While I generally find myself agreeing with the sentiments of this article, let's not forget: the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Apply this axiom to OP's

While I generally find myself agreeing with the sentiments of this article, let's not forget: the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Apply this axiom to OP's observations. So he goes to some rural regions of the world, sees some kids being kids and concludes that because he doesn't see that same behavior in a modern region of China it must therefore be because of modernity or technology or whatever that these people aren't happy. But wait, how does he know they aren't happy? Who is he to say that because he "didn't see a smile" among them they must therefore be hopelessly depressed? Equally how do we know that because he saw some kids playing in the street these communities are "happy"? I could use some of my own anecdotes, experiences I've had in the barangay of the Philippines that would contradict his observations despite having the same hallmarks, but again, these are anecdotes and even if you have a large set of them they still aren't a supplement for evidence. The crux of this article is weak. Based almost entirely on the touchy-feely reality of observational anecdotes. Again, I don't disagree with some of the broader points. But this article is not a good example of a case supporting them.