Remember before we all carried the Internets around in our pockets, we would just hang out and talk? And often the thing that would fuel conversation would be a question that had just occurred to someone for no reason. For example, someone will say: Do dogs have shoulders? I mean they don’t have arms. They just have legs. So do they have two sets of hips? People would theorize about this come up with reasons for their opinions, and this could easily take a half hour before organically moving on to another topic.
But now, a question like this comes up, and someone takes out an iPhone or Blackberry and wham! There’s the answer (dogs do have shoulders, or scapila if you want to use the medical term). So now what are we supposed to talk about? Did we really even want the answer, or is it more fun to make up our own?
I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. I could riff here on making conversation more efficient, etc, but I think we can do better than that. These highly informed times simply challenge us to come up with better questions, things that aren’t so easy to just look up. And maybe we wonder more about things that, when we look up the answer, it spurs another question.
So here’s the question for discussion: Does easy access to the Internet kill idle wonder?
M. David Hornbuckle 
Google says “no.”
I feel like in the olden days the internets used to enhance the wonder, but after I got to the end of the internet it got boring. There’s just too much stuff now, most of it not that interesting.
It’s the death of wisdom. We don’t need someone to give us the answer. Folks don’t seek the experienced and knowledgable, missing the “story”. In my opinion, we are weakening the inherent need for tribal knowledge. And I stand behind the belief that it IS needed. Sometimes the history of how something became fact is more interesting than the fact itself.