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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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)