Hello world,
I'm bloggin and this time on my own terms. So, no more blogs about Kurt Vonnegut or how I feel on old people or there fear of change. This time I'm talkin' bout life.
Lately I have been thinking about people, what is it about drinking that makes them so fake? Recently at a small gathering at my house, the popular drinking game of "beer pong" was being played in full force. Now, I'm no stranger to this game. It's fun, involves little skill, and no matter how good you are, it get you drunk. As I was playing, I once again noticed something that has troubled me in many games of beer pong before; The overwhelmingly too serious beer pong opponent. "Crazy hands", "The re-rack architect", "Old yelper". We're all common offenders, I'll be the first to admit that, recognition is the first step in recovery. What is it about this popular game that brings out the crazy in all of us? I mean, its not a sport. Why treat it like one? It takes no physical skill and requires no talent once so ever, "Hey pussies, we're 15-0 think you can take us?" Probably, I watched a lot of Bozo as a kid and I've been training since an early age. Its not just beer pong that's the enemy, its this whole idea of the college life. I've watched all the old college movies, crazy parties and loose women. From what I've experienced, that's semi true but there's one big difference; everyone in the movie is super cool. No matter what stereotype they fit, they are the most charismatic, interesting people in the world. Before I thought it was the college, if I went to a big 10 school like I wanted this wouldn't happen...right? Wrong. Most people aren't that interesting, as much of a dickhead thing as that is to say it's the truth. Most people are shallow, stupid, and are just here as a perquisite to a sad, disappointing life. Maybe that's why for so many people, a good night is measured in how many drinks you had. I'm young, why should I want so bad too forget it. Sometimes getting plastered is nice, life gets rough and its nice to let go every once in a while but when it becomes a regular weekend thing, that's a problem.
That's my first blog, I don't know if anyone is going to read this and to be frank I really don't care. I really needed to write this down, now I feel good. Goodnight world!
Friday, September 25, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Reflective Essay
Research Analysis
I’ve always been incredibly interested in human culture and history. With our topic being technology, it seemed perfect to me to write about cyborgs. I crafted this idea while reading David Nye’s Technology Matters, I was reading about technology going hand in hand with human development. He says, “It is easy to imagine human beings as pre-literate, but it is difficult to imagine them as pre-technological” (5 Nye) Humans are mostly hairless, sensitive skinned, and relatively low on the food chain without technology. Everything from our cloths to our shelter is built with tools designed by human beings. We are technology, that’s our evolutionary advantage. If we were to suddenly leave all technology, we would go extinct. To deny technology is to deny what makes us a species. A human to deny technology is like a lion denying roaring, or a cheetah denying running. Our power is in our tools, we are technology. This got me thinking, I wondered what was next for humans, both physically and technologically. That’s when I thought about it, what if we became a product of our own ingenuity?
We are flying head first into the digital age at the speed of light. Computers are shrinking in price and size and doubling in power at literally exponential rates (Moore’s Law). Research in nanotechnologies and cybernetics are becoming hot industries. With the possibility of greatly increasing life spans, curing cancer, and cosmetically reducing times effect on the body, it’s not hard to see why these little robots aren’t a popular idea. With these technologies, humans will cease to become we humans as we know of today. To me, cyborgs are the next step in evolution. If we can run faster, jump higher, think quicker, and live longer we are by Darwin’s standards, evolving. That’s an interesting idea, and I felt it deserved to be written about. A decision like that would be the most morally challenging, difficult decisions to make. Are you willing to give up your past and start a new age, are you willing to leave some of yourself behind. I don’t know if I could. Even if it was just living a few extra decades, it is not what you know as natural. It’s not human.
Researching cyborgs wasn’t easy, especially because academic texts on it are limited. I tried to find a lot of medical texts and draw my research from those. We were instructed to stay away from popular media like magazines and news and stick to more “academic” sources. The problem with that is a lot of the current information on the technologies is in magazines and it’s hard to find current information in journals.
While writing I found it was hard to stick to my controlling purpose because it was so broad. Evolution is a big subject and there are a lot of issues that fall under it. I found myself focusing on the sociological side more than anything. I found that the most interesting, how people would react to a possible evolution. I thought how older generations react to modern technology and I figured something as radical as nanobots would be a hundred times more intense. My grandmother can barely use her own computer, if this revolution occurred today and everyone was asked to change, she would probably have a heart attack. What about my generation, how would we react? Would we embrace and adapt or would we finally discover a common tipping point. We are already plugged in twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Our devices never leave us, would we really care if they were just permanently connected to our being?
I covered the medical side of cyborgs greatly as well. I felt that if I didn’t it would just be a “what if?” paper. I wanted to stress that cyborgs aren’t just a thing of fiction, they’re very real. I did want to focus on the “what if?” of future cybernetics but I felt people would take me more seriously if I made cyborgs look more believable
I’ve always been incredibly interested in human culture and history. With our topic being technology, it seemed perfect to me to write about cyborgs. I crafted this idea while reading David Nye’s Technology Matters, I was reading about technology going hand in hand with human development. He says, “It is easy to imagine human beings as pre-literate, but it is difficult to imagine them as pre-technological” (5 Nye) Humans are mostly hairless, sensitive skinned, and relatively low on the food chain without technology. Everything from our cloths to our shelter is built with tools designed by human beings. We are technology, that’s our evolutionary advantage. If we were to suddenly leave all technology, we would go extinct. To deny technology is to deny what makes us a species. A human to deny technology is like a lion denying roaring, or a cheetah denying running. Our power is in our tools, we are technology. This got me thinking, I wondered what was next for humans, both physically and technologically. That’s when I thought about it, what if we became a product of our own ingenuity?
We are flying head first into the digital age at the speed of light. Computers are shrinking in price and size and doubling in power at literally exponential rates (Moore’s Law). Research in nanotechnologies and cybernetics are becoming hot industries. With the possibility of greatly increasing life spans, curing cancer, and cosmetically reducing times effect on the body, it’s not hard to see why these little robots aren’t a popular idea. With these technologies, humans will cease to become we humans as we know of today. To me, cyborgs are the next step in evolution. If we can run faster, jump higher, think quicker, and live longer we are by Darwin’s standards, evolving. That’s an interesting idea, and I felt it deserved to be written about. A decision like that would be the most morally challenging, difficult decisions to make. Are you willing to give up your past and start a new age, are you willing to leave some of yourself behind. I don’t know if I could. Even if it was just living a few extra decades, it is not what you know as natural. It’s not human.
Researching cyborgs wasn’t easy, especially because academic texts on it are limited. I tried to find a lot of medical texts and draw my research from those. We were instructed to stay away from popular media like magazines and news and stick to more “academic” sources. The problem with that is a lot of the current information on the technologies is in magazines and it’s hard to find current information in journals.
While writing I found it was hard to stick to my controlling purpose because it was so broad. Evolution is a big subject and there are a lot of issues that fall under it. I found myself focusing on the sociological side more than anything. I found that the most interesting, how people would react to a possible evolution. I thought how older generations react to modern technology and I figured something as radical as nanobots would be a hundred times more intense. My grandmother can barely use her own computer, if this revolution occurred today and everyone was asked to change, she would probably have a heart attack. What about my generation, how would we react? Would we embrace and adapt or would we finally discover a common tipping point. We are already plugged in twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Our devices never leave us, would we really care if they were just permanently connected to our being?
I covered the medical side of cyborgs greatly as well. I felt that if I didn’t it would just be a “what if?” paper. I wanted to stress that cyborgs aren’t just a thing of fiction, they’re very real. I did want to focus on the “what if?” of future cybernetics but I felt people would take me more seriously if I made cyborgs look more believable
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Assignment 8
A Not So Distant Future
“Asta La Vista Baby”
-The Terminator
If we were using free association and I asked you what comes to mind first when I said the word cyborg, what would you respond? You would probably think of popular fiction like The Terminator or I, Robot. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a cyborg as, “A person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man-machine system” (OED online). Now according to this definition, we have cyborgs walking among us today. A paraplegic with metal prosthetics could be considered a cyborg, a deaf person with cochlear implants that help him hear could be considered a cyborg, even our ex-VP Dick Cheney could be considered a cyborg with the pace maker that keeps his black heart running at a consistent pace. All these inventions do constitute a technical merging of man and machine. But what if we wanted to take that standard a bit further, what about a pace maker that not only uses the body’s natural electrical charge for power but also could adjust to the bodies environment? It would be a machine that would be totally self sufficient and also function in sync with the body as an organic component would. I believe that we are coming close to an age where that machine and many more like it are going to become very real, machines that enhance the human body to limits unimaginable by today’s standards.
Cybernetics 101
First coined by science fiction writers Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, the original idea was nothing but that, fiction. The 1960 article defined it as an enhanced human being capable of surviving in space and life on foreign planets without the need of a suit or earthlike conditions. Cyborgs in fictions have taken all sorts of titles. In The Terminator, human like machines are sent back in time to both kill and save John and Sarah Conner, the future saviors of the human race. In Robocop Detroit policeman Alex J. Murphey, is brutally mutilated and is brought back to life as a half man, half machine, state of the art police officer. In reality, cyborgs don’t quite resemble these examples. There are no machine gun prosthetics or computer eyes that can see in ever different light spectrum. The most advanced by today’s standards are probably the cochlear ear implants that allow the deaf to hear, “Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound” (www.nidcd.nih.gov). Though it can’t detect a pin dropping in a loud room, this is an incredible real life example of man and machine merging to enhance human life.
So what kinds of cyborgs are there? According to Craig M. Klugman’s “From Cyborg Fiction to Medical Reality”, there are two and they are separated by the Cartesian school of thought that the mind is a separate entity from the body, “A non-Cartesian cyborg would have only parts of the body or mind replaced. Cyborg bodies, therefore, fall along a second continuum, Cartesian and non-Cartesian” (45 Klugman). Many of today’s medical wonders fall under the non-Cartesian thought of cyborgs, “Cochlear implants, eye telescopes, and dental implants transform people into transplantable bodies” (46 Klugman). Though the least likely of the cyborg examples, the theory of the “disembodied mind” is certainly the most thought provoking; a mind taken from a damaged, organic body and placed into a machine that would act as a host. Almost as if the idea came from a horror novel the idea brings forth many possible ethical and intense psychological problems. Klugman uses Damon Knight’s 1958 story “Masks” as an example:
The head of the project, Babcock, transplants Jim’s brain into a mechanical body. Although he looks human, Jim wears a metallic mask that more accurately reflects his self-image as a machine, not a human…Jim loses touch with his humanity and finds all things organic and repulsive. Disgusted by biological processes, he brutally murders a small, innocent dog. Jim desires total separation from humanity to the extent that he wants his brain placed in a bulky mechanical body designed for solo space exploration
(48 Klugman). This is one of the biggest fears that I have about a possible evolution of man and machine. What if we lose the essence that makes us human? If we lose touch with humanity we lose what makes us build and strive to do better, if we become machines that can’t better themselves then what the point of evolving?
“Asta La Vista Baby”
-The Terminator
If we were using free association and I asked you what comes to mind first when I said the word cyborg, what would you respond? You would probably think of popular fiction like The Terminator or I, Robot. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a cyborg as, “A person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man-machine system” (OED online). Now according to this definition, we have cyborgs walking among us today. A paraplegic with metal prosthetics could be considered a cyborg, a deaf person with cochlear implants that help him hear could be considered a cyborg, even our ex-VP Dick Cheney could be considered a cyborg with the pace maker that keeps his black heart running at a consistent pace. All these inventions do constitute a technical merging of man and machine. But what if we wanted to take that standard a bit further, what about a pace maker that not only uses the body’s natural electrical charge for power but also could adjust to the bodies environment? It would be a machine that would be totally self sufficient and also function in sync with the body as an organic component would. I believe that we are coming close to an age where that machine and many more like it are going to become very real, machines that enhance the human body to limits unimaginable by today’s standards.
Cybernetics 101
First coined by science fiction writers Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, the original idea was nothing but that, fiction. The 1960 article defined it as an enhanced human being capable of surviving in space and life on foreign planets without the need of a suit or earthlike conditions. Cyborgs in fictions have taken all sorts of titles. In The Terminator, human like machines are sent back in time to both kill and save John and Sarah Conner, the future saviors of the human race. In Robocop Detroit policeman Alex J. Murphey, is brutally mutilated and is brought back to life as a half man, half machine, state of the art police officer. In reality, cyborgs don’t quite resemble these examples. There are no machine gun prosthetics or computer eyes that can see in ever different light spectrum. The most advanced by today’s standards are probably the cochlear ear implants that allow the deaf to hear, “Cochlear implants bypass damaged portions of the ear and directly stimulate the auditory nerve. Signals generated by the implant are sent by way of the auditory nerve to the brain, which recognizes the signals as sound” (www.nidcd.nih.gov). Though it can’t detect a pin dropping in a loud room, this is an incredible real life example of man and machine merging to enhance human life.
So what kinds of cyborgs are there? According to Craig M. Klugman’s “From Cyborg Fiction to Medical Reality”, there are two and they are separated by the Cartesian school of thought that the mind is a separate entity from the body, “A non-Cartesian cyborg would have only parts of the body or mind replaced. Cyborg bodies, therefore, fall along a second continuum, Cartesian and non-Cartesian” (45 Klugman). Many of today’s medical wonders fall under the non-Cartesian thought of cyborgs, “Cochlear implants, eye telescopes, and dental implants transform people into transplantable bodies” (46 Klugman). Though the least likely of the cyborg examples, the theory of the “disembodied mind” is certainly the most thought provoking; a mind taken from a damaged, organic body and placed into a machine that would act as a host. Almost as if the idea came from a horror novel the idea brings forth many possible ethical and intense psychological problems. Klugman uses Damon Knight’s 1958 story “Masks” as an example:
The head of the project, Babcock, transplants Jim’s brain into a mechanical body. Although he looks human, Jim wears a metallic mask that more accurately reflects his self-image as a machine, not a human…Jim loses touch with his humanity and finds all things organic and repulsive. Disgusted by biological processes, he brutally murders a small, innocent dog. Jim desires total separation from humanity to the extent that he wants his brain placed in a bulky mechanical body designed for solo space exploration
(48 Klugman). This is one of the biggest fears that I have about a possible evolution of man and machine. What if we lose the essence that makes us human? If we lose touch with humanity we lose what makes us build and strive to do better, if we become machines that can’t better themselves then what the point of evolving?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Blog #9
Annotated Bibliography
Levy, David. Love and Sex with Robots. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
As an internationally known artificial intelligence expert and the International computer games association, David Levy seems to represent…something not offensive. Stereotypically, his audience is not widely known for their social skills. As his subject involves future intercourse with robots, this stereotype may hold true. Levy graduated from Acadia University in 1972 and received his masters in English from Queens University in 1979. The author’s audience is targeted at anyone who has an interest in technology in general, or specifically robots. The demand of Levy audience is the curiosity in just how far technology can go. Author David Levy is primarily trying to address the things that technology bring us to today, showing how absurd the new ideas that people create are. A main argument that Levy makes is that what we may have imagined never happening, could happen a lot sooner than we think, or could already be happening right before our eyes. For example in briefly describing what the book is about, Levy states: “Love, marriage, and sex with robots? Not in a million years? Maybe a whole lot sooner.”
Just the term, “Robot-human sexual intercourse” is a controversial issue. It’s no question sex in society has been a constantly changing argument, for centuries views have differed and changed by public opinion. But even in today’s society where sex seems to be a little less taboo, (even if no one wants to admit it but advertisements can publicly resemble at pin up poster) it’s unclear how people will react to sexual relations with inanimate objects. Considering the openness of the subject, it’s hard to tell if the author is “cropping out” certain topics. It’s possible that these robots might turn on their masters or become some sort of undercover devices for the government. A threat to privacy could be eminent, but that’s the risk you run with dating a computer. The idea of being able to have a real relationship with a robot in and of itself, is interesting; thinking that someone can have real feelings for an object hardly considered anything but programmed. I think Levy’s main purpose in talking about this issue, is to make us aware of how technology is literally changing the world. This source could prove as very useful in terms of our final research papers, because it not only helps us to see the different affects technology has on us in just this aspect, but it opened our eyes showing us that it can relate to more topics than just our own.
Klugman, Craig M. "From Cyborg Fiction to Medical Reality." Literature and Medicine 20 (2001): 39-54.
With masters in both anthropology and bioethics, Craig Klugman has the credentials to back his essay on the future for cybernetic medicine. Obviously, he has no education in the technical aspect of cybernetics but he does have education in both history and medical ethics, which make him a good foreteller of the coming changes in science. He acts as almost a third party to the human race, narrating the current changes happing in our society. His narration feels like an address to everyone, a simple enlightening into the not so distant future. He analyzes the possibilities of different cyborg combinations in literature and reality and their various outcomes. Using both negative and positive examples, Klugman acts as a fair bioethicist showing the different faces of medical experimention. He writes mainly on the relationship of cybernetics and medicine, which is understandable because that’s what he essay is on. He doesn’t try to comment much about the possible social effects of cybernetics relating to crime and justice but rather on the psychological effects on the social surrounding the physical changes.
Geertsema, Henk G. "Cyborg: Myth or Reality?." Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 41.2 (June 2006): 289-328
As a professor of Reformational Philosophy at the universities of Utrecht and Groningen and of the Dooyeweerd-chair at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Henk Geertsema still teaches for the English master programme Christian Studies of Science and Society. As a professor of philosophy, it’s fitting that Geertsema writes about the thought that humans and machines are separate and cyborgs are the future. He suggests that we are already integrated with machines in both physical and mental levels.
Through my sources I've learned about factors I didn't foresee when I started this project. Most are from fiction but still hold a small amount of fear in my mind. Factors like a disconnect from the human world were things I didn't think about. I have seen a lot of the same sources used by my sources, gives me more to look up for paper. Most of the root sources are older, which find interesting. Sources like Rene Descartes, whose over 400 years old. The fact that the thought has gone back that far is something to write about.
Levy, David. Love and Sex with Robots. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
As an internationally known artificial intelligence expert and the International computer games association, David Levy seems to represent…something not offensive. Stereotypically, his audience is not widely known for their social skills. As his subject involves future intercourse with robots, this stereotype may hold true. Levy graduated from Acadia University in 1972 and received his masters in English from Queens University in 1979. The author’s audience is targeted at anyone who has an interest in technology in general, or specifically robots. The demand of Levy audience is the curiosity in just how far technology can go. Author David Levy is primarily trying to address the things that technology bring us to today, showing how absurd the new ideas that people create are. A main argument that Levy makes is that what we may have imagined never happening, could happen a lot sooner than we think, or could already be happening right before our eyes. For example in briefly describing what the book is about, Levy states: “Love, marriage, and sex with robots? Not in a million years? Maybe a whole lot sooner.”
Just the term, “Robot-human sexual intercourse” is a controversial issue. It’s no question sex in society has been a constantly changing argument, for centuries views have differed and changed by public opinion. But even in today’s society where sex seems to be a little less taboo, (even if no one wants to admit it but advertisements can publicly resemble at pin up poster) it’s unclear how people will react to sexual relations with inanimate objects. Considering the openness of the subject, it’s hard to tell if the author is “cropping out” certain topics. It’s possible that these robots might turn on their masters or become some sort of undercover devices for the government. A threat to privacy could be eminent, but that’s the risk you run with dating a computer. The idea of being able to have a real relationship with a robot in and of itself, is interesting; thinking that someone can have real feelings for an object hardly considered anything but programmed. I think Levy’s main purpose in talking about this issue, is to make us aware of how technology is literally changing the world. This source could prove as very useful in terms of our final research papers, because it not only helps us to see the different affects technology has on us in just this aspect, but it opened our eyes showing us that it can relate to more topics than just our own.
Klugman, Craig M. "From Cyborg Fiction to Medical Reality." Literature and Medicine 20 (2001): 39-54.
With masters in both anthropology and bioethics, Craig Klugman has the credentials to back his essay on the future for cybernetic medicine. Obviously, he has no education in the technical aspect of cybernetics but he does have education in both history and medical ethics, which make him a good foreteller of the coming changes in science. He acts as almost a third party to the human race, narrating the current changes happing in our society. His narration feels like an address to everyone, a simple enlightening into the not so distant future. He analyzes the possibilities of different cyborg combinations in literature and reality and their various outcomes. Using both negative and positive examples, Klugman acts as a fair bioethicist showing the different faces of medical experimention. He writes mainly on the relationship of cybernetics and medicine, which is understandable because that’s what he essay is on. He doesn’t try to comment much about the possible social effects of cybernetics relating to crime and justice but rather on the psychological effects on the social surrounding the physical changes.
Geertsema, Henk G. "Cyborg: Myth or Reality?." Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 41.2 (June 2006): 289-328
As a professor of Reformational Philosophy at the universities of Utrecht and Groningen and of the Dooyeweerd-chair at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Henk Geertsema still teaches for the English master programme Christian Studies of Science and Society. As a professor of philosophy, it’s fitting that Geertsema writes about the thought that humans and machines are separate and cyborgs are the future. He suggests that we are already integrated with machines in both physical and mental levels.
Through my sources I've learned about factors I didn't foresee when I started this project. Most are from fiction but still hold a small amount of fear in my mind. Factors like a disconnect from the human world were things I didn't think about. I have seen a lot of the same sources used by my sources, gives me more to look up for paper. Most of the root sources are older, which find interesting. Sources like Rene Descartes, whose over 400 years old. The fact that the thought has gone back that far is something to write about.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Take it back a second, weirdo!
When most people think of cyborgs, they think of popular movies like "The Terminator" or "Star Trek". That's why I usually get a laugh of disbelief when I tell people about my subject. When you think about it, your first connection is probably Arnold Schwarzenegger's famous "Asta la vista, baby" and the thought of an actual cyborg is somewhat ridiculous. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a cyborg as, "A person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body's functioning; an integrated man-machine system." Now when technologies like nanobots are right around the corner, I think its an appropriate time to start thinking about it. Were now using human ingenuity to surpass the what is now considered "normal" living conditions in a way that goes beyond medical or organic. I believe were on the edge of human evolution; man is merging with his greatest creation, machine. Now I'm not big into sci-fi and I don't spend my nights reading the forums but I am incredibly interested in human beings. The beginning of a potential evolution is something I believe everyone should get into, no matter how ridiculous Hollywood has made it.
As a stakeholder I see myself as that regular person who will make a decision in the future to modify and stay with the pack or fall behind with the others who want to die as they are. Not that they're is anything wrong with that, a decision like that isn't something to take lightly and its not like were getting picked off by lions anymore. This will be the most morally derided decision we will have to deal with globally because it changes so many social normals on every level. Do you want to live for possibly +150 years? Do you want to look and age normally? Peoples beliefs and morals will be rocked to their very foundations. When it comes to my decision regarding metal legs that can fly or tiny robots that can make me live forever I just can't tell you what I'd do. I guess it all depends on how cool the legs look.
As a stakeholder I see myself as that regular person who will make a decision in the future to modify and stay with the pack or fall behind with the others who want to die as they are. Not that they're is anything wrong with that, a decision like that isn't something to take lightly and its not like were getting picked off by lions anymore. This will be the most morally derided decision we will have to deal with globally because it changes so many social normals on every level. Do you want to live for possibly +150 years? Do you want to look and age normally? Peoples beliefs and morals will be rocked to their very foundations. When it comes to my decision regarding metal legs that can fly or tiny robots that can make me live forever I just can't tell you what I'd do. I guess it all depends on how cool the legs look.
Friday, March 13, 2009
One-sided Argument
Legitimate arguments require the arguer to consider all angles. In Technology Matters David Nye writes about the relationships between technology and society. Nye is good at finding arguments that support his argument, the problem is that’s all he finds. Not only that, but he finds sources that are old and to me, disconnected from the average American. In chapter eight he quotes from Mulford Q. Silbey's, Utopian Thought and Technology from the American Journal of Political Science vol. 7 No. 2 and Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone. Both sources, though intelligent and well thought discussions seem to only hurt Nye’s arguments instead of help them.
In Sibley’s Utopian Thought and Technology he writes on technology and Utopian society. Nye uses his comments on “market driven” technology to back up his argument on elections for new technology, “technology is so vital a part of life, and collective life particularly, that we cannot afford to leave the fate of man to the hazards of the “market” or accident.” (Silbey, p. 278) This is a valid point but it does raise the question, hasn’t it always been the nature of man to discover the major breakthroughs of technology by “accident”? When man discovered fire did he know that friction of sticks would bring about fire? No, it was just a random caveman who had the unfortunate pleasure of being outside when lightning struck a random object. In 1776, due to an accidental conversation with a milkmaid contaminated with the harmless cowpox disease, Edward Jenner had discovered the soon to be vaccine for smallpox. I do agree that the people should have a say in what companies are producing, but it seems that companies invest in popular products. It seems that it’s not the product that really angers people, it’s the effect that its waste or production has on our environment. Capitalism is all about competition and that creates a very fast paced market for technology. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing that some technology is “market driven” or accidently discovered. They’re just investing in something the public wants. Maybe the public does elect our technology, but instead of ballots, dollars and cents declare the victor.
In Putnam’s Bowling Alone, Nye uses the chapter where Putnam discusses the generation’s love of TV resulting in a lack of participation in social groups and politics, “the political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life” (Nye, p. 153). Bob Dylan once wrote:
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'” (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin')
Life is completely different from the post WW2 America of the 50’s and 60’s. People don’t join these old social groups and setting because they don’t have any connection to them. Though groups like college fraternities still exist and prosper, they don’t hold much similarity to the days when they were originally founded. As times change people change with it. Things like the internet and cell phones have made the weekly gatherings of groups obsolete because people can contact anyone they want to at any time of day. Like Dylan says, “Your old road is rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.” (Dylan) This is another example of Nye using old sources or ideas that don’t relate to today’s society. It is sad that these social groups are fading away, but that’s a fact of life. It’s just that bowling isn’t doing it for the kids these days and sadly, it’s time for them to move on.
Nye does make good points in his book, he addresses real problems like pollution and his comments about technology in relation to cultural evolution are very interesting. I do wish that he used sources that opposed his view because I think he loses originality by only using sources he agrees with. It feels like he’s simply regurgitating other people’s ideas instead of forming his own.
In Sibley’s Utopian Thought and Technology he writes on technology and Utopian society. Nye uses his comments on “market driven” technology to back up his argument on elections for new technology, “technology is so vital a part of life, and collective life particularly, that we cannot afford to leave the fate of man to the hazards of the “market” or accident.” (Silbey, p. 278) This is a valid point but it does raise the question, hasn’t it always been the nature of man to discover the major breakthroughs of technology by “accident”? When man discovered fire did he know that friction of sticks would bring about fire? No, it was just a random caveman who had the unfortunate pleasure of being outside when lightning struck a random object. In 1776, due to an accidental conversation with a milkmaid contaminated with the harmless cowpox disease, Edward Jenner had discovered the soon to be vaccine for smallpox. I do agree that the people should have a say in what companies are producing, but it seems that companies invest in popular products. It seems that it’s not the product that really angers people, it’s the effect that its waste or production has on our environment. Capitalism is all about competition and that creates a very fast paced market for technology. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing that some technology is “market driven” or accidently discovered. They’re just investing in something the public wants. Maybe the public does elect our technology, but instead of ballots, dollars and cents declare the victor.
In Putnam’s Bowling Alone, Nye uses the chapter where Putnam discusses the generation’s love of TV resulting in a lack of participation in social groups and politics, “the political scientist Robert Putnam made a similar argument in Bowling Alone, concluding that intensive use of the media undermines civic life” (Nye, p. 153). Bob Dylan once wrote:
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'” (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin')
Life is completely different from the post WW2 America of the 50’s and 60’s. People don’t join these old social groups and setting because they don’t have any connection to them. Though groups like college fraternities still exist and prosper, they don’t hold much similarity to the days when they were originally founded. As times change people change with it. Things like the internet and cell phones have made the weekly gatherings of groups obsolete because people can contact anyone they want to at any time of day. Like Dylan says, “Your old road is rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand.” (Dylan) This is another example of Nye using old sources or ideas that don’t relate to today’s society. It is sad that these social groups are fading away, but that’s a fact of life. It’s just that bowling isn’t doing it for the kids these days and sadly, it’s time for them to move on.
Nye does make good points in his book, he addresses real problems like pollution and his comments about technology in relation to cultural evolution are very interesting. I do wish that he used sources that opposed his view because I think he loses originality by only using sources he agrees with. It feels like he’s simply regurgitating other people’s ideas instead of forming his own.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Blog #6
For my source I picked Mulford Q. Silbey's, Utopian Thought and Technology from the American Journal of Political Science vol. 7 No. 2 (May, 1973, pp. 255-281. In it Silbey talks about the Utopian views and how they conflict with modern technology, "The very noise of the technological explosion during the past two centuries has often deafened us to the questions the utopist have asked: Why? To what ends? Within what priorities? Under what controls? With what consequences? With what effects on human beings? Why go faster and faster and faster?" (Silbey, p. 255) Much of Silbey's essay doesn't have much to do with technology driving the markets as David Nye writes in his book but it does deal with technology driving the social evolution. Silbey references a lot from the bible in his argument in a way that I believe would be very useful to Nye in his book about technology and society. Silbey relates technology and religion in a way I've never seen done, "Cain, representing the agricultural stage of development, kills Abel, thus becoming the first murderer. He is "cursed" for his deed but in his there still remains the urge to improve the world technologically. Hence the first murderer becomes the founder of the first city. One of his decedents, Turbal Cain, is described as the earliest worker in brass and possibly symbolizes the development of a more complex technology, which, while it reflects man's ingenuity, makes it probable also still greater misery, pain, and death" (Silbey, p. 257) The association of technology and Christianity is interesting because not only does that relate to modern society but hes connecting to entities that have never gone together: Science and religion. This I believe is a important aspect on technology and modern life because religion plays such a huge part in society. If Nye used anything else from Silbey in his book it should be that because it so directly relevant to his subject matter.
Silbey has the same overall opinion as Nye, in that they believe that technology should be regulated in some way. I noticed this was written in 1973, a literal dark age for technology. Overshadowed by Vietnam and an even larger cold war with Russia, nuclear weapons were the threat of the day. Today, even though its still a terrifying thing to think about, much more seems to be known and nukes and their technology. Back then, nuclear bombs were relatively new and kept away from the general public, paralyzing the country in blind fear. Should Nye use such an old reference to write a current observation on technology and society? Technologically speaking, the seventies look like the stone age compared to today's world and I wonder if a source that old is useful for commenting on technology driving today's market. Today the market seems much more commercially driven through technology than defense driven as in Silbey's time. I feel that as the market changes the rules and trends that govern the market change too.
Silbey has the same overall opinion as Nye, in that they believe that technology should be regulated in some way. I noticed this was written in 1973, a literal dark age for technology. Overshadowed by Vietnam and an even larger cold war with Russia, nuclear weapons were the threat of the day. Today, even though its still a terrifying thing to think about, much more seems to be known and nukes and their technology. Back then, nuclear bombs were relatively new and kept away from the general public, paralyzing the country in blind fear. Should Nye use such an old reference to write a current observation on technology and society? Technologically speaking, the seventies look like the stone age compared to today's world and I wonder if a source that old is useful for commenting on technology driving today's market. Today the market seems much more commercially driven through technology than defense driven as in Silbey's time. I feel that as the market changes the rules and trends that govern the market change too.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Blog #5
In chapter 8 in David Nye's Technology Matters while talking about market driven technological advancements and their negative effects he comments that, "Voters, not 'the market', should decide such issues" (147). Though Dr. Hoenikker doesn't represent "the market", he does represent the reckless endangerment that I believe the public should know about. I think they're are things that we as a nation and in the case of Cat's Cradle, the world should be aware of. Most times, I don't find public opinion very constructive. Most people don't think for themselves enough and let a "higher power" decide things for them. But in the case of "ice-nine" I think that the world would put aside its opinions and give a collective, pardon my language, "Are you fucking crazy?"
I put technology and the wonders it brings on a very high pedestal. Most times, if the negatives aren't to serious I try to give technology the benefit of the doubt and consider the side effects as collateral damage of our unique way of life. But they're are things about technology that do frighten me, enough where I wish they were non-existent. Weapons of mass destruction for instance, most notably: the atomic bomb. Here in America, we have been fortunate enough to never have had fought a war on our own ground. If god forbid, an atomic bomb went off anywhere in the United States I think that a vast majority of the American people would call for the end of the a-bomb, in American and around the world. I do agree with Nye that the public should be involved in the decision making advancing technology, weapons especially. I believe it should be an elected council, an elected council that on state budget goes to semi-annually and gives it thoughts on how new technology is effecting real people everyday. I think everyone should be represented, farmers, laborers, parents, even religion should have the right to share an opinion. If that were the case and the government could stick to its word I think maybe things could run a little smoother. Less toes too step on and even if they step, at least they have a report from a human being rather than a statistic on a piece of paper. If a council existed back in the day when the atomic bomb began, would they have halted its production and said no to its mass annihilation? I'm not so sure, but I think that today I could be a little more confident that American's would say no to it's destructiveness and asked our leaders to end the age of the a-bomb here in America, and especially throughout the world.
I do have confidence that if something like "Ice-nine" showed up at America's door step asking for buyers that America would respond with a no and blowtorch that sucker out of existence. Something like that has 100% risk with 0% benefit. Even the crazies can't say yes to that.
I put technology and the wonders it brings on a very high pedestal. Most times, if the negatives aren't to serious I try to give technology the benefit of the doubt and consider the side effects as collateral damage of our unique way of life. But they're are things about technology that do frighten me, enough where I wish they were non-existent. Weapons of mass destruction for instance, most notably: the atomic bomb. Here in America, we have been fortunate enough to never have had fought a war on our own ground. If god forbid, an atomic bomb went off anywhere in the United States I think that a vast majority of the American people would call for the end of the a-bomb, in American and around the world. I do agree with Nye that the public should be involved in the decision making advancing technology, weapons especially. I believe it should be an elected council, an elected council that on state budget goes to semi-annually and gives it thoughts on how new technology is effecting real people everyday. I think everyone should be represented, farmers, laborers, parents, even religion should have the right to share an opinion. If that were the case and the government could stick to its word I think maybe things could run a little smoother. Less toes too step on and even if they step, at least they have a report from a human being rather than a statistic on a piece of paper. If a council existed back in the day when the atomic bomb began, would they have halted its production and said no to its mass annihilation? I'm not so sure, but I think that today I could be a little more confident that American's would say no to it's destructiveness and asked our leaders to end the age of the a-bomb here in America, and especially throughout the world.
I do have confidence that if something like "Ice-nine" showed up at America's door step asking for buyers that America would respond with a no and blowtorch that sucker out of existence. Something like that has 100% risk with 0% benefit. Even the crazies can't say yes to that.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Blog #3
As a kid, I remember a time when one of my biggest fears was death. I asked my father about death and telling him I was afraid, he said something to me I will never forget. He said, "Anyone can die at anytime. I could walk around like any other day and a million different things could kill me and there's nothing I can do about it. Knowing that, there's really no point in worrying about it". Even though that a pretty heavy statement to a young kid, it made a lot of sense to me. Now don't get me wrong, death still is a creepy thought but as far as the question of MY demise goes, I really don't sweat it. When I hear people talk about putting limits on technology I can't help feeling like my old man. You can't control and monitor everyone, so why put limits on something fantastic. Nothing is perfect and modern technology is no exception but at some point we have to realize that the world is changing and like it or not, we're all going along for the ride. I put that same mentality in my paper. Both the materials weren't about technology ruining the world, they were about the irresponsible people who ruined the world. In Cat's Cradle the Hoenikker's who gave the world Ice-nine. In "The Human Factor" it was the overworked residents and 3rd shift technicians that killed people. The technology screws up because they people screw up. Most people fear what they don't understand. I think if people took a little time to understand the basics of technology the future would seem a lot less terrifying.
The blog corrections weren't my favorite. I'm not a huge fan or reading on the computer to begin with, I find paper infinitely superior to a back lit screen. I also find if your in person it's a lot easier to avoid sounding like a jerk. You can get a first hand account of what someone is trying to say and help them more because your not guessing if you can't understand it.
Posting it as a blog was also harder than I expected it to be. I would prefer just writing it out in word and printing it off to take to class the next day. I feel putting it out as a blog loses something raw. When correcting on a physical rough draft, the ideas and corrections that you mark a draft with is impossible to replicate on screen. For me, looking at my scribbles recalls what I was thinking at the time and I can expand and write a lot easier. It was something I've never done which made it interesting but in the future I would rather do it in person.
The blog corrections weren't my favorite. I'm not a huge fan or reading on the computer to begin with, I find paper infinitely superior to a back lit screen. I also find if your in person it's a lot easier to avoid sounding like a jerk. You can get a first hand account of what someone is trying to say and help them more because your not guessing if you can't understand it.
Posting it as a blog was also harder than I expected it to be. I would prefer just writing it out in word and printing it off to take to class the next day. I feel putting it out as a blog loses something raw. When correcting on a physical rough draft, the ideas and corrections that you mark a draft with is impossible to replicate on screen. For me, looking at my scribbles recalls what I was thinking at the time and I can expand and write a lot easier. It was something I've never done which made it interesting but in the future I would rather do it in person.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Rough Draft
NOTE: So this is still pretty raw, I added some notes on ideas of where I wanted to go. Any feedback is very much appreciated!
What is the “human factor”? In my opinion, it’s human stupidity. Charles Darwin was the one who coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest”, meaning that not only the strong but the smart thrive and drive a species. In both Kim Vicente’s and Kurt Vonnegut’s novels, the “human factor” is important.
In Kim Vicente’s “The Human Factor” she stresses the danger of human error in technology. She uses the famous nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl as her main argument. She argues that if the test done that night were left in the hands of highly experienced professionals instead of the 3rd shift technicians then maybe thousands of people could have been spared a radiation shower and years of medical trouble. She also comments on the “human factor” in the medical industry, she says, “The bombshell was that human error in medicine was conservatively estimated to account for between 44,000 and 98,000 preventable hospital deaths annually in the United States alone” (19).Vicente tells us that these flaws should be stopped and if we don’t our mistakes could be the end of us. I agree with Vicente that these mishaps are tragic and avoidable. But I can’t help feeling that Vicente is somewhat naive in her argument. When talking about the preventable deaths in medicine she comments on one that involves an over worked medical resident and a mistake that killed a patient, “An investigation revealed that an adverse reaction between the two medications was the cause of death” (22). After she comments about how after that limits were put on the hours medical residents could work but many of those laws were ignored by hospitals. Though it’s horrible I just don’t see the news in these mistakes. Human beings have been making bad decisions for centuries and will continue till the day we become extinct. I just don’t see how technology changes this fact. The numbers of human error and their effect on the populous are alarming and disturbing, but they don’t surprise me. If I’ve learned anything in my almost nineteen years on earth it’s this; the majority of the population isn’t very smart. I’m sure Vicente is aware of this fact, but I still can’t help but get the feeling that she expects us to live in some perfect world where mistakes aren’t made.
When talking about the “human factor” I definitely prefer Kurt Vonnegut over Vicente. The way he portrays human stupidity in smart people is what makes him a great writer. A mad scientist creates apocalypse in a bottle for kicks and leaves it to his socially challenged, emotionally damaged kids. The thing I like the most about this is that he doesn’t rely on the threat of technology to tell his story; it’s all about the human element. (So I’m not exactly sure what I’m trying to say here, I have some ideas about using the other scientist as Vonnegut’s defense of technology and research but I’m not entirely sure where I want to go with it)
What is the “human factor”? In my opinion, it’s human stupidity. Charles Darwin was the one who coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest”, meaning that not only the strong but the smart thrive and drive a species. In both Kim Vicente’s and Kurt Vonnegut’s novels, the “human factor” is important.
In Kim Vicente’s “The Human Factor” she stresses the danger of human error in technology. She uses the famous nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl as her main argument. She argues that if the test done that night were left in the hands of highly experienced professionals instead of the 3rd shift technicians then maybe thousands of people could have been spared a radiation shower and years of medical trouble. She also comments on the “human factor” in the medical industry, she says, “The bombshell was that human error in medicine was conservatively estimated to account for between 44,000 and 98,000 preventable hospital deaths annually in the United States alone” (19).Vicente tells us that these flaws should be stopped and if we don’t our mistakes could be the end of us. I agree with Vicente that these mishaps are tragic and avoidable. But I can’t help feeling that Vicente is somewhat naive in her argument. When talking about the preventable deaths in medicine she comments on one that involves an over worked medical resident and a mistake that killed a patient, “An investigation revealed that an adverse reaction between the two medications was the cause of death” (22). After she comments about how after that limits were put on the hours medical residents could work but many of those laws were ignored by hospitals. Though it’s horrible I just don’t see the news in these mistakes. Human beings have been making bad decisions for centuries and will continue till the day we become extinct. I just don’t see how technology changes this fact. The numbers of human error and their effect on the populous are alarming and disturbing, but they don’t surprise me. If I’ve learned anything in my almost nineteen years on earth it’s this; the majority of the population isn’t very smart. I’m sure Vicente is aware of this fact, but I still can’t help but get the feeling that she expects us to live in some perfect world where mistakes aren’t made.
When talking about the “human factor” I definitely prefer Kurt Vonnegut over Vicente. The way he portrays human stupidity in smart people is what makes him a great writer. A mad scientist creates apocalypse in a bottle for kicks and leaves it to his socially challenged, emotionally damaged kids. The thing I like the most about this is that he doesn’t rely on the threat of technology to tell his story; it’s all about the human element. (So I’m not exactly sure what I’m trying to say here, I have some ideas about using the other scientist as Vonnegut’s defense of technology and research but I’m not entirely sure where I want to go with it)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Blog Assignment #2
"I will not go into the sordid sex episode that followed. Suffice it to say I was both repulsive and repulsed." (Vonnegut, 266)
To me, this quote is a metaphor for the entire island of San Lorenzo. From the outside looking in, it would see to be a pretty Caribbean get away for all to enjoy. But when you get there, you find a worthless hunk of rock where the only thing that keeps its locals happy is a religion that comments frequently on its lies. From the outside, Mona is the staple of human beauty but close up she is just another empty player in Bokonon's crazy play. To me, San Lorenzo feels like hell and Vonnegut's book is a twisted Dante's Divine Comedy. With every deeper step John takes into this circus of family called the Hoenikkers, he finds himself following them into there personal levels of hell and finally to the final level where the San Lorenzo acts as the Devil sitting in the middle of a literally hell frozen world. But instead of finding Purgatory, John takes a shortcut strait to Heaven, Mount McCabe. Though he doesn't actually climb it in the book, it ends with, "I I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who" (Vonnegut, 287). John has had a front seat to a family that has single handedly destroyed the world and his smile on the mountain is his way of saying, "Look at all I've seen".
My questions are:
To me, this quote is a metaphor for the entire island of San Lorenzo. From the outside looking in, it would see to be a pretty Caribbean get away for all to enjoy. But when you get there, you find a worthless hunk of rock where the only thing that keeps its locals happy is a religion that comments frequently on its lies. From the outside, Mona is the staple of human beauty but close up she is just another empty player in Bokonon's crazy play. To me, San Lorenzo feels like hell and Vonnegut's book is a twisted Dante's Divine Comedy. With every deeper step John takes into this circus of family called the Hoenikkers, he finds himself following them into there personal levels of hell and finally to the final level where the San Lorenzo acts as the Devil sitting in the middle of a literally hell frozen world. But instead of finding Purgatory, John takes a shortcut strait to Heaven, Mount McCabe. Though he doesn't actually climb it in the book, it ends with, "I I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who" (Vonnegut, 287). John has had a front seat to a family that has single handedly destroyed the world and his smile on the mountain is his way of saying, "Look at all I've seen".
My questions are:
- Why did Vonnegut choose to write about the apolcolyspe?
- Is the Hoenikker supposed to represent the human race as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)