It's not just baseless ranting (well, not all the time), as he does provide arguments. But he's very contrarian in this day and age. His views sometimes border on Luddism :-)
But there is some truth in it. In a way, in our quest for efficiency, comfort and safety, we are losing touch with nature, and even with the physical world. I feel that as we become more dependent on technology we become more like domesticated pets of "the machine".
I didn't want to call him a Luddite, as that seems rude, but I'd have to agree with you.
Of course there is some truth in saying that technology has some unwanted effects on our lives. But, the question is what alternatives or solutions does he propose, if any?
You can improve the world by solving problems for a lot of people or you can improve it by writing books about problems which new solutions may or may not create. I think Carr has chosen the less useful option, if he is indeed trying to improve the world and not just trolling.
There is quite a bit of room for interesting middle ground, I think. A lot of the public debate currently is framed more or less between the "very optimistic" and "very pessimistic" poles represented, respectively, by Clay Shirky's Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age, and Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. They make for a nice pair of dueling books, but I'd rather read something with a bit more detailed analysis about the good and bad parts of a networked age, and in particular what meaningful choices we can make that are more fine-grained than "embrace technology" or "reject technology".
Agreed. The middle ground is where we have to deal with real data instead of justifying our preconceived notions. I think that is what the OP is trying to do with his post - a call for existing studies and data.
Sometimes describing a problem can be useful, even if you don't have a solution ready. But that's only the first step...
He's not a luddite; I think the alternative that he poses is to be more suspicious of technology and the companies that push it, judge its merits and disadvantages on a case-by-case basis. Not to entirely reject it.
