History repeats itself. Everyday, in every way. Nicholas Carr is worried that the next part of history to repeat itself will be Google changing the way we think and process information. Socrates was the first to cry foul over change. He thought writing would cause once wise men to become ignorant without encyclopedias in their minds. He was somewhat right. But Socrates didn't know that writing would lead to the spreading of new ideas to more people than ever before, the same way Gutenberg's printing press did in the 15th century. It happened again with the typewriter; every time a new form of media communication came into existence there were the naysayers who tried to shoot it down. Then the wonderful by-products came along: every time, knowledge spreads to more people and information becomes more accessible to everyone. Carr is merely predicting that since the internet is the newest media form, and we know that it has spread access to almost every corner of the globe, that there must be a catch.

The naysayers must always be at least somewhat right. Socrates was right that men would never again be able to store encyclopedias of knowledge in their heads once writing came into play. The printing press led to widespread literacy, but the naysayers correctly predicted it would undermine religious authority. So naturally, since history repeats itself, the pattern dictates that there must be a bad side effect to counteract all this good. Carr proposes that we are losing the ability to think deeply and concentrate for long periods of time. He may be right. If there is information to be sought, Google is always first on people's minds. Heck, Google started as a noun, but it is now a certified verb; it's even an adjective occasionally. The idea of time-consuming research appeals to no one.

So the question becomes, has Google made us lose our appetite for deep thinking and long periods of concentration? Carr says yes, and he worries about the consequences that this development could have. However, let us consider for a moment the most important phrase in these situations: does the cost outweigh the benefit? No, in fact, used correctly, Google is possibly the greatest invention since the computer itself. So if it is agreed that Google -and the internet in general- is making us lose our abilities for deep thinking and long periods of concentration, how do we minimize its effects so that the costs never outweigh the benefits? Simple. Make an effort not just to know the article title, but also the article's content. Make an effort to visit the library, it has resources Google could never have, because they can be held in your own hands. Or, simplest of all, buy a book or newspaper. It won't just immerse you in a story- it will help the economy as well.