But it is toxic and dangerous and exploits you. It's also a very valuable tool. As with all things, there's a cost/benefit calculation to be done here.
I think that the cost/benefit ratio is hugely unfavorable when we're talking about very young children.
The product doesn't lead to children dying. It increases the risk of a certain type of fatality when used improperly, with the overall odds still being miniscule.
And yes, parents have to take some responsibility. Nothing will ever be 100% safe.
I will not say it is safe for you to use or not. But the reason for that and many of the "don't let children near it" is better be safe and make it user error than take an useless risk. In particular, I'm sure there are very little if any studies on the effects of that tech on children, for obvious reasons.
he says probably, I would not personally risk doing it if I am not 100% sure it's safe. I mean babies don't really need it , why risk it for something that is hardly providing any benefit for a child.
It can be a "good" for the child, while still being exploitative. Take care of the exploitation, and don't destroy the "good" parts. I don't think it's an entirely binary situation.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says a lot of things based on pseudo-science and speculation. Basically, they fail to ever do any cost-benefit analysis. They recommend against doing anything that involves risk, without offsetting the risk against the potential benefits of engaging in the activity.
I see your point. And I don't think it's quite as horrible, and might actually be somewhat more responsible to only give the drug to one kid to start with.
Assuming, of course, the kids aren't at risk of death any time soon (they seem fairly healthy in that picture), and the results could be measured fairly readily.
It's a heinous product that does horrible things to people, so good. This is an industry that intentionally targets children to sell them addictive, carcinogenic, toxic, foul-smelling items for profit.
"but being overly alert on this is better than ignorant."
Please cite any evidence that this is true in practice.
Seriously.
The long-term cost to treating kids like this is probably vastly higher than any possible damage caused by the threats.
(IE i would even expect it causes more kids to die younger over time)
Humans are very good at significantly overestimating the risks they can easily reason about, and significantly underestimate the ones they can't.
Yes, I think we all recognize the dangers but this is absolutely true.
I think when used correctly they can be amazingly helpful however. Looking after young kids is all about the long game. Caring for kids for up to 16 hours a day can be soul destroying, and playing with your phone when they’re occupied gives you a window into a wider world...
The alternative is spending a bunch of time staring into the distance feeling your brain slowly atrophy.
I think that the cost/benefit ratio is hugely unfavorable when we're talking about very young children.
reply