technopoly

Natalie Lozano

Technopoly

            In Neil Postman’s “Technopoly” he explains how the world will somehow shift into a

 place where technology will take over culture life. Knowing basic will be a thing in the past and

 technology will do everything for us. Technology has no end really. When a human makes a

new invention others come up with the next invention and it never stops. Postman describes the

difference between technocracy and technopoly. Postman says that “Technocracy gave us the

idea of progress, and of necessity loosened our bonds with tradition—whether political or

spiritual. Technocracy filled the air with the promise of new freedoms and new forms of social

organization.” In “Brave New World” Huxley created a new god named, Henry Ford, who

created the assembly line. He is apparently the god they worship in the factory. The people there

are all conditioned to believe that Ford is their deity and their superior. They have also

 conditioned babies and kids still growing up by having them listening to something in their

sleep.

            Fredrick Winslow Taylor argued that faith was a waste of time because it was not related

to science which has proven facts then just belief, like religion. Taylor seems to believe that

 “human judgment can’t be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary

complexity.” Technology will, sooner or later, be associated with everything we do like thinking

and to do everything for us. We will be almost be useless to this world and electronics will take

over. They will be the master and we could end up being there puppets or worse become extinct

because technology would know what to do with us.

             There are many similarities between Neil Postman’s “Technopoly” and Huxley’s “Brave

New World." Postman’s description is that technology will outweigh human culture, nature,

religion, tradition, and society as a whole. Huxley writes about how technology as already taken

its toll on a controlled society of a certain group of people. Postman’s novel is more like a theory

about what the world will turn into and Huxley’s novel explains how Postman was right.

the brave new singularity

Natalie Lozano

The Brave New Singularity

            In the article, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal:” by Lev Grossman, she/he

explains that computer are becoming so advance they might even pass us up and have artificial

intelligence. Computers are a thing of the past, present, and now and forever our future. We as

humans are becoming so dependent on all technology that we won’t be able to do things for

ourselves but at the same time it is our fault for making more and better pieces of technology.

            Grossman goes into a further description of how technology is advancing past human

intelligence. For example she talks about how computers will, “not just [do] arithmetic very

quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing music, making ethical decisions,

 appreciation fancy paintings, making witty conversations at cocktail parties (2045: The Year

Man Becomes Immortal 1). Each day man will get smarter and make more with his brain. The

 human mind is endless and if that is so then computers will not endless.

            To me merging with technology would be a bad thing because we could lose ourselves in

all this technology and never find ourselves or find a way back to humanity. There will be no end

unless we put a stop to it now. If we keep on going with technological advances there is always

going to be a way to improve. One step more, we would never reach the end; it’s not going to

completely stop.

             Bernard from, “Brave New World” isn’t the smartest or the most physically fitter then

most alphas but he does have an open mind. His open mind is starting to tell him that something

bad will happen soon because of being in that factory for so long and not know what true

freedom is like. He starts to see that this form of government is bad and that it need to be fixed or

he has to get out of there some how.

rhetorical analysis

Natalie Lozano

Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening

In Robert Frost's "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening". This article was composed pretty well but was weak in his defense of his argument. They had two people debate on what the article was talking about and then another person saying it was him admiring nature. Frost stayed on topic but at the same time he seem confused too, because he did not realize what he was writing about until he further looked into it to get a better sense of what was going on. As Frost is writing his article, he goes into detail about the types of writing devices used to construct this story and he made it his thesis. In the first paragraph he explains how the author of the poem didn’t use punctuation. The second paragraph talked about how he resurfaces in the last quatrain in the rhyme scheme DDDD. The third paragraph was about how he couldn’t make up his mind on whether he wanted iambic feet or pyrrhic feet throughout the article.  It seems as though he was very careful when writing this essay. Like, he didn’t want to do anything to big but played it safe.

            The article, in Robert Frost's "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" it felt like it had flow to it and it was easy to read, easy to follow but didn’t really catch my attention nothing that made me want to keep reading. I didn’t get how he didn’t know what he was talking about most of the time. I have never seen that in writing so it was bizarre for me to read. At the beginning it looked as though he had a plan of what he was going to write about but slowly it changed into something else. How could someone get looking at nature and see it as suicide? It was weird for me to see how it developed into something completely different.

           This article was a discussion on whether the man was thinking of committing suicide or merely looking out on nature. From what I have just read it seems like the author is still indecisive about which side he is going to reflect and he is just mediating or waiting for someone to give him more information or insight of what is happening in the story. Reading this article made me think off whether my opinion was with suicide or looking out over nature. Since he did not chose which side he was actually on it didn’t help him with his argument, honestly, he didn’t have an argument or an opinion to write this article.

           I think that if Frost had chosen a side he would have been able to back it up with facts and good analysis, otherwise he was giving facts to both side which doesn’t help what he was trying to accomplish. The way he set up his article was good but could have been way better instead of staying on a medial topic and staying there.