Let's Talk About Accuracy

Taylor argues that, ““In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.” Just take a look at this quote. It seems all wrong. I understand that productivity enhancement is a primary goal for people of the technological fields, but I don’t believe it needs to be taken this far.
The thing with these companies is that they are only focused on one thing. That thing is productivity. But why is it productivity? It’s productivity just to enhance their profits. Therefore, the information that they provide their consumers with is not all faithful. What people don’t realize is that the internet and all the “factual” sites out there are not completely reliable. I mean just look at Wikipedia for example. Anyone can modify that site. And yet, we take it as if it is pure and accurate information.
Okay, so I mean this is kind of bound to happen. Every company does what they have to do to get where they need to get. I mean that’s just the mechanics of business. I’m not scolding the people who created this. Rather, I am concerned with us, the American population. We are the ones who allow this shift of power to happen. We are the ones who rely on these databases as if there is no tomorrow. Or rather I should say, as if there were no libraries. I guess what I’m trying to get across is that there are other access points to information out there, but we don’t use them. I believe that the reason we don’t use them is purely because we Americans are rather lazy. We can’t take the extra five minutes to go to a library and get more faithful and accurate information. Besides, Google and Wikipedia are so much more convenient. Just type in one phrase and all of your information pops up. Anyways, we rely on these internet data bases that may or may not give us reliant information. So therefore yes, I do agree with what Carr said.

Natural Humanity?

In Kirby’s article, while he discusses the new shift towards a new “Pseudo-modernism” type of lifestyle he says, “I believe there is more to this shift than a simple change in cultural fashion. The terms by which authority, knowledge, selfhood, reality and time are conceived have been altered, suddenly and forever”. He is right with this. The American lifestyle has changed drastically. It has evolved into a more technologically enhanced society, and due to this humanity is slowly dismantling. The people of this day and age have become more and more reliant on technology and therefore, the natural humanity of the American’s is disintegrating.
What do I mean by the “natural humanity”? Well, I consider “naturalness” to be anything that isn’t reliant on technology. Something that Americans can do on their own, without the help of machines. The sad thing is, is that this idea seems impossible in this day and age. I mean, just recall some of the facts that were brought up in the video we watched on Friday. First, there are 1,000,000,000 internet devices in this world as of 2008. Second, in the duration of five minutes 67 babies are born in contrast to 694,000 songs being downloaded in that same amount of time. Third, by the year 2049 there shall be a $1,000 computer that will exceed the knowledge of the whole entire human race. So, what does this mean?
It means that Americans have started a new era, an era of technological subservience. I guess you could say that American’s are past postmodernism and are now embarking on a journey that resembles one exemplified in Brave New World or 1984. We have all the signs right in front of us. I mean, look at the examples I brought up from the video! The number of internet devices has more than tripled since 1992, and this isn’t bad? Of course it is, why are we devoting so much to this technological invention? What if another incident such as Y2K happens again? We American’s would not be able to function. Also, this computer will exceed the entire human race’s intellectual capacity? This seems like a great set up to a 1984 scenario. If we give to much power to technology, then we will ultimately become the ones controlled, not the other way around.
Anyways, that’s my opinion on what this all means.

Felix, a Man of Reason

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” (pg. 8). Postmodernism for Beginners text conveys this sense that the “Age of Reason” has long ago prevailed and now the people have begun to look towards more relaxed notions, or you could say less scientific based facts. There has been a transfer of knowledge from the more scientific based ideals to ones such as narratives. Within the novel Cat’s Cradle, the readers begin to see the development of Felix, one of the main creators of the atom bomb. As we, the readers, begin to see the development of Felix, we get a sense that he is totally and completely against what one may consider non- scientific facts. A relation that Postmodernism might convey as “non-scientific” would be narrative, and how they serve a higher purpose to enlighten people and provide a better understanding. Felix, you could say would be most likely to object to this sort of “nonsense” information.
So, when one begins to read the first seven chapters of this book it comes off as sort of ironic. Felix, this person who still believes in the ideals and viewpoints of the “Age of reason”, who would most likely object to any sort of use of narratives to explain anyone or anything’s behavior is solely characterized by one very large metanarrative. Jonah/John or whatever you would like to call him relies on people’s local narratives to contribute to this gigantic metanarrative of Felix’s life in relation to the “humanitarian” side of the bomb. I mean, just look at his letters back and forth between the youngest son Newt and Jonah/John. They’re one narrative after another. And of course, Felix is characterized differently each time the narrator hears a narrative about him. In the viewpoint of Newt, we sense that Felix is a crazy insane man. For example, little Newt says in his letter to Jonah/ John,”… my father was the ugliest thing I had ever seen I still dream about it all the time” (pg. 12). But then on the other hand, later outside of the seven chapters; we see Felix idolized by Dr. Breed. These two contradicting views of Felix reveal the instability of non-scientific evidence. Wait, back track, how can it even be called “evidence”? It can’t, therefore, we begin to see why Felix has remained true to the “Age of Reason” thinking. Poor Felix, he is characterized by the one thing true scientists dislike.

Well, now that I have probably confused about half of you who are reading this, I’m going to stop. I know this is probably really hard to follow, but I tried to make my ideas at least a little understandable.