Greenfield cites short attention span as the negative effect of children’s increased immersion in the digital world; however, what some construe as a short attention span could stem from boredom that has resulted due to children’s improved ability to multitask and process information faster. Children today require a more stimulating learning environment in which interaction, rather than lecture-style lessons, is the major component. The world is changing to become faster-paced, and children are simply changing with it. If properly nurtured, these technologically-versed children, who can quickly process and analyze information, will grow up to successfully operate in the fast-paced business world.

In Greenfield’s argument about video games causing an expectation of instant gratification, she was not considering the advanced, complex games that are popular with gamers today. Greenfield speaks about the “buz of rescuing the princess” with “no care given for the princess herself, for the content or for any long-term significance.” Computer games today, however, often involve thousands of players from around the world that each create characters to play in the game’s world. These characters (and the people behind them) interact, make friends, and as a part of the game, impact the development of the world. World of Warcraft, arguably the most popular computer game, is an example of such a game. These games, in which actions cannot be reversed and the goals are often quite long term, will not cause children to expect instant gratification.

The underlying assumption of Greenfield’s final argument is that social networking sites, video games and similar technologies are replacing face-to-face communication and interaction in the real world. While social networking sites and video games would certainly cause harm to the development of children that engage in these activities to the exclusion of all else, using these technologies in conjunction with interacting and living in the real world is beneficial. Social networking gives children the opportunity to stay in touch with friends that move away and even to learn about new places through those friends. Similar to in the workplace, face-to-face interaction will not be supplanted by advancing technology, but instead, supplemented by it when face-to-face interaction would not have been possible.

The problem is that computers are mostly present at home during children’s free time. They equate computers with gaming (boys) and/or socializing (girls). If they had done six hours of screen time at school already, they might be OK to try something else.

The real challenge, in my opinion, is to incorporate technology with primary and secondary school teaching. How can we mix gaming, socializing and learning into one great exciting school experience? Kids don’t want to sit in a boring classroom with a boring adult lecturing them for hours about boring material on paper. I know I wouldn’t stand it! Honestly, I pity sending my two boys to school every day. They hate school! Yes, they use the word HATE.

But they’re brave and I do try to keep them motivated by, yes, bribing them with the video games that we play together. The classic solution is too often: be good at school and I’ll buy you some technology… a PS3, an iPhone, etc…

Now, some kids aren’t going to take this crap! So the teacher calls the parents to tell them: “Hey, guess what, your kid is not paying attention, he has A.D.D. It’s medical and you better call Dr. Quack.” Result: Doc drugs the kid, problem solved! Now, you have a passive kid who is still not learning… but at least he’s quiet. Is that the big solution? Personally, I don’t think so.

It’s the boring, mind-numbing, 19th century school system that is the problem! Not the computers.

Kids today want to interact. They need the physical contact of pressing keys and moving a mouse and seeing things happen as they do so. And they know the world is unfair to them because they know what YOU are doing. My kids ask me: what do you do all day? Well, I work on my computer. And mom? Well, she pretty much does the same thing. Now, they ask… Can I use the computer? And you’re supposed to answer: “No, you can’t, go play outside”. Gimme a break!

Kids should be on computers as much as we are. That adults spend too much time working, that’s another problem. But don’t blame the kids for wanting to mimick your behavior.

In my opinion, the solution is to literally tear down the existing schools and to build something radically new. Schools that are modern, intelligent and filled with state-of-the-art technology. All exercises should be done in front of a screen, same with tests. Lectures should be rich, engaging audio-visual presentations presented, movie like, by the greatest professors in the land. Papers should be written in groups where you can IM at the same time. Personally, I don’t believe that the present teachers should be teaching directly (too many are utterly incompetent), they should just guide the children through the day from one learning program or screening to the next.

This is what I would like to see politicians talk about instead of listening to Susan Greenfield’s idiocy. We live in a world where our leaders are OK with paying for bombs that cost millions of dollars EACH but won’t give a dime to Wikipedia, that has to beg every quarter to survive. How stupid can you get?

The regulators chafe at anything they can’t control, the Baby Boomers begrudge anyone younger than them for being willing to move with the times. Greenfield is an attention seeker who offers grist for the mill giving these people an excuse to destroy what they don’t understand.

Fortunately, attempts to turn back the clock inevitably meet with failure, but the War on Freedom is long.

However, I’m not sure the arguments really make invalid the society envisioned by Tapscott. Read an article as early as a few minutes ago, and he appears very set on the Web particularly being useful as a companion or an accessory to the real world. The way we interact in problem-solving will certainly change shape but I very much doubt his intentions are a society where everyone’s faces are glued to the screen all afternoon, although such a behavior is evident in many children, teens and young adults today

In fact, I’d say his arguments provide a very much positive alternative to the depressing lifestyle of being online on social websites 24/7, it encourages productivity, problem-solving and education.