If Technocracy wasn’t bad enough traditional beliefs, the Technopoly is. The invention of the concept of the Technocracy led to rough times for tradition. Suddenly, beliefs from the beginning of time began to be pushed aside and ground into dust. Though this dust still laid in the backs of Mankind’s mind, the Technopoly finished the Technocracies job and blew the dust of Tradition into the abyss of forget, irrelevance, and unimportance.
The Technopoly basically describes the society of Brave New World, a land where technology is not just the dominant ideology, but is now the only ideology. Tradition and its unscientific beliefs were made to be not only irrelevant, but actually harmful to the grand narrative of “Progress is Good.”
While it’s nearly impossible to even doubt the Technopoly that exists in the World State, claiming that America has already reached it is, what I believe, an over statement. To be a Technopoly, it would mean the death of non-scientific beliefs. Religion, art, and even independent thought would be completely gone. That is not the current state of America. While it’s obvious to see our progress towards what someone would call a Scientific Hell, we have by no means reached it. While its values, ideas, and importance are slowly fading, religion still plays a prominent role in our society. To take away religion would mean to take away nearly all of societies morals and what is thought of to be right and wrong. It would mean, if our morals erased while our minds not robotic (and I do not believe we have become so linear in thought that we would be thought of as robotic), it would mean a mass of chaos and confusion. The laws the held society together would crumble, and (unless thrust into the arms of the reassuring technology) our idea of civilization would cease to exist. So no, I do not believe America has become a full fledge Technopoly, but is merely fixed on the tracks leading to it.
Also this chapter leads to another concept on the discussion of the singularity with the discussion of the Luddites, as well as the beginnings of the Technocracy. The creation of the factories during the early years of the Technocracy can be seen very similar to the Singularity in the beginning years of the next stage past Technopoly, where technology is not only the central driving point for humans, but humans in fact become technology. The fact that the Luddites exist goes to support the idea that a war will occur as the Singularity begins. Just as Luddites of the 19th century fought against the “satanic” factories for dehumanizing mankind, the 21st century Luddites will be fighting the same war for separation of man and machine. However, if the idea that history tends to repeat its is actually true, this also could be seen as pleasant news to those who fear that the Singularity will be mankind’s Doomsday. While, when first created, the factories were seen as evils of the world, they eventually were balanced out, regulated, and overall integrated in society, and a normality was restored. One could hope to be so optimistic towards the Cyborg years of the future
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Technology: The New Twilight (Team Good vs Team Bad)
Let me preface this with the statement that I am an avid technology supporter. So when I first looked at the question posed on the board, I thought "Well, of course technology betters mankind." And thought that was that. I mean, is Call of Duty better than Pong? Yep, +1 for 'Technology is Good'. Is the current computer I'm writing this on better than my old Windows 98? Well, considering I'd still be waiting for that dinosaur to turn on, I'm gonna have to give another plus to Good. The questioned seemed like it had a clear-cut, open and close answer. But then Brave New World and this Singularity concept came along and decided to add a few more variable to the once thought simple question. Exponential Growth, sure, I'd heard of it. "Good," I thought, "My computer with be faster, faster." That'll just help skip all the wasted time between Pong and the new Battlefield 3 coming out. But like usual I didn't take everything into account.
I'm fairly experienced in the mathematical area, so I thought I'd have a pretty good understanding of exponential growth despite what Kurzweil says about people not being able to mentally grasp the power of it. Well I underestimated. If by the time X=4 my exponential graphs are usually off my graph what does that say about when its at 40? Although all exponential graphs are different, it's hard to come by a standard exponential growth graph that doesn't look like a straight line in a very short amount of time. Well, that straight line only gets straighter and taller. At what point does that Y value not even matter because every time you move one step horizontally in time it changes so drastically that its hardly even recognizable. That's scary to think about with simply numbers, but applied to real life its impossible to fathom. There's literally a little, valiant knight of our morals that fights to protect the blissful ignorance of our delicate minds from the enlightening assualts of "the crackpot" Kurzweil.
So when technology approaches infinity, is it still good. The loss of humanity as we know it seems like a real big plus for team 'Technology is Bad'. Suddenly the pluses for Call of Duty and Boot Up times seem rather irrelevant. But then again, that's inferring that the Singularity will destroy humanity(Tangent --> But what is humanity? What makes people human?.... Well, to skip the hour and a half hour debate after Transcendent Man I'll just jump to what I very uncertainly concluded. For me the question of "What is means to be human?", and basically all the other questions that have been asked in class, can be answered if.... we knew the meaning to life. Then, we'd have a purpose, a direction, a given grand narrative. Suddenly, these very complex, overly philosophical, and basically unanswerable questions would be simple. Yet, we don't know the meaning to life (or at least there are many different views of it) so we really can't answer any of these purposefully thought provoking questions with a definite answer. For me, what makes someone human is the ability to decide what it means to be human.) That's no guarantee that it will prove the Terminator story line. It could turn out to be completely positive (though things rarely are) and cure hunger by making food unnecessary.
So after all this is technology good? Well in the short run, for me at least, definitely. In the long run? I can't say. But by the looks of it, we're strapped in and the roller coaster's not stopping. So through your hands up, have some Soma, and enjoy the ride. (Or be like Wyatt and enact a totalitarianism government to suppress society beyond the point of thought)
I'm fairly experienced in the mathematical area, so I thought I'd have a pretty good understanding of exponential growth despite what Kurzweil says about people not being able to mentally grasp the power of it. Well I underestimated. If by the time X=4 my exponential graphs are usually off my graph what does that say about when its at 40? Although all exponential graphs are different, it's hard to come by a standard exponential growth graph that doesn't look like a straight line in a very short amount of time. Well, that straight line only gets straighter and taller. At what point does that Y value not even matter because every time you move one step horizontally in time it changes so drastically that its hardly even recognizable. That's scary to think about with simply numbers, but applied to real life its impossible to fathom. There's literally a little, valiant knight of our morals that fights to protect the blissful ignorance of our delicate minds from the enlightening assualts of "the crackpot" Kurzweil.
So when technology approaches infinity, is it still good. The loss of humanity as we know it seems like a real big plus for team 'Technology is Bad'. Suddenly the pluses for Call of Duty and Boot Up times seem rather irrelevant. But then again, that's inferring that the Singularity will destroy humanity(Tangent --> But what is humanity? What makes people human?.... Well, to skip the hour and a half hour debate after Transcendent Man I'll just jump to what I very uncertainly concluded. For me the question of "What is means to be human?", and basically all the other questions that have been asked in class, can be answered if.... we knew the meaning to life. Then, we'd have a purpose, a direction, a given grand narrative. Suddenly, these very complex, overly philosophical, and basically unanswerable questions would be simple. Yet, we don't know the meaning to life (or at least there are many different views of it) so we really can't answer any of these purposefully thought provoking questions with a definite answer. For me, what makes someone human is the ability to decide what it means to be human.) That's no guarantee that it will prove the Terminator story line. It could turn out to be completely positive (though things rarely are) and cure hunger by making food unnecessary.
So after all this is technology good? Well in the short run, for me at least, definitely. In the long run? I can't say. But by the looks of it, we're strapped in and the roller coaster's not stopping. So through your hands up, have some Soma, and enjoy the ride. (Or be like Wyatt and enact a totalitarianism government to suppress society beyond the point of thought)
Monday, September 5, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
Brave New World and the Threat of Technological Growth (http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/509/brave-new-world-and-the-threat-of-technological-growth)
The author begins by cross examining the text with another, scholarly text on the similar subject as Brave New World. He compares the fictional society created in Huxley's novel to the possible problems of our world from Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. He consistently address's the text, in conjunction with Postman's real world application, in context to his argument.
The author's purpose in this document is to point out our worlds eventual approach to the fictional world of Brave New World. In every argument and idea stated or represented in Brave New World, he compares it to a similar real world problem. These connections, with the help of a few of Postman's ideas, create an all to creepy realization of the possibility of the realization of Huxley's prophecy. The subject of the essay seems to be a warning to our ever advancing society. This becomes evident towards the conclusion as, in his list of questions, he questions whether technology is still helping society, or if its slowly destroying us. Though this theme, or idea, can be quite contriversial. For instance, many believed at one time that 1984’s totalitarian society would soon dominate the world. But as time’s changed this wasn’t the case, the world evolved and democracy expanded to a point where the thought of society reverting back to the primitive totalitarian government is laughable. Despite this, the author makes a strong and convincing arguement of today’s society’s direction towards a technopoly.
The essay opens with an broad explaination of Brave New World and Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology as a whole. The rest of the essay is catagorized into ideas. With each paragraph the author address a certain aspect or problem of the novel and then cross analyses it with Postman’s ideas to get a very realization comparison of modern society with the Huxley’s ‘utopia.’ This method allows the essay to stay organized, with each idea being seperate and distinct, yet all adding up to the same idea in the end. The writer has a highly formal tone, and creates what seems to be an educated background on the subject by using specific words related to the subject, such as ‘technopoly,’ that an average individual may not know. However, he is clear in explaining his diction to make it understandable to even those most ignorant to the subject.
The use of outside sources, such as Neil Postman and other respected minds, creates a sense of authority around his essay. It is not merely an essay written by someone who read the book and is simply spewing out what he thinks. It is backed up by some of the most knowledge minds related to the subject, most even being published writers. By the conclusion of the essay, the author has successfully established himself as an acceptable authority. His choice of reference, his obvious research into the subject, and overall highly convincing argument allows the reader to not only accept his views and ideas, but believe them.
Brave New World and the Threat of Technological Growth (http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/509/brave-new-world-and-the-threat-of-technological-growth)
The author begins by cross examining the text with another, scholarly text on the similar subject as Brave New World. He compares the fictional society created in Huxley's novel to the possible problems of our world from Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. He consistently address's the text, in conjunction with Postman's real world application, in context to his argument.
The author's purpose in this document is to point out our worlds eventual approach to the fictional world of Brave New World. In every argument and idea stated or represented in Brave New World, he compares it to a similar real world problem. These connections, with the help of a few of Postman's ideas, create an all to creepy realization of the possibility of the realization of Huxley's prophecy. The subject of the essay seems to be a warning to our ever advancing society. This becomes evident towards the conclusion as, in his list of questions, he questions whether technology is still helping society, or if its slowly destroying us. Though this theme, or idea, can be quite contriversial. For instance, many believed at one time that 1984’s totalitarian society would soon dominate the world. But as time’s changed this wasn’t the case, the world evolved and democracy expanded to a point where the thought of society reverting back to the primitive totalitarian government is laughable. Despite this, the author makes a strong and convincing arguement of today’s society’s direction towards a technopoly.
The essay opens with an broad explaination of Brave New World and Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology as a whole. The rest of the essay is catagorized into ideas. With each paragraph the author address a certain aspect or problem of the novel and then cross analyses it with Postman’s ideas to get a very realization comparison of modern society with the Huxley’s ‘utopia.’ This method allows the essay to stay organized, with each idea being seperate and distinct, yet all adding up to the same idea in the end. The writer has a highly formal tone, and creates what seems to be an educated background on the subject by using specific words related to the subject, such as ‘technopoly,’ that an average individual may not know. However, he is clear in explaining his diction to make it understandable to even those most ignorant to the subject.
The use of outside sources, such as Neil Postman and other respected minds, creates a sense of authority around his essay. It is not merely an essay written by someone who read the book and is simply spewing out what he thinks. It is backed up by some of the most knowledge minds related to the subject, most even being published writers. By the conclusion of the essay, the author has successfully established himself as an acceptable authority. His choice of reference, his obvious research into the subject, and overall highly convincing argument allows the reader to not only accept his views and ideas, but believe them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)