"but not enlightened"

http://www.rand.org/multi/parallels/gehl.html
by John Gehl

"And so maybe it will be okay if we surrender our thinking (or most of it) to machines." John's end conclusion in this article seems to be a polarized view of a society that will either be enlightened or made idle. Further, an underlying bitter tone seems present, he being almost offended that readers are no longer dependent on a journalists, such as himself, to get information.

The worry that information and technology will corrupt a nation is not new. Some people were always and will always be afraid of television, radio, microwaves, and anything else that can do a human function with less thought or muscle. Their fear is not misplaced in my opinion. It is however limited in judgment. Both sides must be considered.

Idleness has always been a malefactor of civilization. Perhaps less visible when, if lazy, they did not eat. The group of those who become complacent with the quest for the knowledge or the lack of desire to serve are complimented. Many use every technology possible to accomplish more in their day. They are not distracted by the ease of life, but empowered by them.
So, John Gehl's conclusion should be modified to reflect both sides. He asks. "Which will it be? ...

"an information age will yield to an age of knowledge, when surfers of fact will become seekers of truth."
OR
"the Internet will devolve into the mindlessness of television, creating a citizenry that can't think or read, is unfit for jury duty, and can be entertained (just barely and only momentarily) but not enlightened."

His points are valid and his conclusion correct, but the question of "which" should be changed to the statement of both.