> This could also be interpreted as resistance to change. Would the world be better if screens had not robbed people of the sensations of holding a physical bo

> This could also be interpreted as resistance to change. Would the world be better if screens had not robbed people of the sensations of holding a physical book/magazine/newspaper? If electric or gas lighting had not filled the cities with light contamination? If planes and trains weren't making so much noise? If instant messaging hadn't replaced phone conversations? I think these are all questions that could, and perhaps should, be asked and pondered. For screens, it's not so much the sensation but what they have enabled (i.e. the dopamine hitting notifications), though there is evidence that our brain interprets text differently, less deeply, on a screen. Likewise, I do think light pollution is bad, and perhaps we would be better if we took steps to minimize light pollution. Same with noise pollution. I know I read that even low levels of noise pollution can heighten things like anxiety and drive a flight or fight response constantly. I for one look forward to electric vehicles in hopes that some of the noise pollution does die down, and think it will be better for many even if they don't realize it now. Likewise, there's also evidence that interacting via messaging is robbing us of empathy, because we never hear other people's voices and learn to interpret body language cues and cue in on how others are feeling. They're all questions that could, and should, be discussed and not just dismissed out of hand. In some respects, I truly think the Amish and the Luddites (who weren't necessarily against technology, but how it would be used and its long term cost-benefit ratio) took the correct approach to it. It's not resistance to change, though. It's interpreting whether the benefits of that change are worth the downsides that come with it.