Technocracy VS. Technopoly

Neil Postman’s Technopoly is not only a frightening interpretation of the past, but also an ominous prediction of the future. In this chapter, Postman explains how the world, specifically America, has gone from old-fashioned values to a Technocracy and then to a Technopoly.
He explains that Technocracy made people stop questioning why they did things, and instead just did things if they could be done. He says, “with [Technocracy], there developed a profound belief in all the principles through which invention succeeds: objectivity, efficiency, expertise, standardization, measurement, and progress.” Although these guiding principles became a part of everyday life, Postman explains that they still allowed the old-fashioned values to exist.
The opposite is true with Postman’s so-called Technopoly. Although it has the same guiding principles, it only allows one narrative to exist - its own. This he says is what our world and nation has come to. This is also the world that exists in the Brave New World.
Not only are people in Brave New World constantly being conditioned, they are conditioned before they are even born, just so that they can fulfill the purpose of society - progress. Postman’s idea that Technocracy and Technopoly “brought into being an increased respect for the average person, whose potential and even convenience became a matter of compelling political interest and urgent social policy,” is the same as the repetitive ideals of Brave New World’s society: “Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn’t do without Epsilons. Every one works for every one else. We can’t do without any one…” (Huxley 74).
The thought that we have the same ideals since the 19^th century as the society in Brave New World is terrifying. Postman makes Ray Kurzweil's prediction of a utopian future seem more like a horrific and impending doom. Nonetheless, Postman adds some significant insights into the interpretation of the past and of Brave New World. For example, he writes that Technopoly eradicates alternatives to itself by “redefining what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fits its new requirements.” This adds to understanding Brave New World’s society and the underlying themes in the novel.
I think the idea to take from this chapter of Technopoly is to be careful, to be aware of yourself and your ideals, and to try not to be too influenced by others. There is still hope in keeping “old-fashioned” ideas alive, considering the fact that they still exist. Although Postman says we are in a Technopoly, I still believe we live in a Technocracy. However, we must be careful in the coming decades because after all, according to Postman, Technopoly is only a “totalitarian Technocracy.”

"The Brave New Singularity"

This article on singularity is not only surprising, but it is also disturbing. To think that humans will no longer age and computers will be the smartest thing on earth sounds preposterous. According to Kurzweil, however, it is definitely coming - and in 2045. The article says, “If computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence.” The things this statement implies seem inconceivable, but alarmingly POSSIBLE. I definitely believe that merging with machines and cheating death will take away our humanity. If a computer could be as intelligent as a human could, then we would practically be the same, except for a few things. We get sick, we die, we have feelings, we can wonder, we have imagination - these qualities are what make us human. By taking these things away and merging with machines, or “perfecting” our existence, we would become essentially machines as well. These ideas make Brave New World even more terrifying. While reading this novel, the things people say and do sound stupid and funny, but if the things Kurzweil say are true, then the novel is more of a possible and horrific telling of the future. Although Bernard is considered insane in the novel, he seems to be the only sane one to the reader. His want to be “free and happy in some other way… in [his] own way; not in everybody else’s way” sounds odd to a reader now days, but in 1245, it might not be so outlandish (Huxley 91). Although it may never be possible to be completely free of the influences of society like Bernard wants, the people in the Brave New World have a lot of room to move in that direction; and the idea of singularity is definitely a step in the wrong direction. The supposed coming of singularity has the threat of taking away our humanity, turning each of us into just another “cell in the social body,” and achieving a perfection that one could only describe as imperfect (Huxley 90).

Rhetorical Analysis

The essay I chose to analyze is Iulia O. Basu’s “The Great Gatsby's Relation to and Importance as a Work of Art,” in which the author explained how F. Scott Fitzgerald was influenced by art, and how art relates and can help explain some of The Great Gatsby. The claim that Fitzgerald was inspired by art is not ridiculous, but the degree to which scenes in the novel match with art of his time is almost unreal.
Basu supports her claim with multiple quotes, often times an overwhelming amount. In this case, the quotes aren’t necessarily supplementing her argument, but instead overshadows it. The quotes were so interlaced in her sentences that I felt like Basu didn’t have her own identity. While reading the essay, it just seems like Basu did a research paper instead of coming up with her own ideas and conclusions. However, the quotes did give the author a sense of authority, as the resources are dependable and trustworthy. Many of the resources are from other novels and literary critics, which goes to show that the author knew who her audience was: people who care about respected literature and art.
Because she knew her audience, Basu used formal language with several sophisticated words, however it was still easy to read and understand. Not only does this go hand in hand with the audience, but it relates to her subject as well, since she is saying that The Great Gatsby is its own work of art, partly because of Fitzgerald’s eloquent use of language.
The way Basu organizes her essay is by different pieces of art and the scenes they correspond with, most of the time in chronological order of the novel. This made the essay easier to follow because it was organized. In contrast, if Basu had written the essay in a random order with the scenes and corresponding artwork it would have been difficult to understand which part of the novel Basu was analyzing, and when she was talking about the art instead of the novel.
Through the years, I have been taught to start essays with an impact and to do things like state a quote then follow it with “this shows that…” Although Basu’s essay was different from the redundant mess that teachers have tried to engrave in my brain, it also wasn’t that great. The overall argument was good, and the organization was advantageous, but the quotes seemed to subdue Basu’s ideas. I found that just because the resources were respectable, they didn’t make her agreement better; they just made the argument for her. The great essays on Student Pulse had much fewer quotes, more of the authors' commentaries, and the authors had very distinctive identities, from sarcastic to enthusiastic. What I am going to take away from this assignment is to make sure that I keep my personality in my writing, while still staying in touch with the possible audience and writing to their standards. I think it is important for a writer to develop their own ideas first, before supplementing them with outside resources, which is the main issue with which Basu struggled.