This article is extremely thin on actual evidence, and that's a problem, because I could take any aspect the world which has changed since my own childhood, wri

This article is extremely thin on actual evidence, and that's a problem, because I could take any aspect the world which has changed since my own childhood, write a similar article, and have just as much of a point as this one. I could, for example, write about the easy availability of music, and the fact that you don't have to go to a store to buy CDs. I could take every tiny facet of CD purchasing, anticipation, and delayed gratification that I think was in some way good, and lament that kids no longer have that experience. I could completely fail to point out any possible beneficial aspects to modern music availability, and by the end of it, the uncareful reader might think that I have a legitimate point. It seems obvious that something simply being different about how children grow up does not imply that it's worse, so there needs to be some way to distinguish legitimate causes for worry from simple alarmism. If you can't find a way to do that for your piece, I think it's fair to say that your position should simply be ignored. Now sometimes, the scientific community does need a nudge to investigate whether something is a problem. But if you can find no hints within the current body of scientific knowledge that what you're talking about actually matters, you probably haven't found one of those cases.