Tuesday, October 23, 2007

"Why The Future Doesn't Need Us"; by Bill Joy

Joy's thesis is that technology is getting too advanced for our own good. Eventually technology will surpass us & the human race might be in danger. In a way we will eventually be put into a "catch 22". We will become so reliant on technology that to turn them off would "be equivalent to suicide", and if we don't they may overtake us. I believe that a lot of the concepts were thought out and good ideas, but I also feel that this whole article was a bit much. It seemed to take this whole situation to the extreme and it began to sound like the rantings of a scholarly but fearful and paranioid man. Which is similiar to BNW. In BNW Huxley took the scenerio to the extreme to make his point. He might have done this driven by fear and paranoia, just as Jill did. Both BNW & Joy's piece give scenerios for the future. Both seemed to be worried about the iminent future and what it holds. They would both agree that it is a bleak one fromt he path we are taking, but I believe that both have faith that there is a way to change this. Both pieces seem prove as insightful warnings for what they see as the future. Joy feels that this controlling & technological future can be avoided by either the government taking complete control and slowing down the advancement or "pace" at which we are inventing and perfecting technology, or society as a whole becoming less dependant on it. Joy also asks questions that forces the reader to answer for themselves. This seems to involve the reader on a different level and may cause him/her to look deeper into his theories. I believe that this adds to his claims and ideas; making them that much more substantial.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Harrison Bergeron

Kurt Vonnegut is satarizing Americans' tendencies to always seek equality. Our country was based upon these principles and therefore we continue to argue the basic applications of equality, but to a certain extent that gets exhausted. It is not that they are obsessed with equality, but I believe they are obsessed with the differences between our cultures, skin, race, ethnicity and appeances that they mask it with claiming "equality for all!". I believe that if someone truly did not care about race, then they would be blind to it, and would not concern themselves with the particulars of the Constitution. But I digress.

Vonnegut was also satarizing Egalitarianism, which was also the theme of the story. The ideals of an Egalitarianist society are good in theory, but differences and individualism is also necessary, and I believe this is what Vonnegut was trying to argue. Vonnegut used severe hyperbole to get his point across, and it worked. Just like Orwell and Huxley, Vonnegut used the extreme examples of a society they invisioned to capture the attentions of many.

The story is written in 3rd person. It seems to be from an outside source with no judgement or perception attatched to either side. This adds to the story and is better than if Harrison or his parents had narrated it. It gives us readers an point of view unconnected extremely with one side. It does hint at the absurdity of Harrison's parents and the society they cling to, but it does it very elegantly, resisting the total abashment of the society. This also adds to the story because it leads us, as readers, to draw our own conclusions although the author subtlely takes us by the hand and slowly leads us to them.

“Vonnegut proves repeatedly…that men and women remaining fundamentally the same, no matter what technology surrounds them.” This holds to be true in Vonnegut's story. For example, George's ear piece was to prevent him from thinking about certain things, and it would be assumed that eventually he would simply learn to not think like that, but he never learns. Despite the constant pains his mind still attempts to think deeper than allowed. That part of human nature was unaltered, despite the constant technological interference.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas

I did not like the passage at first. I thought it was repetative & time consuming. But, as I reached the ending & the little boy I gained a new perspective on it. I ended up liking the passage. It is my favorite 1984 related-ish post yet. I like how, unlike BNW, 1984, and robots dreams , the people of Omelas are actually aware of their situation, they have compassion and are able to make decisions for themselves. They simply choose not to decide to let the child out because it is for the betterment of the city. I also liked how some people did feel sickened by the city they live in and had the ability to leave the society.

There are many connections to the novel 1984 and this story. Both are obviously about a society that strives to be perfect. To me this story more relates to BNW than 1984. But as I stated earlier, there are some key differences. In both BNW & 1984 the people were unable to both conprehend and exit the society that they lived in, but in this story the people were well aware of their circumstances and what they had to sacrifice to keep it "perfect". They also had the ability to leave freely from this society.

There were numerous literary devices used in this story. Some include simile, metaphore and personfication. With the use of these literary devices it helps to further illustrate the story, especially the setting. Many of these devices are used in describing the happy and perfect nature of the festival and people of Omelas. This gives the reader a greater visual image and impression of the "perfect" city, which makes it that much more appalling when we find out the root of all this happiness.

1.Why does the author go to such lenghts to fully describe the happy setting of the festival?

2.Without the long description of the city's happy nature, would it have taken away from the forcefull ending?

3. The author likes to use discription to get his point across (i.e. the description of the state of the boy) does this aid the story? how?

4. Why is this titled "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" when the majority of the story is not about those who walked away from omelas? What impact does it make on the story?

5. What is the tone and voice of the author?

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Why the Future doesn't need us

Preguntas:

1. Do you think that our reliance on machines will inevitably lead to complete reliance? Do you agree that we will become reliant on machines to the extent that the article states? ("People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. ")

2. Which one do you fear is more dangerous for humanity, human control over machines, or completely concious machines?

3. I disagree with the article when it refers to what humans will do with the power they control. (end of last parag. )I believe that their sense of humanity will overpower their hunger for power. What do you think?

4. The word "utopia" generally has a positive connotation, but from this article and those you have read prior, is a perfect utopian society even possible without the inevitable outcome of those predicted by Orwell, Asimov or the author from "Wired"?

5. Do you think that George Orwell would agree with this "Wired" author?

6. If what the article predicts does come true in the future and machines do take over, do you believe humans would have unconciously handed over their rights willingly or would they have been forced? Which one occured in 1984?

7.In your opinion, are any of these scenerios going to actually occur in our future, or are they simply scenerios creative of sci-fi geeks with too much time on their hands?

Goals

To be honest, I do not really sure about 3 colleges choices. Univ. of Mich. (ann arbor) is a definite yes. Probably Mich. State. & maybe Notre Dame. Mr. Bob's suggesting Central. not sure..

'm hoping for anything over a 4.0. Erin's already there, so the pressure is on.

I'm striving for a 4 but I'm realisticall Probably a 3.

Who's helping me out?Mr. Hughes has been a huge contibutor && Mr. Brater is doing his part. That's about it.

Asimov Reading

Both Orwell's 1984 and Asimov's "Robot Dreams" are oddly similiar. I actually wondered half way through the passage whether the writer had read and had been influenced by Orwell's 1984 when writing "Robot Dreams". Many of the characters in both pieces parallel eachother. Both pieces of work are about a society or group of "people" (or robots) being controlled by another.The robot Elvex is very similiar to Winston. Both have accomplished what many could not. Elvex and Winston are able to envision a freedom that no other ever considered. Winston is able, despite the party's "programming", to envision a world with the rights currently unavailable to him. While Elvex is able to do something no other robot is able to do, dream. Both characters dream of something they have never experienced before, freedom. Neither Winston nor the robot remember a time of freedom and therefore neither should realize their lack of it, because it is impossible to miss what one never had. But both characters defy their programming and are able to realize what is missing even though they do not realize what power they hold in this realization.

Both characters are also being controlled by a man, or woman, that fears their newfound insite and therefore feel that it is necessary to "dispose" of them. Winston had O'brien who dissagreed with Winston's beliefs and thereby resulted in Winston's death. Elvex had Dr. Calvin who also feared the robot's new ability and insite which also resulted in the robot's death. Both characters insite ultimately resulted in their deaths. Both were in a sense unique and because of that they were a threat to the society they lived in. Winston and Elvex live in two different times and yet their situations are the same. The situation both characters faced did not age with time, but were independant of time. And that is what we should most be afraid of.

A meeting between these two men would definetly be interesting. I feel that because of the undeniable simmilarities between the characters and ultimately the ending message they would start their conversation in agreement. Both men would not deny the fact that civilization and society faces a big problem, and I also believe that they would agree that our failure is inevitable.