The Incredible Hoax
Why Technology is the New Joe Camel
In the late 1990s I was a small part of a life-saving revolution. It wasn’t built on Facebook or blogs or anything viral, it was constructed on facts. As one of the lobbyists for the anti-smoking arm of the American Cancer Society I, along with hundreds of others, helped the then U.S. Attorney General make the case that for about as long we could remember, the tobacco industry had been marketing to kids. This for most of us stood on its face. Joe Camel, the cartoon character, was the showcase emblem of the largest tobacco company in the world. And it was also illegal considering you weren’t allowed to sell cigarettes to anyone under 18.
As soon as we could paint this picture for every State Attorneys General in the country, we would win. And we did. Cigarettes weren’t eradicated by any means, but the tobacco industry took a financial and public relations hit from which it never recovered… and most people when they see someone smoking still think… “Didn’t they get the memo?”
Technology here is defined as The Screen. And it’s addictive.
Having worked in the entertainment industry (EI) this is not a mistake. EIs will sell their collective grandmothers to make $100 million at the box office. Their other department across the hall will sell you and your children anything to make a $100 million at the register. This is neatly packaged as “convenience” by the way. However it’s not actually convenient to be addicted says the laundry that never gets folded. Ever check your email for no reason? Text people you have no interest in speaking with? Scroll for hours? Connect on Facebook incessantly? It’s okay… you’re a grown up. And like food, smoking and booze you’re basically allowed to do whatever you want for two reasons: one, you’re not hurting anyone but yourself. And two, your brain has developed enough for most of these not to do any long term damage.
Not so with a nine year old or a five year old… or (WTH) a one year old?
But first… some backstory:
Children — mostly those under 12 — are sensory beings. This means that they do not use just their eyes to understand things. In fact, touching, smelling, tasting and hearing are ignited at the same level as seeing is to the more cerebral adult. Imagine touching something and it was as if you were seeing it. There’s a biological purpose for this. Humans at the child stage of development are programmed to discover, to learn, to take in at a rate not even calculable on our iPhones. If we do not expose them to as many sensory objects and experiences as possible, their neurons fail to connect and those opportunities are lost forever.
And yet, at restaurants, dens and soccer games across this country we hand our children electronic devices like glasses of chardonnay. And we do it — I believe — thinking that there is a good element to them and perhaps even a good intention.
Second… some facts:
Aren’t games played on the iPad or iPhone educational?
No. They educate at about the 5% level for two reasons. One, as I mentioned above, they are not multidimensional nor are they multisensorial. Education is not defined as how much you know at this age as much as it is defined as how you know it.
When a child adds 30 plus 40 on a iPad, he or she has no idea what 30 is or what 40 is… they have simply memorized the numerals. They’ve also used that time on their screen to activate one finger and their two eyes, not their body, their sense of smell, their sense of touch. Further, unlike splashing in pond or rolling in grass or measuring stuff with a ruler (all of which are non-addictive), screens beg you back.
Don’t children need to learn how to use these devices to compete in the real world?
Have you ever read the pamphlet that came with your iPhone? Devices are intuitive. If everyone had to learn to use a device, the device people would be out of business.
I’m tired. My kids need to do something.
Screens create an addictive snowball effect where the overstimulation makes them want more of the same. We talked about how ignited the human brain is from 0–12 years old. What do we think will happen when a highly stimulating (and simulated) environment is put in front of them. They will need and want more over time. It’s the same reason we don’t let them drink 10 cans of soda a day.
But really, I’m tired.
Children are self-sufficient learners if you create a prepared environment. This sounds complicated but it’s not. Put something new in front of them. For example:
Write a list of things they have to gather from the outside… then tell them to make a model truck out of it.
Buy a hot glue gun. Seriously. Hours of fun.
Buy a labeler. They will label everything.
Buy a typewriter. A $149 typewriter on Amazon. And then listen. You will only hear typing. And for all you tech-heads… they’ll be keyboarding!
Get them really good books. REALLY good. Or as an alternative: Kids like NEW books. Most libraries will let you pick 20 or 30 for $5 at their used book room.
Put them in the bath with everything from your kitchen (or let them pick 10 things).
Ask them to make dinner once a week. Whatever they want but it has to represent all the food groups.
Get a putting rug. It’s $45 dollars. And some cheap little clubs. They will putt for hours.
Tell them to draw a picture of you while you sleep. In detail.
I could go on, but you get the point. There are options. And if you really need a break, CURATE film and television.
What I mean by that is most of what is out there for children on television and film is bad — it’s filled with sarcasm and violence and stuff that young children never need to see because well, the selling your grandmother bit again. But there are things on television that talk about virtues and most awesomely the planet we live on and the science most children are interested in: i.e. basically anything that David Attenborough narrates is a great start and he’s done a lot.
Isn’t everyone on screens?
No. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs — the two biggest sellers of screens in the history of the world — never gave their kids screens until they were well into their teens.
Aren’t you just rejecting the inevitable technology of the future?
I like technology. The Augmented Reality Sandbox we just built for our school is one of the best ways to teach topography and geography I’ve seen. The MakerBot is out of this world. Zip Grow Walls that our children will use to understand food and sustainability are crazy great. The dumbing down of an entire population by allowing children not yet developed to spend hours on devices that re-wire their brains and cause children to get occupational therapy at ages as young as 3 years old because only their swiping forefinger works properly is not.
But where’s the science behind all this hot air?
These aren’t studies from #crazymomsagainstscreentime. This is real science, published profusely and yet until we unmask the Joe Camel, it goes on in marketing campaigns (I tried to access a piece on CBS News about Screen Time Damaging Children and was redirected to a SmartPhone ad), at dinner tables and to the demise of little ones all over the world.
That’s great… but I can’t get my kids off.
Whenever I need to break or reinforce a habit with my children, I go to science. It’s the last bastion of truth for the most part. I am very upfront about what the aforementioned science says about the developing brain, about addiction in general (this doesn’t have to go into the realm of drugs… there’s plenty of addition out there like sugar) and mostly (my favorite) how a whole industry is snowing you into thinking this is good for you. My kids enjoy raging against the machine (“Mom, I can’t believe those bad guys put all the candy at eye level at the drug store!”) and this creates good habits for what they will become: future citizens.
The linchpin of the Joe Camel effort was that the tobacco industry had no where to go. They simply could not make the logical case that Joe Camel was a character for adult smokers (they tried and that is some funny testimony if you ever have nothing to do).
And yet with screens occupying every public library and every “Google” classroom (I just sold my shares) with every kind of cute and cuddly game, “educational” story time and even worse highly addictive imaginary worlds like Fortnite, aren’t we reaching an apex of what we’ll allow this industry to do to or take from our children?
I can’t take on this fight at the moment, but the school we’re building asks parents to sign a Children’s Bill of Rights. One of their rights is to a mostly technology-free childhood, a chance to experience life not watch or game it.
And so… where is a good Attorney General when you need one?
Where is the law restricting screen use? Or at least advising against it? Will we feel the same way about screens in 20 years that we feel about infants who traveled on smoke-filled planes in the 80s? I don’t know. But in my estimation the human cost of childhood screen use is far greater than any lung cancer epidemic would or could be. And in the end only us parents can decide whether we truly believe the science or the grandmother sellers.
My money’s on us.
