Our bodies are basically just meat bags that carry our brains around, and our physical form will ultimately become increasingly irrelevant when we have rectified its limitations. Physical activity certainly has the benefit of prolonging our short lives, provides mental health benefits, and fulfills a need for stimulation, but through electronics and biological enhancement we will eventually be able to dramatically extend our lives, mental health issues will be diagnosed and resolved, and required stimuli will be simulated. Those that forgo interaction with the physical world are preparing themselves for the future, but I'll concede that they'll probably die early with mental health issues before they reach it.
Actually that is not true. Physical activity does benefit you in many ways. Physical activity keeps your body healthy and helps us MEAT BAGS. It is also good for your brain and helps you focus more in study's and daily activity. You will not get headaches often like you would in playing games.
Both are good, and they are not mutually exclusive, but the argument is over which is better. Electronics have more potential than exercise to do the greatest good for the greatest number, to maximize our utility as a species, and to eventually overcome our physical limitations. It greatly depends how electronics are employed: if a life is spent playing video games, it would result in very little (or no) increase in utility; but if one were to spend a lifetime applying technology (an extension of electronics) to the directed pursuit of maximizing the good for all, it would carry the potential to increase overall utility much more than if that person were to spend their life exercising.
Of course you can balance both exercise and electronics, but the question is which is better? If you were to advocate exercise for each individual--heck lets go a step further and mandate daily exercise--you would do a great amount of good. People would be healthier, there would be less mental illness, and we would live longer, richer lives. But I argue that even more good could be done through the appropriate application of technology. If through the directed application of technology we can reduce disease, fight cancer, augment our bodies to rectify their intrinsic deficiencies, and dramatically increase our lifespan, much more good would be done for the world than just running around making our MEAT BAGS sweaty.
Two things can be both be good and one can still be better, for some definition of "better". Arguing which of two things is better requires a way to evaluate the "goodness" of the things, and a context in which the evaluation applies. I'm suggesting that the relative merits of electronics and physical activity can be evaluated by considering their potential to increase overall utility: the ability to satisfy our civilization's needs or wants. And for electronics to be evaluated we have to consider what can be accomplished with their application: playing a video game does not necessarily increase utility, but using technology to contribute to research and development efforts definitely has potential to substantially increase overall utility. I am arguing that there is more potential utility in the application of electronics than there is in the application of physical activity, and therefore the former can be considered "better".
It's hard to say which of two good things is better. In this particular instance, I think an argument can be made for electronics, but honestly it's kind of a weird thing to compare. It was fun though I guess. Thanks.