WHy the future really doesn't need us

1. Joy’s thesis is that current technologies could become so advanced that humans could lose control of them, and the survival of the human species could be endangered.

2. Joy suggested two different techniques for avoiding humans becoming obsolete or unnecessary. He theorized on either complete government control of development or scientists voluntarily slowing down research until safe guards could be developed. Both involve slowing down the development of these three technologies.

3. I think that Huxley would not believe the world destruction scenario. He would believe that the government would take control of the development before it got too out of hand.

4. One rhetorical strategy that Joy used was asking questions that the readers had to answer for themselves. He tries to involve the reader’s emotions. His arguments are very logical and demand to be listened to.

5. I think that Joy was a fear monger. Fear can be a powerful motivator. Fear is an appropriate emotion to use since the topic is the survival of the human race.

6. Joy uses several literary devices. He refers to specific historic and science fiction examples. He also uses outside conversations to give credit to his own theories.

7. One connection to Brave New World is government control of science for the greater good. This is a reality in the Brave New World, but Joy talks about is as an option to save the human race, (see 2.) Both the essay and the novel acknowledge how powerful science can be and what destruction it can cause. In Brave New World science only threatens social stability, but the government still views that as a danger.

Harrison Bergeron

I think that Vonnegut is satirizing society's issues with equality. People these days are so worried about how everyone is treated and not offending people that they don't develop their own potential. This story argues for letting every thing happen naturally and let everything develop on it's own. This story is told as if an observer was showing us about the future. This is more effective because it is able to use a tone that is not very serious. If the story was told from Harrison Bergeron's point of view Vonnegut would not have been able to show how the normal people, his parents, reacted to sadness and affliction.

The ones that walked away from Omelas

1. The reading was boring at first, but that made the punch at the end just so much more powerful. I read it and thought, "Wow, I hope that I would just walk away." I did not appreciate the fact that LeGuin insisted that no clergy lived in the town, or that people had sex as some kind of religious experience.

2. This piece tied in nicely with 1984. It expanded on the theme of individuals taking action. These actions were even more encouraging because only one person was being mistreated, and everyone else was happy. They took action eventhough there was no mass executions, no tyranny and no deprevations. It also showed that no gesture is too small too make a difference.

3. The author teased the reader a lot. She gave only a hint of detail, just enough to let you make assumptions. Also, the author did not give away her impact too early. She waited until the very end, and then dropped the bomb. Another way she increased the power of the impact was to end almost as soon as she finished delivering her message.

4.
1. Do you think that the little girl in the closet is meant to symbolize one specific person in history, or is she just included to show how some people will not tolerate any injustices?

2. Will walking away actually change anything?

3. Do you think that there are any other socitieis that "the ones who walked away" could join, or will they have to make their own?

4. How does keeping the little girl/boy in the closet keep all evil out of society? Would this actualy work in real life?

5. Would you like to live in Omelas? Why or why not?

Why the future doesn't need us

1. What are the Luddites and what do they stand for?

2. Should the Genetics and nanotechnology and robotics be controlled more than nuclear tecnologies?

3. Are any of the control options for the GNR weapons actually feasible. Why or why not?

4. Will transferring our concience in to robot bodies actually grant humans immortality, or will it be different than actually living.

5. Would it be possible to erect a shield to protect against all of these different threats?

6. Do these technologies present to dangerous a threat or do they have enough benefits to be worth continuing?

7. Is it possible that in the future men will be replaced by robots?

Goals

1. My top three choices for College are Yaler University, Dallas Theological seminary and MIT

2. I want my average GPA to be a 4.0 this year

3. I want my AP tests to be all 5's, as an actual goal