In his article Is Google Making Us Stupid? Nicholas Carr discusses the various
effects that technology has had on human development. Carr makes several points on
how human development has been harmed by advances in the use of the Internet and the
changes in technology (i.e. typewriters and computer.) The arguments made by Carr in
both areas are expansive and vary in strength and understanding. Carr's kairos is strong
but his stasis appears unclear at places but he does ultimately come to make the point that
humans aren't better of with technology and the Internet suggesting that we have
devolved in our level of thought because of it.

Carr begins the first part of his article discussing how the Internet has impacted
his life. He starts out with the argument that technology has greatly improved our access
to material such as book, articles, and other sources. Carr goes on to also say that he
spends much of his time either reading from the Internet or writing something and
posting it online. Carr practically praises the greatness that the Internet has bestowed
upon human kind. The argument quickly changes however, Carr begin to state a problem
that he has began to encounter. Carr has started to loose focus while reading books and
articles these days he goes on to explain. After years of using the Internet to jump from
one piece of information to the other he lays blame for his inability to focus on the
Internet. Friends of Carr agree with him he says, they have encountered the same problem
as he, he says.

Carr's kairos is on track the effect that the Internet has on society is profound and
how we use it shapes the world everyday. Carr addresses a pressing issue as each day
moves on we develop newer, faster, more effortless ways of researching and learning.
Carr clearly emphasizes the profound effect that the Internet has had on not only his work
but also that of many professionals in the literature community from writers to bloggers.
This clear impact he points out makes it clear to his audience that this is something that is
very timely and the issue is pressing. What is strange however that Carr's arguments
begin to get drawn out and long. This is strange given that he expects his audience to
agree that we no longer fully read any piece of information but he write in a very long
format that does not help his case. His article seems to contradict itself in the since that
the people who read it all the way through are not very likely to agree with the point that
they lose interest very quickly. Carr establishes the view that society has devolved in its
use of full piece of literature and doesn't leave much room for disagreement from his
view.

Carr practically writes that this is fact but I think many would disagree if given a
chance. The author ask the question weather the writing community and the world as a
whole is better with tools like Google in research and answers it with a firm no. This is
where Carr's stasis is unclear. His assessment is unfair, many would say that Google has
given people access to far more research taking emphasis from a single source and
broaden the worlds knowledge of whatever subject they are researching rather than
limiting them to what resources were available in there local area. He also ask the
question if we fully read anything anymore, well this answer can be complicated but the
simple fact is that we have a lot more to read than before and people chose to streamline
by skimming giving them the ability to decide what is best for them to further pursue. We
have moved from reading fully what little was available to us to now deciding which
writing are worth reading fully. Carr doesn't make any distinction that there could be
other explanations to his issue.

Carr's article also makes a second argument. The way we write has become
greatly impacted by the technology we use. The argument goes back to 1882. Carr's in
this part of his writing is addressing an issue that isn't to pressing. Carr further goes on to
discuss the effect of technology on the way we write and publish information siting that
literature has moved away from the natural creativity it once had to now a mechanical
form going back to the use of the type writer however this does not really effect us
computers today perform the same way as paper and pencils words still flow from our
hands and form on the paper. His evidence doesn't really concretely prove anything about
the effect of technology on the art of writing. He argues that the typewriter forever
changed how humans recorded thought. However there is not much evidence to suggest
that the issue impacts us today, the keyboard we use on computers today are practically
the same as the key that most typewriters used. While he tries to make a good argument
its not something that really appears relevant to his audience.

The arguments made in his second part would appeal to a different audience than
those in the first part. Using the Internet to gather information is something many people
do everyday. Analyzing the way we phase our writing depending on the medium we use
is not something that many people focus on. This argument is something that may interest
the literature community far more that your average reader. This article to is long a drawn
out to be far longer than most people really would read into. Again to in this argument
Carr reject any idea that the reality of the situation could be any different that the one he
lays out.

Overall I think Carr's in his writing is strong at making cleat what his points are
both in how the Internet has impacted our ability to think and read, and second how
technology has impacted the way we write and record though with regards to creativity
and form. Carr however reject any opinions that aren't of his own thinking. Throughout
the entirety of his article he makes it clear that his view is the only correct one out there.
Carr does however demonstrate an understanding of the pressing issue that the Internet
on humans and can help his audience take notice that it is an issue that effects them. The
point about the technology doesn't really show the audience that the issue is that pressing
and it is there that his kairos is weak. Though it all though the rhetoric used in the first
part of his article is effective but his second argument is not as effective.

