The Brain is the most complex and delicate organs found in the human body; housing memory and basic function of life, the brain can store a considerable amount of information learned through the human experience. The memory pathways and information recall is shaped by many things, but to what extent, as our newly befriended Mr. Carr examines in his article, does the new world technology, like the Internet, affect the human mind?
Carr argues that Google searches are turning the "human brain [into] just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive" leaving people to rely more and more on the collective data base of information, similar to Ford's assembly line and Taylor's time-and-motion studies. People can no longer survive on their own expertise, like turning nuts and bolts in a machine or knowledge of life, but must rely on other experts to complete the picture. So, every one becomes highly individualized and yet dependant on other individuals to survive. Google, now, is spreading the individualized knowledge to others who may not know or understand the function of another person. This in turn improves the productivity of the mind, because everyone has a place in the world with a specific job allowing the masses to do mundane jobs for the cause of productivity. This is very similar to the society in Brave New World where the "system must be first" before the people for absolute efficiency; generalizations or grand narratives can only increase productivity because people understand the need for their jobs. Now how is this affecting the individual mind? I believe that people are becoming less interested in the wider world and narrowing their focus on information that pertains to their job. The need to investigate the world's natural wonders is dwindling to a handful of highly specialized scientists that can no longer communicate intelligently to the outside community. How does this pertain to Vonnegut? The secretaries to the scientists, the people in the bar scene, etc. cannot and do not really want to understand the workings of Ice-9 or the atomic bomb-it really doesn't effect their lives, so why bother? Also, his style of random spurts of factoids and information describes the larger picture in a very fractured way, states that the universal and clear truth no longer exist.
And that's the end of it.
Hey Krissie, nice blog! However, I disagree with one thing, you stated, " I believe that people are becoming less interested in the wider world and narrowing their focus on information that pertains to their job." I personally believe people are less and less focused oon the personal reality in order to focues more on a wider one. I think people are more likely to explore outside their box with this wealth of information at their finger tips. I personally went through fases where I read up on information ranging from egyptology to marine biology. These have nothing to do with my lot in life, but I pursued the knowledge none the less.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you ended it, with the connection to Cat's Cradle; interesting idea of describing "the larger picture in a very fractured way..." I definitely agree with that. It does seem that sometimes we narrow our range simply to focus on what is important to us, and as a consequence of that, we separate ourselves into even more distinct and isolated spheres of existence (or discourses, I could say). However, and more along the lines of what Deanna just noted up there... I also wonder, don't these huge databases give us the chance to skim the surface and look at EVERYTHING, just in little doses? Sometimes I feel like this is more common, in a way--we read a little on a subject, think that makes us an expert, and then that feeds the general ignorance that we tend to see... (Like the Tea Party, for instance? There are lots of members of this party that know their stuff. However, the few that don't speak louder.)
ReplyDelete