Most kids get their first smartphone between the age of 10 and 12.

We sell a lot of phones to parents in July and August, just before their kids start secondary school (age 12), but it has become much more common to see kids as young as 10 with iPhones. Up until that point, they're quite happy just having an iPad to play games and watch YouTube on, but when other kids in their class start Snapchatting, it's only natural that they want to join in.



Is this a bad thing?

Smartphones provide quick, easy, "cheap" dopamine, i.e. reward without effort (never good), and this makes them addictive but ultimately unfulfilling. These effects can be mitigated by limiting total exposure and ensuring that they do not displace the activities and behaviours that we know are critical for our health and well-being: exercise, time in nature, and social connection.

A smartphone is about as close to necessary a possession as there is. To not have a smartphone in 2023 is to risk being disconnected from others and failing to develop the technological prowess and relevant soft skills required to function in modern society. At the very least, it'd be damn inconvenient, and this is especially true for younger generations.

In my opinion, the benefits of technology significantly outweigh the costs at an aggregate level, and I believe this to be true in the case of smartphones - for most people in most cases. Mindfully and appropriately used, our smartphones enable us to be more productive, better connected, and less stressed. What constitutes mindful and appropriate usage is debatable and will vary from person to person.

It's far more difficult to make this case for social media - in young people at least.

The average age when signing up for a social media account is 12.6 years.

There's sufficient evidence to suggest that social media platforms are the leading contributor to the current mental health crisis among teens. Reports of anxiety, depression and suicide attempts amongst young people began skyrocketing in the early 2010s, just as social media was becoming increasingly popular and accessible.



The data continues to prove that social media usage correlates with poorer mental health outcomes and that the magnitude of this effect is notably greater in teens.



Moderate use appears to have little effect whereas heavy use has a disproportionately greater effect. Mood disorders are more prevalent in girls than boys. For boys, depression rate doubles as daily use increases from 2 to 5 hours. For girls, it triples.



Would you let your child vape?

Perhaps it was to be expected that your teenager would sneak a cigarette or a beer when they get the chance, and that this was seldom cause for concern. By contrast, the notion of carrying and hitting a vape all day every day should be far more alarming to a parent. But what if we are glossing over a device that is far more addictive and destructive than a vape?

Our prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain associated with complex decision-making and impulse control - isn't fully developed until around 25. This is why we restrict freedom of choice by law and as parents until the age of 18.

It's so obvious that children shouldn't have unlimited access to drugs, pornography and gambling.

Can we really expect a child to exercise appropriate caution with respect to social media use?

In my experience and observation, practising healthy habits and moderation is difficult enough as an adult, so it'd be unfair to expect a child to make informed and responsible decisions for themselves, especially when you pile peer pressure on top of the issue: no teen wants to be the one weird kid without it, and no adult wants to be the one out-of-touch, overly-strict hippy parent that doesn't allow it.

I believe that an adult should be able to do whatever they want - within reason and provided it doesn't cause harm to others. At what age we draw the line and for what choices are open to debate, but I think that based on the mountains of data and anecdotes, there should be strict age and/or usage limits on social media use specifically. Not doing so is setting up a non-trivial proportion of young people for failure.

I think that smartphones (and computers) are essential items for just about everyone including teens, and whilst they have their dangers and downsides, we can mitigate them with appropriate supervision and education, and this should be the role of parents and teachers.

You remember how "growing up" was at times really difficult and disconcerting. Technology has only made it more challenging, which is why we should sympathise with the youth of today, even though we might not understand them. Younger generations are the first to grow up with an iPad. We don't know exactly what effect this has, but it's clearly a significant one - one that has the potential to damage malleable minds, which could lead to greater societal problems.

It's important to note that these issues relate to internet access and that the smartphone is just a vessel for this.

Smartphones and social media are not synonymous. You cannot blame the technology for ruining a generation. It's how we use it that matters. For the most part, we are all subject to the same benefits, challenges and risks, regardless of age. Social media is an outlier because it has a disproportionately harsher and wider effect on young people.

People are scared about the future of AI and super-advanced technology.

A recent poll reported that 42% of respondents fear that AI will replace their job, and that 47% of people felt extremely nervous that AI would progressively destroy the human world and that there are very significant risks associated with using AI. 24% of them expressed an angry sentiment against AI and its applications.

That's a lot of fear and negativity. We don't like that, so we've put together a case for why you probably shouldn't worry too much about future technologies.

"The robots are stealing our jobs!" - People, since 1920. Many large companies have announced plans to discard thousands of employees in coming years. People are losing their jobs to tech, but that same tech is simultaneously creating new job roles at an equal or greater rate. This is nothing new: 60% of current jobs did not exist in 1940. Historically, technology has always been additive. When the Polaroid camera was invented, artists panicked that no one would buy their paintings anymore, but have you seen the price of a da Vinci portrait? Humans provide value in a way that technology cannot. We have and always will find ways to co-exist with technology.



AI has been used to create deep fakes, internet trolls and scams. AI has also been used to track down and convict paedophiles and to diagnose early-stage cancers. On balance, It's surely been a net positive for humanity so far. Could the balance shift? Yes. But why assume that it will? We are (mostly) aware of the negative consequences of technology that we use today, but would you ditch your iPhone entirely to negate them? Didn't think so.

There's a good chance that the world will be a very different place by the end of the decade, or the next decade; or certainly at some point before 2050. This can be a startling realisation, but take solace in the fact that the present day is and always has been the best day to be alive. Lifespan, poverty, crime, freedom and peace have all been trending in the right direction since records began. Yes, we have blips - but by all accounts, and measured over a sufficient period of time, things keep getting better. Humans - our team - have applied their intelligence across various domains: science, engineering, art, philosophy etc., and this has transformed us from sick and scrawny tribes of subsistence farmers living out of mud huts to the rich and glorious cities we live in today, all in a matter of 4000 years. We're not going to suddenly start regressing. Technology is a multiplier on that same intelligence which took us from mud huts to skyscrapers; so if anything, technology should facilitate a much faster rate of progress.



There have always been doomsayers. How many times have they been proven right? Famine, drought, poverty and conflict are always just around the corner, but rarely does it materialise in such dramatic and disastrous fashion. Sensational claims quickly dissipate and are forgotten - that is until the next trendy prophecy emerges. Our negativity bias makes it such that stories of doom and gloom are more attractive to our primitive little brains. The media, through both human journalists and computer algorithms, capitalises on our insatiable appetite for catastrophe and conspiracy by driving such stories to the top of our feeds. A broken clock might be right twice per day, but 99 times out of 100, the simple, rational, boring narrative triumphs.





You don't know how it works. At best, you have an extremely vague understanding of advanced technologies and their implications, which you've cobbled together based on your favourite writing from those with a slightly less vague understanding. Dedicate every waking moment of your life to understanding something like AI and you'll still be way behind the curve. If it interests you, that's great, but don't treat any one opinion as gospel. Remain open to opposing viewpoints and possibilities.



Stoicism teaches us that we have power over our own minds - our opinions, judgements and attitudes - but not over outside events. Understanding and accepting exactly what is under our power is the key to leading a happy life. As Epictetus said, “The more you seek to control external events, the less control you will have over your own life.” A very tiny subset of the population has any meaningful control over how AI and other technologies will impact humanity. You have none. Any time and energy spent worrying about technology is sure to be wasteful and unproductive.

Fire is a really useful tool. It can also burn a city to the ground. That's why we have a fire service, firemen, fire extinguishers, fire doors, fire alarms and fire drills. We invented these things so that we could safely and effectively utilise fire without getting burned. Assuming we put the correct fire-door-equivalents in place for technology, we should be able to mitigate its potential dangers.

We don't see fire itself as good or evil, but whether it is utilised for good or evil can be entirely ascribed to human intent. Unfortunately, there will always be evil humans. Like tech, fire is neutral. How human utilise it will ultimately determine our fate. So perhaps it's not the tech that we should be afraid of, but the humans wielding it.



"The computer is a bicycle for our minds" is one of my favourite Steve Jobs quotes. Perhaps AI and other cutting-edge technologies are more akin to a rocket ship for our minds. We're travelling at greater speeds than ever before, which is kind of scary. Human ingenuity has got us this far without blowing up, so whilst we shouldn't be complacent, there's little evidence that we won't figure out what we need to as we go. We make mistakes, and we often look back, both at ourselves and society, and wonder how the hell we got it so wrong. Like watching a toddler learning to paint: it's a messy, sometimes painful, but altogether essential learning process. Generally, we humanoids figure it out, course correct, and come out ahead.

It'd be foolish to completely disregard the potential negative consequences of AI and other technologies, and we should all prepare accordingly with the information and intuitions that we do have. There's no doubt that it will bring challenges and opportunities, and that it will impact everyone differently. We must also recognise that on an individual level we have effectively zero control or predictive power over how it will pan out, so to worry about it is futile and only creates unnecessary stress. Instead, take a moment to appreciate that it's a wonderful and exciting time to be alive. You might just feel a little calmer as the robots incinerate your home.