The interpretation of these studies is a bit confused to me. Most of the proposed detriments are entirely plausible, but that is about as instructive as finding

The interpretation of these studies is a bit confused to me. Most of the proposed detriments are entirely plausible, but that is about as instructive as finding out that air pollution is bad for you during the industrial revolution. What are the effects on the opportunities of a child today, with restricted access to tech for 18 years in a highly developed country? What are the effects on a country with wide spread restrictions? To the best of my knowledge there's very little data on that (for obvious reasons), but that should maybe lead to a little more prudence when it comes to weighing the negative effects of the much simpler to run studies. We use combustion engines, have noise, air and light pollution, move too little, sit on desks and use phones not because we enjoy harming ourselves, but because of the benefits attached. It's great that we run studies to learn more about how we are effected. But reasonable consequences, less clear.