In both 1984 and the video "Big Brother, Big Business" there are striking similarities. The most striking similarity is the secrecy that "Big Brother" uses while "checking up" on his citizens. While watching the video, I saw many examples of secret "spying." There are companies that use surveillance to have better customer service, companies that gather and sell information, and companies that hold information to track sales. Although I am not against these things, what is unsettling is the fact that all of this information is gathered/obtained surreptitiously. In 1984, much is done in secret also. Winston, for example, works for a company that "edits" files for the government. This act is also done in secret along with vaporization, surveillance, and the secret Thought Police.
I, at this point, so not object to any of these uses of technology. I believe that if you use a good or service provided to you, your information could be used. What I dislike, however, is the idea of companies gathering my information (specifically credit information or social security information) and having the power to sell that information to unreliable sources. I believe that power could be taken to far: the power to sell information. Power can be corrupt (such as in the case of bank companies). I believe that Americans should be weary of this potential breach of power.
I believe if companies could control their power and set guidelines on the amount of information obtained, marketing in the United States could become a larger, even stronger industry. I would consider being "targeted" for a magazine subscription or store coupons as a service. If my information was gathered and analyzed for my benefit, I see nothing to be threatened by.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Blog #2
North Korea's government is strikingly similar to the government in George Orwell's 1984. Both governments have a great amount of power over their people because of censorship. In smaller categories, both governments have control over their people in regards to exercise, media, and regulations. All of these areas of control fall under the more broad category of censorship.
When Winston refers to a mandatory exercise regimen in Orwell's 1984, the reader may think that the reality of the scene is non existent, however, for the citizen's of North Korea, that scene is reality. Both the society in 1984 and North Korea have mandatory exercise regimens. Every morning an "instructress" would appear on the telescreen and lead an exercise routine. On page 37 the instructress says, "We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit." This statement directly relates to the mindset of the North Korean government. The goal of this control is to keep the community "fit."
One of the more obvious similarities between the novel and North Korea is the idea of media censorship. In both societies, information allowed to reach the people is highly censored. For example, in Korea, the radio is the main form of communication. Because of this, the government is able to regulate and control every aspect. Much like the society in 1984, Korea controls much of the information that reaches the general population. This keeps the government in control. Both the society in 1984 and the Korean government control their people with fear. Winston fears a simple act such as writing: "He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act..." (7). Writing, and all other forms of media, are either censored or completely abolished. Korea, although not to this level, already controls most of the media. If they can, they may even try to abolish forms of media like in 1984.
Regulations control the people of North Korea and 1984. In North Korea the government regulates the vast majority of goods and services. North Korea regulates everything from wages to media. In 1984, the scene is the same. Although in 1984 the regulations are far more severe (such as the regulation of words), North Korea also regulates much of the citizens lives. They regulate wages, media, schools, food, and much more. In 1984, there are regulations of items such as chocolate and razor blades; only a certain amount are produced and available. At one point in the novel Winston says, "I've been using the same blade for six weeks..." (61). The point of these regulations is to "fool" the public when the society wants to "create" more of these items, and in North Korea, this idea may not be too far off.
Although not as severe, North Korea's control of it's people is very similar to the control of the people in the book. The future of North Korea and it's people may be found in a novel named 1984.
When Winston refers to a mandatory exercise regimen in Orwell's 1984, the reader may think that the reality of the scene is non existent, however, for the citizen's of North Korea, that scene is reality. Both the society in 1984 and North Korea have mandatory exercise regimens. Every morning an "instructress" would appear on the telescreen and lead an exercise routine. On page 37 the instructress says, "We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit." This statement directly relates to the mindset of the North Korean government. The goal of this control is to keep the community "fit."
One of the more obvious similarities between the novel and North Korea is the idea of media censorship. In both societies, information allowed to reach the people is highly censored. For example, in Korea, the radio is the main form of communication. Because of this, the government is able to regulate and control every aspect. Much like the society in 1984, Korea controls much of the information that reaches the general population. This keeps the government in control. Both the society in 1984 and the Korean government control their people with fear. Winston fears a simple act such as writing: "He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act..." (7). Writing, and all other forms of media, are either censored or completely abolished. Korea, although not to this level, already controls most of the media. If they can, they may even try to abolish forms of media like in 1984.
Regulations control the people of North Korea and 1984. In North Korea the government regulates the vast majority of goods and services. North Korea regulates everything from wages to media. In 1984, the scene is the same. Although in 1984 the regulations are far more severe (such as the regulation of words), North Korea also regulates much of the citizens lives. They regulate wages, media, schools, food, and much more. In 1984, there are regulations of items such as chocolate and razor blades; only a certain amount are produced and available. At one point in the novel Winston says, "I've been using the same blade for six weeks..." (61). The point of these regulations is to "fool" the public when the society wants to "create" more of these items, and in North Korea, this idea may not be too far off.
Although not as severe, North Korea's control of it's people is very similar to the control of the people in the book. The future of North Korea and it's people may be found in a novel named 1984.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
There are many similarities between "Newspeak" and our censorship of language. By censoring words, it is hoped that no one would be able to be "offended" or not understand a word. For example, the words "pop" and "soda" are banned because of a "regional bias." It is assumed that if you live up north and the word "soda" is used, no one living up north would know what "soda" is. Syme says to Wilson, "Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller." By banning and censoring words, the intellect of humans decreases. There would no longer be two words for a carbonated beverage, only one. That means there is one less word in a humans vocabulary. Multiply this affect by a large quantity and one would find a very simple version of man, and the prospects of a world strikingly similar to the world in 1984.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
1984
In George Orwell's 1984, thought and words are controlled. There is a parallel to the idea of controlled thought and controlled words. If words are removed, thought will become more simplified. This connecting is extremely evident in Orwell's novel of a future society. In 1984 the point of removing words is to control thoughts, thus, ridding the society of "Thought Crime." New dictionaries are created every year with drastically fewer worlds each year before. This "new" language is called Newspeak. Newspeak is a major influence in 1984. With strict regulations regarding everything citizens do, say, and think, Newspeak takes the control to a new level: what the citizens know/learn. Through Newspeak, words are abolished. Citizens learn fewer words, which directly impacts how they think and speak. Winston's friend, in charge of creating the Newspeak dictionary, asks Winston: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it" (52). By abolishing words, the citizens' thoughts are molded into just what the society desires for the sole goal of control.
Today, there are institutions that use language to alter the thoughts of citizens and distort reality. For example, when someone is sent to jail, often the system calls jail "rehabilitation." The "outsiders" of the institution believe that the inmate is receiving treatment for his problems. However, often the truth is not so. The reality of the situation is far from rehabilitation. Often the inmate receives little to no treatment and is deemed "untreatable." The criminal institution uses language such as "rehabilitation" and "untreatable" to distort the reality behind the situation.
Also, a great example of language used to distort reality is the phrase of "Interrogation Techniques" coined by former President George W. Bush. I have learned through both outside sources and our class that "Interrogation Techniques" is another word for torture. Bush's "fluffed" language can be found anywhere: "...Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq" (msnbc.com). By using phrases such as "stress positions" and "sleep management" Bush is able to make torture sound not bad at all.
What is most sad about the act of using language to distort reality? Those who do not have the intellect nor knowledge of how reality is distorted are oblivious to reality, and fall into what the "distorter" wants. The good thing in our society is one cannot be "vaporized" for housing the knowledge and intellect needed in order to see the truth.
Today, there are institutions that use language to alter the thoughts of citizens and distort reality. For example, when someone is sent to jail, often the system calls jail "rehabilitation." The "outsiders" of the institution believe that the inmate is receiving treatment for his problems. However, often the truth is not so. The reality of the situation is far from rehabilitation. Often the inmate receives little to no treatment and is deemed "untreatable." The criminal institution uses language such as "rehabilitation" and "untreatable" to distort the reality behind the situation.
Also, a great example of language used to distort reality is the phrase of "Interrogation Techniques" coined by former President George W. Bush. I have learned through both outside sources and our class that "Interrogation Techniques" is another word for torture. Bush's "fluffed" language can be found anywhere: "...Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq" (msnbc.com). By using phrases such as "stress positions" and "sleep management" Bush is able to make torture sound not bad at all.
What is most sad about the act of using language to distort reality? Those who do not have the intellect nor knowledge of how reality is distorted are oblivious to reality, and fall into what the "distorter" wants. The good thing in our society is one cannot be "vaporized" for housing the knowledge and intellect needed in order to see the truth.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Cloning
With all of the information I have obtained thus far, my opinion on cloning has not changed since the start of this topic being discussed in class. I am still against it. I believe that by cloning, we are messing with something that is not meant to be messed with: human lives. I do not believe it is safe NOR morally ethical to play "God." Sure, maybe choosing the sex of your baby is not too bad, but in America I believe we have a problem "drawing the line." Where would the cloning stop? Pretty soon we would be "creating" all smart, athletic, beautiful babies. One may ask what the problem with this is. The problem is that we would loose all diversity in America.
The Newsweek article polled Americans asking whether they approved of embryo testing to choose the gender of their baby. Only 28% approved. However, they were also polled to see if they approved of embryo testing for just genetic tests. A large 74% of citizen's approved. This is an interesting statistic. Americans seem to believe that genetic testing is more "ethical/moral" then simply choosing the gender of their child. I also agree, but, I believe that through genetic testing we are still playing "God." If one scientist goes through embryos and tests for diseases, those embryos most likely will NOT be used. I think that this "selection" is immoral and too "God like." Of course, in the situation of being a mother, I would want the best for a child...but I don't even think that the option should be available. It will only escalate to larger and more "selection." This would send us on our way to a bland, not diverse America.
In the cloning video, straight cloning was discussed more than genetic engineering. I feel the same way about straight cloning. Cloning even seems more like a waste to me. I know it is a really cool scientific breakthrough, but again I believe we would be playing "God." I am not an extremely religious person, but I do believe that not one person is like another. I know there are twins, but twins are not a scientific breakthrough..they have always been in existence. The video says that cloning could open more doors in all aspects of life, and I agree. Cloning food, seeds, and other organic materials could greatly benefit our lives. I do not think human or animal lives should be messed with. Playing "God" is immoral and just plain wrong. Although cloning is a scientific discovery and pretty neat, it should be kept with things such as food, not humans.
The Newsweek article polled Americans asking whether they approved of embryo testing to choose the gender of their baby. Only 28% approved. However, they were also polled to see if they approved of embryo testing for just genetic tests. A large 74% of citizen's approved. This is an interesting statistic. Americans seem to believe that genetic testing is more "ethical/moral" then simply choosing the gender of their child. I also agree, but, I believe that through genetic testing we are still playing "God." If one scientist goes through embryos and tests for diseases, those embryos most likely will NOT be used. I think that this "selection" is immoral and too "God like." Of course, in the situation of being a mother, I would want the best for a child...but I don't even think that the option should be available. It will only escalate to larger and more "selection." This would send us on our way to a bland, not diverse America.
In the cloning video, straight cloning was discussed more than genetic engineering. I feel the same way about straight cloning. Cloning even seems more like a waste to me. I know it is a really cool scientific breakthrough, but again I believe we would be playing "God." I am not an extremely religious person, but I do believe that not one person is like another. I know there are twins, but twins are not a scientific breakthrough..they have always been in existence. The video says that cloning could open more doors in all aspects of life, and I agree. Cloning food, seeds, and other organic materials could greatly benefit our lives. I do not think human or animal lives should be messed with. Playing "God" is immoral and just plain wrong. Although cloning is a scientific discovery and pretty neat, it should be kept with things such as food, not humans.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Karl Marx Blog
With a capitalist society, class conflict is inevitable. Karl Marx proposed this ideology within his lifetime from 1818-1883. In the article "Karl Marx," there is a lot of evidence to support what Karl Marx believed. One of his stronger points implies that Capitalist nations do not care about the labourers, only the products created: "The Capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an owner of a capital." This, in turn, causes separation of classes. When each labourer is paid differently, there is a natural separation of classes. The higher paid labourers are the "high" class, and the lower paid labourers are the "lower class." When one is paid more, he is able to afford more and be seen as a "higher" individual. This proves Karl Marx's belief that Capitalist nations make class conflict inevitable.
I agree with Karl Marx, however, I do not see class conflict as a negative aspect of life. I do not see Communism as a positive political system like Karl Marx does; I believe there is no problem with class conflict. Separation between classes is inevitable within a positive political system. If one works harder, he makes more money. Others choose to see the members of the "high class" as high class. It is an individual's choice to view others based on their appearance and possessions. If there is a separation of classes, so be it. I do not believe there is much negative that can come from it. Therefore, I believe with the idea that class conflict is inevitable in a Capitalist Society, but see no problem with that conflict.
In both Brave New World and Marx's ideology, class conflict is caused by a "higher force." In Brave New World, class conflict is engineered while in a Capitalist Nation the government causes it. In both references, the higher force "creates" classes to it's wishes. Also, there is an undeniable class conflict in both. The only difference is that the citizens in Brave New World don't control their class and members of a real society do (even if Marx doesn't believe so). There is much more control for citizens of a Capitalist nation compared to those in the novel Brave New World.
I agree with Karl Marx, however, I do not see class conflict as a negative aspect of life. I do not see Communism as a positive political system like Karl Marx does; I believe there is no problem with class conflict. Separation between classes is inevitable within a positive political system. If one works harder, he makes more money. Others choose to see the members of the "high class" as high class. It is an individual's choice to view others based on their appearance and possessions. If there is a separation of classes, so be it. I do not believe there is much negative that can come from it. Therefore, I believe with the idea that class conflict is inevitable in a Capitalist Society, but see no problem with that conflict.
In both Brave New World and Marx's ideology, class conflict is caused by a "higher force." In Brave New World, class conflict is engineered while in a Capitalist Nation the government causes it. In both references, the higher force "creates" classes to it's wishes. Also, there is an undeniable class conflict in both. The only difference is that the citizens in Brave New World don't control their class and members of a real society do (even if Marx doesn't believe so). There is much more control for citizens of a Capitalist nation compared to those in the novel Brave New World.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The World State society, although seemingly perfect, has unquestionable flaws within it's control.
First, there is no true diversity within the society. One is either an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or epsilon. Each one of these castes has a different duty. A person (engineered in a tube) does not have control over their future; their future is engineered for them for the good of the society.
Second, how the "perfect society" is engineered is flawed. Playing information and, in essence, brainwashing children while they are sleeping draws serious criticism.
Happiness is directly related to soma. It is said that a gram of soma gets rid of your troubles. Comparable to drugs in our time, soma in this era is what makes the people happy. The question, however, is are the people actually happy? Soma MAKES people happy, but many would argue that happiness is generated from within, not forced through drugs. This is where the truth comes into the equation. Are the people truly happy? Bernard and Helmholtz believe not. They believe that the people are not happy because they lack freedom. Freedom has been pushed down from childhood. Sometimes, that freedom attempts to surface as Helmholtz says "...feeling that I've got something important to say and the power to say it..." (69). However, for most, freedom is killed.
There is a strong connection between soma, truth, and happiness. Without soma, there is no happiness. Dreams caused by soma are not the truth, therefore, happiness is found at the expense of the truth. Is happiness worth the price of the truth?
First, there is no true diversity within the society. One is either an alpha, beta, gamma, delta, or epsilon. Each one of these castes has a different duty. A person (engineered in a tube) does not have control over their future; their future is engineered for them for the good of the society.
Second, how the "perfect society" is engineered is flawed. Playing information and, in essence, brainwashing children while they are sleeping draws serious criticism.
Happiness is directly related to soma. It is said that a gram of soma gets rid of your troubles. Comparable to drugs in our time, soma in this era is what makes the people happy. The question, however, is are the people actually happy? Soma MAKES people happy, but many would argue that happiness is generated from within, not forced through drugs. This is where the truth comes into the equation. Are the people truly happy? Bernard and Helmholtz believe not. They believe that the people are not happy because they lack freedom. Freedom has been pushed down from childhood. Sometimes, that freedom attempts to surface as Helmholtz says "...feeling that I've got something important to say and the power to say it..." (69). However, for most, freedom is killed.
There is a strong connection between soma, truth, and happiness. Without soma, there is no happiness. Dreams caused by soma are not the truth, therefore, happiness is found at the expense of the truth. Is happiness worth the price of the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)