Reading Nick Carr's post, I've come to the conclusion that I might be committing the deadly sin of gluttony.
One of Nick's commenters suggests that his point is misleading because we're not paying all that much per bit of data. That's probably true, but it may not make the point the commenter wants it to make. Consider an analogy to restaurant dining: Americans in the past twenty years have spent far, far more on eating out than any of their ancestors did, and that's a significant development even if you point out that huge portions of fat-laden food mean that they're not paying all that much per calorie. In fact, that analogy may work on more than one level: are we unhealthily addicted to information (of any kind, and regardless of quality) in the same way that we're addicted to fatty foods?
Anyway, with regards to books and information, I guess it is all the same too. We all have access to more information than anything we've dreamed of and yet, is it all for the better?
Medically, I would say yes obviously because of personal reasons but there has to be a point where adding more doesn't change a thing and one has to stop and do some thinking and processing. Besides, there's the matter of absence of compensation for content providers but not for access providers. Related but that is another story.
Or maybe, we could all just blame it on the proclivity for experience.
What the heck, I'd better stay offline more and keep even keel. Besides, it's nice reflection for the Lenten season.