Wont be long now

     According to Alfred Whitehead, “the greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the idea of invention itself.” Whether this is true or not is up for debate since everyone has different experiences with technology. In my opinion technology is beneficial at the moment and a few times even unnecessary, but there will come a day when it advances to the point where it ruins people’s lives. These are the issues Postman describes in a chapter of his book. He introduces the concept of technopoly which can be described as “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology.” When its stated like this I can’t help but wonder why anyone would want to be submissive to something as lifeless as technology. In novels like Brave New World the individuals live like this but only because they have been classically conditioned to accept it. They have no free will and as Frederick Taylor says they are “worth less than their machinery.” In this world society embraces technopoly because they HAVE to.

     The world we live in today can be better defined as a technocracy which is a “society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by impulse to invent.” It is because of this desire to create that many remarkable inventions have been made, after all, “the idea of newness is closely associated with that of improvement.” People may be skeptical that our society will ever allow technology to be superior to humans, but rules in history have always been bent or broken. It’s exciting knowing we live in a world where you don’t have to drive to someone’s house if you want to see. Instead, all you need is a webcam. And if you’re bored you don’t have to go outside when there’s plenty of games available online. Yes, we are much lazier than the people who lived before there was a television in every home, but we allowed it to happen. That’s the difference between a technopoly and technocracy; the ability to decide. If limits aren’t placed on technology then the outcome may one day be impossible to control. Once that day comes we will have no other choice than to live with the consequences even if it means giving up our free will.

The Future of Humanity

        Technology was created to make the lives of everyone easier and it has. To this day its nearly impossible to go a single day without encountering it on a normal day. Since its found a way to become a part of our daily lives are there limits as to how much more progress can be made involving technology? According to the article, 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

 “the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away” when artificial intelligence becomes much more intelligent than humans.

        For those people who believe “progress is lovely” like the classically conditioned characters in Brave New World then there is nothing to fear about this upcoming event. But for others who disagree with the direction this progress is heading then this is a very bad problem for human kind. “To see creativity…is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial intelligence.” The fact that humans aren’t perfect is what makes them authentic since the flaws are what make them interesting. If someone were to take away the flaws by merging them with technology then the very thing that makes them human would be destroyed.

           It is because of this that I believe Bernard is being reasonable when he questions the way he has been conditioned to live in a world where the people are “created” instead of being “born.” The only difference between these people and robots is that they look human even if they never feel it. Just like the people in the novel, robots are created to serve a variety of purposes. If they were allowed to have feelings im sure they would object.  Even though technology can still improve in the future I dont think it would have a positive effect on humanity. If it continues to advance it will eventually end up being the most important thing in a person’s life and may one day end up replacing that same person. Once that happens it wont be long before we end up working for them.     

                      

The Phantom of the Opera meets the Oedipus Complex

     Movies like the Phantom of the Opera have been around for several decades so it’s safe to say everyone has either seen or heard about it. But what exactly is this movie about? An innocent young boy with a scarred face who grows up haunting the opera house his parents ran, or a boy who manifests the Oedipus Complex proposed by the infamous psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud? In the article “Freudian Theories Present in Leroux’s The Phantom of the Opera,” Jeremy S. Page explains how these Freudian concepts have been present in novels and movies even before Freud came into existence. After reading this article I realized Page has a point. Freud’s ideas are still considered “crazy” to most people, but the Phantom of the Opera isn’t the only movie with Freudian concepts and it isn’t the last.

     Page establishes himself as a credible author by using professional opinions throughout his text as supporting sentences for his statements. He also uses logic, also known as logos, and facts to his advantage from the beginning to make the reader feel he is reliable. This logic is crucial to his main ideas because it makes the ideas credible since professionals attained their reputation after years of hard work. It is also told in a way that makes the information understandable to educated young adults who have never taken a psychology class since it consists of several sentences dedicated to explain Freud’s ideas. A basic knowledge of who Freud is makes Page’s article more enjoyable, so this would be my recommendation to those determined to read it. This subject will then be fully appreciated by the audience it was intended for.

     Overall, this article is well written. The thesis is controversial since Freud’s ideas can be interpreted as either outrageous or brilliant. It’s interesting hearing someone’s point of view that supports Freudian concepts and isn’t disgusted by them. It had smooth transitions from one main idea to the next and every sentence supports his thesis. The introduction does a good job of introducing the subject and the conclusion sums up Page’s ideas initiated in the beginning. The tedious 4-6 sentence paragraphs with 2 “concrete details” followed by commentary is usually associated with good pieces of writing; however, this writing method is not applied to this article. Instead the author uses his own pattern to make it flow.  This pattern varies and can be flexible when Page needs it to be.

     After reading this article I’ve realized a structured format does not always produce a good essay. As long as all the ideas are supported by enough evidence and the words flow then an inflexible structure isn’t needed. It surprises me how much freedom I can have once I abandon the rules I’ve been taught several years ago. There should not be a limit to the amount of commentary I can include and there is no “right” way to write a thesis, all the norms ever did was limit the mind.