Post by paigewallace on Aug 1, 2011 11:13:54 GMT -5
Nicholas Carr writes an interesting, but debatable take on today’s newest technology and how it’s affecting our research, entertainment, and thinking. More specifically, he focuses on the internet, search engines, and google. In Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid” he explains his opinion on the amount of ease and convenience today’s internet offers us. As I sat down to read the essay fully through I found myself with a feeling of irony towards the end when all I really wanted to do was skim the last few paragraphs.
Carr writes toward the beginning of the essay “Immersing myself in a book or lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and i'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do.” After many years of school, summers of reading, and just these essays the past couple of weeks, I now completely agree with Carr’s theory that the internet has dulled our attention spans. A few weeks ago I was over at my sister’s house visiting. Their internet was down and her husband was doing research. I questioned him, “How are you doing research without the internet?” He laughed and responded “I just do real research.” I was a little bit baffled at first of what he was trying to imply, and now I understand. Our generation is extremely spoiled by the internet. Almost anything I need to learn to do, or have to find out I can simply pull out my smart phone and google it. Although I completely agree with Carr’s theory that today’s media is affecting our thinking, I don’t agree that it’s such a bad thing. With that being said, I do think there is a line to be drawn somewhere.
Although I believe that easier is better, and almost everything today is made is designed to be quicker, more efficient, and require less effort for today’s generation, I believe there is a point where we need to think for ourselves and use our self reliance. Carr brings up an interesting point about mid essay. He analyzes what the future holds for us, or what the creators of such media would hope anyhow. Carr includes in his point a quote from the 2004 interview with Newsweek, “Certainly if you had all the worlds information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” That is where the line must be drawn. If we all had the same brain, with the same information, we would not be human. There would be no inequality in the world, we would be the definition of a socialistic society, not because a leader forced us in one, but simply because we would all have the same thoughts and chances to get the same high dollar pay. It would eliminate self relience, and intelligence. We wouldn’t be people, we would be robots who couldn’t really enjoy anything which would ultimately lead to our demise. The difference would be we wouldn’t have anyone to outsmart us and shut us off like Dave did to Hal. In conclusion, Carr is completely right in his thinking that we have been mentally altered by the media of today. I believe it’s a wonderful thing, but like everything, it should have limits.
Carr writes toward the beginning of the essay “Immersing myself in a book or lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and i'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do.” After many years of school, summers of reading, and just these essays the past couple of weeks, I now completely agree with Carr’s theory that the internet has dulled our attention spans. A few weeks ago I was over at my sister’s house visiting. Their internet was down and her husband was doing research. I questioned him, “How are you doing research without the internet?” He laughed and responded “I just do real research.” I was a little bit baffled at first of what he was trying to imply, and now I understand. Our generation is extremely spoiled by the internet. Almost anything I need to learn to do, or have to find out I can simply pull out my smart phone and google it. Although I completely agree with Carr’s theory that today’s media is affecting our thinking, I don’t agree that it’s such a bad thing. With that being said, I do think there is a line to be drawn somewhere.
Although I believe that easier is better, and almost everything today is made is designed to be quicker, more efficient, and require less effort for today’s generation, I believe there is a point where we need to think for ourselves and use our self reliance. Carr brings up an interesting point about mid essay. He analyzes what the future holds for us, or what the creators of such media would hope anyhow. Carr includes in his point a quote from the 2004 interview with Newsweek, “Certainly if you had all the worlds information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” That is where the line must be drawn. If we all had the same brain, with the same information, we would not be human. There would be no inequality in the world, we would be the definition of a socialistic society, not because a leader forced us in one, but simply because we would all have the same thoughts and chances to get the same high dollar pay. It would eliminate self relience, and intelligence. We wouldn’t be people, we would be robots who couldn’t really enjoy anything which would ultimately lead to our demise. The difference would be we wouldn’t have anyone to outsmart us and shut us off like Dave did to Hal. In conclusion, Carr is completely right in his thinking that we have been mentally altered by the media of today. I believe it’s a wonderful thing, but like everything, it should have limits.