Technopoly

                As a society, people crave new and upcoming inventions made by others. Postman’s article on Technopolies confronts this issue and how we came about using it within our society. This includes societies various stages of development, including the “old ways”, technocracy, and than finally a technocracy.

                To understand what a technopoly is, technocracy must be explained. The arcticle states that,” In a technocracy…. a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent” (Postman). This means that a technocracy isn’t controlled by any specific religion or customs, but it does wish to better itself  through the invention of technology. This way of life, however, still must compete with societies who still value the old traditions and customs. In a technopoly, this struggle no longer exists and in its place stands a totalitarian society, in which all aspects of people’s lives are controlled. A technopoly thus is a totalitarian technocracy where humans help machines progress instead of the other way around.

                This relates to Brave New World because a technopoly is used within most of the novels settings. Everyone follows Ford ( their uniform “God”) and everyone takes Soma (their religion). Every aspect of one’s life has been planned from birth to death and all their customs are being controlled. The ways and traditions of the “Old World” are still present within reservations, but are looked down upon and are “invisible” to the rest of society. Those reservations don’t follow a technopoly or even a technocracy, only the old traditional ways people barely survived from. As a technopoly may seem like the perfect utopia for a society, a technocracy is better suit.

Responce to "Singularity" article

           

                Lev Grossman’s article on Singularity, the hypothesis of humans and machines becoming one, raises plausible statements on how our society is slowly succumbing to the will of machines.

            The article discusses the topic of how machines are slowly becoming smarter than humans. As we continue to create new technologies for our demanding society, the technologies grow more intricate and advance. The article claims that as technology continues to grow, it will eventually outsmart humans and thus “take over” life as we know it. To prove that he knows what he’s talking about, Grossman describes Raymond kurzweil’s invention of a computer that can compose its own music. His opinion is cautious as he comments, “To see creativity…..usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence” (Grossman). Keep in mind that kurzweil built his “super-computer” in 1965, so imagine what kind of machines our society is making today.

            In chapter 6 of Brave New World, Bernard feels similar emotions with Grossman because he dislikes how his society expects him to follow the rules and laws set. These rules and laws help run societies in the world such that the society itself becomes a machine, always growing and looking for new ways to improve on its processes. Bernard wishes that he wasn’t,” enslaved by….conditioning,” and would rather be able to do as he pleases instead of always maintaining the social order (Huxley 91). His situation could be the result of singularity in the real world, as societies in reality may be forced to maintain the technologies they create (which is already happening). However, it would be on a much larger scale than our current level.

            Moreover, both pieces propose a future in which a society must maintain the technologies it has created. If left unchecked, technology will surpass human intellect and will become a more involved within our societies. After all, to see a computer mimic human creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, is already bringing us a step closer with machines. Singularity may be upon us already and we may not know of its presence.

Rhetorical Analysis on "The Technological Evolution of Filmmaking and its Relation to Quality in Cinema'

            In a historian way, Ryan A. Piccirillo’s article describes the technological evolution of filmmaking within society and how it relates to the quality of a film. He then elaborates on how filmmaking tools should be used to actually help portray the story, instead of the story revolving around the filmmaking tools as part of its plot.

There is no doubt that this article is intended for directors, both uprising and veterans alike. Piccirillo has no problem quoting and describing older movies to his audience because he expects them to know what he is talking about. These films range from the silent film era all the way up to 1930’s when society began using audio in their films. His descriptions of these films, along with his explanation of his theory, lead to long paragraphs that attempt to make sense of what happened in the past.

            Piccirillo understands that the quality of a film comes from a culmination of multiple factors. His definition of quality revolves around the ability of a filmmaker to utilize the tools in his or her time to portray a plot in a film. These tools can be anything from sound, lighting, and even camera angle. In the beginning of his article, he explains that when film was just starting out, it had enough tools (he calls them “cinematic formal elements”) to express a plot.  Even though they were only ten to twenty second clips with no sound, people back then utilized what they had to make a good film. He than applauds other movies such as Workers leaving the Factory and Trip to the Moon because of their filmmakers ability to utilize the filmmaking elements of their era to portray stories.

This article, similar to others I have read, doesn’t really seem to stand out to me. It has an introduction and conclusion paragraph as well as lengthy body paragraphs to explain its thesis. However, all of these paragraphs seem to be longer than the “typical essay” because the author is trying to explain his theory on films. The one thing that does stand out is the conclusion, which ends abruptly as if to say,” and that’s why this is the way it is and that’s all there is to it”. Long as it may be, it felt as though it was being rushed at the end and wasn’t given a chance to actually close out its argument.

This essay’s type of writing isn’t any different from most literature that I’ve been exposed to. It’s in a typical essay format with more explanation in each paragraph and more body paragraphs. The last paragraph did show me one way of summarizing an essay, and that is to end an essay with another body paragraph.