I, for example, if I can get a little cheeky into the conversation and give my opinion,
I'm not inclined to blame the parents. In the sense that, I suppose,
they primarily strive to provide the best possible path, the best growth for their children,
according to the conditions in which they exist. Or, perhaps more accurately, parents strive to ensure the best possible seamlessly, if possible and successfully, the integration of their children into this thing, the particular society in which they live.
Probably every parent wants it. Already, "better" parents want more for their children, according to their level of consciousness, etc. So they strive to minimize the harm to their children, in which the modern, rather vicious society invites them. I'm not a parent, so what can I tell parents, why my criticism should have weight, when I am not subjected to the same test as them: to provide the best and most useful for my children in an environment that is filled with harmful temptations (especially for children and adolescents who do not have established understandings and "walls" against the harmful things).
So, yes: electronic gadgets and so on. (Which of course varies, in the US, the technoleaders of East Asia and most of Western Europe, access is much easier than less developed countries.)
I am a "technophobe" and I do not approve of it in principle, but what can I and with what right to say to parents. Gadgets are used for children and teenagers and it seems that they will be used even more in the future. That's the way it is. And if you want your child not to be part of it, it means that your child to not be part of society (at least in the vast majority). So your child's future is under threat. And so on, clearly.
It's not just about using electronic gadgets to make it easier to raise children when your daily life is busy multifaceted, but it's also about the fact that the digital world is already a major part of life, this influence is constantly increasing, and in the future, it seems of all,
existence in society will be fully tied to the closest and most continuous interaction with digital technologies for everything (as well with variety of other "high" technologies).
And
this, no doubt to me, is cream della cream, the number one goal of the "plan of the elites" (I put it in quotation marks, because maybe many are tired of this term, maybe some reject it, etc. Okay, whatever, this is true anyway.) It is quite clear that all the authorities all over the world want it, they do, and they seem will to do: the society we've read and watched about in sci-fi dystopias. (Well, maybe the fate of developing and underdeveloped countries, those of the third and fourth worlds, will be different; maybe they will be "resource bases." Who knows.)
Everything about the future goes through this: the "pandemic" "intensified the digital transformation", they proposed and brought into the collective consciousness, into the fabric of reality "the benefit of digital technologies to solve problems" ("pandemic", in this case); For the "climate crisis" these sweet "personal carbon credits" are being proposed and are already being implemented (social systems for measuring and regulating our "personal carbon footprints" are actively discussed and simply smoothed out the details). And so on. "Digital inclusion" is the main one of the main ones, and every "solution to the problems, the big global challenges" goes through this.
What convinced me that this is the future they want, and that it is planned globally (and that a grandiose manipulation is taking place, precisely for a "new world social order", with the main involvement of the vast majority of alternative media that should be on the side of us, the people who oppose these things), was this, that precisely proclaimed to be the main opponent of this globalist plan are speaking, planning and already very actively doing exactly the same, the same "plan" that they are widely said to oppose.
(To get back to the already annoying of all topic. That's right, I'm a gadfly, I do not deny.
)
So, here's what this very important expert from one of the most important and reputable "experts" centers (which are also actively involved in the development and imposition of the "future") say:
Alexander Chulok, Candidate of Economic Sciences, Director of the HSE Center for Scientific and Technological Forecasting (2021):
"..
A person's digital footprint, read by AI from various sources — from social networks to scientific journals of the first quartile — will become a new resume when applying for a job, at least until progress in bioelectronic interfaces allows you to download knowledge in a couple of minutes, as in the movie "The Matrix".
..
I think the attitude to technology itself will change dramatically in the next 10 years. Generations will be updated, for the new ones — the Internet is not a miracle, and smart watches are not a gadget. It's all already part of their life as a shirt. It is not so important whether it will be embedded in the body or in clothes. Let's look at the history of mankind, it has always experimented. It is difficult to say how inevitable the cyborgization of man is, but his merging with technology is indeed inevitable."
(And this sums up the view around which the entire "expert community" there is consolidated, as well around the world.)
Not that they planned anything, but simply that the "development of technology" implied it (in their opinion, and every other deliberate or unintentional sedative speaker in the media).
That is why, I am convinced, is all the "convergence with technology", the implementation of ideas of inseparability with them and the impossibility of our normal functioning without them, etc., which we witness and are subjected. (And also all these "big global challenges" that we have been facing lately, from "pandemics", through "climate crises", to "wars and conflicts" - they always intensify the realization of what has been planned and stated, by some chance.)
I got a little carried away with the length, sorry for the annoyance.
