A Technopoly is basically, as Postmann describes it, totalitarian technocracy. In other words, a society that is concerned with efficiency more than it is concerned with traditional beliefs and morals. This is the best description of Huxley's Brave New World since one of the grand narratives of that novel is progress. As Bernard and Lenina are on their way to the Savage Reservation, Lenina states, "...progress is lovely..." (Huxley 100). And such is apparently so in reality. As we exponentially become innovative in our ways, we exponentially become detached from our traditional beliefs slowly becoming a Brave New World.
The lack of morals in Brave New World is also what contributes to its technopolostic nature. For example, the idea of "everybody belonging to everybody" is a grotesque ideology to live by and thus it describes what Postman fears about America becoming a technopoly: whether or not America can retain some morality in the process of becoming one if it already hasn't. In fact, the idea of everybody fulfilling everyone's desires seems almost Freudian, and the fact that Freud uses science to explain our behavior is also an example of a Technopoly. In Freud's mind, love is nothing but hormones and science and can therefore be manipulated. In fact, love in Brave New World is an means to an erotic end. This idea even extends to the so called "children" of Brave New World where they frolic in the playground and engage in erotic play. Huxley's portrayal of children engaging in erotic play may be an exaggeration to some, but it is a clear warning of the side effects of a technopoly.
Another component of a Technopoly is an obsession with efficiency. In the World State, people truly never die. They may decay physically but they will forever live in existence in the process of what is called "Phosphorous Recovery" (Huxley 73). But to be efficient would mean to be free of error, and therefore humans are not fit for the role of efficiency: the alternative would be to resort to the use of machines then. Then again, virtually everyone in Brave New World is a human machine, engineered and predestined to do what they were made to do without the having the ability to make the choice at all. Frederick Taylor wrote a book called The Principles of Scientific Management which stated that the "primary goal of human thought and labor is efficiency" (Postman 51). In essence, what Taylor is describing the human population of Brave New World, the people are made with efficiency in mind and thus will make minimal errors. Minimal, because ,even though they are created for a narrow purpose, there is still a "human" deep down inside causing these errors. The Director, Bernard, and Helmholtz all share this characteristic. The Director with his intimate reminiscence of Linda; Bernard with his yearning to have a meaningful relationship with Lenina; Helmholtz with his desire to create something of Shakespeare's work without having to have violated World State laws. But according to Frederick Taylor even human machines won't be enough to fully establish efficiency for there is still a human element and therefore "...technical calculation...is superior to human judgment...because it is plagued by laxity,ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity" (Postman 51).
Postman's view on technological advancement seems to contrast greatly with that of Kurzweil's. Postman views this progression as foreboding, and he basically describes the lost of humanity in From Technocracy to Technopoly. But Kurzweil, he on the other hand is obsessed with the future of the Singularity, the moment when man and machine will become one. Kurzweil knows that there is some risk involved with the Singularity such as dissent arising from the "Luddites" and other opponents and counterarguments which criticize the fusion of man and machine.
In the end, Neil Postman's book greatly, in fact almost exactly, describes Brave New World in terms of efficiency and the lost of human morals and other things. We can only predict what will happen in the future. Only time can tell whether or not earth will become a brave new world.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Singularity
Lev Grosssman's article 2045:The Year Man Becomes Immortal discusses the issues regarding "The Singularity", the prediction that eventually computers will become too intelligent and advanced for humans. At first, I thought that the idea of man merging with machine to be a bit unsettling, mainly because I feel that it is too alien of a concept for me to accept. It is true that the combination of the two could result in many advancements in technology and humanity, and it is also happening today: nanotechnology allows for the creation of glow-in-the-dark tattoos that allow diabetic patients to check their sugar levels. But at the same time, I feel that there is a point at which progress will destroy our humanity and thus make us into human machines just like in Brave New World.
Being human, to me, means having emotions like anger, hate, happiness, sadness, and love, because having these emotions allows us to differentiate ourselves from machines. In Brave New World, John stabbed Pope because he hated him and his mother's promiscuity. But John lived in the Savage Reservation, where there is still some humanity left. Now, if it were the World State, there would be no such thing as anger just artificial happiness; one could have anyone he/she wanted and it would not anger one person at all, because there would be no exclusivity (love is just a means to an erotic end).
I think merging of man and machine is a double-edged sword. Sure, it can greatly help us by prolonging our lifespans, and it can make us look younger and become stronger. I myself could live longer and travel around the whole world. But "...the idea of significant changes to human longevity...seems to be particularly controversial. People invested a lot of personal effort into certain philosophies dealing with the issue of life and death...that's the major reason we have religion." (Grossman). With this void in religion there would be no god just a "Ford", and that's where there is a conflict with progress progressing too far. If we could hypothetically speaking "cheat" death, then what are heaven and hell for?
I believe in progress, but not the kind of progress that will get us to where Brave New World is.
Being human, to me, means having emotions like anger, hate, happiness, sadness, and love, because having these emotions allows us to differentiate ourselves from machines. In Brave New World, John stabbed Pope because he hated him and his mother's promiscuity. But John lived in the Savage Reservation, where there is still some humanity left. Now, if it were the World State, there would be no such thing as anger just artificial happiness; one could have anyone he/she wanted and it would not anger one person at all, because there would be no exclusivity (love is just a means to an erotic end).
I think merging of man and machine is a double-edged sword. Sure, it can greatly help us by prolonging our lifespans, and it can make us look younger and become stronger. I myself could live longer and travel around the whole world. But "...the idea of significant changes to human longevity...seems to be particularly controversial. People invested a lot of personal effort into certain philosophies dealing with the issue of life and death...that's the major reason we have religion." (Grossman). With this void in religion there would be no god just a "Ford", and that's where there is a conflict with progress progressing too far. If we could hypothetically speaking "cheat" death, then what are heaven and hell for?
I believe in progress, but not the kind of progress that will get us to where Brave New World is.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/509/brave-new-world-and-the-threat-of-technological-growth
Derek D Miller's article discussing Brave New World's theme of technological advancement first mentions an author, Neil Postman, to establish a notion that gives him credit. Moreover, the vocabulary (words like "hypnopaedic proverbs") that he uses suggests that the intended audience may be people who have read the novel, people who are interested in the novel, and/or an audience with a developed language.Therefore, this suggests that Miller's purpose of the writing his article is to relay his analysis of Brave New World to a group of people who are familiar with the novel and its thematic messages. Miller additionally does not have an intro for introducing the novel, in other words he does not have a detailed description of Brave New World's plot. This further suggests that he wrote his article for an audience that is familiar with the novel. Breaking away from the norm, Miller does not start out with the usual famous quote or question: he instead gets right to business and begins his analysis of the novel. Miller focuses on the themes of what happens when the world is suddenly industrially, economically, and technologically oriented. What I find interesting is Miller's comparison of the novel to our present. To illustrate here's a piece from the article: "The similarities between how our education system puts children in groups by age and has them taught to think that there is only one answer. Robinson points out how students are taught linearly instead of divergently (RSA). This standardization of education reflects the caste system in Brave New World and how each caste is conditioned to be only able to do the job their caste demands. Each caste is conditioned through hypnopaedia to only think one way, this resembles the culture of our education system and how students are taught to think only in terms of if one score high on tests, one is intelligent and will have a good job and if one scores low, the person is unintelligent and must have a laborious job". This comparison of the present to a work of fiction gives you that feeling of how dangerously close our society is to Brave New World's society. Factual information of today helps to support Miller's logic that a technopoly in Brave New World is not far from reality. This foreboding feeling gives me a sense of fear in that I can relate to what Miller is trying to say about how reliant humans are on technology (I see how reliant we are on technology everyday with smartphones and many more technological devices) and how it is that reliance that may get us to where Brave New World is. The first half of the article is structured around religion while the second half focuses more on the lost of individuality. Both parts have a text-to-novel comparison: for example, Miller uses these textual evidences "In fact, the dating system used in the novel is based upon A.F. and B.F. which is the abbreviated form for After Ford and Before Ford, which Huxley clearly used to parody our current dating system of B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (anno domini)" and "In society today there is the idea of ADHD being an epidemic in America. Sir Ken Robinson points out that there is not really an epidemic and that children are being medicated carelessly. They are given Ritalin and Adderall so they can be focused in school. A non-medical problem is being cared for with medication (RSA). This strongly resembles the Soma in Brave New World. If someone isn’t happy, they simple take Soma, and suddenly they’re content again. This reliance on drugs is a parallel between Huxley’s novel and Sir Robinson's video" to support the discussion of religion and lost of individuality format respectively. Each paragraph, with the exception of a few, starts with some statement or introductory phrase, followed by textual evidence. Miller then goes on to end his article with a series of questions that challenge the reader to think critically about the by-products of technological advancement. Overall, I feel that Miller establishes himself as an acceptable authority on the subject of Brave New World; his use of appropriate textual evidence along with some strong emotional appeal and logical statements made me think about the dangers of how our society today is heavily reliant on technology.
Derek D Miller's article discussing Brave New World's theme of technological advancement first mentions an author, Neil Postman, to establish a notion that gives him credit. Moreover, the vocabulary (words like "hypnopaedic proverbs") that he uses suggests that the intended audience may be people who have read the novel, people who are interested in the novel, and/or an audience with a developed language.Therefore, this suggests that Miller's purpose of the writing his article is to relay his analysis of Brave New World to a group of people who are familiar with the novel and its thematic messages. Miller additionally does not have an intro for introducing the novel, in other words he does not have a detailed description of Brave New World's plot. This further suggests that he wrote his article for an audience that is familiar with the novel. Breaking away from the norm, Miller does not start out with the usual famous quote or question: he instead gets right to business and begins his analysis of the novel. Miller focuses on the themes of what happens when the world is suddenly industrially, economically, and technologically oriented. What I find interesting is Miller's comparison of the novel to our present. To illustrate here's a piece from the article: "The similarities between how our education system puts children in groups by age and has them taught to think that there is only one answer. Robinson points out how students are taught linearly instead of divergently (RSA). This standardization of education reflects the caste system in Brave New World and how each caste is conditioned to be only able to do the job their caste demands. Each caste is conditioned through hypnopaedia to only think one way, this resembles the culture of our education system and how students are taught to think only in terms of if one score high on tests, one is intelligent and will have a good job and if one scores low, the person is unintelligent and must have a laborious job". This comparison of the present to a work of fiction gives you that feeling of how dangerously close our society is to Brave New World's society. Factual information of today helps to support Miller's logic that a technopoly in Brave New World is not far from reality. This foreboding feeling gives me a sense of fear in that I can relate to what Miller is trying to say about how reliant humans are on technology (I see how reliant we are on technology everyday with smartphones and many more technological devices) and how it is that reliance that may get us to where Brave New World is. The first half of the article is structured around religion while the second half focuses more on the lost of individuality. Both parts have a text-to-novel comparison: for example, Miller uses these textual evidences "In fact, the dating system used in the novel is based upon A.F. and B.F. which is the abbreviated form for After Ford and Before Ford, which Huxley clearly used to parody our current dating system of B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (anno domini)" and "In society today there is the idea of ADHD being an epidemic in America. Sir Ken Robinson points out that there is not really an epidemic and that children are being medicated carelessly. They are given Ritalin and Adderall so they can be focused in school. A non-medical problem is being cared for with medication (RSA). This strongly resembles the Soma in Brave New World. If someone isn’t happy, they simple take Soma, and suddenly they’re content again. This reliance on drugs is a parallel between Huxley’s novel and Sir Robinson's video" to support the discussion of religion and lost of individuality format respectively. Each paragraph, with the exception of a few, starts with some statement or introductory phrase, followed by textual evidence. Miller then goes on to end his article with a series of questions that challenge the reader to think critically about the by-products of technological advancement. Overall, I feel that Miller establishes himself as an acceptable authority on the subject of Brave New World; his use of appropriate textual evidence along with some strong emotional appeal and logical statements made me think about the dangers of how our society today is heavily reliant on technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)