A Brave New Technocracy

Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman relates to A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley in many ways. The first of which is through the process of Technopoly. Technopoly as described by Postman is “as a society which believes “the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency, that technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment ... and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts” (Postman 51). Postman believes that the only place that has adopted this is the United states. The United states is not a place that is afraid of new technology, in fact it welcomes it. This is concerning because people want more technology and therefore more information.

Technocracy as defined by Wikipedia “is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.” Therefore a Technopoly and Technocracy are different in a way that people use technology instead of being used by it. A t Technopoly is always longing for newer things not knowing when to stop, eventually becoming “used” by the technology in a way that further develops itself. Whereas a Technocracy is more away of “management”, knowing what they're making, why they're making it, and when they will upgrade it.

Frederick Winslow Taylor fits into this picture because he is regarded to as the father of scientific management. “His intention was to make a science of the industrial workplace, which would not only increase profits but also result in higher wages, shorter hours, and better working conditions for laborers” (Postman 51). The main point in Taylor's ideology was that the judgment of the idividual workers was replaced by laws, rules, and principles of the scientific management. This ties him into the picture because that ideology is a basic principle in Technopoly.

The reading here helps for the understanding in A Brave New World in way that there is now two different ways at looking at it. Is the world in A Brave New World a Technopoly or a Technocracy? In a way it is sort of both, but I would lean more on the side of Technocracy. It is similar to a Technopoly because of the new inventions and the methods of which increase the productivity and efficiency of the society. Although it is more like a Technocracy because they are not creating new technology faster and faster due to the growing demand for it. They have a very controlled system that is, as you could say, “scientifically managed.”

Jokes on you old people, looks like I'm going to become immortal.

In the article 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal, by Lev Grossman, some intriguing proposals were made about the future immortality of man/machine. People believe that the developing rate of computers is increasing at a scary rate. Ever since the first computer there have been rumors of machines taking over the world and either enslaving or eliminating the human race. Undoubtedly computers are becoming more advanced. “So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence” (Grossman).

The increased attention on computer development has caused funding to increase incredibly. As you could see since 2000 billions and hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested into the computer industry. That total amount of money increases each day the more people begin to rely on computers. Thats where artificial intelligence comes into play. The more people rely on computers the more people keep making advances in them. Even artificial intelligence might soon be developed. “Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, and making ethical decisions” (Grossman).

If that idea becomes a reality anything is possible. Computers would keep developing to a point of which they are smarter than us. I would view this transition from man to machine as an amazing thing. Cures could be developed for diseases, ending world hunger, and even world wide diplomacy could be achieved. Now even the possibility of time travel is up for question.

I don't believe this would make us less authentic as humans. It would make us more advanced than ever before giving us the ability to conquer almost anything. To be authentically human would mean to be 100% natural. Which if we live by that definition none of us are. We take vaccines and other medicines to help cure us. The merge with machines would just be another human advancement.

In A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, the main character Bernard is on this ultimate quest to feel authentic from the others. Unfortunately there is no such state in which anyone can acquire. “Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn’t do without Epsilons. Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one” (Huxley 77). Lenina says this when she remembers waking up for the first time hearing the hypnopaedic messages. She is saying that without anyone else we can't do anything. With the heavily dependence on other people there is no such thing as being an artificial person. Everything you do is based off something someone has already done.

The idea of immortality is a huge thing to achieve, but if it will ever be achieved is the real question. Could someone really stop or actually reverse the aging process? If this did become possible, what would happen to the population. Would society reach its carrying capacity? Then what...?

Rhetorical Analysis

In the article Women as the Submissive Sex in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' by Stephanie S. Haddad I noticed that Haddad's mind was clouded with feminist ideals instead of analytical ones. Haddad targets this response to anyone who is willing to read her one sided analysis. The author partakes in this opportunity to try and beseech the mind of the any gullible soul willing to read her article. Haddad's analysis discusses the submissive role of women in the novel Frankenstein. Unfortunately not every single person who reads Haddad's illogical feminist ideals is going to withhold the same opinion as her. With this article Haddad hopes to open the eyes of the people to show how submissive the role of females are in the novel. Haddad's thesis expresses the idea that every single woman in Frankenstein is used for a very submissive/specific purpose. The thesis aids in the role of discussing the overall topic about how submissive all the women are in Frankenstein. The thesis is contradicting to many different groups. Many people might not share the same ideals as Haddad, whereas some people might. Haddad uses direct quotes from the book in order to help aid her overall thesis. She uses these direct quotes to help backup her feminist thoughts, and to draw upon the out of context lines in order to manipulate them for her own selfish ideals. The quotes are her most persuasive type of argument, considering it is the only argument she has.

Haddad pieces her argument together using the classic “Shaffer Writing” model. She starts with a topic sentence which leads into a quote, leading into commentary developing her ideas of how the quote helps her overall thesis. Like any typical essay Haddad begins her essay with a “hook” something to get the readers attention and get them to read the article. The structure of her articles helps her goal of effectively attempting to prove her point. Her transitions went from character to character. It helped her overall concept, but unfortunately she could try to pull the characters in to a more overall evaluation, instead of analyzing each one individually. Sadly, I don't believe that her transitions strengthened her argument.

Haddad doesn't exactly use formal language. Her diction is quite common throughout her article. Her use of common language helps her relate to the readers of the article, thus possibly helping her to get her point across. Haddad constantly compares women to being a submissive character throughout the article. She compares each female character to the fact of them portraying a passive role just accepting whatever happens to them in the text without argument or discussion. Haddad uses these comparisons basically every paragraph. She does this in order to help prove her thesis. She attempts to use these comparisons to help develop her thesis, as well as her overall article. Haddad never claims whether or not she is an acceptable authority on the subject. Moreover she just discusses her radical feminist ideals. Her ethos is relatively weak due to the fact that she is a women discussing feminism, leading to a rather one sided argument.

Overall this essay didn't exactly “contradict the rules of my writing. Mainly because Haddad followed the Shaffer format that I have grown accustom to over the years. Unfortunately my expectations were not confounded. This type of writing sadly did not give me any insight into types of other writing mainly because we follow the exact same format.