I'm sorry, Martin, but I think you've seriously misunderstood The Shallows and have drastically misstated the eloquence of it and the points Carr made. He dredged up a fair amount of research to support his case and then extrapolated a little concerning the philosophical implications.
Obviously, we all live with the net; none of us are going back. I started work with interactive digital media in 1988; I've been on the net since 1991, i.e. pre-web. I use it fairly extensively and my wife makes her entire living from it. We have a business we are developing that is entirely net based. We live off in the woods on an island that probably makes Anglesey look like a metropolis. We couldn't be here without the net. But, all that doesn't mean we love it uncritically and are afraid to hear any discussion of its possible effects. Clearly, somethings are better; somethings not.
The man wrote a book, in part, to get discussion going. He included plenty of research from studies considerably more recent than Roszak's book. He based the whole thing, pretty much, on McLuhan's theories. He acknowledged his own use of and liking for the net. He didn't call for the net to be banned or anything so stupid. He merely said there are some issues here that are worth thinking about. The problem with Poole's review in the Guardian is that he didn't think; he had a cyber-tic after what I'd guess was a pretty quick skim. And, I'm sorry, but your initial responses certainly left me with the same impression. I'll simply add that I think your Careers Education Project is a very good example of what the net is capable of — I don't think Carr says the net is not capable of producing some benefit; he's just saying there'll be losses as well as gains.