Brain is remarkably adaptable. I would not go as far as labeling new type of academia as deficient. Sure it is different, does it make it better or worse? Toss a coin.
Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying attention.
What is being discussed here is precisely the scenario when their name is being called, specifically the frequency with which it's called (if I may stretch the illustration). That your colleague is one of those who can concentrate with other conversations happening is wholly irrelevant; AFAIK, whether one's concentration is helped or hindered by ambient noise is genetic.
Here's an experiment for you: when they're doing that, call out their name every five minutes or so. See how long it takes before they try to kill you.
I'm trying to figure out where your non sequitur came from. The brain being adaptable does not mean its ability to adapt is infinite and no one, but you, suggested that. Did they waterboard you in your academic program? Is that supposed to be an analogy to some other behavior? I can't even conceive of what they might do that would be close to that hard on a person's mind.
It's a crude, sarcastic form of reductio ad absurdum. TrainedMonkey said, in effect, "making it difficult to focus is fine because the brain is adaptable". 001sky showed that "the brain is adaptable" is not a strong argument. This is true precisely because the brain's ability to adapt is not infinite. Energy you spend adapting to something is energy you're not using to do directly useful things, and that energy has to be justified with more than a statement of "well, you can do it and there might be some benefits" (which is almost exactly what TrainedMonkey said, just phrased less flatteringly).
He didn't show it wasn't a strong argument, he showed his tool for arguing is a fallacious statement. Reductio ad absurdum[1] is a weak argument. It involves non sequiturs, consequents which do not (by any sane logic) follow from the initial statement or assertion.
There are certainly issues in academia. "Publish or perish" is a terrible model for retaining people and measuring success. In the enterprise world the endless emails and meetings seriously detract from the work effort in many cases. That doesn't mean things don't get done, it means the balance is off. Be proactive and instead of making up absurd arguments about the impossible consequences of a thing, fix it. Develop tools that manage communication better. Show that in your office the daily stand ups are not necessary and ask forgiveness along with submitting the case study that demonstrates you improved productivity with your alternate approaches. Avoid making weak, sarcastic, slippery slope arguments like a religious fundamentalist that believes condoms lead to sheep fucking.
EDIT: [1] I should say, in this case, as water boarding nor anything near it in terms of affecting the mind is or is at risk of being applied in academia or enterprises where deep thought and creativity are necessary to the completion of the task.
Somewhat related story: I work with someone who recently got a PHD. That person can concentrate and work on a hard problem even when there is conversation going on. Only when name of the person is called do they interrupt their work and start paying attention.