"One Sure Thing to Remain Sure of- Technology"

In my last blog i discussed who is controlling who. Technology or humanity? Using Neil Postman's chapter Technopoly to come to a better understanding of Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World it can be understood that Huxley was a firm believer in the fact that one day machines would be almost omnipotent. In Brave New World Huxley describes that the World-State began the factories(where they created humans) to keep society equal. However, as time carried on it became a way of life. Neil Postman describes the concept of Technopoly as a "totalitarian technocracy" or "the submission of forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology." In Brave New World this seems to be the case. The people have allowed themselves to be created, molded, and modeled after what the machine wants and teaches. They are ruled by a system that Postman refers to in his book, The Principals of Scientific management created by Fredrick Winslow Taylor; in-which, it is believed that the "primary, if not only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency, that technical calculations is in all superior to human judgement, [and that in fact] human judgment cannot be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity". This is why every time the people in Brave New World begin to have different ideas or unhappy feelings they take soma so they do not have to think. Taylor describes the goals of this system of Technopoly as exactly that, a system that would think for the workers. Workers were now made and created for specific jobs, the   hobbies of art and reading were extinct, you were made for a job, you would do it without, and then you would die and be quickly replaced. Like Brave New World, Technopoly emphasizes a world of slavery under the machine. Whether humans see it or not Technopoly could one day be ruling over us (if they aren't already)and Postman, Huxley, and Taylor were some of the first to realize it. 

Man vs Machine (Article on Singularity)

As I sit in front of my computer, at my fingertips, there is more knowledge then I could ever hope to retain; but my computer can.  If I could merge my brain with it's mechanical engineering, would I? Would I loose half of myself in the process? If my computer is smarter than me now who's not to say that in a few years it won't be initiating in an intellectual conversation with me; and, who's not to say that it might one day be paying me my salary. In the article The Year Man Becomes Immortal (Article on The Singularity), Raymond Kurzweil expresses his belief that "the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away" do to technological take over. Our society has evolved over hundreds of centuries due to technological advances that make us faster and better at the things we do. So if our machines are better at doing our work, then whats to stop them from becoming better than our whole-selves. And if machines are smarter than us, whats to stop them from realizing it and destroying us. Many would argue that machines could never have the most important human quality, such as self-expression, and therefore could replicate the human body but never come close to replicating a human soul. However, Kurzweil argues that machines could one day become so smart they would essential "create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, and making witty observations at cocktail parties." If these machines do become smarter than we can possible fathom do we as humans join with them? In doing so would we loose some of our human qualities in replacement for their perfection? The beauty of being human is error, and machines are made to be flawless. "[Machines] would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are" and maybe come to the realization that they have no need for their "slower thinking human creators" (Kurzweil). It is inevitable to think that when this time does come the human race will merge with the machines by becoming cyborgs (Kurzweil's idea of Singularity), and extending our own knowledge to keep up with theirs. But who then wins? Who has the power of control? Humans, the creators? Or, Machines, the life line? You would think humans because without us there would be no machine. But, who relies on who? Machines which are created to be perfect, and to create other machines, could learn quickly how to live without the need for a human race. But we humans quickly forget how much we rely on machines to do and help us with our daily work. Without them we would surely return to the stone age, or something to that extant. So how do we keep machines from winning, without loosing our ability to use them all together? Raymond Kurzweil believes we have 35 years to figure it out. Better start thinking, the mechanical clock is ticking. 

Critic of Jeremy W. Wilson's Debate on Voluntary Human Adult Euthanasia

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/557/debating-voluntary-human-adult-euthanasia

Jeremy Wilson discussed the issue of legalizing euthanasia.  Also known as mercy killing, or assisted suicide, Euthanasia is the assistance of ending ones life when they are unwell. To receive a better understanding Jeremy expresses the reasoning of both sides of the argument. One being that euthanasia should be legalized because people, not the government, should have the right to choose when and how they die. The second reasoning is to keep it illegal so that doctors/practitioners do not use it to their advantage, to obtain more money, or just to keep “knocking more people off” without the worries of government weighing on their shoulders. The article would be of interest to anyone who is debating whether or not euthanasia should or shouldn't be legalized in their state. It entails many interesting facts and details about euthanasia such as laws, and government policies. By showing multiple views of the argument he emphasizes that the best way to solve the problem of euthanasia is to let the patient decide for herself or himself depending on their predicament. To do otherwise, such as to make a person suffer for an extended period of time until their day comes, seems immoral and vicious. To verify and support his findings he uses reports and documents from experts on the subject, such as “Sandstock”, “Legal Status”, “Hentoff”, “Death with Dignity”, and more. However, Jeremy does veer off subject in paragraph five of the essay; he expresses his confusion of why euthanasia is being debated more than abortion. He expresses that there should be more talk of eliminating abortion rather than debating euthanasia, which happens 200 times less than abortion does. Transitions from one paragraph to the next could be improved also. Jeremy tends to jump from one topic to another then back again, making it confusing for the readers to follow. He used a simple form of diction which made it easy for readers to comprehend his writing, and if a complicated word was utilized he made sure to define what it meant afterwards in parenthesis. When discussing the spiritual and moral aspect of the argument he implemented stories and backgrounds of certain areas and cultures, to express why different parts of the country want different things. In closing, Jeremy seemed to be very well rounded in his debate on euthanasia. He appeared to have left little out, and the only improvement I see needed is his construction and order of paragraphs.