Technopolies, Technocracies, and A Brave New World. Holla.

                Brave New World's society is a technopoly, or a society in which humans are alive to assist technology and imminent progress. Technopolies change how we perceive things in our society such as religion, art, family ties, politics, etc. This is extremely similar to Brave New World in that there are no families in the World State. It changes the dynamic of the world we live in in order to leave people devoted to nothing other than the progression of the society one lives in. An example of the change in religion is the switching of the word “God” to “Ford” in A Brave New World.

In order for a technoploy to occur, it must evolve from a technocracy. This type of set up is what was occurring during the industrial revolution. Progress was still being made in this time period, but it was made provide tools to ease the way people did many grueling tasks. At this point in history, tradition is, “still functional, still exerting influence” (Postman 5), maintaining of tradition prevented technology from over-ruling humans. Although the technologies of the time, such as the cotton gin, were revolutionary, people still kept up with the customs of their families.

Frederick W. Taylor is thought to be the brainchild of Technopolies. He claimed that technology is, “superior” human labor (Postman 6). According to Taylor, technology is more efficient because it is to-the-point. Humans are too complex and distracted to provide the results given by technology. Although people work in Huxley’s novel, the conditioning they undergo as children is what makes then so similar to machinery. The no longer possess the traits that make human labor so inefficient. Nothing stands in the way of them and doing their jobs properly because they are molded into perfect people for their jobs. One can see the sense in this when John enters the World-State. John’s views are new to Lenina and by sharing his world with her, he makes her feel what is close to today’s “normal” emotions. This hurts the machine of the society when Lenina’s mind drifts while she is at work. She becomes so enveloped in her own thoughts of John that she forgets to put the proper chemicals in one of the test tubes.

Singularity?

The topic of singularity is a very controversial one. Many people, like myself, are very put-off by the thought of machine controlling the world. I think that merging with technology is something to be avoided. It removes the point of life because it leaves people not feeling like there are things in the world that can't be experienced through some form of technology. This can be compared to a quote in the article, "As we approach immortality, omniscience, and omnipotence, will our lives still have meaning?" By allowing technology to take over humans, we lose the ability to figure things out  for ourselves. Life has no purpose if we come into the world knowing everything. I am skeptical about machines and humans becoming equals because humans have emotions, compassion, and change forever after experiencing some large events in their lives. Bernard is the most "human" character in the book. He says to Lenina, "I want to know what passion is... I want to feel something." He wants to break free from the emotionally-restricted World State. Bernard's views are romanticized. Nothing in life goes without being influenced in some way. He imagines a world where everyone has individual views, but whether from propaganda or family, the peoples' views are constantly being altered by the people are environment around them. A Brave New World and the article have some similarities. In the novel, society has managed to stall the process of aging. The article says, "Artificial intelligence will help us  the effects of old age and prolonging lifepans indefinitely." Although the members of the World-State can't completely avoid death, citizens are appauled by how the people living on the savage reservarion look, Linda especially.

Rhetorical Analysis

In Derek D. Miller’s essay on Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, the author uses the novel to show how Vonnegut’s work is an example of the post-modern aesthetic http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/512/postmodernism-in-vonneguts-cats-cradle. Miller attempts to illustrate the ways in which Vonnegut presents the dystopic world of Cat’s Cradle as one of disorder and contradictions, two ideas that post-modernist writers emphasize.

The essay’s structure is one that most high-school students are taught: the topic sentence states the main idea of the paragraph, and he supports his topic sentences using evidence from the book. The main focus of this piece is postmodernism and how it connects directly to Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.  This is not a controversial topic. He uses many quotes from the text to prove his thesis as well as quotes from Powell. This evidence is fairly important to prove his thesis because it accents Vonnegut’s dark sense of humor regarding religion and the meaning of life. This was a good move on Miller’s part because nothing can really persuade an audience of an author’s point of view other than a direct quote from that author’s work. The topics he quoted were good because they had a direct correlation between Vonnegut and post-modernism. He wrote about science and destruction which are key components in post-modernism. Although his topics were good, his introduction and his first body paragraph seemed redundant. Miller gives examples of post-modernist themes, but never explains why they relate to post-modernism. It would have been more helpful for his audience to explain that post-modernism was a reaction to modernism and a sense of order. A better and more detailed explanation of post-modernism is needed in a piece like this, but his was very drawn-out and kind of ambiguous to those who do not know much about post-modernism.                                       

The transitions were effective. Miller started each body paragraph stating the exact topic to be discussed. His content was good and his diction related well to the novel because Vonnegut uses casual jargon in Cat’s Cradle  and Miller analyzes the work with equally straight-forward language, which I think fits this essay well. He uses many specialized terms in the essay such as: Bokonism and Ice-nine, but never forgets to define the terms, so no one feels alienated. Miller does not utilize any figurative language, which fits this essay because of the casual nature of the writing. 

Having read Cat’s Cradle, I don’t think Miller is an authority on the text. His failure to adequately explain a quote makes me doubt his knowledge of the book. His quotes seemed like fillers instead of vital evidence to support his thesis. The quotes felt random as though they were picked out of a hat, making Miller less credible.

I learned a few useful things a from this essay. Miller’s focus on content is more sophisticated than most high-school writing. I also thought his topic sentences were strong. However, I didn’t think his essay had personality, which does not mesh well with Vonnegut’s creative style.