Lev Grossman's article, 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal, contains many theories and thoughts of the future that causes his audience to think what may happen later on in life. He starts the article introducing a high school student in 1965 by the name of Raymond Kurzweil who predicted that machines will become more inteligent than humans. This caused a dramatic reaction from the audience wondering now if technology is getting to a point to where it is being heavily depended upon that we will live off of those machines. Grossman states that whoever believes this theory must be a heavy supporter and believe it enough to where they are willing to give their own life to technology. I don't really think there is much of an advantage with this other than living forever and saving the sickly from dying. Do we really want to live forever? Do we really want to give in to machinery to where we actually become a machine?
This article is similar to Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World which is also predicting what the future may be. Bernard from Brave New World is similar to Raymond Kurzweil from Grossman's article because Bernard is making predictions of what the future may possibly be. The technology that is portrayed in Brave New World is the technology that Kurzweil is visioning what may eventually take us over. Grossman mentions that humans will be able to live healthy as we get older. When Grossman states, "the mice didn't get better; they got younger" (Grossman 3), he is basically saying that we will be able to live with healthy cells by removing the damaged cells. The conept of potentially living forever and the rapid growth of technology and machines are the main points of this article. To wrap this up, Grossman(well Kurzweil more like) states that technology is growing so fast that it will overcome the human race but we will have the ability of living forever and healthy. Do we really want this to happen? We will have the ability of immortality however, we would not be able to function as an authentic human, but we will function as a machine.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3460332826624698498&postID=9218708334141293564
When parents are not able to have a baby due to whatever the reason may be they turn to adopting. Head to an adoption center, look at the kids and see which one they would like to take home and raise. Once chosen, files are made to where the parents are now the legal owners of the child(s) and are now responsible for whatever happens to him/her. However adoption is being preached and is now questioned whether adopting kids is a good thing. An article titled, "The Law of Adoption: A time for Change" by Allyson Gay, she states to her audience that adopting is not as beneficial as some may think. It is clear that she is against adoption.
Gay states that there are many flaws when it comes to adopting. She states that the child feels a sense of abandonment and is not loved by their biological parents. Gay also says, "In a society that preaches phrases such as blood is thicker than water and stresses the importance of being able to rely on family, who is there for a child of adoption to lean on since their family is not blood?"(Gay) Meaning what is the point of the child depending on some adults who adopted him/her where their parents are not even blood related? When she stated this, she left her audience questioning whether the meaning of adoption is right or not. The audience is now left with the thought of questioning as to why should the child should look up to and depend on someone who he/she has no idea who they really are other then knowing that they are his parents. "When a child is adopted, they often grow up not knowing where they came from and not having information about their biological family’s background or medical history. The adopted child usually desires information and may ask questions that their adoptive parents likely do not have the answers to."(Gay) children want to know about their parents so they could feel more bonded with them. However, for an adopted child in the eyes of Gay they do not feel bonded with their adopted parents because they know that they are not their real parents and also have no idea who his real parents are. When that child asks who his biological parents were, the parents usually do not answer because they either do not know or do not want to tell the child that they were abandoned or left by their parents. This leaves an emotional feeling for the audience of the solitude the child feels how they know completely nothing about their biological parents and the feeling of depression with the child talking about their adopted parents when they know that they are not their real parents.
When all is said and done, Allyson Gay's article, "The Law of Adoption: A Time for Change" states that there are more flaws than benefits when it comes to adopting. The child feels more abandoned and lonely rather than getting the opportunity the feeling loved from parents who are willing to take care of them unlike their biological parents.
When parents are not able to have a baby due to whatever the reason may be they turn to adopting. Head to an adoption center, look at the kids and see which one they would like to take home and raise. Once chosen, files are made to where the parents are now the legal owners of the child(s) and are now responsible for whatever happens to him/her. However adoption is being preached and is now questioned whether adopting kids is a good thing. An article titled, "The Law of Adoption: A time for Change" by Allyson Gay, she states to her audience that adopting is not as beneficial as some may think. It is clear that she is against adoption.
Gay states that there are many flaws when it comes to adopting. She states that the child feels a sense of abandonment and is not loved by their biological parents. Gay also says, "In a society that preaches phrases such as blood is thicker than water and stresses the importance of being able to rely on family, who is there for a child of adoption to lean on since their family is not blood?"(Gay) Meaning what is the point of the child depending on some adults who adopted him/her where their parents are not even blood related? When she stated this, she left her audience questioning whether the meaning of adoption is right or not. The audience is now left with the thought of questioning as to why should the child should look up to and depend on someone who he/she has no idea who they really are other then knowing that they are his parents. "When a child is adopted, they often grow up not knowing where they came from and not having information about their biological family’s background or medical history. The adopted child usually desires information and may ask questions that their adoptive parents likely do not have the answers to."(Gay) children want to know about their parents so they could feel more bonded with them. However, for an adopted child in the eyes of Gay they do not feel bonded with their adopted parents because they know that they are not their real parents and also have no idea who his real parents are. When that child asks who his biological parents were, the parents usually do not answer because they either do not know or do not want to tell the child that they were abandoned or left by their parents. This leaves an emotional feeling for the audience of the solitude the child feels how they know completely nothing about their biological parents and the feeling of depression with the child talking about their adopted parents when they know that they are not their real parents.
When all is said and done, Allyson Gay's article, "The Law of Adoption: A Time for Change" states that there are more flaws than benefits when it comes to adopting. The child feels more abandoned and lonely rather than getting the opportunity the feeling loved from parents who are willing to take care of them unlike their biological parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)