, ,

Nothing says it like this does:

Here is a #shailism (more of them can be found here):

People condemn anything they themselves weren’t familiar with (addicted to) growing up, as addictive, when it comes to the next generation.

Doomsayers all, condemning the new because it is unfamiliar, fearing what they cannot control. If I were to go by what my parents’ generation thought while I was still a tiny tot, my peers and I should all be blind by now. Yes, watching movies (Not more than once a month!) in a darkened movie hall was supposed to ‘weaken’ eyesight. Reading in *poor* light (which was subjective and could be anything depending on their mood and/or interpretation of poor light) was another that could *spoil* eyes.

Next came the Television naysayers. I was one of them ignorant ones, asking my children to restrict their TV hours to *save their eyes*. Only for a while, though, for I suddenly recalled how my parents made dire predictions about movie watching, which turned to be totally baseless. Was I making the same mistake, buying into the latest fear of the times without reason? If movie watching had not caused harm to eyes of people in all these years, what truth was there about television being harmful? So I decided to let things be.

These are but minor issues when compared to the *real* grouse that *knowledgeable* netizens have against every new gadget: Lack of communication between humans. Strangely enough I myself have never ever felt that to be an issue at all. If people look at the TV, phone etc instead of at you I take it as a hint that they do not want to converse with me and make myself scarce. Simple, isn’t it? One has so may other interesting things to do. 

Computers, internet, Facebook, smartphones, the story of condemnation goes on…. till the next one arrives on the scene to take on the mantle of being the reason for ‘isolation’ of humans. Like, really? How many people did you actually know or were connected to before the net? So you think talking to the same people (no choice there) over and over again about the same old things constitutes communication? Give me a break.

I will let Joshua Gillis’ comment (which I found below the cartoon strip on Facebook, speak for me:

I have had this discussion online and in person so many times…Excuse me, I hold in my hand a device that gives me access to all of the collected art and literature of mankind. A device on which I can read scientific papers and watch live breaking news broadcasts from the other side of the world. A device on which I can have instant communication with friends and family and strangers all over the planet.
What’s your problem again?

In fact, I will go one step further and say, even if the smartphone is used only for taking and sending selfies or ‘idle/useless’ texting, that too is communication. Besides let each one define what communication means to them.

So, yup. What’s your problem again?

©Shail Mohan 2015

NaBloPoMo November 2015