Technopoly Monopoly

Neil Postman's book Technopoly regards a new era of human existence where machines not only dominate in the work place but also change the concept of how the world operates. Postman writes that the traditional world and the technological world are clashing but neither one can gain complete control. Traditional workplaces and customs are being lost to the hostile takeover of machinery efficiency. In Brave New World for example, the characters say their years in terms of B.F. and A.F. This refers to before Ford and after Ford because their society believes Ford's moving assembly line was the greatest thing ever invented. It maximized production and was later used in the process of making human beings. Technology is taking over the world and in Brave New World, Huxley was trying to warn what could happen if we let it go too far. By letting technology continue to progress in such ways, it could ruin life as we know it. Technopoly said, “...it does so by redefining what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions meet its new requirements.” This is what Huxley was portraying in his novel. The lack of religion and culture along with constant soma holidays and sexual encounters leads the reader to be genuinely fearful of a technological future. A technopoly is a totalitarian type of government and if America really is one, we are doomed. As society will begin to change and adapt, the old traditions and cultures will be cast out and banished. The totalitarian system will control everybody and we will slowly shift into an era of unquestionable peril. It doesn't matter if we are 1984 bad or Brave New World bad, either one sucks badly. Nobody has freedom and oppression is around every corner. America and the world in general can not be allowed to fall into the grasps of a Technopoly because it will destroy every piece of our humanity and make us machines without feelings.

2045: Death of Humanity?

The Obsolete "Human" Race

The concepts originally presented by Kurzweil seem to be straight out of a suspenseful science fiction book by Stephen Spielberg; but unfortunately, this is where our world is heading. Lev Grossman from Time Magazine compiles the ideas of a technological future together to show the direction we may be heading as a society. I personally like technology but I think there should be a line where it can reach before it becomes too strong to handle. Like the article 2045: The year Man Becomes Immortal says, “ Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011,” (Grossman). I think people suppress the fear of virtual takeover because the internet and smart phones are so much fun to use and they believe whoever is inventing these devices must have control, right? If allowed to continue, our society may become one similar to the one depicted in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Bernard, one of the main characters in the novel, is a rebel against his society and wants to go back to a time when people were free and were not made like machines. This novel represents what could happen if a society was solely based on efficiency. Human machines decanted on an assembly line would be the result from letting computers define the way we should live. Another similarity between the novel and the article is the concept of agelessness. Brave New World uses drugs and blood transfusions to keep the body looking young until they die but the article claims that by downloading your essence into a software, you could virtually “live” forever. But is this considered human? Humanity is dying with the advancement of computers and one day I think we need to slow down and reflect on how far we have already come and contemplate whether or not we want to continue until our downfall becomes imminent.

Rhetorical Analysis from StudentPulse

Rhetorical Analysis of the Vampire

The essay “Vampires: The Ever Changing Face of Fear” was written to tell an audience of readers about the evolution of the vampire myth in society. The author begins with a historical account of the first mention of vampires and then moves on to cite many famous authors who have written stories about the creatures. From Mary Shelley to Stephanie Meyer, the author wants her readers to see the change in our opinions from mass hysteria to literature to modern phenomenon. The author, Tori Gibbs, seems to be speaking to an audience made up of curious vampire researchers and movie-goers looking for more information about the characters from their favorite box office hits. I think that Gibbs wanted her piece of writing to show humans that in the past, society may have hated vampires but today they embrace them. According to Gibbs, it seems most teenage girls secretly yearn for the romantic, pale, and forever young face of the vampire to sweep them off their feet into a mythical world of romance and action packed fun. It's the modern day Romeo and Juliet with a better ending. In today's society, people want to be taken away from their dreary everyday lives into a supernatural paradise that fulfills their emotional and creative desires.

Gibbs plays on this desire of her readers by citing authors and newspaper critics who speak of vampires taking over the media. Knowing that their characters live on, people continue to believe in the mythical powers of the vampire and other creatures. When writers like Gibbs write about these creatures, the public has the assurance that the vampire fad is still the “in thing.” That's how the movie industry insures their new movie will please the audience's love of vampire creatures and mythical beings. Whether love or action based, the movie will continue to top the box office as long as it is related to the vampire. In Gibbs's essay, she quotes the Associated Press by writing,“The dead used to be a world away, far beyond the realm of mortal existence. If they walked the Earth at all, they inhabited the night. But the coffins and long black capes are gone. The destructive haunting is over. And forget about menacing the living — these days, the dead are just like us. Hollywood's dead, circa 2008, wear jeans, type obsessively on their BlackBerries and fret over relationship woes. They solve crimes, they give advice.”

Although the author is an author, she doesn't distinctly provide the authority that a respected author entitles. There is no history about her reputation or following. Her essay about vampires is in itself probably a considered a controversial topic. Gibbs was writing about a mythical creature that goes against many people's beliefs and religions. Therefore, it is controversial to the amount of literary merit her essay should receive. Works of writing about mythology often become stereotyped for their childish topics or unworthy beliefs. Gibbs attacks this underlying notion by making sure her readers know that many people believe or will accept the existence of a vampire. This technique allows her to become an authoritative writer with a purpose and a goal. She was telling you what to believe by forcing you to see the evidence from previous authors. Mary Shelley and Stephanie Meyer tell the reader that he/she will believe them because they are famous and have literary merit to do so. By mentioning their names and philosophies, Gibbs has given herself a reputation that provides merit to her audience.

Gibbs writes in a way that I think is pretty common. She brings in a new paragraph for every new person or story she quotes and she goes in chronological order. Her stories of vampires changing over time begins at the beginning and ends in today's movie indulged society. Her style of writing doesn't strike me as new or revolutionary but rather as another article from Wikipedia.