It is important to note that modern life is fully integrated with technology, particularly the internet. Internet users comprise a large portion of the population, and some online service providers are becoming essential for humanity’s daily activities to the extent that company names are being turned into verbs. Such is the case with Google, the largest and most visited website in the world. Nicholas Carr’s piece of Google and the Internet is an example of normal concerns about new technologies, which took place throughout the history of human invention, but they are mostly invalid because humanity is able to adapt to them. However, Nicholas Carr’s statements are invalid because human progress brings more benefits than harms, and information and knowledge accessibility provided by Google outweighs any adaptations people need to do to such a medium, he romanticizes the past, and prospects of progress will bring better solutions.
Romanticizing The Past
One of the main flaws of Carr’s article is the common notion of romanticizing the past in the face of human progress. People are habitual creatures who tend to attach emotional labels to cognitive thoughts and data. It is evident that the author was brought up and raised in the pre-internet era when books and TV were the main sources of information. The emergence of the internet defies his previously held beliefs, emotions, and feelings about the previous sources of information, which forces him to adapt to new realities. However, it should be noted that any period of human history can be romanticized since the positives are not objectively measured against the negatives. For example, one can state that cavemen times were good because humans ate organic meat and plants, people regularly exercised due to hunting or gathering, and their minds were not ‘poisoned’ by media, which allowed them to live in the present. Any form of objective about such life quickly dismantles the romanticized illusion about such existence full of struggles with hunger, hypothermia, diseases, predators, and internal struggles.
Therefore, romanticizing the past is not a harmful activity, but it is unproductive to see the progress for what it is, which is the betterment of human existence in this hostile environment of the planet. The author states: “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Carr par. 2). In other words, he is unable to immerse in older mediums as he used to do in the past because now, he can obtain information more quickly, which impacts his ability to concentrate. Technology has always brought convenience and comfort alongside less death, suffering, misery, and ignorance. Attachment to the past and nostalgic memories are inevitable, but realizing their invalidity is critical. People create better technologies to change their lives for the better, which means one should not be surprised that their lives are changing. For example, the author states that the invention of a clock made humans similar to clockworks (Carr par. 17). It is no surprise that a device designed to measure time would affect how humans perceive and act in regard to time. Therefore, the author is romanticizing the past, which is irrelevant and has no meaning.
Human Progress is Beneficial
Another major flaw of Carr’s piece is that he solely focuses on the potential dangers of technology and progress without properly acknowledging its benefits. Carr states: “what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (Carr par. 4). In other words, the convenience and speed of information delivery resulted in Carr becoming less capable of focus. This is a prime example of focusing on minor harms of technology rather than embracing the ever-present availability of any information. The process of industrialization and technological advancement made many forms of physical labor obsolete, and a modern-day person uses elevators, vehicles, and other inventions to move. These examples clearly demonstrate a major improvement in quality of life, but it does make people deprived of physical activity, which is why one goes to the gym or engages in other forms of exercise to compensate for the loss in physical activity. Carr is essentially focusing on the physical activity reduction part without comparing it to massive comfort, convenience, and efficiency improvements brought by cars.
Firstly, human progress always brings more benefits than harms, even the most questionable ones. Throughout human history, inventions and discoveries led to the betterment of human lives, where past dangers and threats are no longer relevant in today’s world. Modern people do not die from smallpox, measles, and many infectious diseases due to vaccines. Humans do not perceive tigers, lions, wolves, or other predators as everyday danger. Even the most controversial inventions, such as nuclear weapons, led to the most peaceful period of human history post World War II. Therefore, it should be noted that human progress is inherently a good and positive notion.
The same logic applies to Google and the internet in general. Being able to quickly receive information and adapting our thought process to such convenience does not deprive humanity of being more informed and knowledgeable about the world around them. Instead of reading an entire book for hours and days, one can read a quick summary to get the core information or watch a quick video about the contents. It saves valuable time and provides what is needed. The same goes for books read for entertainment purposes because movies enrich the story with visuals and sound, which are absent in a book. If someone prefers to read instead of watching, he or she is able to do it, which shows the core beauty and value of human progress. One can choose to stick with the old ways or use more efficient new ones, whereas the lack of progress does not provide such a choice.
Prospects of Progress
Thirdly, the last flaw of Carr’s piece is that he fails to recognize the future prospects of progress by being a ‘worrywart.’ In addition to romanticizing the past and focusing on the harms of modern technology, he is also resistant to future developments, primarily AI. He states: “still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling” (Carr par. 30). In other words, once again, he takes a position of unproductive reluctance because progress cannot be stopped. Thus, instead of worrying about future developments, it would be better to focus on how they can be used to address the current issues safely.
The internet itself is a significant step towards the invention of intelligence of non-human origin, which is AI. There are many global issues that are either unsolvable or extremely difficult to solve, the examples of which include climate change, poverty, inequality, pollution, geopolitical conflicts, and many others with the recent addition of COVID-19 in 2020. Humanity is likely reaching the boundaries of its intellectual capacity to address these issues, which can lead to deaths, suffering, and even global societal collapse. Therefore, general AI should not be viewed as something negative but rather as a solution to these world problems. As with any form of invention and development, people worry and have concerns about AI, which are relevant and important. However, the course of humans’ progression in time is moving towards the worsening of these problems due to excessive consumerism, corporate greed, overpopulation, and geopolitical instability. These issues will not lessen as time goes on, and humans will not abandon the technologies they already have, which means that human progress through technology is the only solution, and AI is an outstanding candidate to solve these issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Nicholas Carr’s article is an example of a normal human response in the face of progress, but it has no value. Firstly, human progress always leads to the betterment of human existence and the lessening of human suffering. Secondly, people have always engaged in romanticizing the past, which is an illusion easily dismantled by objective analysis. Thirdly, humanity is at a critical point in its history, where the solutions for the current global problem lie outside humans’ intellectual capacity, and thus, only new technologies, such as AI, can save the global society.
Work Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”The Atlantic, 2008.