Similarities? I think yes.

        A Technocracy, as Postman defines it, is a society that is not completely controlled by tradition and culture and that is driven to invent. On the other hand Postman describes Technopoly, which he believes to be a society in which they release all forms of traditional and cultural life to technology. He also says that in a Technopoly all that society already knows is changed. Postman states that it redefines "what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements"(Postman 48). in my opinion, this is exactly what Huxley creates in Brave New World.
          I believe there is many connections to Brave New World in Postman's chapter "From Technocracy to Technopoly". Postman discusses how the textile industry eliminated "skilled works, replacing them with workers who merely kept the machines operating"(Postman 42). In Brave New World they altered each human to do a certain job and to have a certain amount of intelligence. They would purposely make people unintelligent in order to better equip them for specific jobs. Postman also talks about how things were made, about the "transformation from small-scale, personalized, skilled labor to large-scale, impersonal, mechanized production"(Postman 41). People began to not care about the natural and more personal way of doing things, but just the efficiency in which it was done. This completely relates to how babies were made in Brave New World. Instead of creating a baby the 'old-fashioned way', they made babies in an assembly line. This new more effective process eliminated physical contact and human emotions from the once meaningful process. It was acceptable for people "to be treated as if they were machinery"(Postman 52). This is much related to the ideals in Brave New World. Because people where so easily created, society did not care much about others. It was irrelevant if someone died because twenty people just like them were leaving the factory, reading for society to use them as they please. Postman's ideas can be easily linted to Huxley's in Brave New World. 

.

        After reading this article and watching the movie, The Transcendent Man, my thoughts about

technology becoming human, are fairly clear. There is one point that Kurzweil tries to get across that

just bothers me. Kurzweil believes that he can “bring his death father back to life”(Grossman 10).  His

idea is that one day he will be able to take all of his father’s belongings and be able to recreate a robotic

version of him. Kurzweil somehow thinks this robot will be the same as the real thing, I believe that is

impossible. You can not recreate all of his thoughts, his beliefs, and his actions. Kurzweil is searching for

the love and compassion he never had with his father. He may be able to build a robot that looks and

speaks exactly like his father did but he will never get that father-son connection that he earns for. The

robot will just be an imitation of his father.  It is nothing at all like the real thing.

       Even if there is a time when computers can be installed in or take the place of humans, will we still

be humans? This is an idea that I have been struggling with, and I assume others have been too. No

matter how much technology evolves isn’t it possible that “there are things going on in our brains that

cant be duplicated electronically”(Grossman 8).  There are actions and processes that are going on in

our bodies that still confuse us. We don’t know all that goes on in our brains and bodies or why they

even happen, so how can we possibly duplicate them. How can we be our complete self’s if we are not

in our on bodies.  By taking one little part away, I think we are losing ourselves. There is no way of

staying yourself if you are continuously moved and rearranged.  

The good stuff

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/358/retelling-the-stories-of-the-holocaust-in-shoah-and-maus-distorted-images-of-a-monstrous-past

The writers purpose was to compare two ways of describing something that can

never truly be described, the Holocaust. He explains how someone or something can

try to represent an event or idea, but they cannot completely fulfill the whole image. 

He was successful in delivering his ideas, although it did not seem to have any

specific audience.  I think it was just written for any person that would have an

interest in the topic.  It seems that the author is just writing something that he is

interested in, therefore it made reading it enjoyable for an audience that has the

interests.  Because I am intrigued with the history of Germany and events such as the Holocaust, it was  not a punishable experience.

The author uses two texts that are directly related to his subject.  The quotes and evidence the author uses  are not to strongest to support the topic, but they did not hurt his point in any way.  The evidence is helpful to his argument, but I think that the author would still have made a fairly good argument without it.  I think any type of evidence could work with this argument. I especially think historical views would be helpful while talking about the Holocaust,

This piece does not follow the format that I have learned to use. The quotes are randomly spread out throughout the text.  In some occasions there is no lead in to the quotes.  Also, instead of having a parenthetical documentation there was just a little number at the end of the quote.  There was no use of transitions, like ‘for example’ or ‘in addition’.  There really is no structure, the author just says what he needs and wants to say, then moves on.  Although there is not a clear structure, it is not messy or distracting.

The author writing is very easy to read and understand. He does not use large or difficult words. It is easy reading for the audience. Because he does not use complicating words or ideas, it allows the text to have a larger audience. I was never confused on what I was reading, and I did not have to reread any certain ideas.  Because the authors’ writing is uncomplicated, there was not a lot of literary devices used. Some may say that takes away from the writing and its ability to hold an audience, but I disagree, I enjoy the simplicity,