> Instantaneous access to everything obviously comes at a cost. The cost being that we all behave like demented Roman emperors, at once bored and deranged, summoning whatever we want at any time.<p>> All over the world, an entire generation of young men, often referred to as “NEETs,” are robbing themselves of agency, drive, and romantic relationships through their addiction to video games and pornography. Video games allow a young man to experience a sort of pseudo-achievement, while pornography masquerades as love. Some of these men have seen more naked women than any king who has ever lived.<p>> Many will mock their pain and their addiction, but it’s heartbreaking to think that they’ll never experience true risk, true reward, or true romance.<p>This post acknowledges that NEETs are living better than ancient Roman emperors, but laments they're missing out on "risk, reward, and romance" that these ancient Romans had. What exactly is so great about risking death on the battlefield or risking food poisoning at a bad restaurant? Why <i>would</i> an average man in his early 20s want to take a risk by approaching women at one's job or in public? Especially when you go on Tinder/Hinge and realize just how worthless you actually are.<p>The article argues that:<p>> Thoroughly exhausting ourselves intellectually and physically through productive work brings fulfillment, and with fulfillment comes peace.<p>But you can, as the article acknowledges, thoroughly exhaust yourself through video games and online vices. Achievement no longer requires risk. And the article is unable to quantify what value that risk brings beyond being inherently exciting. If this was true, why aren't more people taking risks? It should be more fun than sitting at home all day.<p>"NEET" is an economic term that stands for "not in education, employment, or training", because unemployment doesn't include people that have left the labour force entirely. Self-description as a NEET is a proud admission that one does not contribute to the economy or work force; it's a valuation of the individual over the community.<p>This article accepts that premise and argues in futility that NEETs don't really want the lifestyle they chose. I disagree, and I'd rather we make it an explicit value of our society to reject individual freedoms that cause broader social harms.<p>If smartphone addiction is legitimately destroying society by acting as a sinkhole for human potential, we should apply legal restrictions or taxes on screen time. That would be more effective than telling someone who's doomscrolling how they're actually hurting themselves.