Things fall apart lenses

I am going to use the postcolonial theory to write my essay. I think this provides a good lens into things fall apart because it shows how colonization is ruled by the people who colonize, meaning that whoever is the one taking over wiil effectively change how the people that took over's thoughts and ways of life. this applies to things fall apart because in the story, there is a struggle between whether or not the people of the village should conform or keep their traditions.
Conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well. This is a quote from the postcolonial  piece and it is an example of how people are forced to think the way that they are told when being colonized. This can cause people to be confused and possibly lose all sense of self because they have been taught to think one way by their traditions and culture and to be told  to conform and take in all of these new ideas that are conflicting with their old traditions will cause them to be angry, confused or both. What people don't realize when they are being told to conform though is that the ideas they are being told to conform and take in could be right but they already have their own ideas so they refuse to take in any new ideas because of stubbornness. I'm not saying that making people conform is a good thing in any sense, but stubbornness is the main reason for them not wanting to conform. They feel that if they rebel like Okonkwo in things fall apart, they will be considered heroes. But even he realized that lashing out was the wrong way to approach things.

This chapter "From Technocracy to Technopoly" the author goes in detail how since the invention of the steam engine in 1776 " a decade did not pass without the invention of some significant machinery" which seems to show a relationship to brave new world on the fact that they are always trying to better their technology because that is how they are made and that is what they serve. The idea of "Technocracy also relates to brave new world in the fact that "Technocracy gave us the idea of progress, and of necessity to lossen our bonds with tradtion." This can be related back to A Brave New World in the sense that the people in this story "belong to one-another" so this goes against some of the tradtions that we have and know about from the past. It also relates in the fact that in A Brave New World the idea of progress is transformed into better ways that humans can serve their technology, instead of the technology serving them. "Technocracy also sped up the world." This can relate to our world easily because of what technogoly has done for us and how much quicker we can do things now compared to the past. But i believe that this is an ok thing. Having things be alot faster whether it be making a pizza to talking to your friends, i think that we as humans can benefit from this technology and the fact that it is scaring people is strange because all we are doing is taking that ideas of the telephone and other ideas of technology and simply making them better and more efficient.

Singularity

After reading 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal by Lev Grossman, I can't help but feel scared. There is a guy named  Raymond Kurzweil who built a machine that writes music, in the 1960's. This isn't some big accomplishment now of course, but back then ,it should have been huge. Now Raymond Kurzweil has done a lot more. He has predicted that the "end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away." He believes that technology is growing faster and faster and 35 years from now, we will be serving technology, technology will not be serving us. This plays out in the fact that if we are serving technology, we could end up with there being no singularity. Which means that
technology will make us all the same such as human cyborgs or robots. Singularity is something that makes all of us different and if we take that away what do we have. We just have the same person with the same ideas and same consciousness, there's just alot of people with the same ideas. Through his research Kurzweil  has made a prediction "Here's what the exponential curves told him. We will successfully reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid-2020s. By the end of that decade, computers will be capable of human-level intelligence." Now first, i doubt that in 10 to 15 years we will have the technology to alter the human brain, we just came out with the droid and the IPhone not too long ago and i just can't see the phone industry doing any better than that. So then why do we believe that there is no cut off point for technology when i can see a possible one for it. I get that there are other things technology is involved in of course, but this one example I think that can be used to show how Kurzweil could be wrong with his predictions. I also think that because of us being aware of these things that could happen as far as losing our singularity to technology, i believe that  because of all the intellectual people we have on this earth and the fact that we keep on encouraging our generation to be different I think that Singularity will not be lost ... at least in our generation, for a pretty long time if ever.

The Technological Evolution of Filmmaking and its Relation to Quality in Cinema

I read The Technological Evolution of Film Making and its Relation to Quality in Cinema by Ryan A. Piccirillo. When i started to read this essay, i thought to myself, man this is pretty good. It was straight to the point, and it had a good topic that many can relate to because lets be honest, we all love movies. This essay to me was very good,  i noticed very few, if any, grammatical and punctual errors, which i expected because why else would it be published on this website. Then as I read on i found that his supporting paragraphs to his main point did not follow any sort of pattern at all. He just gave you information and put in his commentary and that was it. The author also used quite a bit of resources , it looks like from the same book, but nevertheless he used quotes everywhere. He used them in his commentary, concrete detail, and in some cases, his introductions to new ideas. This opened my eyes because i have only used, if at all, a little bit of quotes from other works and i only used them in my concrete details. Thinking back now I think that I was encouraged to use other people's work but not at the expense of the writing format that I had to use. The fact that we had a particular writing style was easy for me, but it did not challenge me. I would wrote my perfectly formed MLA style essay and get full credit because i stayed on topic and was able to follow the format very easily because i wasn't challenged to think outside the box. Sure it took a little while but i never got great ideas. Ideas like these that you are ables to expand on and continue to write about for what seems like forever. Like I said I was never challenged in writing before. I couldn't tell you how may essays I have written that have really good ideas, but are limited to the format that I was told to write in. Something that this particular essay does that I liked was that it needed no introduction. It started off with its point and never carried on. I was always told the the introduction is the most important part about my essays because it will make the reader "want" to keep reading, but lets be real, who wants to read a 10th graders views on a book that's in traditional format? I believe that being different is a good thing. So why can't we apply that to our essay style? why can't we be different? Here's why. We all want good grades! so we follow this thing that makes all of our essays the same for the grade, not better our writing skills or further our education.