The Google Effect
The Google Effect: Is the Internet making us stupid?
By Stephen Venneman
What is the Google Effect?
The popular trivia game, “Geeks Who Drink” discourage it. So do Trivial Pursuit players and the order line workers at Illegal Pete’s, but in any other circumstance the Google Effect is our default setting when it comes to remembering anything. Need an answer? Google it! Stuck on a definition for a word? Google it! How do you ask for the bathroom in Dutch? Google it!
The Google Effect is a term researchers use to refer to the cognitive effect of easy access to information. It is the result of near-constant Internet access and the ease of accessing web search engines via smartphones, tablets, or laptop computers. The effect, researchers say, comes from our reliance on the Internet to store our memories for us. We take a picture on vacation and post it to social media. Our intent is to share the event, but the reality is that once that memory is uploaded our brains dispose of that event to make room for new information. The hazard of the Google Effect, and also possibly the benefit, is the inability to form connections between new information and old memories. Hazard, because researchers may miss critical connections between established information and new data. Valuable time and resources get wasted when scientists have to look up information that should be stored in their long-term memory. Benefit, because when those same researchers delve into stored information, they are not burdened by memories and are therefore able to be more creative, form new connections that might not have been formed, and explore topics in new ways.
A History Lesson
People have always recorded information in one form or another. From cave paintings to cuneiform markings in clay to metadata on Internet usage, we are always surrounded by information that is not specifically relevant to our daily lives. Doctors remember anatomy so we don’t have to. Engineers understand the tensile strength of steel I-beams so we don’t have to. With this method of information storage, we could simply ask the doctor or the engineer a question within their area of expertise, and we would expect that they would do the same when they need information that is outside their knowledge. Today, the Internet can provide us with the answers we seek, regardless of the subject. For example, an A36 steel beam can support up to 36,000 pounds per square inch without bending or deforming. I just looked that up. What this means is, we no longer have to specialize our memories to recall important information.
The problem seems to be growing as more people have access to smartphones. A report by The Pew Research Center states that 68% of Americans have a smartphone, up from 35% in 2011. Ownership of tablet devices has increased as well, from 3% to 45% over the same time frame. Add to that a study by Kaspersky Labs that shows proximity to these devices, particularly smartphones, negatively affects concentration, and the effect of digital devices begins to show itself.
So What?
What is the effect of depending on technology to remember information or life events? As the designation, “Digital Amnesia,” alludes, we forget the event because we know it is stored elsewhere. In other words, we record an event, save or post it, then delete it from our memory to ensure space is available for more important information.
A study published in 2014 examined just one aspect of the Google Effect, the act of photographing an object rather than viewing it with the naked eye. A group of students went on a guided tour of a museum. Each student received a list of objects and a digital camera, and instructions to either look at the item for 20 seconds before taking a photo, or look at the item for 30 seconds with no photo. The students were then brought back in the next day and asked about the items on the tour. The data show the students remembered more from just observing the item compared to taking a picture. The researchers concluded that, “the act of photographing the object appears to enable people to dismiss the object from memory, thereby relying on the external devise [sic] of the camera to remember for them.” Henkel’s research supported a study from 2011 on the effect of instant access to information on human cognitive ability. In the 2011 study, researchers concluded that people tend to remember where information is stored rather than the information itself. In this case, the research subjects were relying on the Internet or a computer’s file system to remember for them. Kaspersky Labs continued the research studies of Sparrow and her colleagues as well as Henkel, addressing not only Digital Amnesia but the apparent vulnerability of such digital devices to loss or illegal access by hackers.
How Extensive is This?
Earlier I mentioned the Pew Research Center survey of technology device ownership. As a reminder, Americans are buying more smart phones and tablets. The more devices we own, the more opportunities we have to search for information on the Internet. In 2011, Google alone recorded more than 1.1 trillion web searches. The following year, that number increased by more than 100 billion. As of October 23, 2016, more than 1.45 trillion Google searches took place. There were still 69 days left in the year.
Where is the explosive growth of Google searches leading us? Dr. C. S. Schreiner recounts a story of a friend who, turned back from a weekend drive in Japan because the GPS in his rental car had malfunctioned. Schreiner points out that his friend speaks Japanese and has visited the area before, but his friend says he was not comfortable without the GPS. As Schreiner puts it, “it is not just memory that is being outsourced to technology; he outsourced common sense spatial orientation to the GPS."
Sadly, in the same article Schreiner recounts a staff meeting where university administrators encouraged staff members to embrace the new technology, to step away from the rote memorization of facts such as dates, names, and other errata and instead focus on context, analysis, and critical thinking. Schreiner disagreed. Without the ability to recall pieces of information such as names and dates, he said, we lose the ability to critically analyze data and put it into context. Without the previous data to draw on, there is no context, no way to see how new information fits. Schreiner, who teaches English at the University of Guam, believes that it is through retention that critical thought is possible. He points out how actors, by memorizing scripts and performing a role, seemingly become the characters they portray. Retention, he says, creates the framework that allows the human spirit to flourish.
Effect on Educators
Easy access to information is certainly a benefit for educators and students. A class can research information immediately and incorporate that information into a lesson. The Pew Research Center interviewed technology experts and the majority agreed that the ability to quickly access information online is an asset. They also agreed that instant access leads to shortened attention spans, impatience, and the increased likelihood of accepting the first piece of information without properly assessing accuracy. Educators are encouraged to explore ways to incorporate multimedia into lesson plans to combat the shortening attention spans of students by using videos, links to texts and information, and other online resources to help capture and hold a student’s attention.
Potential benefits
Journalist Katie Wright points out a possible benefit to Digital Amnesia and the Google Effect. Wright explains that the need to look up information that previously would be in our long-term memory can spark creativity, create new connections, and help lead to innovations. She cites a study, also done by Kaspersky Lab, that indicates people feel more creative when they are not forced to memorize information. The report also shows that 63% of those surveyed say rediscovering older information has led to some of their best ideas.
Conclusion
The available literature shows there is a definite cost for reliance on the Internet and digital devices in the form of diminished memory and a tendency not to vet information. As a result, we may be quick to find needed information and we may be more creative once we have it but we are also less likely to remember important events in our own lives. However, there is the idea that discovery leads to creativity and connections not likely when data is stored in long-term memory. Is that enough, though? I do not think so. We have managed over the past 4,000 years or so to grow from a population of nomads to splitting the atom and sending robots to Mars. We have gone from crude cave paintings to the Mona Lisa. We have advanced from pictographs and hieroglyphics to a multitude of languages with tens of thousands of words, from using a reed and wet clay to count sheep to Shakespeare. It is sad that in the span of 15 years we have gone from curing disease through study and research to cat memes and a complete inability to spell words correctly.
The problem we as members of society face now is, how do we roll back this unfortunate trend? What can we do to go from today’s low-information population to a well-educated populace, knowledgeable on current events and classic literature? That is beyond my scope. I can only hope that I can teach my children that just because you can look it up, does not mean that you should. At least, not on your smart phone.
Waste Not, Want Less
Waste Not, Want Less
By Stephen Venneman
In the 1990s, the island community of Nantucket, Massachusetts realized it had a problem. A big and growing problem. The island community, which sits 30 miles off the Massachusetts coast, was running out of room in the dump. Worse, nobody was coming out to haul any of the landfill back to the mainland. The City Council was faced with a dilemma; what could they do to prevent overflowing the dump? Drastic times called for drastic measures, and Nantucket became one of, if not the first, community to take a “Zero Waste” approach to solid waste.
Over the next few years, and with the support of the residents, Nantucket mandated recycling, all but banned non-biodegradable packaging, and in 2015 banned the sale of helium-filled balloons. The result? After more than fifteen years of cooperation, the landfill is actually shrinking!
The term “Zero Waste” has been in use since the mid-1970s but only gained popularity in the past 20 years. In 1998, in a push to move from theory into action, municipalities started looking to zero waste ideas to go beyond their established recycling programs. In 2001, the State of California set a zero-waste goal to encourage more recycling and reuse. Since then, many cities have followed suit by enacting stricter rules on recycling.
So, what exactly is zero waste? According to Rachelle Strauss, who advocates for zero waste from her home in England, “zero waste is to live without needing to send anything to landfill or incineration and to view everything as a resource.” Zero waste efforts are directly aimed at reducing the amount of household garbage produced by families, from a national average of 4.3 pounds per day, to as close to zero as possible. This happens by incorporating a couple of simple steps designed to guide us to less trash.
At first blush, one might think, “That’s insane! How would I manage no trash all day? It’s not possible” Zero waste “guru” Bea Johnson would beg to differ. The California resident travels around the world teaching people about zero waste, lugging along the entirety of her family of four’s trash output from 2016. All one quart of it.
Johnson’s website zerowastehome.com has become a go-to site for people interested in adopting a zero-waste lifestyle. Johnson, and just about everyone else promoting zero waste, emphasize the “5 R’s” of consumption: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Rot. That is, refuse things that are not necessary, like that bottle of water at the barber; Reduce the number of things you purchase (do you need ten button-down shirts for work?); Reuse items whenever possible; Recycle everything you can; and rot, or compost your leftover food and scraps. Other websites, like zerowasteweek.co.uk and goingzerowaste.com, offer up additional tips on getting started and challenges to help keep people motivated.
According to science writer Tim De Chant, if everyone on the planet consumed at the rate Americans do, we would need 4.1 earths to sustain life. While the US isn’t the biggest culprit in consumerism, we have the most space and the most people, not to mention the influence America has on the rest of the world. We buy items to replace items that have not outlived their usefulness. We have closets full of clothes, several cars, and a good percentage buy a new cell phone every year or a new laptop every three years. Don’t forget the cases of bottled water people buy. Even if the bottles use less plastic, it’s still more than my refillable Nalgene bottle! As a result, Americans generate 245 million tons of solid waste every year. For an average American weighing 180 pounds, that’s their body weight every 41 days.
It’s not all doom and gloom, as a good portion of America’s waste does get recycled. The Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan reports that recycling rates have increased steadily since 1960, although they have apparently leveled off in recent years. Remember that 245-million-ton figure from earlier? In 2014, 135.9 million tons of that was sent to a landfill. Of the remaining solid waste, more than 89 million tons were recycled, and 33 million tons were used for energy generation. I know for myself, when I look at my family’s overflowing trash can I see a lot to be ashamed of. I see boxes that could be broken down, food cans that should be washed and put into recycling, and food waste that could easily be thrown into the garden plot where we try to grow tomatoes every year.
Americans on average throw away 4.3 pounds of garbage every day, up from 2.7 pounds in 1960. The solid waste industry magazine BioCycle states that as of 2010, the US had 1,908 active landfills, and available space is disappearing. While it will be centuries before the United States will run out of landfill space, there’s little doubt that, if we continue to consume at our current pace, we will run out of space eventually. That’s where zero waste programs may save us from an avalanche of solid waste.
Looking at cities like Nantucket, or Kamikatsu, Japan, you realize we have a lot to learn. While most of the Earth’s citizens send 52.8% of their solid waste to the landfill, the island community of Nantucket sends just 8%. In Kamikatsu, a town of 1,700 people, 80% of solid waste is either composted or recycled into one of 34 different categories. The Japanese town has declared the intent of Zero Waste by 2020. Many larger cities are right on their heels, too. San Francisco and other cities are at or above the 70% recycling rate, while the California community of Berkeley is at 80% recycling. These California cities achieved these levels by encouraging residents to recycle, making recycling easier, and providing facilities where people can drop everything from a soda bottle to a microwave oven.
Sadly, recycling and zero waste are not the same thing. Recycling is defined as use something, then send it back to be reused. Zero waste focuses on reuse of an item until the useful life is over, such as reusing a glass container until it breaks. One of the key arguments between recycle or reuse is biodegradable plastics. These are typically made from plant starch, but they undergo the same manufacturing process as their petroleum predecessors. A recycler might toss the used item into the recycling or compost bin, where a zero waster might look for ways to reuse the item. The argument is that by recycling or biodegrading, you are wasting the resources used to create the item. However, these items are designed to break down quickly when heated. Use a recyclable plastic fork to eat reheated spaghetti leftovers, and you’ve essentially started the process. Recycling the fork would keep it out of the landfill, just as recycling a plastic bottle, biodegradable or not. The argument seems to come down to, how much into zero waste do you want to be? Someone who is conscious of their consumption may be satisfied with recycling or composting that fork or bottle, trusting that the item will be broken down to starch and reused rather than using a petroleum product. For someone a bit deeper in zero waste, she might insist that the bottle or fork gets washed and reused until it is no longer serviceable, then recycled. It’s a matter of degrees, but for a city trying to encourage zero waste decisions such as reuse or recycle can cause significant headaches.
An idea that might help resolve the reuse-or-recycle argument comes from another R: Reduce. This idea focuses on reducing the amount of goods we purchase, but an overlooked aspect of this is reducing the packaging associated with the goods we purchase. One tip I picked up from Bea Johnson’s website was to take my own Mason jars to the grocery store for bulk purchases. The process was easy; visit a register and get a tare weight for the jar and lid. Then, fill the jars with flour, rice, lentils, even lunch meat from the deli counter. When I checked out, I made sure the checker noted the tare weight. I did get a few stares, but the checker thought it a great idea. Those Mason jars are also great for storing dry goods, and by buying in bulk I not only eliminated the plastic or paper bags dry items come in, but I bought as much as I needed, and no more. So, not only did I reuse my Mason jars, I reduced food waste as well as packaging waste.
Admittedly, when both parents work, or the home has just one parent, it’s difficult to take steps like making bread or granola to satisfy a family. Once again, Bea Johnson’s website has an answer. Johnson makes muslin cotton bags, including one very large bag that she uses to buy fresh bread from the grocery store’s bakery. The smaller bags can be used for everything from bulk oats to prepared granola, and in a recent review of the items in the bulk aisle at one of my local stores, I found cereal.
Most of the tips found on zero waste seem to focus on the kitchen, but there are tips and ideas for other areas of the home. For example, a reusable mason jar with cocoa powder could serve as bronzer. Baking soda for toothpaste. Another site has a recipe for soap (hand as well as laundry), mascara, household cleaners, even hairspray, and all of it goes into a reusable container of some type. The only real negative I’ve seen so far concerning these recipes is around the suggested deodorants. Apparently, not only do they not work, many commenters say the zero waste deodorant concoctions seem to make body odor worse. While the deodorant may be a bust, a quick review of prices for make-up or household cleansers made the homemade options certainly more appealing to the wallet.
If trying out different recipes is a step too far for getting started down the path, Rachelle Strauss recommends starting an audit. Strauss, on her websites, myzerowaste.com and zerowasteweek.co.uk, chronicles her family’s own efforts and has a simple suggestion to get started: “Take a bin audit - look at what you throw away and identify the top five offenders. Then pick ONE of them and either recycle the packaging, find a different way to buy it or find an alternative (i.e. boycott it).”
America is not going to run out of landfill space within our lifetime. Or our children’s. Or their children’s. Maybe even longer. That doesn’t mean we should maintain our current level of consumption, though. As landfills fill up, new ones must open up. But as Brian Palmer points out in an article from Slate.com, even with modern regulations on landfill construction, there is still the issue of leachate, the liquids from decomposing trash. Let me back up a bit. Current EPA regulations for landfill construction require a liner of some sort around the area where solid waste is dumped. These liners can be plastic, clay, or both, and must have a network of pipes to prevent the leachate from soaking into the soil, as it had prior to the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act passed by Congress. Nowadays, the leachate is trucked to sewage treatment plants while vents in the landfill vent off the methane gas to be used in power generation or converted to natural gas. While the liners offer considerable protection to the surrounding soil, no system is perfect, or permanent. Additionally, these liners – and the landfills that require them - are expensive to build. As a result, instead of lots of small landfills, there are “mega landfills” for massive amounts of garbage. Oftentimes, this means trucking the trash farther, meaning more vehicle emissions. Additionally, trucking garbage affects the trash capacities of different regions across the country. Arkansas, according to BioCycle, has capacity for another 600 years’ worth of garbage without opening another facility. New York state, despite trucking most of the trash from New York City, has 25 years left. Massachusetts, including Nantucket, has maybe a dozen years. All of these numbers will shift as more communities haul their garbage to landfills in other states.
So, I turn back to zero waste, and the amount of garbage Bea Johnson’s family of four generated in 2016. Remember the photo on page two? Yeah. One quart of garbage. Admirable, and certainly something to aspire to in my own family of five. It will take work, though. And just like in a family, when a town or city mandates zero waste, they may have some problems. The biggest problem would come in the form of residents refusing to take part. Strauss has some thoughts on this. “…we have to work with carrots, not sticks. So citizens need to be educated in the VALUE of mandating zero waste policies such as creation of jobs, better environment, cheaper products created by demand, opportunities for reuse and repair etc. Sadly, getting that warm 'n' fuzzy feeling from doing the right thing isn't enough for everyone. Strauss says her family of three saves about £1,500 (about $1,860) every year from being zero waste. No money wasted on packaging, no wasted food, and avoiding disposables like paper towels in favor of reusable items. Sexy, and more money in your wallet. Who wouldn’t want that?
Detail 3
The following is placeholder text known as “lorem ipsum,” which is scrambled Latin used by designers to mimic real copy. Aliquam bibendum, turpis eu mattis iaculis, ex lorem mollis sem, ut sollicitudin risus orci quis tellus. Donec eget risus diam. Donec ac fringilla turpis. Quisque congue porttitor ullamcorper. Suspendisse nec congue purus.
Aenean eu justo sed elit dignissim aliquam. Aliquam bibendum, turpis eu mattis iaculis, ex lorem mollis sem, ut sollicitudin risus orci quis tellus. Nulla eu pretium massa. Fusce at massa nec sapien auctor gravida in in tellus.