almost 6 years)

- cleaning up their trash costs money

- set fire to stuff with thrown cigarette butts

- often dont just die and just cant work anymore thus stopping working earlier, create less value in general

I'd love to read up on current studies/research but lots of studies are 10+ years old now but the damages seem to outweigh them not having a retirement.

You can completely abstain from smoking for health reasons and there's no downside.

Screentime is a part of life. You can abstain but you fall behind in some ways.

Screen time is also linked to the pace of technology, advancement, etc. It's unavoidably pushed into our lives.

These seem like two very different issues to me.

Smoking used to be an unavoidably pushed part of life, too. It was linked to strength, manliness (or femininity actually, depending on the target market), independence, etc. Tobacco company mascots loomed over us from billboards, and told us on TV that cigarettes make a person cool. Untold billions of dollars were spent on marketing literal poison, using every trick in the book, and it worked. People smoked all the time, everywhere - at the dinner table, on planes, at their desk at work. People burned their houses down because they went to sleep with a cigarette still in their mouth.

Just because something feels like an unavoidable part of life, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true - it could just mean that that giant advertising companies convinced you that it is. I wonder if in a couple decades we’ll look back at screen addiction the same way we look at tobacco now.

I understand how cigarettes were advertised and pushed, and seemingly unavoidable.

Is technology the same? Yes and no...we can totally abstain from tech and live that lifestyle. But then we wouldn't be here discussing this issue at all, or ever.

So while they are both pushed: if you cut out smoking today you can still live a 'normal' life. Cutting out tech is a drastically different life.

I'd rather not discuss what is meant by 'normal' -- I hope you get where I'm coming from.

I think “using technology” is just too broad, and a distinction needs to be made. Screen addiction doesn’t just mean using a screen.

You’re right that it’d be pretty much impossible to refuse to engage with any modern technology these days (unless you lived in an Amish community or something similar); but obviously there’s a huge difference between responsible use of tech where useful or necessary (and for fun, too, in moderation!), and lying in bed mindlessly scrolling through Tiktok and/or watching cable tv for hours every day - which I see a lot more people doing in the past couple years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com