After reading Nicholas Carr's article I instantly wonder how much time he spent on Google or another search engine. He does start by saying that all of his information was primarily gotten by internet and the internet is much easier to work with rather than gathering a bunch of periodicals. I do not necessarily disagree with his point towards people and the internet. As a student I do everything he mentioned from simply scanning an unimportant article, to clicking on many links to find the most information. I also dislike reading long articles or long chapters in a text book. I have the ability to do these things but would prefer not to. I have never read the "Art of War" and I don't plan on reading it anytime soon. All of Carr's negative points towards the internet are fairly accurate in my opinion.
All of Carr's points are strong and concise but I feel that his resolution is partially wrong. Perhaps Google/Internet is making some people loose brain cells, but I think the majority of people are getting smarter and improving their knowledge. In today's world you have to be as efficient as possible. Competition for jobs and promotions are at an all time high. Most people want to be successful and I feel that the internet has created a more efficient worker. I'm not talking about the artificial brain. I'm talking about people with the ability to many things and quick read an article and get the main points without taking hours. Google is a service that has improved the way people think and the way they do business. Yes Google wants as many hits from a computer as possible because that drives their revenue. Nicholas Carr likes to quote famous philosophers like Socrates, but Socrates never predicted a wealth of information at a person's fingertips. I think even the great philosophers would be using Google because they would recognize the importance of efficiency. The world is forever changing and as individuals we have the opportunity to improve and grow or just stand still and hope for the best.