Technopoly: Monopoly to the Extreme!

In Brave New World, we see a Technopoly through the progression of society since Ford’s Model T.  Progression grew exponentially, as was mentioned in Kurzweil’s article from last week’s post.  By employing a Technopolic society, "...workers would have to abandon any traditional rules of thumb they were accustomed to using:  in fact, workers were relieved of any responsibility to think at all.  The system would do their thinking for them.  That is crucial, because it led to the idea that technique of any kind can do our thinking for us, which is among the basic principles of Technopoly."  In the novel, the Technopolic society isn’t as bad as we may see it today, because in the novel, everything revolves around efficiency and pleasure.  In comparison, Postman insightfully writes, "In a technocracy- that is, a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent- an "unseen hand" will eliminate the incompetent and reward those who produce cheaply and well the goods that people want."  In other words, As long as the citizens keep the quotas up and do not go against the customs of society, they can have pleasure at will.  Postman also states, "Arkwright trained workers, mostly children, "to conform to the regular celerity of the machine,"".  Is this not present in both 1984 and Brave New World?  In the former, children were trained by the media and society from a young age to report traitors and heretics; sometimes they reported their own parents.  In the latter, children are produced—not born—to be efficient.  Everything they do is for “Our Ford” and to replicate his example of efficiency and technological progress.  Continually, Frederick Winslow Taylor wrote a book stating that, "the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency; that technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment; that in fact human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking, that what  cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value, and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts."  But then again, why would we want to be anything but efficient?  Wouldn’t our economy prosper more if we pushed efficiency of machines and people to the maximum?  By doing this, however, we could lose some of the characteristics that make us human, as I mentioned last week.  Efficiency=pleasure, peace, and prosperity?  I’m not so sure.

You may say that Kurzweil's a dreamer, but he's not the only one.

 

Does this picture bring the possibility of a harsh reality to mind? For me, it does.  As we as a society approach Singularity, we have to consider the implications that come with allowing technology to overtake the intelligence of the human race.  If we could live forever as many Singularitarians predict, there would be no reason to believe in a higher power.  There would be no reason to believe in Heaven, Hell, or God.  Mankind will have defeated God and therefore can do as he pleases.  While not everyone has different views on religion, this theory can be applied to various facets of life as we know it.  It could get to the point where we could artificially clone humans and create babies how we want them to be, like in Brave New World.  Huxley writes about this subject, "The principle of mass production at last applied to biology," (7).  Technology could have the capacity to wipe out diseases such as malaria, AIDS, and cancer thorough the exponential improvement of modern medicine.  If  technology will someday become more powerful than man, then can't computers someday control the weather?  Couldn't they wipe out global warming, natural disasters, etc.?The possibilities are endless.  According to the article from "TIME" Magazine, "2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal", It's impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which (with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because if you could, you'd be as smart as they would be."  Until that day comes, when we replace our own need to progress as a humankind, what do we do?  Do we prevent technology from progressing so quickly?  Or do we simply wait for the inevitable?  Grossman also refutes the theory of total Singularity, "But it's also possible that there are things going on in our brains that can't be duplicated electronically no matter how many MIPS you throw at them."  So for now, I'll believe it when I see it.  One thing is for sure tohugh, if Singularity is actually achievable, then one will have to rethink the purpose of the human race.  Machines over men, no longer mind over matter.

Rhetorical Analysis

Time is abstract.  However, time also has a flow and a rhythm which carries us through life like a feather on a breeze.  Rebecca A. Demarest uses two prominently acclaimed authors–Kurt Vonnegut and Vladimir Nabokov— to illustrate her point.  Demarest presents the differing opinions on the presentation of time in an autobiography and meshes them together as if they were conceived that way.  Rather than advising her audience the best way to document memories and the past, she gives anecdotes from other authors and passages so as to present a wider range of influences.  According to Vonnegut, time is able to be manipulated.  It can stop altogether, or speed up or slow down at will according to the writer.  From Nabokov’s view, we are like insects in amber; the insect is the memories, and the amber is time.  Demarest also jumps right in addresses the issue at hand, no tiptoe-ing around it.  She never gives her opinion as to which opinion is “right” or “the best”, but presents both sides without bias and even throws in supplemental citations to support each viewpoint.  .  These examples are just one way that Demarest builds credibility towards her audience, while still leaving the audience free to form their own ideas and opinions about time. 

Time is limited; I think everyone realizes that whether or not we want to fully believe it.  Demarest uses the metaphor of life as a highway, and the car’s speed representing time.  Sometimes our lives fly by and we look back and do not remember where all of the good times went.  If we just happen to be cruising that day, we will have memories imprinted in our brains that will stick out and shine, like stars amongst the dust that we left behind in our haste to constantly get older.  This idea gives the audience a concept to relate to, so that the concept of time is easier to wrap their head around.  It makes the issue more personal for each individual.  Also, Demarest presents outside information that hits home, “‘But as long as I live, my past is rooted in my present and springs to life with my present’” (Renza 271-272).  Demarest takes a middle road between Vonnegut and Nabokov’s approaches; time can be used as a structure for an autobiography, or it can just be there for the author to touch on once in a while.

Time is controllable.  Demarest, personally showed me that time can only affect a person and/or their writing if they want it to.  They can let the road pass by all too quickly, or they can control the speed of their lives and enjoy each moment.  An autobiography is a purely selfish work—not in a narcissistic way—where the focus is not on the past or the present, but on what the author feels is important at that present time.  So, author, throw out the rulebook and just enjoy the sweet ride of life.