I Added Paragraphs!

            It seems every subject has its shot at becoming a cultural meta-narrative at some point.  In this instance it appears that the idea of a technopoly, as defined by Neil Postman in his book Technopoly, is vying for a shot.  Postman defines a technopoly to be “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology”; essentially the point at which mechanical efficiency becomes the basis of human culture.  Postman claims that this has become a social trend mainly within America, while the rest of the world still resides in the phase of technocracy, the point at which progress is no longer questioned with moral reasoning, “a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent” to quote Postman once again.  While the text is a bit dated in regards to the progress of other countries (it was published in 1992), the general idea of the technopoly still applies in the modern day and age, perhaps even more so now that time has given rise to more technological progress than before the book’s time. 

            In any case, the idea of a culture based around exceedingly efficient production ties in quite nicely with the central theme of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  The society within said book has essentially reformed itself around the teachings of Henry Ford, the production line, and Frederick Winslow Taylor, maximizing human efficiency.  In fact, society has literally embraced these two concepts.  All of society is designed, starting even pre-embryo, to exceptionally fit into one very specific job and do it at an optimal rate.  This teaching is even expanded through copying individuals before embryonic mitosis begins so that, in effect, the individual is not an individual but essentially a replaceable part.  This leads directly into the centering on Ford’s assembly line.  Society, in Brave New World, has become a literal assembly line.  Everything has been reduced to a series of hyper-efficient production and consumption, where even the citizens have become nothing more than cogs in the machine.  Essentially, this society has become the epitome of a technopoly, as society has embraced the way of the machine as what drives, controls, and regulates it processes.  What I find to be interesting is the differentiation between Huxley’s reasoning for society’s shift and that of Postman’s.  Huxley believed that the world shifted solely because power was desired, and this was simply an efficient means to an end.  Postman, however believes it to be a natural progression based on evolutions in technology that led to there only being “one sure thing to believe in – technology” (Postman 8). 

            Simply put, Brave New World is the embodiment of a technopoly, a place where technology now reigns as the supreme standard of measurement.  No longer do traditional values exist, and even humans are expected to operate with machine-like precision.  Technology has become the meta-narrative, not the pursuit of, but technology itself. 

We Alone Cannot Comprehend

Singularity; generally used to refer to everything within a single point.  In this instance however, we are not talking about a singularity, rather the Singularity, the point at which human creation surpasses human intelligence (more specifically the Time Magazine article found here, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal”).  While not the most incredulous idea, it is certainly a possible path for the future; a path most certain to be viewed as a dystopia.  While it is quite possible that human’s will continue to exist “humanity – our bodies, our minds, our civilizations – will be completely and irrevocably transformed” (Grossman 1).  This definition here is what makes a dystopia, not the tragic nature of its construction or foundation, but the changes that will inevitably be brought to our current definition of humanity.  Take for example the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, a world in which everyone (for the most part) is happy.  This idea would certainly be welcome by most, until they learn about the changes humanity has undergone.  Sure society is happy, but that is only because it has been perfected to the point that humans are genetically engineered and subconsciously trained to be happy, to function as an assembly line, and to give up some of the most fundamental teachings our current definition of humanity is built upon.  Does being always happy outweigh living in a society built upon the idea of “[carrying] at least half your mortality in a bottle” (Huxley 238)?  Even more simply put: do the giants outweigh the losses?  In most cases it depends on the person you talk to, but nonetheless, the point stands relevant.  The same question can be asked of the coming Singularity.  Do the gains outweigh the losses?  Well let’s take a look at some of the proffered gains.  The most obvious is, of course, vast, even near infinite, knowledge and understanding given to the human race thanks to the exponential growth from super-intelligent computers.  The most controversial however, is the idea of everlasting life.  The ability to life forever, whether granted by pill, by becoming a cyborg, both, or even any other conceivable idea would certainly become available to humanity if knowledge reaches a point of nigh-infinite expansion.  The loss however is something that cannot and will not be wholly answered until that day is reached, as until then, ironically enough, we will not possess a clear enough picture to solve the question ourselves.  Perhaps Grossman himself expresses the concern the best, “By beating death, will we have lost our essential humanity?”  Humanity: that which defines us as human; that which makes us what we are; that which we cannot hope to comprehend alone.

Anaysis of an analysis of a relation of... you get the picture

     Derek D. Miller, author of “Postmodernism inVonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle” is a literary criticism that visualizes the relation between postmodernism and Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.  This straightforward essay delves directly into the topics of truth, progress, and knowledge, three relatively unrelated themes, and uses humor (parody, irony, and satire) to establish their relative position in regards to postmodernism.  Miller’s comparisons are no laughing matter, as he establishes his positions quite well though his evaluation of Vonnegut’s writings.  Miller seems to step into a few pitfalls however.  While his analysis is quite thorough, he tends to over evaluate and utilize excessive redundancy in various sections of his essay.  These sections tend to jar the reader out of the essay’s otherwise natural flow and ebb.  Thus, Miller may find himself in a bit of a jam as his reasoning falls ever so short  as the reader’s attention is lost amidst a stream of repetition.  Overall however, Miller’s claims are well supported and backed by well emphasized citations from the text, at least from Vonnegut’s end.  Jim Powell’s Postmodernism for Beginners is allegedly used to focus the discussion regarding postmodern though, yet how is not readily present.  In the scope of the entire essay, Powell is mentioned three times, and two of those said times were in a section of the text where the goal was to target the definitions of postmodernism with precision before continuing the discussion.  That leaves Powell referenced only once in the remainder of the essay, and even then it further serves as an obtuse reference to the basis of postmodernism in addition to its purpose as fine tuning the reference material.  In the cacophony of ideas presented by this essay, further, non-redundant, relation between the two texts would have allowed a freer exchange of information between the author and his audience.  Perhaps as a side effect of the above statement, Miller identifies as a well versed authority on the subject at hand.  Although he does not often attribute these ideas to Miller, his conclusions drawn from Vonnegut are remedied and supported by a firm foundation of postmodern definitions.  His authority is further set in stone by his strict devotion to his thesis.  He does not alter from his path with any unnecessary information or anecdotes and provides only that which strengthens his positions.  The audience however, will likely find itself at a fork before long, entranced by his dedication yet forced away by his repetition.  His message is overall alluring however and well established and thought out.   Furthermore, there are no logical sirens announcing mistakes or misunderstanding, and his prose and examples are easily accessible by those who have not even read wither text (me included).  His essay structure is also to be applauded, as he gradually delves deeper into Vonnegut’s work by moving from the lower forms of comedy to those at a higher tier.  In doing so, Miller slowly raises the stakes with more delicate comparisons and establishes his point all the stronger.  Miller can also be related to a bull in a tea shop; he holds back no punches and dives in from the get go yet refuses to leave the reader in the dark.  Miller’s essay is certainly brilliant, and although it has its flaws, it stands out as a candle in the dark.