The Shallows Analysis

Society is changing. This is not a statement of opinion or a theory, it is simple fact. Not only is society changing, but it always has been and always will be. There have been many points of contention through the ages about this particular fact, the largest of which being the question “Is it changing for the better?” This is a question Nicholas Carr attempts to address and answer in his book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. The book is more specifically about the implications of the internet and its ever growing importance in our world. Carr argues that the internet is hurting society as a whole, and his viewpoint is best summed up by the following quote: “The price we pay to assume technology’s power is alienation.
The most important and easily pointed out flaw in Carr’s writing is the somewhat cherry-picked evidence he cites constantly throughout his writing. This particular tactic is best summed up by Jonah Lehrer from the New York Times. “There is little doubt that the Internet is changing our brain. Everything changes our brain. What Carr neglects to mention, however, is that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that the Internet and related technologies are actually good for the mind. For instance, a comprehensive 2009 review of studies published on the cognitive effects of video games found that gaming led to significant improvements in performance on various cognitive tasks, from visual perception to sustained attention.” Lehrer pokes additional holes in Carr’s argument, citing a 2009 University of California, Los Angeles neuroscience study that seems to indicate that Google searches actually increase the activity in certain parts of the brain known to control selective attention and deliberate analysis when compared to text such as books. It’s hard to say whether or not Lehrer’s article is giving a fair view of Carr’s book, as the evidence appears to be fairly entrenched in the opposite camp. The issue lies with the fact that Carr has been fairly selective with the research he does cite, as he ignores any major scientific
Even if we should, or wanted to, the internet has progressed to such a point that society cannot hope to stop it now. Carr himself admits that he has regressed to his former internet-browsing, email-checking ways. If the main advocate against this kind of lifestyle can’t even practice what he preaches, is there a point to complaining about something we can’t hope to change? If Carr intended The Shallows to be a poignant send-off to our former ways, a swan song for humanity’s love of books and quiet, personal learning, it was far too long and passionately defended. Carr longs for a reality that simply cannot be, and seems to live in one that doesn’t exist. Carr assumes that we will soon reach an apocalyptic future in which people are so heavily molded by the internet, which seems to indicate that Carr has forgotten about the activities people do outside of their computers. New technologies introduced into the world do not necessarily remove all other forms of human interaction with their world, and humanity is almost sure to maintain a healthy connection with facets of life other than those stored in the cloud. Humans are an adaptable species, and we have reached a point of no return in regards to the internet. We should dive in head first to the new world that technology has created and do what we were meant to do,