Search This Blog

Sunday 15 August 2010

The internet: is it changing the way we think?



According to the American writer Nicholas Carr, the internet is not only shaping our lives but physically altering our brains. This topic has sparked a lively and ongoing debate among denizens of the web and the more well-read literati.

"Over the past few years," Carr writes, "I've had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn't going – so far as I can tell – but it's changing. 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. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument and I'd spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That's rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle."

I'm sure we are all to some extent aware of this situation. I too remember times when I would have to unpick dense, complex words on a page but can't remember the last time I did that. So what is happening?

According to the writer of the article "The internet: is it changing the way we think?" - "The title of the essay is misleading, because Carr's target was not really the world's leading search engine, but the impact that ubiquitous, always-on networking is having on our cognitive processes. His argument was that our deepening dependence on networking technology is indeed changing not only the way we think, but also the structure of our brains."

Carr's article touched a nerve and has provoked a lively, ongoing debate on the net and in print (he has now expanded it into a book, "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains"). This is partly because he's an engaging writer who has vividly articulated the unease that many adults feel about the way their modi operandi have changed in response to ubiquitous networking. Who bothers to write down or memorise detailed information any more, for example, when they know that Google will always retrieve it if it's needed again? The web has become, in a way, a global prosthesis for our collective memory.

You can't help but agree and and surmise that maybe it is a form of brain drain. Put it this way, if it were coming from a medical doctor, the prognosis wouldn't be good. We are not only reading less but we are reading material that has already been processed much of the time into bite sized digestible chunks leaving our brains free to do other less challenging tasks. This means our brains are being asked to do less and less, or does it? Couldn't it just mean we are seeing another leap in evolutionary terms? A kind of quantum leap with technology aiding us in rewiring or maybe hot wiring our brains to think and respond in different new and novel ways?

Could it be yet another example of the "use it or lose it" dynamic? Sarah Churchwell, academic and critic says - "...what I can attest to is that the internet is changing our habits of thinking, which isn't the same thing as changing our brains. The brain is like any other muscle – if you don't stretch it, it gets both stiff and flabby. But if you exercise it regularly, and cross-train, your brain will be flexible, quick, strong and versatile."

Overall, we have to decide whether it is a good thing or just just a symptom of our sanitised pop culture world? You be the judge...

Thursday 12 August 2010

What is happening to the UK education system?



This is going to make the UK education system a laughing stock around the world. According to the headline (click on the title to read the article) the UK education system is in freefall - "Universities face 'biggest cuts since Great Depression."

Vice-chancellors have been warned that funding may be slashed by 35 per cent over the next five years, it has emerged. The warning – delivered in a series of meetings between Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, and university bosses – would represent the biggest cut in resources since the 1930s, it is claimed. It would be equivalent to the current £5,441 annual Government subsidy for each student being reduced to just £3,537.

Universities said the reduction would have devastating consequences for higher education in England – jeapordising the sector’s world class status. Many universities will seek to make savings by axing loss-making courses, closing libraries, cramming more students into lectures and failing to repair crumbling buildings. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the number of foreign students who can be charged much higher fees than British undergraduates.

How can a country as well developed and with a thriving education sector known throughout the world as "world class" be so shortsighted as to reduce the funding for higher education by a whopping 35%? The repercussions will be devastating and further erode the economic status of the UK which is already close to seeing a double dip recession.

This is on top of the reports that many 3-year degrees will be reduced to a 2-year program. You have to wonder where this is all leading - a surveillance state with more cameras than anywhere else in the world and with an education system that is going to the dogs!!

This is a very sad day for anyone coming through the educational system in the UK and who will be looking to get a good education. Not since the Great Depression has there been such widespread cuts in public funding.

Monday 9 August 2010

When is rape actually rape?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Stephen Hawking: mankind must move to outer space within a century



The human race must look to outer space within the next century or it will become extinct, Professor Stephen Hawking has warned. The renowned astrophysicist said he fears mankind is in great danger and its future "must be in space" if it is to survive.

In an interview he said threats to the existence of the human race such as war, resource depletion and overpopulation meant it was at its greater risk ever. Although a long advocate of colonising space in order to continue man's reign, this is his direst warning to date.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million," he told the website Big Think. "Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space. That is why I'm in favour of manned, or should I say 'personed', space flight."

My question is whether we will again make a mess of any future planets or stars that we invade and colonise? Or should that be more like "how long" will it take before me mess up our existence elsewhere? We may be a special species when compared to the other animals on planet earth, but we are also the only species that can't seem to co-exist with other species. We have become so greedy we destroy the very fabric of our natural surroundings so that we can no longer inhabit it as well as the other species which have probably been there a heck of a lot longer.

Taken in this light, is there any point in space exploration at all and wouldn't it be better to work on the problem that caused this need to migrate in the first place? Human greed?