Idle speculation. The author wants to hear a certain hypothesis, so he digs up poets and primary school teachers who will tell us exactly what he wants us to hear.
The only science in the article runs counter to the author's preferred outcome, so it is surrounded by quotes that amount to "I fear.." and "I suspect..".
For all the "Google is ruining our memory" stuff, isn't there a complement of how much it fills in the gaps? There are so many times I've wanted to know something more, and thanks to Google I can -- quickly and easily. My brain retains all these breadcrumbs, and I am able to recall them fairly easily. I'd argue that such ready availability of knowledge is increasing our breadth, perhaps to some detriment of depth, but I still think that's a net win. If I need the depth, I can get it easily, and retain it for the task-at-hand.
The article also assumes we hand over our critical thinking skills to the likes of Google, which is obviously a fallacy.
The only science in the article runs counter to the author's preferred outcome, so it is surrounded by quotes that amount to "I fear.." and "I suspect..".