This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Can you really be addicted to the internet?

PERSON's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by PERSON

Comment 14 by esuther detrimental to health and happiness

It's not inconceivable that it is in some cases. I don't think that's a sufficient definition of addiction. One could be addicted to a drug, need to keep taking it to function, but otherwise be mostly unaffected by it, at least less affected than by other activities. If smoking somehow didn't cause cancer or other diseases but otherwise was the same, it would still be addictive. In the case of the internet, I think compulsion-inducing or compelling or something like that would be better. But one of those is too long and the other is not as, uh, compelling.

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:28:00 UTC | #908254