The phones are smart--we humans, not so much

The addictive nature of smart phones and the degree to which young people are being damaged by social media are everywhere the subject of increasing concern. Canada is one of quite a number of countries now looking to follow Australia's lead in banning or placing significant restrictions on the use of social media by those under 16.

But many are critical of the Australian approach. In a June 10 column, Globe and Mail columnist Marsha Lederman joined the ranks of those claiming it to be ineffective ("Ban social media for young people? Good luck with that"). The Globe published several letters in response to Lederman's column on the subject; the letter that I sent appeared (in slightly edited form) in the June 15 issue:

Cautioning against following Australia’s lead, Marsha Lederman cites a study suggesting that “only about one-quarter of 14- and 15-year-olds have stopped using banned platforms.” Other studies suggest that 61% of young people have not altered their social media routines since the law came into effect a few months ago.

Should we therefore conclude that social media bans for under-16s should be abandoned? Not at all. If one-quarter have stopped using banned platforms, that already constitutes at least a partial success.

When mandatory seat belt use was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, compliance in many jurisdictions remained spotty for some time. In New York State in 1986, two years after the state had made seat belts mandatory, the compliance rate was just 46%. Happily, the state did not conclude that the law was a failure and abandon it. Like other jurisdictions, they kept at it—and now compliance rates everywhere are at 90% or above. Let’s take a similar approach in this case.

An interesting detail of the New York State example is the fact that things did not follow a straight line. In the first year after seat belt use became mandatory more than 50% of drivers followed the new law; it was in the second year that compliance dropped to 46%. And there were more ups and downs before compliance rates reached 90%. (The rate is now 94%.)

A recent issue of The Economist ("Going Old School," May 9th) drew my attention to an October 2025 study of school cell-phone bans in Florida--a study providing further evidence that not everything follows a straight line. David Figlio and colleagues published the results of this study in Eduation Next; in the large school district they studied, which had imposed a "bell-to-bell" ban in school snart phone use, the ban itself was highly effective with no lag (among high school students, daily cellphone visits fell by more than 80 percent after the ban was imposed). What didn't follow a straight line was suspensions imposed against those flouting school rules; suspensions jumped by 25 percent in the year immediately after the ban was imposed--but then returned to pre-ban levels the following year. The study also found that student performance both on reading and on math tests improved after the ban was imposed.

Examples of non-addictive devices.

On the Death of Happy—and on How Humans Treat Non-Human Animals

When the 55-year old Asian elephant who had been named “Happy” was euthanized at the Bronx Zoo last month, her death sparked a wide-ranging conversation about many topics, including whether or not humans are justified in confining other animals in zoos, whether or not humans are justified in killing and eating other animals, and the degree to which non-human animals possess high levels of intelligence. I was one of more than two hundred people who weighed in on the New York Times site, commenting on their May 28 article covering Happy’s death. The article noted that Happy had “passed a mirror self-recognition test, touching an X marked on her head with her trunk while looking in a mirror, making her the first elephant to show such a degree of self-awareness,” and reported that “human infants, apes, and dolphins” had been the only others to have passed the test.) My first comment had to do with that self-recognition test:

It's an interesting and informative article, but in one respect it's out of date in the information it provides: the list of species that have had members who passed the mirror self-recognition test is now considerably longer than reported here. In addition to elephants (Happy and two other elephants to a slightly lower degree), humans; all the great apes; and bottle nose dolphins, the list now includes killer whales; the rhesus macaque monkey; some species of fish; and one species of bird (the Eurasian magpie). It's worth noting that the test (which many have criticized as human centric) has thus far been administered to only a small percentage of non-human animal species.

I also commented in response to “Tom” from Moscow Idaho, who made the point that animals such as “hogs are also highly intelligent. Yet we subject them to such cruelty for a cheaper BLT.” Tom wrote that he is “not a vegetarian” but buys “local meat produced as humanely as possible” and “often” chooses “a plant-based substitute.” He added that he realizes “not everyone has the income to do that,” but urged readers to “remember that cattle, sheep, hogs, and chickens are also smarter than we give them credit for.” The following exchange ensued:

Don LePan: Very good point, Tom; they are indeed much smarter than generally given credit for! Pigs and chickens, for example, have both demonstrated an ability to use mirrors in a variety of ways—and “passed” many other intelligence tests too.

The concept of meat produced "as humanely as possible" is deeply problematic, though. Imagine a species from another world coming to earth and farming humans--killing humans and eating them, and rationalizing it by saying that the humans were treated "as decently as possible" until the time came when they had to be killed and eaten. We can get our protein quite easily from so many plant-based sources now; let's let the animals live. (Healthier for us, and for the planet too!)

And the low-income point? Many forms of a plant-based diet are actually very low priced. Lentils, chick peas, kidney beans, soy beans--these legumes are far less expensive than animal-based sources of protein. Instead of ground beef (or plant-based fake "ground beef"), we can put lentils in our spaghetti sauce, and just leave out the carne in our chili.

“Mattson” (responding to Don LePan): Please beware of the little white lie. Legumes are NOT a good source of high quality protein. They are an incomplete source of amino acids. When legumes and grains are combined, then together the amino acids are complete. (Such as rice and beans). Between Celiac Disease, Soy allergies, and a genetic disease involving beans-please get nutritional counseling if you want to go Vegan.

Don LePan (responding to “Mattson”): It's not quite right to say that legumes are an incomplete source of amino acids. Every legume contains all the nine essential amino acids in at least some quantity--though most legumes contain very little methionine and/or tryptophan. It _is_ right to say that combining legumes with grains (rice, bread, pasta, etc.) results in a complete amino acid profile nutritionally--and it's worth pointing out that one need not worry about combining legumes and grains at every meal; if you consume legumes and grains over the course of the day at whatever meal, that should be fine. The one thing that typically does require a supplement when one adopts a vegan diet is vitamin B12.

Nutritional counselling for any diet is probably a good idea. It's unfortunate that such counselling tends to be recommended far more often for those adopting or considering a plant-based diet than it is for those subsisting on an omnivorous diet, when the health harms from the standard North American omnivorous diets (increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes--the list is a long one) are much, much greater.

Justine Marie, from Queens, NYC (responding to Don LePan): Yes! Vegan since 2007 and thriving. Only wish I'd done it sooner. May Happy rest in peace, now that she is finally free, and may all beings be happy and free from harm.

I was pleased to see that, overall, there were far more people commenting on the inherent cruelty of zoos than there were people commenting in defense of zoos.

P.S. My thanks to Maureen for bringing me up to speed on the nutrition facts front!

Happy the elephant (Wikicommons, Nonhumanrights.org.)