Singularity

Singularity. The merging of man and machine. Absurd, right? After all, how could people continue being people when they have binary codes enhancing their thought process? Sure, people would be smarter and more efficient, but there’s more to life than efficiency. Humanity shouldn’t be abandoned to produce efficiency.

In the article “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal”, several convincing points are presented to show that singularity is a very potential future. First off, in 1965 a machine was able to compose music. A machine created art. This began to blur the lines between machines and humans, for “creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only” (Grossman).

Of course, at this point and time, machines can be very good at specific things but they fall short at being as adaptable as humans. “The kind of intelligence Kurzweil is talking about, which is called strong AI or artificial general intelligence, doesn’t exist yet” (Grossman). However, chances are that it will at the rate technology increases. According to Kurzweil, “technological progress happens exponentially, not linearly” (Grossman).

I do not believe that singularity is a good thing. Sure, it would make people more intelligent and increase our lifespan. There does not seem to be any fault. It’s like the “utopian” world of Brave New World; there would be less sadness, more efficiency, and everything would be better. Right?

But humanity is imperfection. Singularity seeks to eventually eliminate all of humanity’s imperfection. This is similar to Brave New World, were, as the controller says, the primary goal is “stability. Stability. The primal and the ultimate need. Stability. Hence all this.” (Huxley 41).

So singularity would make everything much more efficient, but at the cost of humanity. People will still be around, of course, but eventually, they won’t even be people any more.

Technology at this point isn’t bad, because we are still detached. It is a large part of our lives, but it is not part of us yet. If we choose to, we can escape from it. Once it is implanted in us, though, there is no escape. Imperfection will eventually be abolished, and with it the very thing that makes us human. Humanity is imperfection. Singularity is not. 

            Alex C. Hawley wrote the short essay, “Revisiting H.G. Wells' Depiction of Science and Religion in War of the Worlds”, in order to examine what the novel War of the Worlds states about both Science and Religion. However, the author does not limit himself to examining only the text in the novel; rather, he also looks at examples in the film that came out half a century later. Not only that, but the first three paragraphs are spent giving background information on the history of the science and religion debate. The essay is a tad on the short side, but the author still makes a compelling examination of what the novel and film of War of the Worlds states about how science and religion hold up in the face of catastrophe.

            The first and foremost thing that caught my attention when examination the style of this piece was that nearly half of it wasn’t about the novel at all; a good portion of the essay looked the background of the science vs. religion controversy and the film War of the Worlds.

            It was not until this year that I seriously considered that outside material would be a good addition to an essay about a novel. I always figured that if the novel was your main subject, than nearly your entire essay should be spent discussing it. However, the background information helps to understand the environment in which the novel was produced, thus helping us understand the context. Additionally, I felt like the analysis of the movie, which was adapted to fit its more modern environment, reflects how people have changed from now to then. All in all, I felt like this focus on things besides the novel bettered the discussion about the novel and helped the essay as a whole

            Another unexpected thing about this essay is the counterpoint that is presented at the end. Prior to the last two paragraphs, the author was stating that the book was advocating technology over religion. However, in the last two paragraphs, it is noted that it could have been religion and God that ultimately defeated the Martians. It seemed strange that the author was bringing up contradictory evidence to the thesis he seemed to be headed towards. In writing an essay, it seems foolish to give support to the side your opposing. It means that you are lacking a “strong thesis”. However, in the end, by tying the two together, I feel that his analysis became all the more powerful.

            It leads me to believe that a weak thesis that does not focus on a central point may be effective as well. In other words, there is no definitive answer. You simply analyze the evidence the book presents for both sides of the argument and then, in turn, give that information back to the readers, in order that they make their own assessment. I feel that many analyses of the deep meanings of books are not what the author intended. Therefore, it is important to present evidence for all sides, as the situation is not as black and white as it seems.

My Philosophy on Life, Contained in a Song.

From Jack Johnson's song, "Breakdown":


"But you can't stop nothing
If you got no control
Of the thoughts in your mind
That you kept and you know.


You don't know nothing
But you don't need to know
The wisdom's in the trees
Not the glass windows


You can't stop wishing
If you don't let go
But the things that you find
That you lose, and you know


You keep on rolling
Put the moment on hold
The frames too bright
So put the blinds down low"


(Little fun fact. My birthday is 4/26. This segment is 26 seconds long and divided into 4 segments of 4 lines each. Funny little coincidence.)