Cashen1

TechnologyvsSociety
Throughoutthehistoryofmankind,wehaveseenmanygreatpeoplecreatemany
impressiveandlifealteringinventionsthathavechangedthefutureofourspeciesforever.The
newestoneoftheseendeavorswasthecreationoftheinternet,andlikeallotherinventions,
althoughtherearemanysupportersofthistechnology,therearealsomanypeoplewhofearit.
Therearemanypointsthathaveledtotheconstantdebatingoverwhethertechnologyishavinga
positiveornegativeimpactonourcivilization,someoftheseinclude:laziness,hurtingour
brains,changingus,andchangingthepast.Whetherornotyousupportorridiculetheintegration
oftechnologyintoourlives,oneaspectofitthatremains(andmostlikelywillcontinueto
remain)evident,isthateverydayitischanging,andwiththatchange,moreandmore
sociologicalchangescontinuetoformandmanifestthemselvesdeepintothelivesofeveryone
ofuswhomlivesinamodernizedsociety.
AmIsupposedtobechoosingaside?Itsclearthroughouttherestofthepaperthatmy
viewsaresupportingtheintegrationandexpansionoftechnology,butIthoughtthatwe
werejustsupposedtobediscussingatopicandusingourvoice(alongwithmultiple
sources)todiscussthetopic.IfeelthatifIamtochooseasideinmythesis,itwill
completelychangetheideaofthepaper,andmakethisseemmorelikeanargumentative
essay.
Itisnosecretthattechnologyis,andhasbeen,havingamajorimpactoneveryoneliving
inamodern,industrializedcountry.Forthefirsttimeever,billionsofpeoplenowhaveaccessto
anendlessamountofinformationandresourcesthatgiveallofustheabilityandthepowertobe
themostinformedhumansocietyever.Thistechnologicalboomhassetusapartfromevery

Cashen2

othercivilizationofhumansbeforeus,becausenolongerdowehavetospendhours,ifnotdays,
justtryingtolocateanarticleortwoaboutasubject.Now,thankstoaneasilyaccessibletool,
billionsofpeoplenotonlyhaveaccesstomassiveamountsofinformationthatbeforethe
internet,wouldhavebeenimpossible,butnowtheyalsohaveitfasterthanwaseverbefore
imaginable.However,asNicholasCarr,anAmericanwriterwhoiswellknownforhisnegative
viewoftechnology,statedinhisargumentativeessay,entitled"IsGoogleMakingUsStupid?",
"OnceIwasascubadiverintheseaofwords.NowIzipalongthesurfacelikeaguyonajet
ski."(Pg371).Carrisastrongbelieverthattechnology(namelyGoogle)isloweringhuman
intelligence,andhesupportshisclaimbyemphasizingtheamountinwhichhisreadingcapacity
haschangedsincetheinternetwasintroduced.Nolongerarepeoplewithaccesstotechnological
advancementsinthe21stcentury,forcedtosiftthroughlongarticlesinhopesofdiscovering
somethingwithrelevancetowhattheyhopedtofind.Now...thenetisbecomingaUniversal
medium,theconduitforalloftheinformationthatflowsthrough[our]eyesandearsandinto
[our]mind(Carr,371),Althoughtheremaybetruthinhisstatementthathenolongercan
spendhoursreadingandanalyzinglengthyarticles,andthatnowThedeepreadingthatusedto
comenaturallyhasbecomecomeastruggle.(Carr,371),asRobertAcklund,aprofessorat
AustralianNationalUniversity,pointedoutinthePewResearchCentersresponsetoNicholas
Carr,MyabilitytodomentalarithmeticisworsethanmygrandfathersbecauseIgrewupinan
erawithpervasivecalculators.IamnotstupidcomparedtomyGrandfather,butIbelievethe
developmentofmybrainhasbeenchangedbytheavailabilityoftechnology.(Pg381).
AcklundsdefenseagainstCarrsstatementissimplyputthathedoesnotbelievethatjust
becausethewaywelearnandthewaywethinkhaschanged,thatweareanylessintelligent.

Cashen3

Actually,healongwithmanyothers,believesjusttheopposite.Thatthankstotechnology,we
arenowbecomingmoreintelligent,andalthoughthewaywethinkandthewaywelearnmay
havechanged,thatdoesntnecessarilymakeusstupid.Basedaroundhisentirearticle,if
NicholasCarrwouldhavebeengiventhechancetodefendhimselfagainstAcklund,thenhis
statementwouldhavebeenbasedaroundtheideathatthistechnologicalchangeisntas
simplisticasthecalculator,andthatnowhumansarebecomingmentallylazyasaresultofit.
ThisimagineddefenseisderivedfromCarrsdiscussionofSocratesandhisnegativefeelings
towardsthedevelopmentofacomplicatedwritingsystem.WhilediscussingSocrates
shortcomings,headmitsthathisnegativeviewoftechnologymayverywellbeparalleltothatof
Socrates,andthatjustasSocrates...couldntseeforseethemanywaysthatwritingandreading
wouldservetospreadinformation,spurfreshideas,andexpandonhumanknowledge(ifnot
wisdom)(Pg376)hemayverywellbeblindtothefuturisticaspirationsthattechnologywill
eventuallycoathumanitywith.IsmaelPenaLopez,alectureratUniversitatObertadeCatalunya
andanotherquotedsourceinThePewResearchCentersdefenseagainstCarr,easilydefends
againstCarrspointlaterinthearticlewhenhestatesThestoryofHumankindisthatofawork
substitutionandhumanenhancement.TheNeolithicrevolutionbroughtthesubstitutionofsome
humanphysicalworkbyanimalwork.Theindustrialrevolutionbroughtmoresubstitutionof
humanphysicalworkbymachinework.Thedigitalrevolutionisimplyingasignificant
substitutionofhumanbrainworkbycomputersandICTsingeneral.(Pg182).PenaLopez
makesthesimple,butelegantdefense,thatchangeisanunavoidableaspectofhumanworkand
aschangehappensandadvances,theentiretyofhumanlifeisinevitablychanged.Laterhe
wouldgoontowrite:....Asobesitymightbethesideeffectofphysicalworksubstitutionby

Cashen4

machines,mentallazinesscanbecomethewatermarkofmentalworksubstitutionbycomputers,
thushavinganegativeeffectinsteadofapositiveone.(Pg182).Althoughthismaysoundasif
hewasdefendingCarr,PenaLopezactuallyisimplyingthatmentallaziness,likeobesity,is
causedbytheindividualwhoisbeinglazy,notthetechnology.Timesandtechnologymayhave
changed,butaccordingtoPenaLopezandmanyothers,theireffectsonhumanbraincapacityis
adirectresultoftheactionsofthepeopleusingit.
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

Cashen5

tomasterthosenewskills.(Pg379).Clearly,ThePewResourceCenterhasanunderlyingfavor
supportingtheideathattechnologyisntsomuchamachinethatistakingoverourlivesand
changingourbraincognition,butismoresoamachineinwhicheachandeveryindividualusing
itgivesittheamountofpowerthatithas.Goingoffofthisideaofanisolatedtechnologywhose
powerisentirelybasedoffofthehumancontrollingit,thereisoneaspectoftechnologythat
althoughmayhaveflawsdeepwithinit,isstillremarkablyuniquecomparedtoanyother
intellectualdevicesortoolsthathumanityhaseverseenbefore.Thisisthebasicandsimplistic
factthattechnologygiveseveryonethatitreachesaccesstomoreinformationthantheycould
evenbegintoprocessinalifetime.Highereducationisveryexpensive,taxingtheresourcesof
thealreadyovertaxed,middleclassfamily(Pg344),statesW.J.Reeves,anEnglishprofessor
atBrooklynCollege,CityUniversityofNewYork.Althoughthereis,unfortunately,agrowing
expectancyofcollegeeducationfromemployers,whenitcomestosimplylearninginformation,
theinternetisanincrediblesubstitutionforthetraditionalcollege.Now,clearlythiswouldnot
bethecaseforeveryone,becauseasThomasReeves(nottobeconfusedwithW.J.Reeves),a
wellpublishedhistorian,discusses:AntiintellectualismistheGreatEnemyoftheeducator,
andwithaclassroomforofpeoplewhodonotread,study,orthink,academicstandards
inevitablysuffer(Pg346).Whenitcomestotheinternet,itisallabouttheeffortthatyouput
inthepotentialforknowledgeisendless.StephenDownes,adesignerandcommentatorinthe
fieldsofonlinelearningandnewmedia,furthersupportsthisconcept,whilststillpointingout
thathehasblindedhimselftoafewkeyaspectsofthedebate.HestatesItsamistaketotreat
intelligenceasanundifferentiatedwhole.Nodoubtwewillbecomeworseatdoingsomethings
(morestupid)requiringrotememoryofinformationthatisnowavailablethroughGoogle.But

Cashen6

withthiscapacityfreed,wemay(andprobablywill)becapableofmoreadvancedintegration
andevaluationofinformation(moreintelligent).(Pg380).AlthoughhebelievesthatCarr
makesavalidpointwhendiscussingthechangeinhumancapacitytobeabletoanalyzelong
educationalarticles,hemoresoseemstobeconvincedthatCarriswrongabouthowitis
changingit.
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,andhimalongwithmanyotherpeople,seetechnologyasthetoolthatitis,and
understandthatitisuptotheindividualtocorrectlyuseit.Humansmustmanipulateandusethis
technologyasatool,andnotallow(asCarrclearlyhas)thetechnologytochangeusina
negativemanner.
Lastly,althoughtechnologyhasbeenevolvingforquitealongtimenow,theinternetis
stillafairlynewtoolthatweashumanshaveunlimitedaccessto.Itisclearthattheinternetis
havinganimpactonbillionsofpeopleslives,butexactlywhatitisdoingandwhatitwilldoin
thefutureisstillextremelyunclear.NicholasCarrseemstothinkthatthisisjustthebeginningof
thefuture,andalthoughalmosteveryonewillagreewithhimthere,hisideaaboutwhatthe

Cashen7

futurewilllooklikeandhowitwillaffecthumanity,isquitecontroversialandunacceptedby
many.Hestatesthat...aswecometorelyoncomputerstomediateourunderstandingofthe
world,itisourownintelligencethatflattensintoartificialintelligence.(Pg377).Althoughthis
mayseemextreme,itmaynotbetoofarfetched,becauseasSergeyBrinandLarryPage(the
foundersofGoogle)statedCertainlyifyouhadalltheworldsinformationdirectlyattachedto
yourbrain,oranartificialbrainthatwassmarterthanyourbrain,thanyoudbebetteroff.(Pg
375).WhilediscussingGooglesfuture,PagealsostatesthatGoogleis...reallytryingtobuild
anartificialintelligenceandtodoitonalargescale(Pg375).ThesequotesshowthatCarrs
concernforhumanintelligencetobecomeartificial,maybereal,sinceGoogle(oneofthemost
influentialcompaniesofthe21stcentury)isconstantlyworkingtodevelopthistechnology,it
mayverywellbearealitywithinthenearfuture.However,itisalsoclearthatnoteveryone
agreesaboutwhateffectartificialintelligencewillactuallyhaveonhumanity.Thefoundersof
Googleclearlythinkthatartificialintelligentwillbenefithumanityasawhole,andalthough
therearemanypeoplewhoagreewiththem,therearealsopeoplewhobelievetheopposite.
Whateverthecasemaybe,wearestillalongwayawayfromhavinganysortofartificial
intelligencelinkeddirectlytoourbrain,andeventhoughmanypeopletryandpredictthefuture,
itsimpossibletoknowforsurewhatitwillhold,especiallywhenweallcantevenagreeand
accuratelyassesswhattechnologyhasdonetoourbrainsthusfar.
Itisnosecretthattechnologyhaschangedhumanlife,andnowwiththeinternet,ithas
donesoatsucharapidratethatnoonereallyknowswhatishappeningtothehumanbrain.
Therearemanypeoplewhobelievethattheefficiencyinwhichtheinternetprovides,makesup
forthefactthatitmaylowerourabilitytoreadthroughlongeducationdocuments.However,

Cashen8

therearealsopeoplewhobelievethatitistherootofallevil.Andlast,therearethosewhosee
technologyforthetoolthatitis,andblameanynegativerepercussionsoftechnologyoneach
andeveryindividualusingit.Whetheryouareasupporterofthepast,haveanalyzedthepresent,
ortriedtopredictthefuture,theonethingthatiscertainisthatifyouarereadingthis,thenyou
havebeendirectlyaffectedbytechnologyinsomeway.

Cashen9

WorkCited:

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

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

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

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

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