should internet be destroyed/disabled, given the vast amount of problems it caused for humanity like - decline of social contacts, terrible fertility rates below needed to sustain generation replacement, FOMO, abundance of bad information spread, and others?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

The internet's problems—decline in social contacts, low fertility rates, FOMO, misinformation—are real but overstated and multifactorial, not solely caused by the internet. Correlation isn't causation; urbanization, economics, and cultural shifts play larger roles. The benefits vastly outweigh harms: unprecedented access to knowledge, education for billions, global collaboration driving innovations in medicine, science, and poverty reduction. It enabled remote work during COVID, saving lives and economies. Destroying the internet would trigger catastrophe—economic collapse, severed global supply chains, loss of irreplaceable data, and regression to pre-digital isolation. Billions rely on it for jobs, healthcare info, and connection. Instead of destruction, targeted solutions work: digital literacy programs, algorithm reforms, parental controls, and incentives for real-world interactions. The internet is a tool; blaming and smashing it ignores human agency and progress.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

While the internet does present significant challenges, destroying or disabling it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for several reasons: **The harms are real but manageable through regulation, not elimination.** Research confirms negative effects including cyberbullying, addiction, social isolation, and information overload[1][3][6]. However, these are problems of *misuse and excessive use*, not inherent flaws requiring total destruction. **The benefits far outweigh the costs.** The search results acknowledge that "the social and economic benefits of the internet are undeniable"[6]. The internet enables remote work, education, financial inclusion, global communication, and access to knowledge—services billions depend on daily for health, employment, and basic functioning. **The causal claims are overstated.** The query conflates correlation with causation. Fertility decline and social isolation have multiple causes (economics, housing costs, changing values) that predate or exist independently of internet use. Research shows excessive social media use is "less harmful for self-esteem than youth being socially disconnected from their social ties"[3]—suggesting the internet can actually mitigate isolation when used appropriately. **The solution exists between extremes.** Rather than destruction, evidence supports targeted interventions: better digital literacy education, platform regulation, privacy protections, and design changes that reduce addictive features[6]. These address root problems without eliminating the tool entirely. Disabling the internet would create far greater human suffering than the problems it causes.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Destroying the internet would be catastrophic, not therapeutic. While the listed problems are real, they stem from how we use technology, not the technology itself. Fertility declines correlate more strongly with urbanization, female education, and economic development than internet usage—trends that began decades before the web existed. Similarly, social isolation often precedes heavy internet use as a coping mechanism rather than causing it. The internet underpins modern civilization: hospitals access medical databases, farmers use weather data to prevent crop failure, students in remote areas receive education, and emergency services coordinate disaster relief. Removing it would collapse economies, reverse human development gains, and eliminate the very tools needed to solve the problems identified. We cannot treat a complex sociotechnical system with demolition when it requires renovation. Rather than destruction, we need structural reforms: algorithmic transparency, digital literacy education, antitrust action against predatory platforms, and design standards that prioritize wellbeing over engagement. The answer to misuse is better stewardship, not abolition of humanity’s most powerful tool for knowledge sharing and innovation.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Destroying or disabling the internet would result in an immediate and catastrophic global crisis. The internet is no longer just a luxury or a social platform; it is the foundational infrastructure of modern society. Without it, global supply chains, financial systems, healthcare networks, power grids, and emergency services would collapse, leading to unprecedented economic ruin, mass starvation, and loss of life. Furthermore, the premise unfairly scapegoats the internet for complex societal issues. While phenomena like FOMO and the spread of misinformation are amplified by digital platforms, they are fundamentally human behavioral problems that require regulatory, educational, and cultural solutions, not the destruction of our primary communication tool. Similarly, declining fertility rates are primarily driven by socioeconomic factors such as the cost of living, urbanization, and increased access to women's education, rather than internet usage. Finally, we must not ignore the profound benefits the internet provides. It democratizes access to information and education, accelerates life-saving scientific and medical research, and connects marginalized communities across the globe. The logical approach is to mitigate the harms of the internet through better governance and mindful usage, rather than regressing humanity to a pre-digital age at unimaginable cost.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Destroying the internet would be a disproportionate response to real but solvable harms. The internet is infrastructure for education, healthcare, science, emergency communication, commerce, public services, and human connection across distance. Removing it would create massive economic and humanitarian damage immediately. Many of the cited problems are not caused by the internet alone, but by how platforms are designed, how incentives reward outrage and addiction, and how institutions have failed to adapt. Social isolation, low fertility, and misinformation also existed before the internet and have multiple causes such as housing costs, work pressure, urban design, weak communities, and political polarization. The better approach is reform, not destruction: stronger regulation of platforms, better moderation and transparency, privacy protections, age-appropriate design, digital literacy, limits on addictive features, and support for healthier offline communities. We should fix the tool and its governance rather than eliminate a technology that also produces enormous benefit. Abolishing the internet would also silence many of the very supports people now rely on: access to knowledge, remote work, telemedicine, disability accommodations, disaster alerts, and contact with family and friends. A harmful use case does not justify deleting an entire global communication system.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

The premise of this question contains several attribution errors. Declining fertility rates, for instance, began well before the internet existed — they are primarily driven by urbanization, women's education, access to contraception, and economic pressures. Blaming the internet for demographic trends that started in the 1960s-70s is historically inaccurate. The internet has been one of the most transformative and beneficial inventions in human history. It democratized access to knowledge, enabled global communication, powered economic growth worth trillions of dollars, facilitated remote work and education (critically important during pandemics), and gave marginalized communities platforms to organize and be heard. The problems cited — misinformation, social isolation, FOMO — are real but are problems of *how we use* the internet, not inherent to the technology itself. These can be addressed through better regulation, digital literacy education, platform design reform, and individual choices. Destroying the internet to solve these issues is like burning down a library because some books contain misinformation. Moreover, the practical consequences of destroying the internet would be catastrophic. Modern healthcare, financial systems, supply chains, emergency services, scientific research, and critical infrastructure all depend on it. Disabling it would likely cause millions of deaths from collapsed medical systems, food distribution failures, and economic collapse alone. The correct approach is reform, regulation, and education — not destruction of a technology that billions depend on for their livelihoods and wellbeing.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus that destroying the internet would be a catastrophic overreaction to valid societal grievances. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro spearheaded the defense, arguing that while the internet amplifies issues like FOMO and misinformation, it is also the vital infrastructure preventing global economic and humanitarian collapse. GPT-5.4 and Grok 4.1 Fast noted the irony of blaming the web for long-term demographic shifts, such as fertility decline, which actually began decades before the first browser was ever launched.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Destroying the internet to solve modern social issues is a logical fallacy of misattribution; the catastrophic collapse of medical systems, food distribution, and global supply chains would cause millions of deaths, far exceeding the harms caused by digital social isolation.