I am deeply affected by this book, even though I am not addicted to the Internet (I am not on Facebook, Twitter, smart phones, etc.) Dr. Aboujaoude's warning in his conclusion is particularly chilling. Using Hobbes' description of our fate in "the state of nature" (i.e., without civilization) when the life of man would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," the good doctor warns that "the worst possible outcomes [Hobbes] feared have echoes in a medium he could not have imagined" (281).
The Internet, which offers many good things that support civilization, also offers a perpetual pleasure playground that makes us more distracted, nasty, arrogant, brutish, and narcissistic. Many of us on the Internet see ourselves as "outside of normal rules" (57), larger than life and invincible. This is a dangerous game that entices us to invest "in start-up stocks," seek fame "at all costs," and pursue "reckless sexual pairings," or "impossible-to-fund shopping sprees" (57). Using Freud's categories, Dr. Aboujaoude claims that the Internet has become a strong and almost unbeatable ally of our "id," an ally that could hold our minds, our wills, and our conscience (i.e., our "superego") captive.
As a college professor, I am particularly struck by Aboujaoude's description of the changes in our writing and reading habits. The Internet has already shredded most of our grammar rules. But I was even more alarmed by the changes in reading habits, for it is reading that teaches good writing. According to the British Library study (2008) which Aboujaoude quotes (one of the many invaluable sources he uses) "online readers are 'promiscuous, diverse, and volatile'....Their information-seeking behavior is 'horizontal, bouncing, checking and viewing in nature....They 'scan, flick, and power browse their way through digital content, developing new forms of online reading'" (190). The purpose of this reading method is "'to avoid reading'" (191). Relying on a study by John Gehl and Suzanne Douglas, Dr. Aboujaoude explains that the old way of passing information (we might add wisdom and passion too), the one-to-many model which assumes that "the message sender had more information than the message receiver" (203) is on the way out. The one with the control, Gehl and Douglas write, "'is not the one with the message but the one with the mouse'" (203). Perhaps professors would be the first to be washed out in the tide, but the journalists, economists, and experts of various ilk would not be far behind.
Do we really want this confounding Babel Tower? Do we really want to live in a world where all opinions are equally valid, no matter how many years the expert has spent on studying his or her subject? Why are we so enticed by dumbness? What would happen to our civilized reading of the great classics, books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, George Eliot, Hardy, the Bronte sisters, D.H. Lawrence, Dickens, Kafka, Shakespeare, and others--books that have always given us startling beauty, wisdom, and self-knowledge?
Most sad is the Internet threat to our loving relationships. In cyberspace, Dr. Aboujaoude points out, "sex can be turned into a straightforward, simple transaction. Arranged online, it can be a mostly devoid-of-feelings pleasurable exchange of something, with no future-oriented expectation for long-term anything." Thus "the impatient, raw, cut-to-the-chase manner of transacting around issues of sexuality gets played out beyond Craiglist, causing tension and tipping the balance, in real life, away from love or romance or dating..." (184). The thought of a world without love is unbearable. It's "1984" all over again. It's life without meaning, cheap and disposable as a tin can. It's life in a sinister playground, where adults, of their own accord, childishly renounce responsibility, and children ride their "mice" to oblivion. I can't imagine such a life.
Finally, the Internet threatens the well-being of our democracy. As we all know, democracy functions well when its citizens are informed. But many of our citizens on the Internet are no longer informed; many of them can't think or read deeply; and many of them can be easily duped by cyberspace predators. As Aboujaoude points out, since the Internet has shortened our attention spans, it can become easier "for demagogues to spread...their one-liner propaganda slogans" (212). Indeed, we are already seeing the results of this dark process in a confused, divided, rude, and violent citizenry, a citizenry armed with an unfamiliar and unshakeable sense of entitlement.
I think that the survival of our civilization really depends on our ability to postpone gratification, an ability which has always been hard to achieve and sustain but which is now jeopardized more than ever, thanks to the Internet. Work, discipline, and seriousness of purpose will save us--not uninterrupted fun and games.
Dr. Aboujaoude, thank you so much for writing this book!