This assignment has two components.
1) Identify and quote a specific short passage -- no more than a sentence or two -- which, in your mind, represents or summarizes one of these themes in The House of the Seven Gables: change, history, or democracy (you might also tackle a couple of these ideas together, with the right passage). Do your best to demonstrate why we should take this passage as representing the role played by these ideas in general in the book so far.
2) Respond to Hawthorne's conceptualization of change/history/democracy using some contemporary issue, or something in your experience. Is this idea of history/change/democracy well-founded?
For example, you might identify some passage which addresses the nature of change (perhaps the nature of change in a democracy), then explore whether or not we experience change in this way, in our era of (at least supposedly) rapid technological development.
This assignment does not necessarily need to be structured like a standard essay, with an argument at the beginning, but the second part, at least, should include a clear argument.
p.s. I'll be mostly unavailable for questions this weekend. Here's what I'm doing (for the third time), if you care:
http://www.3daynovel.com/
I will do my best to answer quick questions narrowly focused on the assignment. Other questions will need to wait. All of you in group 2 will have your grades and comments by Tuesday at the latest - earlier if you're lucky.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Dana Payne
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
August 28, 2008
Seeds of Ruin
History shows that humans inherently seek knowledge, and in their search for knowledge, their true goal is to obtain power. When they refine this knowledge, it can be created to make the average person’s daily life infinitely simpler, but when technology makes life easier, people everywhere use it constantly. The internet is the perfect example. With the internet, people gain access to everything in one, simple place. Since we have everything at our fingertips, we lose sight of how to do things for ourselves and let technology govern our lives; we develop an incurable apathy. Such is the path which we have set for ourselves: to further simplify daily life, humans will eventually become dependent on whatever technology develops in the future, including robots. In “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” this is Bill Joy’s argument which is most evident in his reference to our dependency on antibiotics: “Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria” (Joy 2). Humans will become so dependent upon robots that not using robots would be hazardous or even fatal to the entire race.
At the mention of robots nowadays, one’s mind may immediately venture to the image of some science fiction film or novel, making it seem nothing more than mere fantasy, but the fact that Bill Joy, an affluent and highly involved member of the scientific community, is making these claims changes everything. Not only does he have connections to the people who have developed much of our current technology, but he has dedicated his life to the study of computers and technology as seen in his brief autobiography within the article. Joy’s involvement in such groundbreaking developments as Unix software and Java--a practically unavoidable application on the internet--proves his credibility even further. Also, if more people understood the rate at which technology is developing--a rate at which a couple month old computer can be deemed obsolete--the idea of robots becomes less inconceivable.
All of this is not to say that technology is evil and brings naught but harm. If technology which Bill Joy has described truly exists in the future of the world, then it could do unimaginable good. Think of the advances which could be made in the field of medicine, saving many lives, which possibly would not have been the case without technological advances. Think of how technology could turn third world countries into thriving nations of prosperity. The benefits of technology can continue infinitely, but it is just as crucial to remember the damage that could be done. Therefore, while the development of technology in general should never be limited, advancement--for those with the ability to think beyond the borders of what is considered normal create the truly brilliant inventions--it is important to limit human dependency on certain technologies such as robotics. Now things such as replacing prosthetic limbs with robotic limbs is not terribly dangerous change, but giving those limbs power beyond that of a normal human is dangerous. Limiting the merging of of humans and robots is crucial. If humans merge with robotics to the point at which they become immortal, they lose what made them human in the first place: their vulnerability and their uniqueness. An immortal is not human and totally unnatural, not to mention unethical. It is unethical because as immortal demigods ourselves, who is to say that there is a God over us immortal, invincible beings. Also, if these robots decide that they do not feel the inferior human existence is necessary, who is to say that they could not simply decide that they could function without humans, whilst human could not function without them. Bill Joy’s example of this is found in his article in which he describes the North American placental species of animals come to completely eliminate the inferior Southern marsupial mammals because they are the inferior race (Joy 3). Limits are the only way to keep events like this from happening, but between the superior robot race and the inferior human race.
The most influential limits are found in government, which is a point made by Bill Joy. He believes that the government could keep the advancements in robot technology from going too far thanks to governmental blocks. I agree with him that government involvement would be necessary. For example, the government could fund a board of scientists and engineers, who are unaffiliated with the corporations that market the robotics. It is necessary for unaffiliated specialists to constitute the board so that corruption is avoided. A representative from the major corporations would sit in on meeting to keep the board updated on the progress of robotics and to report to their respective companies. The government would also keep one thing from happening that it always has prohibited: monopolies. If a single robotics company were to obtain a monopoly on the robotics industry, total power would fall into the hands of the few elite who own the monopoly. Centralization of power is also a very dangerous thought, because if the few elite created the robots upon which human lives are dependent, they essentially own human life. Another important function of this board would be to set the guidelines for robotic manufacturing. They would be responsible for ensuring that robotics cannot merge with humans so much that humanity is practically erased. As aforemetioned, limitations are the only way to possibly avoid the extinction of the human race. Government is supposed to be a ruling body for the people and constituted of the people, therefore, it falls to them to ensure that we, as humans, do not destroy ourselves.
I could end this paper with a lengthy recap of all of the points made concerning the dependency of humans and how it creates weakness and apathy or how limitations in robotics manufacturing could save the human race, but I shall end off with a single quote from Alan Moore’s provocative graphic novel, V for Vendetta:
“...we cannot have too much of science...with science, ideas can germinate within a bed of theory, form, and practice that assists their growth...but we, as gardeners, must beware, for some seeds are the seeds of ruin and the most iridescent blooms are often the most dangerous” (Moore 220).
The End of the World?
Brian Paschke
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
August 29, 2008
Attempting to control the future of scientific development will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the growth of technology. The question that must then be posed is this: Do we accept Bill Joy's statement that "to do the right thing only at last may be to lose the chance to do it at all."(14) Or do we accept progress as inevitable, and encourage growth at all cost? I lean towards allowing technology to reign free, with scientists behind the wheel rather than bureaucrats.
No one knows where technology will lead us. Joy admits he himself has a pessimistic view of the growth of technology when he admits "I believed that the rate of advances predicted by Moore's law might continue only until roughly 2010."(6) If even experts in a field do not know what the future holds, Joys hope that our species can agree on where we are headed and why seems naive.
Despite my desire for continued advancement of science, I agree with Joys statement on page 9 that "It is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones." Bill Joys heart is in the right place, and I recognize that he is no Luddite. I would compare Joy's desire for a Council of Science to my own childhood love of communism. Where I once saw a system that could be oiled to deliver goods and services to the people fairly and consistently, I now see gears that cannot turn for all the red tape.
For the record, I may be less concerned with the future of humankind than Bill Joy. I would challenge anyone to answer the question, Are we more concerned with the human race, or the development of consciousness? If indeed the goal of life is expanding consciousness, and nano-humans are able to conceive of the health of our entire biosphere rather than individual states or nations(the limit of our consciousness), then we shouldn't we welcome our replacements?
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
August 29, 2008
Attempting to control the future of scientific development will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the growth of technology. The question that must then be posed is this: Do we accept Bill Joy's statement that "to do the right thing only at last may be to lose the chance to do it at all."(14) Or do we accept progress as inevitable, and encourage growth at all cost? I lean towards allowing technology to reign free, with scientists behind the wheel rather than bureaucrats.
No one knows where technology will lead us. Joy admits he himself has a pessimistic view of the growth of technology when he admits "I believed that the rate of advances predicted by Moore's law might continue only until roughly 2010."(6) If even experts in a field do not know what the future holds, Joys hope that our species can agree on where we are headed and why seems naive.
Despite my desire for continued advancement of science, I agree with Joys statement on page 9 that "It is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones." Bill Joys heart is in the right place, and I recognize that he is no Luddite. I would compare Joy's desire for a Council of Science to my own childhood love of communism. Where I once saw a system that could be oiled to deliver goods and services to the people fairly and consistently, I now see gears that cannot turn for all the red tape.
For the record, I may be less concerned with the future of humankind than Bill Joy. I would challenge anyone to answer the question, Are we more concerned with the human race, or the development of consciousness? If indeed the goal of life is expanding consciousness, and nano-humans are able to conceive of the health of our entire biosphere rather than individual states or nations(the limit of our consciousness), then we shouldn't we welcome our replacements?
Prevention
Jonathan Doron
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
August 28, 2008
We are killing ourselves; at least that’s what Bill Joy seems to think. No, the apocalypse isn’t coming, but technology is knocking on our front door. We’re already starting to see it happen. Every time you take an antibiotic, you risk that bacteria genetically morphing to be able to resist it. Strep throat and sinusitis (two bacterial infections that are generally treated with relatively weak antibiotics) could eventually become the leading cause of death in this world. Obesity and cancer are going to seem like a joke when your seasonal allergies could kill easily kill you. What the heck were those early scientists thinking? Did they know there were forming the blueprint for the elimination of the human race? Well, we should be thanking them for now and if the right steps are taken, we can continue to cherish them as the brilliant men and women they were… not killers.
At the moment, medical researchers are focusing their work on finding even stronger antibiotics than the ones we currently use. For now, this is a blessing but, by 2030 (Joy’s proclaimed “doomsday”) they can mean the end of us. There is no doubt that (for now at least) antibiotics are a necessity and I completely condone the work that today’s researchers are doing, but they really need to start focusing their work on prevention. Right now, we’re just letting it happen and doing what we can to get rid of it once it hits. I say we just prevent it from happening altogether. It’s call immunization. Researchers should focus their work on developing immunizations on diseases such as strep throat and sinusitis. That way, when the time comes that our antibiotics become ineffective, we can conquer the disease by just preventing it altogether. We can already do it for a variety of different illnesses such as herpes, HPV, meningitis and often times even the chicken pox. If we could prevent the cases from even happening, then we don’t have to use our antibiotics to combat the diseases and in turn, not allow the bacterium that cause the disease to become resistant to today’s drugs.
Of course, everything is about money. Large pharmaceutical organizations dish out millions a year in order to fund their research for new antibiotics, which they in turn, sell and make millions. I have a new incentive for them. Imagine if every newborn child had to be immunized for the previously mentioned diseases. That’s thousands of customers a day. I’d call it a monopoly on life, and the best part is that there’s absolutely nothing anyone could do about it. If you ask me, that’s the best type of investment you can make. Of course monopolies are considered “unethical” but when you factor in the undeniable truth that we’d be killing ourselves otherwise, I’m sure the laws preventing monopolies would be willing to make a worthwhile exception. What politician would want to be forever known as the one who chose a law over the existence of man.
We are killing ourselves, and that’s the sad truth. Whether it comes in the year 2030, or it happens on the year 3000, it’s on its way. For some divine reason, humans were blessed with the ability to think and share information; fortunately for us, bacteria was not. Humans have every tool and resource they need to fight the battle and conquer the inevitable death that comes. Let’s find a way to stop the “bullet” from hitting us instead of taking it out once it already did it’s damage.
Stop Before It's Too Late
Colin Conner
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
29 August 2008
Stop Before It’s Too Late
What if in thirty years we are all living in a world of misery, oppression, disease, and overcrowding, controlled by machines? According to Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, this may become a reality. In Bill Joy’s article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” he describes that if we keep advancing in our genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) that we could make humans an endangered race. To fix this he feels that as a whole species we would have to agree what direction we need to head in these GNR technologies, and what we would like to get out of them (Joy 14). I agree with his statement and think that it would be very beneficial to put all of the world’s knowledge to good use. The technology needs to be slowed down before humans rely completely on GNR technologies. In the future we need to make sure the GNR technologies cannot give humans immortality, machines cannot solely exist without human control, and that machines with GNR technologies only work for the good nature of our species.
In order for humans to never rely completely on GNR technologies and take over mankind, humans must never obtain immortality from them. All humans want to live forever, but never think what would happen if that dream were in fact a reality. Bill Joy states, “Neither should we pursue near immortality without considering the costs, without considering the commensurate increase in the risk of extinction” (16). It seems as if he is trying to say that by becoming immortal we would be living only with the help of the GNR technologies, so in retrospect we would practically be under total control of the machines. Being controlled by machines would make our species non-existent. Also as of now our world is grossly overpopulated, and immortality would just make that more of a problem. Immortality does not equal a utopian world, it only makes us dependent.
If machines can do everything independently we would rely on GNR technologies to just run our lives so we don’t have to. Giving robots outright control of themselves would take away jobs, land, and resources from humans. We need to have the on and of switch in our hands rather than theirs. At the rate we are going we could see a changing of the guards soon, “This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself” (Joy 10). This is our own mistake that we have to fix, and being in control of what we create is a start.
Our worst nightmare would be if GNR technologies fall into the wrong hands. Someone can use them to control all of mankind and cause us to follow their every whim. We do not want an arms race like we had with nuclear, biological, and chemical technologies or else we could “create a White Plague” (Joy 8). As Bill Joy says, “Science, they recognize, grants immense powers. In a flash, they create world-altering contrivances” (10). If we are going to continue to advance our GNR technologies, they have to be put to good use and benefit all of mankind. Since there are millions starving in third world countries, GNR technologies need to be used to create food that can grow in even the harshest of climates. Also using GNR technologies to help make our world environmentally friendly so that we do not become extinct because of pollution and global warming. GNR technologies have a great up side and can really help mankind’s progress as a species.
In Bill Joy’s article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” he says that a big concern of his is that if humans allow ourselves to completely rely on machines, we will become extinct. He quotes the Unabomber commenting that if humans rely on machines, “People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide” (Joy 2). I determined that there were three goals for our future if we did not want the Unabomber’s thought to be a reality. First, we could not ever achieve immortality through GNR technologies, or else we would become totally dependent. Second, humans need to be able to turn machines on and off at our own will rather than the machines. Finally, we could only use GNR technologies for the betterment of our race otherwise we would bow down to whoever had the most powerful GNR weapons. If we achieve these three goals in the future we will be able to coexist with machines, and we will be able to tell our grandchildren about the fears that we used to have of becoming exitinct.
why the future doesn't need us
Siatta Merchant
Dr. Adams
Seminar in Composition
“Why the future doesn’t need us”
If our society set a limit on all technologies and innovation, we would evolve into a complete dystopia. A dystopia where feelings and unique ideas would be shut out and technology would be unable to impact our lives to its full capabilities, similar to the community in “The Giver” by Lois Lowry; this community would come about if we followed Bill Joy’s solution to our coming problem in over-advanced technology. In Joy’s “Why the future doesn’t need us,” he instills a great fear into our society; the article focuses on our technological advancements and creations dangerous take over of the human race in some twenty-three years. Joy’s solution is then, for all of us, as a unified front, to set goals for our technologies, in order to avoid this fate. He states, “If we could agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why, then we would make our future much less dangerous.” Bill Joy’s background in computer science allows us to believe that this theory holds some truth, if not all. Could the human race become a robotic army and a victim of our own natural selection? Simply, it is possible, but with repercussions. Could an attempt to unite as a species prevent this fate, without surrendering the freedom that we have all fought for at some point in our histories? I think not.
Bill Joy’s “Why the future doesn’t need us” was a mind-blowing article about the reality of what our future holds with the same or increased development of newer technologies. The only way to truly see our fate unfold is to proceed with no set boundaries on what we can create to better our lives and the lives of those around us through innovation and creativity.
Introduction
Hello everyone, Brian Paschke here. I was born about thirty minutes north of Pittsburgh(I attended Quaker Valley), and now I live in South Oakland. I'm a computer science major here at Pitt. I love music, and mixing it on my computer. I rarely leave Oakland so you will see me around.
BP
BP
Steve Clark
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
29 August, 2008
Throughout history, there are many examples of practices that people attempted that seemed nearly perfect on paper. Karl Marx, as well as a few other authors, was able to put together a perfect utopian society on paper. Unfortunately, as great as Communism looked on paper, how well has it fared thus far? Bill Joy’s argument is another such example. Joy is basing this ‘extinction’ upon the possibility that our technologies will bring us down because of our lack of agreeable direction. If we look several years down the road at the same pace, it’s possible that we will open “Pandora’s boxes”(Joy), but why should we allow that to halt our development as a species? Technology has been great for our development both personally and collectively so far. Why should this suddenly change?
He goes on to quote Thoreau later in the article, and then begs the question “Will we survive our technologies?” Supposing it would be simple enough to answer this question by saying there is no reason we shouldn’t, and since speculation doesn’t help argument anyway, another question must be brought into this conversation: “Will our technologies ever need to be survived?” Technology and human development, while paralleled in today’s society, will never be one in the same. It is possible for humans to develop without technology. It is NOT possible for technology to develop without humans! There is no reason to believe that technology that we create will cause the downfall of our entire race. It’s completely ridiculous, even humorous to think. It literally sounds like something out of a bad movie. Again, looking back at Communism and its early goings, it was originally believed that Communism would not be started or chosen by anyone, but that it would develop on its own as history took its natural course. One of the easiest things to do is to overlook realistic outcomes. In a perfect world, Communism probably does work, but it just doesn’t in a real world. There are too many ins and outs and loopholes. If humans relied upon technology to an extent where mankind could not exist without it, then Joy could have an argument. As it is, however, this is not the case. Humans could easily survive without technology; they choose not to because technology is a convenience.
Finally, Joy argues that we need to “agree, as a species” the direction our technological development must go. As hackneyed and cliché as it is at this point, it must be stated again that this could be true in a perfect, utopian world. Are we to simply take a vote, and let the majority decide on the direction? How are all humans going to suddenly relinquish everything that history has ever told us, and suddenly begin to unanimously agree on one thing? It will never happen. It has never happened before, and it never will. Mankind’s most important development has come from disagreement. Much like how Communism was supposedly to have begun, humans are all part of a historical dialectic in which there are competing viewpoints. These viewpoints will have a clash of sorts, and will form a new sub-viewpoint which is more or less a compromise between the two original competitors. Joy’s belief goes completely beyond this dialectic. He, much like Karl Marx, failed to understand the fact that history does not suddenly change course and reach a final destination. Both overlooked the reality of the world.
Bill Joy’s argument about “why the future doesn’t need us” is honestly one of the most ridiculous things any person can read. He is quite obviously a very intelligent man, but he simply overlooked a few of mankind’s most basic notions. First of all, without humans, without conscious thought, there can be no future. He may not be stating that, like in the Terminator movies, that technology will ultimately come to rule society, but he is making the point that we are becoming too heavily reliant upon technology. While there may be some truth to this statement, it will simply never come to fruition. No matter how heavily humans rely upon their technologies, those technologies will never surpass mankind.
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
29 August, 2008
Technology vs. Mankind
Jack Canfield, noted co-author of the popular Chicken Soup series states, that as we “begin to take action toward the fulfillment of [our] goals and dreams, [we] must realize that not every action will be perfect.” Although a very broad notion, it can easily be applied to several of the issues facing humanity today. Technological advancement, while often overlooked, is more than likely the most influential process in the world today. Bill Joy, in his Wired Magazine article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, makes the point that we could “make our future much less dangerous” by agreeing upon “what we wanted, where we were headed, and why,” His point is completely unfounded, simply by looking at Canfield’s quote. “Not every action will be perfect,” is really just another way of saying that things are easy in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. Joy’s argument simply cannot be true because it is unrealistic to see technology, or any other advancement in mankind for that matter, be consensually agreed upon by all parties.Throughout history, there are many examples of practices that people attempted that seemed nearly perfect on paper. Karl Marx, as well as a few other authors, was able to put together a perfect utopian society on paper. Unfortunately, as great as Communism looked on paper, how well has it fared thus far? Bill Joy’s argument is another such example. Joy is basing this ‘extinction’ upon the possibility that our technologies will bring us down because of our lack of agreeable direction. If we look several years down the road at the same pace, it’s possible that we will open “Pandora’s boxes”(Joy), but why should we allow that to halt our development as a species? Technology has been great for our development both personally and collectively so far. Why should this suddenly change?
He goes on to quote Thoreau later in the article, and then begs the question “Will we survive our technologies?” Supposing it would be simple enough to answer this question by saying there is no reason we shouldn’t, and since speculation doesn’t help argument anyway, another question must be brought into this conversation: “Will our technologies ever need to be survived?” Technology and human development, while paralleled in today’s society, will never be one in the same. It is possible for humans to develop without technology. It is NOT possible for technology to develop without humans! There is no reason to believe that technology that we create will cause the downfall of our entire race. It’s completely ridiculous, even humorous to think. It literally sounds like something out of a bad movie. Again, looking back at Communism and its early goings, it was originally believed that Communism would not be started or chosen by anyone, but that it would develop on its own as history took its natural course. One of the easiest things to do is to overlook realistic outcomes. In a perfect world, Communism probably does work, but it just doesn’t in a real world. There are too many ins and outs and loopholes. If humans relied upon technology to an extent where mankind could not exist without it, then Joy could have an argument. As it is, however, this is not the case. Humans could easily survive without technology; they choose not to because technology is a convenience.
Finally, Joy argues that we need to “agree, as a species” the direction our technological development must go. As hackneyed and cliché as it is at this point, it must be stated again that this could be true in a perfect, utopian world. Are we to simply take a vote, and let the majority decide on the direction? How are all humans going to suddenly relinquish everything that history has ever told us, and suddenly begin to unanimously agree on one thing? It will never happen. It has never happened before, and it never will. Mankind’s most important development has come from disagreement. Much like how Communism was supposedly to have begun, humans are all part of a historical dialectic in which there are competing viewpoints. These viewpoints will have a clash of sorts, and will form a new sub-viewpoint which is more or less a compromise between the two original competitors. Joy’s belief goes completely beyond this dialectic. He, much like Karl Marx, failed to understand the fact that history does not suddenly change course and reach a final destination. Both overlooked the reality of the world.
Bill Joy’s argument about “why the future doesn’t need us” is honestly one of the most ridiculous things any person can read. He is quite obviously a very intelligent man, but he simply overlooked a few of mankind’s most basic notions. First of all, without humans, without conscious thought, there can be no future. He may not be stating that, like in the Terminator movies, that technology will ultimately come to rule society, but he is making the point that we are becoming too heavily reliant upon technology. While there may be some truth to this statement, it will simply never come to fruition. No matter how heavily humans rely upon their technologies, those technologies will never surpass mankind.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Grades for First Blog Entries
I have now posted comments on all papers from group #1, and sent you your grades.
In order to evaluate and understand your grades, I'd recommend that you look carefully not only at your own paper and the comments I left on it, but other peoples' papers and the comments I left on them as well. Of course, you won't know the individual grades with any precision, but you will know one thing: most of them were in the C range.
Don't be too upset by the first grade if you don't like it (I always take improvement into account at the end of the semester); pay attention to the comments and work on doing better the next time.
In order to evaluate and understand your grades, I'd recommend that you look carefully not only at your own paper and the comments I left on it, but other peoples' papers and the comments I left on them as well. Of course, you won't know the individual grades with any precision, but you will know one thing: most of them were in the C range.
Don't be too upset by the first grade if you don't like it (I always take improvement into account at the end of the semester); pay attention to the comments and work on doing better the next time.
Human Extinction
Sean Osterman
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
8/29/08
Human Extinction
Imagine a world where there are no humans, instead the world is dominated by robots and nanotechnologies. To some this may sound like the next horrendous sci-fi to hit the box office, but, to others this sounds like the near future. This is in fact one of Bill Joy’s biggest fears as he clearly states in his article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”. Joy, along with several colleagues, fears the worst in this age of technological advancement. Joy believes that if we keep advancing through technology we will rely on what we invent instead of ourselves, ultimatly reaching a stage where humans cannot simply turn the machines off (Joy, 2). As the controversy builds, many people are taking their sides in the argument. Personally, I am on the side of Joy in that technology must have goals that will benefit the human race in terms of needs not wants.
Many of these technologies appear outstanding for the short term, but, we don’t see the consequences in the long run. For example, nanomedicine seems great now and for the next several years. Another example is with the food we eat daily. The FDA has approved around 50 genetically modified foods for the public. More than half of our soy beans and about one third of the corn is genetically modified. This is all great but what happens when bacteria becomes immune either accidently or via terrorist actions? What happens if the corn and soybeans become diseased and are toxic to humans? What are we supposed to do then (Joy 4, 8)? With this in mind, the world should get involved to discuss what to further research and what to leave as is. The United Nations should form some sort of world organization to mandate what is researched. I believe that we should focus our attention mostly on energy, food and medicine. The research should go towards ways to rapidly grow foods naturally, ways to decrease our need for oil as well as ways to increase our use of solar, wind and thermal heat energy and methods of finding medicine that bacteria cannot adapt to.
In the article Joy says that if humans keep coming up with new technologies that we will gradually rely on our machines instead of our brains (Joy, 2). A great example of this is seen through the fancy new TI calculators. Don’t get me wrong I love my calculator, but, kids 50 years ago didn’t have these things. These kids knew how to do everything by hand and in some ways it made them smarter. The students of now rely on calculators to do almost everything math required. If the technology in calculators keeps evolving, then the student will rely solely on the calculator. Eventually there will be a point in our civilization wherewe as humans cannot make logical decisions without the help of machines. There needs to be some way where school systems force kids to do work by themselves. I suggest that every nation monitors its education by tests. These tests will be completely different from the tests of today. These tests will be more challenging and they will force students to be intelligent without the use of technology. This way, students will be able to make intelligent decisions without technology on their side.
My final point involves the media. The media will not report the dangers in technology because as Joy says “There is no profit in publicizing the dangers” (Joy, 10). The media is the most important aspect of keeping technology under control due to that fact that people all over the world watch and obtain information from the news regularly. Personally I believe that the media only cares about exploiting celebrities and creating gossip. There are only a select few tht actually run news worth showing. The media needs to take the initiative and start talking about the controvercy around technology advancement. People need to know what is happening inside their world and their own country. When this happens people will start to become more aware of this issue and how devastating the future can be.
With the help of world organizations, government, school systems and the media the technology problem can be neutralized and the human race can take a sign of relief. It is hard to believe now that machines can control us, but we must believe. We could have an almost perfect Utopian lifestyle or we could live in fear, fighting day after day for our survival. We need to take initiative and begin the transformation now.
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
8/29/08
Human Extinction
Imagine a world where there are no humans, instead the world is dominated by robots and nanotechnologies. To some this may sound like the next horrendous sci-fi to hit the box office, but, to others this sounds like the near future. This is in fact one of Bill Joy’s biggest fears as he clearly states in his article, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”. Joy, along with several colleagues, fears the worst in this age of technological advancement. Joy believes that if we keep advancing through technology we will rely on what we invent instead of ourselves, ultimatly reaching a stage where humans cannot simply turn the machines off (Joy, 2). As the controversy builds, many people are taking their sides in the argument. Personally, I am on the side of Joy in that technology must have goals that will benefit the human race in terms of needs not wants.
Many of these technologies appear outstanding for the short term, but, we don’t see the consequences in the long run. For example, nanomedicine seems great now and for the next several years. Another example is with the food we eat daily. The FDA has approved around 50 genetically modified foods for the public. More than half of our soy beans and about one third of the corn is genetically modified. This is all great but what happens when bacteria becomes immune either accidently or via terrorist actions? What happens if the corn and soybeans become diseased and are toxic to humans? What are we supposed to do then (Joy 4, 8)? With this in mind, the world should get involved to discuss what to further research and what to leave as is. The United Nations should form some sort of world organization to mandate what is researched. I believe that we should focus our attention mostly on energy, food and medicine. The research should go towards ways to rapidly grow foods naturally, ways to decrease our need for oil as well as ways to increase our use of solar, wind and thermal heat energy and methods of finding medicine that bacteria cannot adapt to.
In the article Joy says that if humans keep coming up with new technologies that we will gradually rely on our machines instead of our brains (Joy, 2). A great example of this is seen through the fancy new TI calculators. Don’t get me wrong I love my calculator, but, kids 50 years ago didn’t have these things. These kids knew how to do everything by hand and in some ways it made them smarter. The students of now rely on calculators to do almost everything math required. If the technology in calculators keeps evolving, then the student will rely solely on the calculator. Eventually there will be a point in our civilization wherewe as humans cannot make logical decisions without the help of machines. There needs to be some way where school systems force kids to do work by themselves. I suggest that every nation monitors its education by tests. These tests will be completely different from the tests of today. These tests will be more challenging and they will force students to be intelligent without the use of technology. This way, students will be able to make intelligent decisions without technology on their side.
My final point involves the media. The media will not report the dangers in technology because as Joy says “There is no profit in publicizing the dangers” (Joy, 10). The media is the most important aspect of keeping technology under control due to that fact that people all over the world watch and obtain information from the news regularly. Personally I believe that the media only cares about exploiting celebrities and creating gossip. There are only a select few tht actually run news worth showing. The media needs to take the initiative and start talking about the controvercy around technology advancement. People need to know what is happening inside their world and their own country. When this happens people will start to become more aware of this issue and how devastating the future can be.
With the help of world organizations, government, school systems and the media the technology problem can be neutralized and the human race can take a sign of relief. It is hard to believe now that machines can control us, but we must believe. We could have an almost perfect Utopian lifestyle or we could live in fear, fighting day after day for our survival. We need to take initiative and begin the transformation now.
Let the Fates Decide
Giovanni Serrapere
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
28 August 2008
Let the Fates Decide
Why did I have to be born into this generation? That is what I thought after reading Bill Joy’s article “Why the future doesn’t need us.” The dilemmas he presents seem so inevitable, that you are left with a sense of helplessness. I agree that there is great possibility humans will be faced with these problems, but I disagree that we need to “…agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why.”(14) I refuse to take part in this agreement because of the terms of the agreement, a lack of faith in its stability, and the foreseeable loss of rights.
Bill isn’t exactly clear about all the ins and outs of this agreement, but I believe because of human nature we will try to focus our efforts on greatly extending our life expectancy. Even Bill is against this, “A technological approach to Eternity- near immortality through robotics- may not be the most desirable utopia, and its pursuit brings clear dangers.”(16) He seems to think we will move past this option, but we will not, we will try to become gods. This would not only be bad for the human race but bad for all life on earth. The circle of life can easily be thrown off balance when a species becomes extinct or others move in. Just take for example when people introduced Tilapia and Perch into Lake Victoria, the indigenous fish in that area were wiped out of existence. What happens when humans begin to overpopulate and start taking more than they are giving back? What happens when our natural resources are exhausted, and a third World War over food erupts? Some things just weren’t meant to be, humans being immortal one of them.
This agreement depends on “…scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the Hippocratic oath, and they have the courage to whistleblow as necessary, even at a high personal cost.”(15) There is no doubt in my mind that some scientist will give in to the demands of a government or organization with an agenda. It has been our policy to have the one-up on other countries in terms of nuclear weapons, so why wouldn’t this extend to new even more powerful tools of destruction. Bill admits that the policies needed to control the research would be extensive. “With their widespread commercial pursuit, enforcing relinquishment will require a verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale.”(15) Let me just state a fact, we have not relinquished the pursuit of biological weapons. That is why recently the suspect in the 2002 anthrax attacks was an Army scientist. What were they doing with anthrax? Basically what I’m trying to say is that the agreement would have too many holes in it to work.
The point I am most passionate about is the fact that Bill Joy wants to chase the dream of a “Utopian” society. His pact would start us on a path for “the greater good”, setting in motion the formation of what I have seen in so many movies. I do not want to be part of a society where I am just a number, another mouth to feed. Maybe they will dope us, so we become like zombies, feeling nothing. Sure there will be less suffering in the short term (that’s until we run out of food), but I will lose all my individuality and I could no longer be considered as actually living. Although Bill rejects this type of utopia, “These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free.”(2), what other choice will we have when every aspect of human life is engineered. Because that is what they will choose to do, make life longer, and get rid of all the “inconveniences”. I want the freedom to feel pain or joy, or to have tough times in my life, an even keeled life is a boring one. Patrick Henry had it right when he said, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” I see steps being taken in our society that are supposed to be for our own benefit, you could say for the good of society. Like the Patriot Act, the first step in cementing the power of the all knowing government. Forgive me for quoting another figure of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin; he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After all, a police state in America was the one negative thing I could see happening; that is until I read this article, now I see more.
I am fundamentally against any kind of pact because of the imminent terms of the agreement, my skepticism over the solidity of the pact, and because of the intrusion of our rights that comes with a “Utopia”. Bill Joy and I agree on many things but I believe we should not manipulate our future. If something was meant to happen, it will happen. We shouldn’t be thinking so far ahead anyway, how will we ever enjoy what we have now. When it comes time just trust the leaders involved saw that movie with Will Smith.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
28 August 2008
Let the Fates Decide
Why did I have to be born into this generation? That is what I thought after reading Bill Joy’s article “Why the future doesn’t need us.” The dilemmas he presents seem so inevitable, that you are left with a sense of helplessness. I agree that there is great possibility humans will be faced with these problems, but I disagree that we need to “…agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why.”(14) I refuse to take part in this agreement because of the terms of the agreement, a lack of faith in its stability, and the foreseeable loss of rights.
Bill isn’t exactly clear about all the ins and outs of this agreement, but I believe because of human nature we will try to focus our efforts on greatly extending our life expectancy. Even Bill is against this, “A technological approach to Eternity- near immortality through robotics- may not be the most desirable utopia, and its pursuit brings clear dangers.”(16) He seems to think we will move past this option, but we will not, we will try to become gods. This would not only be bad for the human race but bad for all life on earth. The circle of life can easily be thrown off balance when a species becomes extinct or others move in. Just take for example when people introduced Tilapia and Perch into Lake Victoria, the indigenous fish in that area were wiped out of existence. What happens when humans begin to overpopulate and start taking more than they are giving back? What happens when our natural resources are exhausted, and a third World War over food erupts? Some things just weren’t meant to be, humans being immortal one of them.
This agreement depends on “…scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the Hippocratic oath, and they have the courage to whistleblow as necessary, even at a high personal cost.”(15) There is no doubt in my mind that some scientist will give in to the demands of a government or organization with an agenda. It has been our policy to have the one-up on other countries in terms of nuclear weapons, so why wouldn’t this extend to new even more powerful tools of destruction. Bill admits that the policies needed to control the research would be extensive. “With their widespread commercial pursuit, enforcing relinquishment will require a verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale.”(15) Let me just state a fact, we have not relinquished the pursuit of biological weapons. That is why recently the suspect in the 2002 anthrax attacks was an Army scientist. What were they doing with anthrax? Basically what I’m trying to say is that the agreement would have too many holes in it to work.
The point I am most passionate about is the fact that Bill Joy wants to chase the dream of a “Utopian” society. His pact would start us on a path for “the greater good”, setting in motion the formation of what I have seen in so many movies. I do not want to be part of a society where I am just a number, another mouth to feed. Maybe they will dope us, so we become like zombies, feeling nothing. Sure there will be less suffering in the short term (that’s until we run out of food), but I will lose all my individuality and I could no longer be considered as actually living. Although Bill rejects this type of utopia, “These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free.”(2), what other choice will we have when every aspect of human life is engineered. Because that is what they will choose to do, make life longer, and get rid of all the “inconveniences”. I want the freedom to feel pain or joy, or to have tough times in my life, an even keeled life is a boring one. Patrick Henry had it right when he said, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” I see steps being taken in our society that are supposed to be for our own benefit, you could say for the good of society. Like the Patriot Act, the first step in cementing the power of the all knowing government. Forgive me for quoting another figure of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin; he said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After all, a police state in America was the one negative thing I could see happening; that is until I read this article, now I see more.
I am fundamentally against any kind of pact because of the imminent terms of the agreement, my skepticism over the solidity of the pact, and because of the intrusion of our rights that comes with a “Utopia”. Bill Joy and I agree on many things but I believe we should not manipulate our future. If something was meant to happen, it will happen. We shouldn’t be thinking so far ahead anyway, how will we ever enjoy what we have now. When it comes time just trust the leaders involved saw that movie with Will Smith.
Kaitlyn Sisk
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
August 28, 2008
More than any other country, America seems to be the most materialistic. Everywhere we look, there are advertisements to spend our money on products, and we do. Americans have the constant urge to buy things. This may be an underlying theme in Richard Scarry’s book, “What Do People Do All Day?” He is teaching children that buying things with the money earned from working is good, but also that there are other things in life that are more important.
In almost every passage, Scarry writes about some form of spending money. For example, the character Alfalfa bought a new suit with the money he earned and the rabbits bought food, new clothes, and an eggbeater. There were also entire passages about going on trips on a ship and a train. Scarry’s style is very realistic. It seems he is forthright about what he is saying, but there are also messages he is trying to send children. For example, in the passage about building a house, he lists all the things the family has to buy, such as kitchen appliances and a television. It seems like just a list, but he could be inferring and trying to teach the children that our society revolves around buying things.
This lesson seems like it could have a negative effect on a child, but Scarry goes on with more points about money to show that although society revolves around it, our individual lives should not revolve around it. There is the ever-popular question, “What would you save if your house caught on fire?” that Scarry addresses to demonstrate this. He writes a passage about the cats’ house catching fire when the mother irons the father’s shirt. He writes, “Look at poor Daddy’s shirt! But that doesn’t matter. The firemen have saved his family and his house. That is much more important”(Scarry 24). Scarry also offers some alternatives to spending money. To show the value of caring for family, Grocer Cat “bought a new dress for Mommy” and “a present for his son”(Scarry 8). Scarry tried to teach the reader that saving money is responsible because many workers deposited their money in the bank. He is trying to teach the children to not be selfish or materialistic.
Although it is not entirely something we’d like to admit, receiving a present or buying things does make people happy. American society is revolved around making and spending money, and Scarry is teaching children this in the right way. This way, they understand it is important, but other things are more so. Sometimes people do not realize this and either become spoiled or too materialistic, which is becoming a problem today in America. But now, after reading this book, hopefully children will understand where to put money on a scale of importance.
An Important Decision
Andre Cedeno
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - Seminar in Composition
August 27,2008
A Decision Must Be Made
As society continues to advance over the course of the next century there will be many new dilemmas that we will face. The biggest fear that Bill Joy and many of his peers in the scientific community discuss in the article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, is that genetics, nanotechnology and robotics(GNR) will cause the extinction of man kind. Bill Joy believes that in order to prevent this from happening society as a whole must come to a decision. As Bill says, “If we could agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why, then we would make our future much less dangerous.”(14) I agree with this point, we must determine what is necessary for us to progress as a society and which facets of our lives can be simply left alone.
GNR technologies our a major segment of our lives that need to be focused on just as transportation, healthcare, and crime are. This means that the government should form one or multiple committees to focus on the regulation of GNR technologies. If the government took control of these three sciences many of the problems that Bill Joy discussed would be minimized if not completely eliminated. One such problem that Joy stated was that individuals could gain access to these materials and act as terrorists or cause major accidents. If the government went with a laissez faire approach to this issue there could be a situation much worse than the anthrax attacks of 2001 or even the envisioned pandemic that avian flu could cause. The government must step in and take control over the situation much like the did with chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. abandoned the idea of developing biological and chemical weapons several years ago. The development of GNRs also must be regulated by the government and the development of some parts of these technologies might even need to be banned. In the future the authorities in charge of policing these threats could have them as secure as treatable diseases that use to plague the country.
Another issue that Bill Joy brought up in the article was, “that scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the Hippocratic Oath.” He also suggested that they even go as far as “whistle blowing.” If this were to occur scientists could go further into researching and developing GNR technologies because of the greater amount of trust and respect they would have from the public. This “oath” would also help to minimize capitalism driving what is produced. It would not create the world that Joy envisions where robotic industries would compete for resources, drive their prices up and eventually wipe out humans (3). With the ethical standards implemented scientists and engineers would in theory always do what is best for the public.
In the future the corporate world will also play a big role in the production of GNR technologies. Just as the government and individual scientists will be held responsible these large and small corporations must share the task of protecting the public as well. They can monitor what they produce and who it is given to much like they do in other industries. Some of these other industries include those of music and video games, where they have been able to control what age groups are able to buy certain products such as music with explicit content or mature games. The music industry has also been able to conquer one major part in the piracy of their products. They have input technology into their CDs that controls the amount of times the CD can be “burned”. All the minds in the corporate world have been successful in creating something to help stop the “replication” of one their products. By the time GNR technologies are more advanced this ant piracy technology could be transitioned to work for GNRs. This would prevent most individuals from reproducing the technologies for their own gain. With the amount of money these corporation collectively have they could invest in technology to control how their products are used and they could control who is able to get their hands on these products.
Between the corporate world, the government and the scientists who actually work on the GNR technologies many of the problems and fears associated with this science could be quelled. If these measures are taken beforehand the catastrophes that Bill Joy envisions will not occur. To save our society we must come to a decision on where we want to go with technology in the future. We could have everything we want an end up as they did in The Terminator where humans have to fight for survival or we could have what we need and end up in a similar situation to that of The Jetsons.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - Seminar in Composition
August 27,2008
A Decision Must Be Made
As society continues to advance over the course of the next century there will be many new dilemmas that we will face. The biggest fear that Bill Joy and many of his peers in the scientific community discuss in the article “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”, is that genetics, nanotechnology and robotics(GNR) will cause the extinction of man kind. Bill Joy believes that in order to prevent this from happening society as a whole must come to a decision. As Bill says, “If we could agree as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed, and why, then we would make our future much less dangerous.”(14) I agree with this point, we must determine what is necessary for us to progress as a society and which facets of our lives can be simply left alone.
GNR technologies our a major segment of our lives that need to be focused on just as transportation, healthcare, and crime are. This means that the government should form one or multiple committees to focus on the regulation of GNR technologies. If the government took control of these three sciences many of the problems that Bill Joy discussed would be minimized if not completely eliminated. One such problem that Joy stated was that individuals could gain access to these materials and act as terrorists or cause major accidents. If the government went with a laissez faire approach to this issue there could be a situation much worse than the anthrax attacks of 2001 or even the envisioned pandemic that avian flu could cause. The government must step in and take control over the situation much like the did with chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. abandoned the idea of developing biological and chemical weapons several years ago. The development of GNRs also must be regulated by the government and the development of some parts of these technologies might even need to be banned. In the future the authorities in charge of policing these threats could have them as secure as treatable diseases that use to plague the country.
Another issue that Bill Joy brought up in the article was, “that scientists and engineers adopt a strong code of ethical conduct, resembling the Hippocratic Oath.” He also suggested that they even go as far as “whistle blowing.” If this were to occur scientists could go further into researching and developing GNR technologies because of the greater amount of trust and respect they would have from the public. This “oath” would also help to minimize capitalism driving what is produced. It would not create the world that Joy envisions where robotic industries would compete for resources, drive their prices up and eventually wipe out humans (3). With the ethical standards implemented scientists and engineers would in theory always do what is best for the public.
In the future the corporate world will also play a big role in the production of GNR technologies. Just as the government and individual scientists will be held responsible these large and small corporations must share the task of protecting the public as well. They can monitor what they produce and who it is given to much like they do in other industries. Some of these other industries include those of music and video games, where they have been able to control what age groups are able to buy certain products such as music with explicit content or mature games. The music industry has also been able to conquer one major part in the piracy of their products. They have input technology into their CDs that controls the amount of times the CD can be “burned”. All the minds in the corporate world have been successful in creating something to help stop the “replication” of one their products. By the time GNR technologies are more advanced this ant piracy technology could be transitioned to work for GNRs. This would prevent most individuals from reproducing the technologies for their own gain. With the amount of money these corporation collectively have they could invest in technology to control how their products are used and they could control who is able to get their hands on these products.
Between the corporate world, the government and the scientists who actually work on the GNR technologies many of the problems and fears associated with this science could be quelled. If these measures are taken beforehand the catastrophes that Bill Joy envisions will not occur. To save our society we must come to a decision on where we want to go with technology in the future. We could have everything we want an end up as they did in The Terminator where humans have to fight for survival or we could have what we need and end up in a similar situation to that of The Jetsons.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I finally got it to work!
Jason Miller
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
26 August 2008
Future Perfect
In a world that keeps on tearing itself down what chance does its inhabitants have? Is the future so bleak that the human race will virtually become extinct? Luckily one man has expressed his fears in an article called ÒWhy the Future DoesnÕt Need Us.Ó Bill Joy wrote this article addressing his fears and offers some solutions. The questions that so many scientists ignore are addressed in the article. This allows the common man to have an insight on how dangerous some new technology can be.
For those claiming that Joy is a mere Luddite, skeptic of todayÕs growing technology, they are wrong. He has been and still is a huge part of technological advances. Several times through out the book Joy states his involvement in the advancement of technology. ÒI was lucky enough to get a job programmingÉ(Joy 5).Ó He has also been a Òco designer of three microprocessor architecturesÉ(Joy5)Ó which shows that he has directly dealt with the field and still he is weary of some technological advances. Despite his history with computers he still fears the repercussions of advancing technology. This gives many of his points more merit than a luddites point because many luddites have little hands on experience with the technology that they fear.
Now that Joy is no longer considered a luddite by anyone, the meat and potatoes of his claims can be discussed. The most disturbing claim was the inevitable evolution of humans into cyborgs, or half human half robot creatures. Becoming a new robotic race does have its advantages. People would be able to live longer and have a higher quality of life. Disease would virtually become extinct and the human race can fully flourish; or at least the new cyborg race will flourish. This would throw us into a state of Utopia where society could enjoy life without worrying about if it hurts their well-being. People would no longer be susceptible to many common ailments that plague us today. As appealing as these sound, one question has to be asked; will we lose our sense of identity and become slaves of our creations?
One way to solve this predicament is to develop a code of hygiene across the world. The United Nations could launch a worldwide program to improve the standards of living for everyone in the world regardless of location. In theory this would help decrease disease rates in the world, which, in turn, would lower mortality rates. This theory is basically people helping people. This eliminates the use of technology and helps form a bond between people across the world. As great as this sounds, the monetary cost of such a product would be too great for any society to carry and in a world where money means everything, the plan would surely fail.
A better way to solve this conundrum is to limit the uses of technology on humans. A council of scientists, engineers, and physicians could be assembled from across the world and decide on what technology, if any, would benefit society. Upon the release of new technology it would have to be passed by the board. If it doesnÕt meet the standards set by the governing body, the technology in question would be deemed dangerous to mankind. Not only would this slow down the growth of technology it would give people a sense of security. Prohibiting certain technology does seem logical, but as the phrase goes, you canÕt keep a lid on knowledge. People would continue developing dangerous technology for the sake of science.
Fortunately Joy offers a solution that can salvage societyÕs fate. He believes that a Òstrong code of ethical conductÓ (Joy 14) between scientists and engineers could save humanity. Along with the aforementioned council, the code would be a solution. The code would state that the scientists must think about what harm it could do to society. In doing so, science would no longer be a field of figuring out a different way of doing something. Science would be used for the sole purpose of benefiting society. If any person is found to have broken such a code they would be punished appropriately. Punished as in stripping them of certifications not death or physically harming them. This is the only logical solution because it allows technology to be developed with a sense of conscience.
Society must slow down and take a look at itself. Perhaps by putting a governing body in charge to deem technology dangerous or by making a code between scientists humanity will stand a chance. Regardless of the solution something has to be done. At the rate technology is moving the human race is bound to become mechanical instead of biological. This means people will exist instead of actually living. Yes, there is a difference; cars and mountains exist. People, however, are meant to experience life at its fullest not just drift through it like a machine. I donÕt know about the rest of society but I would rather live 60 years than exist for over 200.
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 - SEMINAR IN COMPOSITION
26 August 2008
Future Perfect
In a world that keeps on tearing itself down what chance does its inhabitants have? Is the future so bleak that the human race will virtually become extinct? Luckily one man has expressed his fears in an article called ÒWhy the Future DoesnÕt Need Us.Ó Bill Joy wrote this article addressing his fears and offers some solutions. The questions that so many scientists ignore are addressed in the article. This allows the common man to have an insight on how dangerous some new technology can be.
For those claiming that Joy is a mere Luddite, skeptic of todayÕs growing technology, they are wrong. He has been and still is a huge part of technological advances. Several times through out the book Joy states his involvement in the advancement of technology. ÒI was lucky enough to get a job programmingÉ(Joy 5).Ó He has also been a Òco designer of three microprocessor architecturesÉ(Joy5)Ó which shows that he has directly dealt with the field and still he is weary of some technological advances. Despite his history with computers he still fears the repercussions of advancing technology. This gives many of his points more merit than a luddites point because many luddites have little hands on experience with the technology that they fear.
Now that Joy is no longer considered a luddite by anyone, the meat and potatoes of his claims can be discussed. The most disturbing claim was the inevitable evolution of humans into cyborgs, or half human half robot creatures. Becoming a new robotic race does have its advantages. People would be able to live longer and have a higher quality of life. Disease would virtually become extinct and the human race can fully flourish; or at least the new cyborg race will flourish. This would throw us into a state of Utopia where society could enjoy life without worrying about if it hurts their well-being. People would no longer be susceptible to many common ailments that plague us today. As appealing as these sound, one question has to be asked; will we lose our sense of identity and become slaves of our creations?
One way to solve this predicament is to develop a code of hygiene across the world. The United Nations could launch a worldwide program to improve the standards of living for everyone in the world regardless of location. In theory this would help decrease disease rates in the world, which, in turn, would lower mortality rates. This theory is basically people helping people. This eliminates the use of technology and helps form a bond between people across the world. As great as this sounds, the monetary cost of such a product would be too great for any society to carry and in a world where money means everything, the plan would surely fail.
A better way to solve this conundrum is to limit the uses of technology on humans. A council of scientists, engineers, and physicians could be assembled from across the world and decide on what technology, if any, would benefit society. Upon the release of new technology it would have to be passed by the board. If it doesnÕt meet the standards set by the governing body, the technology in question would be deemed dangerous to mankind. Not only would this slow down the growth of technology it would give people a sense of security. Prohibiting certain technology does seem logical, but as the phrase goes, you canÕt keep a lid on knowledge. People would continue developing dangerous technology for the sake of science.
Fortunately Joy offers a solution that can salvage societyÕs fate. He believes that a Òstrong code of ethical conductÓ (Joy 14) between scientists and engineers could save humanity. Along with the aforementioned council, the code would be a solution. The code would state that the scientists must think about what harm it could do to society. In doing so, science would no longer be a field of figuring out a different way of doing something. Science would be used for the sole purpose of benefiting society. If any person is found to have broken such a code they would be punished appropriately. Punished as in stripping them of certifications not death or physically harming them. This is the only logical solution because it allows technology to be developed with a sense of conscience.
Society must slow down and take a look at itself. Perhaps by putting a governing body in charge to deem technology dangerous or by making a code between scientists humanity will stand a chance. Regardless of the solution something has to be done. At the rate technology is moving the human race is bound to become mechanical instead of biological. This means people will exist instead of actually living. Yes, there is a difference; cars and mountains exist. People, however, are meant to experience life at its fullest not just drift through it like a machine. I donÕt know about the rest of society but I would rather live 60 years than exist for over 200.
For Friday
First, one more time: you just need to read What Do People Do All Day? for Friday - we'll start on the Hawthorne for next week.
Second: if you're writing a post for Friday, you can either go ahead and use the Richard Scarry option (the first one I offered), or the following:
Option 2 for Group 2: Remember our discussion of the passage on page 14 from Joy, where he argues that technology needs to have appropriate goals, determined by some form of consensus. Using details from Joy, you want to do one of the following.
a) If you agree with Joy, you should both explain what specific goals you would like to see in the future and how they would prevent at least one particular problem (with GNR technologies) which he envisions.
b) If you disagree with Joy, you should both explain why and present a coherent argument for why his style of goal-driven technological development is not desirable for some particular GNR technology.
Regardless of what view you take, you should pursue a particular argument and show good understanding of Joy's essay.
Second: if you're writing a post for Friday, you can either go ahead and use the Richard Scarry option (the first one I offered), or the following:
Option 2 for Group 2: Remember our discussion of the passage on page 14 from Joy, where he argues that technology needs to have appropriate goals, determined by some form of consensus. Using details from Joy, you want to do one of the following.
a) If you agree with Joy, you should both explain what specific goals you would like to see in the future and how they would prevent at least one particular problem (with GNR technologies) which he envisions.
b) If you disagree with Joy, you should both explain why and present a coherent argument for why his style of goal-driven technological development is not desirable for some particular GNR technology.
Regardless of what view you take, you should pursue a particular argument and show good understanding of Joy's essay.
Richard Scarry’s “What Do People Do All Day?”
Lauren Fisher
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 – Seminar in Composition
August 26, 2008
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200 – Seminar in Composition
August 26, 2008
Working Hard and Teamwork
Since childhood, parents have tried to instill the values of community and teamwork on their children. Children are taught how to play nice with each other beginning in preschool, and later on are encouraged to do team building exercises. In Richard Scarry’s “What Do People Do All Day?” children can see how workers in several different occupations must work together for a common goal. At a first glance, this book might just seem to be a beautifully illustrated children’s book. Yet upon further investigation, the reader will see that the author uses these pictures and short text to get across several messages about human nature.
Scarry introduces the idea of a strong work ethic and carries this theme throughout his book. The book illustrates the concept of goods being purchased or traded as a result of people’s hard work and shows that without it, nothing would ever get done. Work also provides for the needs and wants of society and allows people to be able to pay for them. For example in the story “The story of seeds and how they grow,” Scarry shows the complete process of Farmer Alfalfa growing his corn. Scarry writes, “Grocer Cat gave money to Alfalfa for the corn. With the money he earned growing corn, Alfalfa bought a shiny new truck” (38). In this case, Alfalfa was able to work hard to grow and sell his corn and with the profit, was able to replace his truck which had broken down. Children reading this story will see that they too will be able to reap the benefits of their hard work one day. A good work ethic will help them in school as well as later on in life once they have jobs.
Another important theme in “What Do People Do All Day?” is teamwork and working together for a common goal. “Wood and how we use it” is a perfect example of many different workers carrying out their specific job, yet working as a whole to finish the task. In this one process, children are able to see just how many different people in various occupations it takes to make a single sheet of paper. Scarry show how the jobs of lumberjacks, forest rangers, foresters, and loggers all are important and an integral part in the overall process. Furthermore, Scarry shows that boat builders, furniture makers, and carpenters should all be thankful to the aforementioned jobs because they depend on them to get the much needed wood. Through the pictures and diagrams of a forest, lumberyard, and sawmill, children are able to easily see that if one worker doesn’t do his part, then the whole process will fall apart and the end goal will not be achieved. For instance, “loggers ride the logs down the river. They try to keep the logs from getting jammed. Oh dear! The logs are jammed! Unscramble that log jam, loggers!” (Scarry 41). Although the passage might sound humorous and use easy language, the message is clear: if the loggers are unable to unscramble the log jam, then many other workers will not be able to finish their jobs and/or get their payoff in the end. Thus, the ideas of teamwork and cooperation are shown to young children to get them thinking about these things at an early age.
Children reading this book will also be able to understand complex processes through Richard Scarry’s simple sentence structure and word choice. In the short story “Mailing a letter,” Besty Bear goes through the process of mailing a birthday card to Grandma and learns all about the postal system. Although typically the postman will not stick the letter under his hat and forget to deliver it, the descriptions of buying stamps, putting an ink postmark on it, and sorting the mail to see which part of town it goes to are all part of the complex process of where a letter goes once dropped into the letter slot. Other complex procedures described in this book include building a house, building a new road, and where bread comes from. Children reading this book are able to see how technology can play a role in these processes, like a flour mill is used to turn seeds into flour and how it takes many construction trucks to make a roadbed straight and smooth. Even older readers will probably discover something they never knew before while reading this book because there is a lot of information given in the labeled drawings and short stories. A young reader would probably not understand what a keystone is or a water drainage ditch. However, the next time they drive past road construction, they might be able to point out a dump truck or a bulldozer. Through his illustrations, Scarry is teaching children that workers and their equipment are everywhere in nature, both above and below the surface.
In Richard Scarry’s children’s book “What Do People Do All Day,?” he is able to take illustrations of talking animal characters and show his viewpoints on today’s society and the nature of humans. Readers learn that everyone is a worker. No matter how small or insignificant a person’s job might seem, it is still important to the overall picture. Scarry shows the idea of community in Busytown, of teamwork, and of cooperation. Although the short stories could stand alone, they are also interwoven to tell one story with these basic ideas featured in every story. Children are able to find out about several different types of occupations and why it is so important to be a hard worker, especially when others are depending on that person. Richard Scarry’s book contains more than just what meets the eye and tells the story of many different workers all trying to get their job at hand done.
Lauren Dodds
Dr. John Adams
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
26 August 2008
Dr. John Adams
ENGCMP 0200- Seminar in Composition
26 August 2008
Opportunities for Young Boys
Farmer Alfalfa is gifted in agriculture. When he grows his food he “keeps some of it for his family. He sells the rest to Grocer Cat in exchange for money” (Scarry 6), and he will sell the food to the rest of Busytown. Alfalfa uses both the food and the money from the food to support his family. However, he is also supporting the community by providing food, and the community will support Grocer Cat by buying the food from him. Alfalfa couldn’t sustain a living without Grocer Cat and vice versa. Hence, each character has a dependence on the other.
Sometimes an individual’s dependence on another’s occupation is more noticeable. Doctor Lion really helped Abby out when her tonsils were bad. Though Doctor Lion is paid big bucks for his skills at the operating table, he too needs to purchase food from the grocer and clothes from the tailor and once he has fulfilled his needs he can invest his money with the banker. All the characters are connected. When living in community with others, no individual or family has to be self-sufficient. When a person can focus on one aspect that he enjoys, he can excel in that area and the community will benefit more from that individual. If Doctor Lion had to grow all his own food and sew all his own clothes as well as removing tonsils, he would not be as skilled in medicine, his preferred area of expertise. We can’t do it all by ourselves. We need to rely on each other to help us out in areas that we aren’t strong.
However, young girls are not getting the same message as young boys are. Scarry’s idea of a traditional family stereotypes women. The females are depicted mostly as housewives. They take care of their children, cook, and clean. Grocer Cat rewarded his wife with a new dress because “she earned it by taking such good care of the house” (Scarry 8). Scarry hints at the idea that the man is the provider of the family, he is in charge of the money and he decides what he wants to spend it on. Females are very limited on the tasks they are responsible for. Mommy, the rabbit, takes Abby to the doctor and then has a baby. Mommy Pig made sure her kids were well feed.
Nurse Nelly is the only female depicted in this story that holds a paying position. This may have been accurate during the time the book was written but now this is far from the way things are. Women have become much more prominent in the community. They hold positions everywhere from nurses to CEOs of major businesses. Many women today are still considered subservient to men yet I believe women are the backbone of society. They have become a major contribution to the workforce. Women today have many more opportunities available to them. Not even 50 years ago women were expected to go to school yet still run the household. Today women are considered a more able body of the workforce. Most women in this day and age are expected to search for employment, not just marriage. This book illuminates the sexism of the time by giving many examples of men in the workplace but only showing one solitary woman. Although, the portrayal of Nurse Nelly is still sexist. Showing a woman in a nurse’s position shows the previously acceptable positions for women to achieve in society. If Nelly had been in a more masculine position the book would be more positive for young girls who read this book. Women need more positive male dominated roles in children’s books to give young girls a passion to attain more in life.
The sexism in this book is appalling. Major positions are held by only men and the author tends to put women in “their place”. Nurse Nelly is the only female character who is given her own passage, however, more women are shown in the beginning. These women include the laundress, the dance instructor, the music teacher, the realtor, the beautician, and the dress maker. All of these examples are not given more time than a picture and a label. The portrayal of these female characters shows the opinions and expectations of women 50 years ago. Women today have been able to assert themselves in the business world and are able to move past these stereotypes set in previous decades. More children’s books need positive role models for young girls to inspire them to succeed.
Kristine Latham
Dr. Johns
English Composition
August 27, 2008
Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us
Bill Joy is a graduate of the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley. He has been an active member in his field since high school. He began with programming computers back in high school. After a life time of studying in the best educational facilities in the world and personally developing technology, Bill Joy has become an extremely credible person. Not only does he have firsthand experience developing technology, allowing him to understand its growth and impact, but he is in close contact with other scholars in the field. Just two of the many scholars that Joy is in communication with include Nobel-laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann and biologist Stuart Kauffman.
The main issue addressed in “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” was that due to genetics, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR). “We have approached the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself - as well as to vast numbers of others” (Joy).
GNR makes it possible to self-replicate. This is a huge physical threat. Not only is this dangerous knowledge for the elite few, but it is dangerous and available to the masses. A whole new category of terror has been opened up. “For the first time…accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them” (Joy). This changes the kinds of threats that are usually dealt with when rapid self-replication is concerned. Formerly, this is a danger to the software and other programs of a computer. Data will be lost when the self-replication takes over. Now, in the 21st century, the self-replication poses a concern to the physical world. Pair that with newly knowledge enabled mass destruction, and there is a huge safety issue facing the world. For the first time it will be possible to, “completely redesign the world” (Joy).
It will be humans responsible for evolution and remapping genetics. The natural world will lose all control. GNR releases the power to build devices that are genetically distinct and selectively destructive” (Joy).
“It is most of all the power of destructive self-replication in genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) that should give us pause” (Joy). So what is the solution to this immense pending danger? What action should be taken to prevent catastrophe and insure that these discoveries will make life for our species significantly better?
To begin, there needs to be a large committee designated to keeping this new technology under control. The committee will be composed of scientist from all over the world. The safeguards that have been used to prevent unforeseen outcomes of technology in the past have been very inefficient. Therefore, the more ideas that are streaming into the system, the more protection there will be.
Next, there needs to be a designated hierarchy of professionals and experts that prevents the general public to gain access to such powerful information. An example of this would include scientist, then health professionals, than government officials. This new found technology needs to be tested and understood in much greater detail before it is relinquished to a nation of people. It is the scientists who need time with the technology, to gain complete understanding. A more complete understanding of the material will allow a more efficient.
GNR is a threat to our species. While it is capable of doing great things for the world, it is extremely dangerous and needs to be handled very carefully. With the leadership of scientists and the safeguards of experts, it will be possible to avoid major catastrophes and continue to expand technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)