Technocracy & Technopoly

            A technocracy, according to Postman is a society that is not completely controlled by tradition and culture and that is driven to invent. Toward the end of the 18^th century, technocracy began to develop rapidly. In this period it came to be believed that, “the engine of technological progress worked most efficiently when people are conceived of not as children of God or even as citizens but consumers- that is to say, as markets” (Postman 42). On the other hand, Technopoly as Postman describes is the release of cultural and traditional life to technology. It redefines “what we mean about religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (Postman 48). Both of these very much relate to Huxley’s Brave New World in the way that they alter human beings in to doing a certain job and to having a certain amount of intelligence. The fact they are “taken over” by the World State from the beginning shows how their thoughts are not original and everything they do are enforced by the state.
            Another way this relates to Brave New World is the relation of machines to people. Postman states “that people’s lives are changed by machinery is taken as a matter of course, and that people must sometimes be treated as if they were machinery is considered a necessary and unfortunate condition of technological development” (52). In my opinion this is exactly like Brave New World. The people in Brave New World serve the machine and their philosophy is based off of efficiency. This chapter was very interesting to read, it had a good insight and gave me a clear understanding of Brave New World and how in both this article and Brave new World, technology has a big influence in the Totalitarian, Technocracy and Technopoly societies.

Singularity

            After the reading the article 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal by Lev Grossman, it was hard for me to grasp the concept of technology taking over humanity. In today’s world I believe that technology is growing rapidly and it is all that matters to people, but the concept of technology becoming “not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans” (Grossman 1) is hard for me to believe. The intelligent man Grossman is talking about in this article is Raymond Kurzweil in which he believes that the end of civilization is coming very soon due to computers getting faster and faster every day.  The transformation of our species into something no longer identifiable is what Kurzweil states is singularity.

            The idea that technology will be able to expand our life spans and help with the factors of old age is impractical to me. I agree that over the years technology has affected the way we interact with people, but I don’t believe it will eventually take us over completely. Kurzweil believes that when computers become more intelligent than humans that “humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed” (Grossman 1). Saying that humanity will be taken over by technology, something that almost every person desires is hard to imagine. Although Bernard in “Brave New World” is being romantic by believing there is some state of existence that man can achieve, he is on to something, because as technology begins to progress we are in danger of losing our essential humanity. The article and Brave New World tie in together in the way that, we must be conscious of the rapid and constant advancement of technology and to not lose sense of what humanity is.

            Even though there are a lot of theories on man merging with technology, the concept of it is still too farfetched for me to consider. The thought of a machine or robot, taking over humanity and being more intelligent than all humans is unreal. I do agree that technology is taking over people and how they act, but I do not believe it will take over all of humanity.

Rhetorical Analysis

In the article, Satire in 18th Century British Society: Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock and Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, Jonathan J. Szwec analyzes the difference between hierarchy and the dissatisfaction of society. Both authors used different techniques in ridiculing the British society. They revealed that the society seemed to forget the true principles of its age. Szwec’s purpose in writing this article was to show that some forms of literature are used to persuade society’s position, whether it is social or political issues.

This article I chose to analyze surprised me in a few ways. One way was how Szwec decided to discuss the different ways both of the authors used different types of logic and different types of satire to portray the same thing. Pope used a more foolish tone by making fun of the British, whereas Swift used more of a ridicule attack based more on the regards of Ireland. Szwec attempted to inform the readers how both of the authors used different satire archetypes for motivation. Another way this article surprised me was how Szwec used different references to help enforce his main point. This made it easier to understand his point of view towards each novel he was analyzing. I was surprised to see how helpful that was. The structure wasn’t the best, but it was helpful. In some parts of the article, Szwec gets away from his main point. He uses a lot of detail and information of each novel that it gets confusing at times. Other than that, everything was clear and I knew why his main purpose was and what he wanted to accomplish with this piece, which was to inform the readers how the British society forced both Pope and Swift to acknowledge the inadequacy of the neoclassical period. I was surprised that I understood some parts and was able to analyze his reasoning behind it.

Szwec’s intended subject was definitely the problems with how the economical society of Britain was and how it was ridiculed and made fun of. He got across to the audience how Pope and Swift had an impact on the future of the British society. Although his subject was not unconventional, his way of writing was. It was unconventional in the way that he decided to not focus so much on the structure, like the way I was taught to write an essay. He focused just on the analysis part of it. The subject was clear, just in a different way than I am used to. I do not mind that he wrote it like this. This article in particular contradicted some of the rules we have been taught to follow. The subject is effectively produced throughout the article but the structure of the paragraphs could be better. I want to start focusing on just the analysis instead of just the structure.

The way this article was written leads me to believe that having a strong thesis isn’t as important as the actual analysis. The writing the reader reads is the analysis the writer has comprehended. After reading this, it makes it easier for me to write essays the way I want and focus on the actual text of my writing and not the grammar and structure. This assignment helped my writing techniques by making me comprehend what a writer is thinking and analyzing.