2012

The Threat of the Internet

A Philosophical Essay on the Demise of Concentration
This paper will look at how the current younger generations are being affected by the internet. The web is making changes on a neurological level that is decreasing their concentration, memory and general knowledge while increasing their creativity, comprehension speed and ability to multi-task. By applying insights from several philosophers, this paper will address several ontological and ethical questions concerning internet use; its positive and negative effects and how to address these in the future.

David de Wied, 3668541 Filosofie van Media en Communicatie, Imar de Vries, Universiteit Utrecht 28-6-2012

Table of Contents
Introduction Knowledge or knowing less? Transcending or reducing? Determinism or to be determined? Limiting or limitless? Conclusion Bibliography 2 3 4 6 6 8 9

The Threat of the Internet

A Philosophical Essay on the Demise of Concentration
Introduction I used to be an avid reader, good student and fairly hardcore gamer. Nowadays, I only read books in short bursts on my iPhone e-reader app whenever I am indisposed for a short time, and even these moments are being replaced by the instant gratification of my Reddit App. It has become nearly impossible for me to read any textbooks or articles, unless there is a serious deadline dangling above my head like the sword of Damocles. Writing this paper has been an arduous task, one with many internet breaks and other distractions due to my brain grasping onto any stimuli it can find that is more interesting than writing. While I am still, or try to be, a gamer, I no longer have the patience to play time consuming RPGs, finish complex adventure games or stick to any game longer than a week or two. Being born in 1990, a decade that many see as the start of the internet age, I stand at a unique position. Commercial Internet Service Providers were emerging in the Western world, allowing many users access to the World Wide Web. Having grown up with the first personal computers and watching the internet grow from the domain of scientists, businessmen, enthusiasts and basement dwellers to the ubiquitous tool it is today. It has fundamentally changed the way that humanity lives. A common online running joke is that the generation born before 1995 is the last with any common sense. No longer do we need to learn or remember every little detail, we can simply Google it and get instant results. No longer do we need to wait for the television or newspaper to provide us with the content that we desire, we can simply get it on demand. But, not unlike the way smoking was viewed at the start of the 20th century, this amazing cool invention brings unforeseen effects that can have far reaching consequences. These consequences are something that I have been seeing around me in increasing frequency and degree over the last couple of years. We are addicted to impulses. The ease with which we can reach find what we are looking for or be entertained has changed us. No longer can many of us concentrate on school or work for an extended period of time. Many friends of mine, myself included, are slaves of instant gratification. This means that the impulse is instantly rewarded, as opposed to delayed gratification where the reward comes after a certain time or amount of work. Not just entertainment websites like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit or 9GAG constantly bombard the senses with stimuli, more serious websites for news and current events also allow the user the freedom to pick and choose the articles or content relevant to him or her. The lack of concentration is predominately, but certainly not exclusively, occurring among the younger generations, those that grew up with computers and the internet, and use them extensively. Given the fact that there is no precedent to the scale of change that the internet has brought us, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact causes and effects. Writer Nicholas Carr has attempted to explain the phenomenon in his 2010 book: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. In this book he described the same problems that I have been having and seeing all around me. He states that a fundamental and biological change is taking place inside our brain, making connections, absorbing knowledge and forming memories in a way quite different than before. It seems the effects run much deeper than my own experience of 2

reduced concentration. In a world of ubiquitous computing, where we are constantly connected to the internet, our brain is adapting to a digital world that isnt the same as reality used to be. Carr himself even notes that while writing his book, he had to distance himself from digital media in order to focus long enough (Carr, 2011). While he explains his findings scientifically, supporting it with a great deal of examples and research, he mostly neglects many of the possible implications of this change to society as a whole. A solution to the problems that this will inevitably cause is also nowhere to be found. And the fact that we need a solution is very clear to me, for the effects can be seen today. A good example is the fact that rates of ADHD or ADD diagnosis increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of 5.5% per year from 2003 to 2007, and between 2003 and 2007 the percentage of children with a parent-reported diagnosis of ADHD/ADD has increased by 22% (CDC). On top of this, boys were twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD/ADD as girls, with 13.2% and 5.6% respectively (CDC). This increase is in line with the intensity of computer and internet use among children, which has been increasing exponentially since the mid-nineties. Our education system is neither prepared nor capable to handle these changes, but is attempting to accommodate the lack of concentration, which can be seen in the current emphasis on Edutainment. College students are dropping out and failing their first years in increasing amounts. Self-medication with Ritalin is also thriving; Ive been hearing many reports of high school students selling these study-aids to classmates during the exam periods over the last few months, something that was mostly unheard of when I finished high school only four short years ago. The problems are escalating, and that brings many different questions to mind. For decades, when difficult questions are being posed, we humans have looked toward philosophers to help us answer them. My goal with this paper to pose ontological and ethical questions such as; How does the internet change our formation of knowledge?, Are we losing our humanity or transcending it?, Can we halt these fundamental changes to our human condition? and Should we allow free societal internet use or limit it?, and subjecting these questions to several great philosophical minds and experts of new media. By applying philosophical and theoretical insights to these current debates I shall address the looming threat of these impulse addicted teens and adolescents failing to meet the requirements of our present day society. Knowledge or know less The worlds fundamental misfortune is the fact that with each great discovery the human race is enveloped in a miasma of thoughts, emotions, moods, even conclusions and intentions, which are nobodys, which belong to none and yet to all. -Soren Kierkegaard In the famous text Phaedrus, Plato and Socrates discuss the invention of the, at that time relatively new, written word. Plato dubs it pharmacon, translated in this context as poison and not medicine. The text implies that the written word would bring about a disconnect between ideas and comprehension, since the reader cannot enter into a dialogue with the writer. This dialogue would create a deeper understand due to the exchange of ideas, allowing both parties to change their opinion by convincing each other, the absence of which would create an air of superficiality. It detracts from out authentic form of communication, utilizing the audio and visual senses instead of the second degree nature of the written word. The additional negative effect would be that humans would become too dependent on the written word, decreasing their capacity for storing and remembering information themselves. Both of these arguments are quite reminiscent of what Carr 3

alludes to in The Shallows. If we attempt to apply this first argument to our present day predicament, there is case to be made for both a slight subversion and direct confirmation of Platos perceived disconnect. The internet is not simply a static representation of text; it grants us an interactive tool with which we can instantly reply to one another. It is doubtful however, that this particular aspect of the web would offset the negative connotations that Plato had about the lack of dialogue in the written word. While it is true that people can once again exchange ideas about certain topics, the ability to actually speak to the writer of a specific text is quite rare, and even then the authenticity of the writer can be difficult to discern. Most of the time, people enter into dialogue with other seekers of knowledge or entertainment, people whose ideas dont have a greater value or insight per say than they do themselves. Also, given the short and impersonal nature of many of these online exchanges, there is no need, or even desire, for any kind of evidence of sound argumentation to support these claims. This leads to shallowness instead of deeper understanding. In 2001 Professor Hubert Dreyfus wrote the book On the Internet: Thinking in Action, posing philosophical questions to analyze the effects of the internet by drawing on great thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. He covers topics such as whether the internet can solve the problems of mass education and bring human beings to a new level of community and understanding. He states that it deprives us of essential embodied human capacities such as trust and involvement of local concern, leaving out the shared moods and risks that are an essential part of learning (Dreyfus, 2001). The large amount of anonymity online leaves no place of risk taking, which he sees as a fundamental part of skill acquisition. While it allows experimentation with ideas and opinions, the lack of any kind of accountability undermines the commitment that one makes to their statement when expressing it in the real world, thus depriving life of serious meaning (Dreyfus, 2001). He argues further that those that live their live predominantly on the net are more likely to lose their sense of reality. Without the emotional investment that comes from actually being present physically, Dreyfus believes that it is impossible to learn as much as possible. Our body is a source of casual embedding and attunement to mood, and, comparable to Platos argument about the senses, simply hearing and seeing something like the other person is not enough. Platos second argument, which predicts a decrease in the capacity to remember, seems to be more relevant today than it was nearly two millennia ago. If he was alive today, there is no doubt he would find the invention of computers and the internet absolutely abhorrent. If he was so adamant about the written word reducing the capacity of our brain, which is still held in high intellectual standard in contemporary society, his thoughts on what internet is doing to our brains would be exponentially more negative. However, it is very important to note that one of the greatest philosophers and critical thinker of our time misjudged the positive effects that the writer word so gravely. This could mean that the people that are currently seeing a great threat in the neurological effects of the net, myself included, are misjudging them as well. Transcending or reducing? "Man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature" - Julian Huxley Thus far, I have only discussed the negative effects of the internet on the human experience. There are also critical thinkers who believe that technological progress or evolution is a positive thing and should be strived to. This movement is called transhumanism, and it affirms both the possibility and 4

desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through technology, using it halt aging and increase our intellectual, physical and psychological capacities. It basically means that if we can build and implement it, we will. According to transhumanistsm humans can, and must, no longer be seen as separate from technology. We have become hybrid creations of human and non-human (Hayles, 1997). We are at the precipice of amazing advances; with some experts claiming it wont be long before technology will be as refined as biology in complexity. We are becoming, or according to some have already become, post-human, a state where we transcend our normal humanity (Hayles, 1997). Philosopher Pierre Levi already sketched a utopian vision of collective intelligence in his 1997 book Collective Intelligence: Mankinds Emerging World in Cyberspace. His definition of such a type of intelligence is characterized by being universally distributed, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real-time and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills. The creation of such a database should be a high priority according to Levi, for the more we can form intelligent and well-functioning societies, the better chance we have at success (Levi, 1997). Levis description of collective intelligence fits our current online databases like Wikipedia and Google quite well, despite the fact that his book was written before these websites existed. He further states that the success of a nation, business or individual is dependent on their ability to navigate the knowledge space (Levi, 1997). There is no generation better equipped to navigate this particular space than the generation of impulse addicted teens who have grown up with these technologies. Besides the nickname Generation Y, the current youth also has a much more flattering nickname as Generation Einstein. Dutch media expert Jeroen Boschma and Inez Groen wrote a book on these youths, emphasizing their radically different way of learning when compared to previous generations like Generation X and the Babyboomers. Where previous generations had a limited quantity of educational resources that were constructed linearly, nowadays there is an abundance of many possible channels of absorbing information (Dreyfus, 2001). This abundance teaches them to deal with discontinuous information, enabling them to multi-task. Being constantly bombarded with visual stimuli has activated creative learning through images. The amount of stimuli is simply too great to take in using the traditional form of linear learning, so they choose their own content and have become experts at website and channel hopping, discerning which parts of films and sites are essential (Dreyfus, 2001). An aspect of the diagnosis for ADD is a different wiring pattern in the brain. It is actually better at multi-tasking than people without the disorder (CNC). Those diagnose with acquire information through vision, and observation, all of which is in line with Generation Einstein. Carrs findings are in line with Boschma and Groen, noting that many teachers can no longer get their students to learn texts. They skim them for relevant information and do the minimal amount of work while gaining moderate understanding (Carr, 2011). Levi stated that in order to build a collective intelligence, the focus should be on acknowledging or rewarding individuals for the quantity, but most of all quality, of the contributions that are made to the collective (Levi, 1997). He could not have predicted however, that this collective intelligence would come at the price of concentration. At this time, there is almost no recognition for youths that are contributing to websites like Wikipedia. So while todays youth is well equipped to navigate the knowledge space, there is virtually little to no inclination to actually add to it. It has always been my belief that a society needs a great deal of diversity among its people in order to function properly. We cant all be highly intelligent scatterbrains, for our society would crumble. It would be impossible to find people to do the mundane menial tasks that are currently necessary for our world to function. I believe that until the world has made drastic technological advances 5

concerning automation, alleviating humans from most physical labor and allowing them to focus primarily on critical thinking, we are not ready for an entire society of unfocused individuals.

Determinism or to be determined? The electric technology is within the gates and we are numb, deaf, blind and mute about its encounter with the Gutenberg technology, on and through which the American way of life was formed. - Marshall McLuhan The Medium is the Message is one of the most prominent theses of Marshall McLuhan, and it is a very apt statement for our battle for control with the digital world. It essentially means that the true message is not the content that is being transmitted through the medium itself, but the scale or pattern that is laid bare in regards to human affairs. However, this thesis was not simply acknowledging or encouraging the fundamentally changing effects of new media, it was also acknowledging the enormous power these technologies can have over us and the consequences of not heeding his warning. McLuhan is often, but partially incorrectly, seen as the father of technological determinism. It is a school of thought which implies that technological forces, and not social structures, shape the progress of human history. While many see the internet simply as a tool that can be picked up, used, and cast aside, this notion is not entirely correct. In our contemporary society, we are saturated by media. McLuhan was quite progressive in his views on technology, and saw early on that there can be many unforeseen consequences governing our society. The medium transforms the traditional, authentic human experience, in many cases unconsciously estranging us from what we used to be. Carr states The computer screen bulldozes our doubts with its bounties and conveniences. It is so much our servant that it would seem churlish to notice that it is also our master. (Carr, 2011). This implication, if taken at face value, has far reaching consequences. If many of us are unaware of the influences that are being put upon us, is there anything we can do to change them? From a hard technological deterministic viewpoint, the future looks quite bleak. McLuhans goal was to make people understand the process of media evolution. This cosmic consciousness will be painful but is both necessary and inevitable (MacDonald, 2006). Resistance is futile, but the question is if this realization will come in time or if we are already too late to take back control. Limiting or limitless? If we are no longer in control, should those who are consciously aware of the changes that are taking place in our society attempt to make decisions for the greater good? For centuries philosophers have been pondering ethical questions concerning society as a whole. It is clear now that the internet has effects of which people are unaware, effects that, if left unchecked, can have many negative consequences once the current youth comes of age. Should we strive for a fair, just and highly capable society or give the people the freedom they claim to desire? In todays society we place a great deal of value on freedom of choice, which is often seen as a condition of personal happiness. A man who placed similar value on both liberty and happiness was the British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who subscribed to utilitarianism. It is a part of the consequentialist class of normative ethics that is focused on maximizing overall happiness through actions that serve the greater good. By judging actions based on their consequences, a morally right 6

decision is one that has a general positive outcome. It is based on the principle that giving people the freedom to grow, develop and empower themselves would create social progress. According to this school of ethical logic, limiting the use of the internet would decrease happiness and any positive outcome would not be instantly visible given the fact that most people are unaware there is even a problem. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and the founder of Nicomachean ethics, which were practical in essence. It was based on the contemplation of good living, creating the greatest good for the largest amount of people and the people themselves becoming generally good. Aristotle had a teleological way of thinking, which meant that every biological creation has a certain purpose. An acorn is determined to become a tree, and similarly he thought that humanitys purpose was to become virtuous. We can only reach this purpose if we have a goal in mind, which for him meant that everything should be mediated and taken in moderation. He saw the world in black and white, while looking for a shade of gray. If this logic is to contemporary use of the internet, moderation is crucial. It would be impossible to imagine our current society without new media technologies, our economic and social fabric would be torn to pieces. However, we cant simply leave such an influential technology unchecked either. Neither of these extremes is applicable. We have a duty to our society to find a middle ground. Emmanuel Kant was a German philosopher who subscribed to the deontological school of ethics. This class of ethics is based on the duty of those with knowledge and understanding to act in a way that they believe would be the best course of action. Here, it is not the consequences of the actions that dictate morality, but the intentions of those carrying them out. This puts Kant with with deontology direct in contrast with Mills consequentialism. Kants personal argument for deontological ethics consists of two parts. The actions must be both intrinsically good and good without qualification, which eliminates many of the qualities that are usually held to be good. His rule is that for something to be acted upon, it must be acceptable as a universal law. There are very few universal laws that are held by all cultures and societies, such as murder and incent being intrinsically evil. Applying deontological ethics to the effects of internet use is therefore challenging. While the intentions of limiting the negative effects are born out of a duty to preserve our social fabric, it is good neither intrinsically nor without qualification. There is no maxim to create a universal law that properly covers internet use ethically, for there is no precedent and therefore no way to predict the possible outcomes. After analyzing three different classes of ethical logic, there is no one distinct choice upon which to base any normative guidelines. While researching this paper I have discovered that all three of these ethical codes are applied in different fields. The people of Western societies mostly follow the consequentialism class of ethics when it comes to government. We look at verifiable results when judging politicians and lawmakers, not their intentions. When it comes to our day to day life we strive to be good and virtuous, in line with Nicomachaen ethics. The deontological class of ethics seems to be applied by governments themselves, judging their own decisions by their intentions rather than their outcome. Kants own version of deontological ethics remains difficult to apply, for there are almost no actions that meet both of Kants requirements. With regards to limiting or allowing the people to use the internet in the capacity that they please, I am inclined to say that the traditional deontological logic should be applied. If the people are unaware their actions, or the actions of their children, can alter society for the worse, the intentions to improve them should be what counts.

Conclusion After analyzing these four different aspects it is clear there is not a simple or definitive answer to be given concerning what we should do about the effects of the internet on our brains, particularly the younger generations. It is clear that they have a predominantly negative effect on our memory, general knowledge and ability to concentrate. However, as Platos misjudgment of the written word has shown us, it is impossible to oversee the far reaching consequences of such an unprecedented technology. In return for these negative effects to our cognitive abilities, we are gaining a great deal as well. We have become more creative, improving our brains abilities to process and learn from images. Multi-tasking has become the norm rather than the exception among the younger generations, and by combining this with our creativity we can harness a terrible explosive force of ideas and originality, in the presence of which everything is possible. However, it is apparent that our society as it currently functions is not yet entirely adapted to these young Einsteins. The educational system and its teachers are unequipped to handle this rapid change in the way children learn. Diagnoses of ADD and ADHD are increasing each year and more and more students are failing high school and college because they no longer have the capacity to focus on something that does not stimulate them. The fact that most of society is oblivious to the cause of this problem is very threatening to our social fabric if left unchecked. We need to start informing the public, thereby creating a cosmic consciousness of the influence that new media technologies have. McLuhan has been warning us for decades, yet the problems only seem to be growing. Given the fact that new media is only going to be more prevalent in our society, with ubiquitous computing and global internet access, we need to start thinking of normative guidelines. The generation that is currently still in primary school will in all likelihood have even more serious symptoms in their later life than those currently in high school and college. As a society, we need to mediate and moderate the use of the internet, if not we run the risk of our future generations being incapable of handling adult life as it is now. The ethical basis on which we will be doing this is admittedly shaky at best, for most of society will not accept the need for such measures. They will see it as a violation of their freedom and basic human rights Only by creating an understanding of the issues among the population and implementing guidelines for responsible use can we avert a potential disaster.

Bibliography Boschma, Jeroen. Groen, Inez. Generatie Einstein: Slimmer, Sneller En Volwassener. A.W. Bruna Lev. 2010. Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. WW Norton & Co. 2011. Centre for Disease Control (CDC). http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html. Accessed 27 June 2012. Dreyfus, Hubert. On the Internet: Thinking in Action. Routledge Press, 2001. Hayles, Katherine. How We Became Posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Levi, Pierre. Collective Intelligence: Mankinds Emerging World in Cyberspace. Basic Books, 1997. MacDonald, Michael. Empire and Communication: The Media Wars of Marshall McLuhan. In: Media, Culture & Society 28(4): 505-520, 2006. Plato. Phaedrus. 370 B.C.