Is the Internet changing our brains? It seems unlikely to me, but I’ll leave that question to evolutionary biologists. As a writer, thinker, researcher and teacher, 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. However, if you exercise it regularly, and cross-train, your brain will be flexible, quick, strong and versatile.
In one sense, the Internet is analogous to a weight-training machine for the brain, as compared with the free weights provided by libraries and books. Each method has its advantage, but used properly one works you harder. Weight machines are directive and enabling: They encourage you to think you’ve worked hard without necessarily challenging yourself.
The Internet can be the same: It often tells us what we think we know, spreading misinformation and nonsense while it’s at it. It can substitute surface for depth, imitation for originality, and its passion for recycling would surpass the most committed environmentalist.
In 10 years, I’ve seen students’ thinking habits change dramatically: If information is not immediately available via a Google search, students are often stymied. But of course what a Google search provides is not the best, wisest or most accurate answer, but the most popular one.
However, knowledge is not the same thing as information, and there is no question to my mind that the access to raw information provided by the Internet is unparalleled and democratizing.
Admittance to elite private university libraries and archives is no longer required, as they increasingly digitize their archives. We’ve all read the jeremiads that the Internet sounds the death knell of reading, but people read online constantly — we just call it surfing now.
What they are reading is changing, often for the worse; but it is also true that the Internet increasingly provides a treasure trove of rare books, documents and images, and as long as we have free access to it, then the Internet can certainly be a force for education and wisdom, and not just for lies, damned lies, and false statistics.
In the end, the medium is not the message, and the Internet is just a medium, a repository and an archive. Its greatest virtue is also its greatest weakness: It is unselective. This means that it is undiscriminating, in both senses of the word. It is indiscriminate in its principles of inclusion: Anything at all can get into it. But it also — at least so far — doesn’t discriminate against anyone with access to it.
This is changing rapidly, of course, as corporations and governments seek to exert control over it. Knowledge may not be the same thing as power, but it is unquestionably a means to power. The question is, will we use the Internet’s power for good, or for evil? The jury is very much out. The Internet itself is disinterested, but what we use it for is not.
Sarah Churchwell is a senior lecturer in American literature and culture at the University of East Anglia.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations