Cashen1

TechnologyvsSociety
Throughoutthehistoryofmankind,wehaveseenmanygreatpeoplecreatemany
impressiveandlifealteringinventionsthathavechangedthefutureofourspeciesforever.The
newestoneoftheseendeavorswasthecreationoftheinternet,andlikeallotherinventions,
althoughtherearemanysupportersofthistechnology,therearealsoalotpeoplewhofearit.
Therearemanypointsthathaveledtotheconstantdebatingoverwhethertheinternetishavinga
positiveornegativeimpactonourcivilization,someoftheseinclude:laziness,hurtingour
brains,changingus,andchangingthepast.Whetherornotyousupportorridiculetheintegration
oftheinternetintoourlives,oneaspectofitthatremains(andmostlikelywillcontinueto
remain)evident,isthateverydayitischanging,andwiththatchange,moreandmore
sociologicalchangescontinuetoformandmanifestthemselvesdeepintothelivesofeveryone
ofuswhomlivesinamodernizedsocietyalthoughthechangesarebothnegativeandpositive,
thechangesthattechnologyhasmadeforthebetter,outwaythenegativeattributesthatithas
castuponus.
Itisnosecretthattheinternetis,andhasbeen,havingamajorimpactoneveryoneliving
inamodern,industrializedcountry.Forthefirsttimeever,billionsofpeoplenowhaveaccessto
anendlessamountofinformationandresourcesthatgiveallofustheabilityandthepowertobe
themostinformedhumansocietyever.Thistechnologicalboomhassetusapartfromevery
othercivilizationofhumansbeforeus.Nolongerdowehavetospendhours,ifnotdays,just
tryingtolocateanarticleortwoaboutasubject.Now,thankstoaneasilyaccessibletool,
billionsofpeoplenotonlyhaveaccesstomassiveamountsofinformationthatbeforethe
internet,wouldhavebeenimpossible,butnowtheyalsohaveitfasterthanwaseverbefore

Cashen2

imaginable.However,asNicholasCarr,anAmericanwriterwhoiswellknownforhisnegative
viewoftechnology,statedinhisargumentativeessay,entitled"IsGoogleMakingUsStupid?",
"OnceIwasascubadiverintheseaofwords.NowIzipalongthesurfacelikeaguyonajet
ski"(Pg371).Carrisastrongbelieverthattechnology(namelyGoogle)isloweringhuman
intelligence,andhesupportshisclaimbyemphasizingtheamountinwhichhisreadingcapacity
hasdecayedsincetheinternetwasintroduced.Nolongerarepeople,withaccesstotechnological
advancementsinthe21stcentury,forcedtosiftthroughlongarticlesinhopesofdiscovering
somethingwithrelevancetowhattheyhopedtofind.Now...thenetisbecomingaUniversal
medium,theconduitforalloftheinformationthatflowsthrough[our]eyesandearsandinto
[our]mind(Carr,371),Althoughtheremaybetruthinhisstatementthathenolongercan
spendhoursreadingandanalyzinglengthyarticles,andthatnowThedeepreadingthatusedto
comenaturallyhasbecomeastruggle.(Carr,371),asRobertAcklund,aprofessoratAustralian
NationalUniversity,pointedoutinthePewResearchCentersresponsetoNicholasCarr,My
abilitytodomentalarithmeticisworsethanmygrandfathersbecauseIgrewupinanerawith
pervasivecalculators.IamnotstupidcomparedtomyGrandfather,butIbelievethe
developmentofmybrainhasbeenchangedbytheavailabilityoftechnology.(Pg381).
AcklundsdefenseagainstCarrsstatementis,simplyput,thathedoesnotbelievethatjust
becausethewaywelearnandthewaywethinkhaschanged,thatweareanylessintelligent.
Actually,healongwithmanyothers,believesjusttheopposite.Thatthankstotechnology,we
arenowbecomingmoreintelligent,andalthoughthewaywethinkandthewaywelearnmay
havechanged,thatdoesntnecessarilymakeusstupid.Basedaroundhisentirearticle,if
NicholasCarrwouldhavebeengiventhechancetodefendhimselfagainstAcklund,thenhis

Cashen3

statementwouldhavebeenbasedaroundtheideathatthistechnologicalchangeisntas
simplisticasthecalculator,andthatnowhumansarebecomingmentallylazyasaresultofit.
ThisimagineddefenseisderivedfromCarrsdiscussionofSocratesandhisnegative
feelingstowardsthedevelopmentofacomplicatedwritingsystem.WhilediscussingSocrates
shortcomings,headmitsthathisnegativeviewoftechnologymayverywellbeparalleltothatof
Socrates,andthatjustasSocrates...couldntforseethemanywaysthatwritingandreading
wouldservetospreadinformation,spurfreshideas,andexpandonhumanknowledge(ifnot
wisdom)(Pg376)hemayverywellbeblindtothefuturisticaspirationsthattechnologywill
eventuallycoathumanitywith.IsmaelPenaLopez,alectureratUniversitatObertadeCatalunya
andanotherquotedsourceinThePewResearchCentersdefenseagainstCarr,easilydefends
againstCarrsideathattheinternetiscausinghumanitytobecomementallylazy,whenhestates
thatThestoryofHumankindisthatofaworksubstitutionandhumanenhancement.The
Neolithicrevolutionbroughtthesubstitutionofsomehumanphysicalworkbyanimalwork.The
industrialrevolutionbroughtmoresubstitutionofhumanphysicalworkbymachinework.The
digitalrevolutionisimplyingasignificantsubstitutionofhumanbrainworkbycomputersand
ICTsingeneral.(Pg182).PenaLopezmakesthesimple,butelegant,defensethatchangeisan
unavoidableaspectofhumanworkandaschangehappensandadvances,theentiretyofhuman
lifeisinevitablychanged.Laterhewouldgoontowrite:....Asobesitymightbethesideeffect
ofphysicalworksubstitutionbymachines,mentallazinesscanbecomethewatermarkofmental
worksubstitutionbycomputers,thushavinganegativeeffectinsteadofapositiveone.(Pg
182).AlthoughthismaysoundasifhewasdefendingCarr,PenaLopezactuallyisimplyingthat
mentallaziness,likeobesity,iscausedbytheindividualwhoisbeinglazy,notthetechnology.

Cashen4

Timesandtechnologymayhavechanged,butaccordingtoPenaLopezandmanyothers,their
effectsonhumanbraincapacityisadirectresultoftheactionsofthepeopleusingit,becauseif
themostwellintentionedprofessorcannoteducatethosewhorefusetobeeducated.(Reeves,
ThomasPg347)thanneithercantheinternet.
WhilediscussingTechnologyandSociety,oneaspectofthedebateisalwaysbased
aroundindividualideasofwhatitisactuallydoingtoourabilitytothinkandanalyze.Clearly,
Carrbelievesthatlearningisthesimplisticabilityofahumantobeabletoknowfactsand
analyzedocuments,butheneverdiscusseswhatexactlylearningis,anywhereelseinhispaper.
ThePewResearchCenter,likenearlyeverythingelseintheirpaper,taketheoppositestanceas
Carrandseelearningastheabilitytoquicklyunderstandandsolveproblems.Thehumanbrain
istooabstractandindividualistictotryandanalyzeorgeneralizeitintoastatementbasedaround
technologychangingthehumanbrainasawhole,butyetmanypeoplearetrying.NicholasCarr
wasquotedbyThePewResearchCenterexpressinghisconcernthatThepriceofzipping
aroundlotsofbitsofinformationisalossofdepthinourthinking"(Pg379).Carrbelievesthat
technologyisdirectlytoblameforhislossinintellectualreading,andalthoughhemayhavea
pointthattechnologyhaschangedhiswayofthinking,heseemstolackthenotionthathedoes
notrepresentallofhumanity.ThePewResourceCenterdirectlydefendsagainstCarrs
statement,writing:Theresourcesoftheinternetandsearchengineswillshiftcognitive
capacities.Wewonthavetorememberasmuch,butwellhavetothinkharderandhavebetter
criticalthinkingandanalyticalskills.Lesstimedevotedtomemorizationgivespeoplemoretime
tomasterthosenewskills.(Pg379).Clearly,ThePewResourceCenterhasanunderlyingfavor
supportingtheideathattechnologyisntsomuchamachinethatistakingoverourlivesand

Cashen5

changingourbraincognition,butismoresoamachineinwhicheachandeveryindividualusing
itgivesittheamountofpowerthatithas.Theydonotnecessarilydenythatthebrainisgoing
throughsomesortofchangebecauseoftechnology,buttheybelievethatthechangeinwhichwe
areexperiencing,isadirectresultofourownbehavior.Goingoffofthisideaofanisolated
technologywhosepowerisentirelybasedoffofthehumancontrollingit,thereisoneaspectof
technologythatalthoughmayhaveflawsdeepwithinit,isstillremarkablyuniquecomparedto
anyotherintellectualdevicesortoolsthathumanityhaseverseenbefore.Thisisthebasicand
simplisticfactthattechnologygiveseveryonethatitreaches,accesstomoreinformationthan
theycouldevenbegintoprocessinalifetime.Highereducationisveryexpensive,taxingthe
resourcesofthealreadyovertaxed,middleclassfamily(Pg344),statesW.J.Reeves,an
EnglishprofessoratBrooklynCollege,CityUniversityofNewYork.Althoughthereis,
unfortunately,agrowingexpectancyofcollegeeducationfromemployers,whenitcomesto
simplylearninginformation,theinternetisanincrediblesubstitutionforthetraditionalcollege.
Now,clearlythiswouldnotbethecaseforeveryone,becauseasThomasReeves(nottobe
confusedwithW.J.Reeves),awellpublishedhistorian,discusses:Antiintellectualismisthe
GreatEnemyoftheeducator,andwithaclassroomfullofpeoplewhodonotread,study,or
think,academicstandardsinevitablysuffer(Pg346).Whenitcomestotheinternet,itisall
abouttheeffortthatyouputinthepotentialforknowledgeisendless.Theinternetisnta
magicaldevicethatisgoingtoinstantlymakehumanitysmarter,butismoresoahelpinghand
forthosewhowanttodiscoverandexpandtheirevergrowingknowledgequickerthantheyever
couldhavebefore.StephenDownes,adesignerandcommentatorinthefieldsofonlinelearning
andnewmedia,furthersupportsthisconcept,whilststillpointingoutthathehasblindedhimself

Cashen6

toafewkeyaspectsofthedebate.HestatesItsamistaketotreatintelligenceasan
undifferentiatedwhole.Nodoubtwewillbecomeworseatdoingsomethings(morestupid)
requiringrotememoryofinformationthatisnowavailablethroughGoogle.Butwiththis
capacityfreed,wemay(andprobablywill)becapableofmoreadvancedintegrationand
evaluationofinformation(moreintelligent).(Pg380).AlthoughhebelievesthatCarrmakesa
validpointwhendiscussingthechangeinhumancapacitytobeabletoanalyzelongeducational
articles,hemoresoseemstobeconvincedthatCarriswrongabouthowitischangingit.
Carrseesonlyonesideofthechangewearegoingthrough,thelossofbookhabits.But,
forusoverourthousandsofyearsoflearning,thebookistheanomaly,nottheWeb.The
bookledustothinkthatonepersoncouldwriteapermanentcompilationoftruth.Books
livedonovertheyears.separatedfromtheirauthors,asinglevoice,implyingthat
knowledgeisathingoracommodity,creatingthelegalfictionthatonepersonowned
theideasinabookasthoughtheauthorhadgrownupinisolationfromallotherhumans
andalltheideashadsprung,fullyformed,fromhisorherbrain.(Batson,388).
BatsonisthetheDirectoroftheAssociationforAuthentic,Experiential,andEvidenceBased
Learning,andhealongwithmanyotherpeople,seetechnologyasatool,andunderstandthatit
isuptotheindividualtocorrectlyuseit.Humansmustmanipulateandusethistechnologyasa
tool,andnotallow(asCarrclearlyhas)thetechnologytochangeusinanegativemanner.
Lastly,althoughtechnologyhasbeenevolvingforquitealongtimenow,theinternetis
stillafairlynewtoolthatweashumanshaveunlimitedaccessto.Itisclearthattheinternetis
havinganimpactonbillionsofpeopleslives,butexactlywhatitisdoingandwhatitwilldoin
thefutureisstillextremelyunclear.NicholasCarrseemstothinkthatthisisjustthebeginningof

Cashen7

thefuture,andalthoughalmosteveryonewillagreewithhimthere,hisideaaboutwhatthe
futurewilllooklikeandhowitwillaffecthumanity,isquitecontroversialandunacceptedby
many.Hestatesthat...aswecometorelyoncomputerstomediateourunderstandingofthe
world,itisourownintelligencethatflattensintoartificialintelligence.(Pg377).Althoughthis
mayseemextreme,itmaynotbetoofarfetched,becauseasSergeyBrinandLarryPage(the
foundersofGoogle)stated,Certainlyifyouhadalltheworldsinformationdirectlyattachedto
yourbrain,oranartificialbrainthatwassmarterthanyourbrain,thanyoudbebetteroff.(Pg
375).WhilediscussingGooglesfuture,PagealsostatesthatGoogleis...reallytryingtobuild
anartificialintelligenceandtodoitonalargescale(Pg375).ThesequotesshowthatCarrs
concernforhumanintelligencetobecomeartificialmaybereal,sinceGoogle(oneofthemost
influentialcompaniesofthe21stcentury)isconstantlyworkingtodevelopthistechnology,it
mayverywellbearealityinthenearfuture.However,itisalsoclearthatnoteveryoneagrees
aboutwhataffectartificialintelligencewillactuallyhaveonhumanity.ThefoundersofGoogle
clearlythinkthatartificialintelligentwillbenefithumanityasawhole,andalthoughthereare
manypeoplewhoagreewiththem,therearealsopeoplewhobelievetheopposite.AsTrent
Batsonsaid:Itiseasytocriticizeanewtechnologyitismuchhardertounderstandhowthe
newtechnologycanhelpcreatenewabilitiesinhumans(Pg388).Whateverthecasemaybe,
wearestillalongwayawayfromhavinganysortofartificialintelligencelinkeddirectlytoour
brain,andeventhoughmanypeopletryandpredictthefuture,itsimpossibletoknowforsure
whatitwillhold,especiallywhenweallcantevenagreeandaccuratelyassesswhattechnology
hasdonetoourbrainsthusfar.

Cashen8

Itisnosecretthattechnologyhaschangedhumanlife,andnowwiththecreationofthe
internet,ithasdonesoatsucharapidratethatnoonereallyknowswhatishappeningtothe
humanbrain.Therearemanypeoplewhobelievethattheefficiencyinwhichtheinternet
provides,makesupforthefactthatitmaylowerourabilitytoreadthroughlongeducation
documents.However,therearealsopeoplewhobelievethatitistherootofallevil.Andlastly,
therearethosewhoseetheinternetasatool,andblameanynegativerepercussionsofthis
technologyoneachandeveryindividualusingit.Whetheryouareasupporterofthepast,have
analyzedthepresent,ortriedtopredictthefuture,onethingthatiscertainisthatifyouare
readingthis,thenyouhavebeendirectlyaffectedbytechnologyinsomeway.

Cashen9

WorkCited:

Batson,TrentResponsetoNicholasCarrsIsGoogleMakingUsStupid?IsTechnology
MakingUsStupid?MMCC
MMCC.Mt.Pleasant.MMCC,2014.397388.

Carr,NicholasIsGoogleMakingUsStupidIsTechnologyMakingUsStupid.MMCC
MMCC.Mt.Pleasant.MMCC,2014.370377.

J.W.ReevesCollegeIsntForEveryoneWhatandWhoIsCollegeFor?MMCC
MMCC.Mt.Pleasant.MMCC,2014.341345.

PewResearchCenter"DoesGoogleMakeUsStupid?"IsTechnologyMakingUsStupid?
MMCC
MMCC.Mt.Pleasant.MMCC,2014.377386.

Reeves,ThomasCollegeisntforEverybody,andItsaScandalthatWeThinkItIsWhatand
WhoIsCollegeFor?MMCC
MMCC.Mt.Pleasant.MMCC,2014.346347.