Reflective Essay

When I was signing up for English this winter, I truly was worried about taking English 102. The main reason being was that the word “research” was in the title. The last time I took a class based off research was my junior year in high school, that year was spent writing paper after paper and spending lots of time in the library after school. I thought to myself if I spent that much time in high school working on papers, how much time am I going to spend in college writing papers? However, when I got to class the first day and heard it was about technology I was a little relieved. To me there is nothing worse than writing a lengthy paper on a topic that is uninteresting to you. I feel that English 101 prepared me for English 102, it taught me the importance of keeping the portfolio goals in mind when writing my essays.
I feel like writing blogs each week was the perfect outline for the papers we had assigned during class. Our blogs were something I could look back on when I got stuck writing or needed more ideas. In one of my blogs I wrote, “It’s easier to have already written about a topic instead of just reading a book and going straight into a formal essay.” I still feel this is true, it is much easier when you already have your ideas written down compared to just writing a essay off of the many ideas in your head. As the blogs continued I felt it was important to write how I felt but to also keep the goals fresh in my mind.
One goal that I thought I used a lot not only in my blogs but also in my essays was “go beyond summary to engage texts through analysis, interpretation, and critical inquiry.” To me this goal means that when you put a direct quote in your essay or even talk about a source, you put in your own meaning to what the author is saying. Also, you use that quote to strengthen a opinion you already mentioned in your paper. For example I wrote, “‘Science has now known sin,’ (Vonnegut 17). I feel like Vonnegut says this because after the atomic bomb is when questions starting raising about what technology can really do to our lives.” Before I quoted Vonnegut I talked about how I thought before the atomic bomb science and new technology was looked at as positives things. I used the quote to get support from my source but than I also interpreted it to my own meaning.
I kept in mind the importance of this goal when I started writing my research paper. When I looked for sources, I looked for ones that would strengthen my opinion and also sources that I could formulate my own opinion about. However, before I could start looking for sources I needed to figure out which topic I wanted to write about. I knew my paper would not be any good if it wasn’t on a topic that I am interested in, so therefore because of my own beliefs I chose gun control. It was easy to find sources dealing with this, however, it was hard to find books that didn’t all say the same thing.
I chose to write about gun control because I feel like America has become a more violent place. Whenever I hear stories on the news about domestic violence or even school shootings, I wonder is there even a point to guns? I wanted to research if taken guns out of civilian’s hands would have any affect on the violence level.
The first point I tried to show in my essay is the violence that guns do cause. I used statistics right away to show that guns are a problem. Next, I went onto talking just about suicide and gun accidents. I did this to show the readers what guns are capable of and how they are being used. I felt that if the readers could see the damage that guns cause they could understand my opinion better. However, I felt I did a good job in those paragraphs so that the reader could formulate their own opinion.
One concern that I had with my research paper was how to make it not should like a persuasive essay. I did not want my paper to try to convince someone that they should be for gun control just because I am. I want my paper to be on how guns make America a more violent place and if taken guns out of the picture would make it less violent, I feel at times my controlling purpose didn’t always shine through and that worried me. Therefore, I brought up the second point in my essay and that was the question if guns are what is violent or is it the criminal using the gun? I felt like this question brought my paper to a higher level of thinking. This question made me think more critically about the people who are using guns violently, having my own questions about gun control made researching the topic more interesting.
After I finished my first draft of my research paper I felt as though I had a solid paper to give to the students in my class that were editing it. However, after conferences I learned that my paper wasn’t bad it just wasn’t up to academic university standards. I learned from my conference that I made my point that guns are violent now I need to go more critically into the topic and look into why nothing is being done. With that in mind I went back through my sources and looked to see if they had any information. I feel like adding that into my paper did improve it because it allowed me to make an analysis about my own topic.
From my rough draft to my final draft I made the addition of comparing my sources. I did this for the main purpose of the goal “use key terms, distinctions, or concepts from sources to interpret, expand, and/or critique key terms, distinctions, or concepts from other sources.” I also did this because before I started editing my rough draft I looked back throughout the essays we wrote over the course of semester and realized every essay was comparing two or more authors. I thought that by mentioning one thing each author said that related to the other sources met this goal. It also helped to show the reasoning behind my opinion throughout my paper.
Overall, writing my research paper was not as bad as I expected it to be but it did take a lot of work. The steps that I made throughout writing my paper are steps that I can use when writing my next research paper because it they helped me be more efficient. I feel that if I didn’t have my blogs to look back on when writing my paper it would have been a lot more difficult because those papers set up the style in which I wanted my research paper to follow. Also, I realized the importance of having good reliable sources and how it can strengthen your paper. I thought that my opinion was more powerful when I had credible authors that agreed and direct quotes that showed they agreed.
Overall, I do feel like English 102 has made me a better writer. Throughout all the practice we had up until our research paper we were taught how to interpret and compare sources, strengthen and clarify our controlling purpose, acknowledge the stakeholders in our paper, and learn expand our ideas through direct quotes. I feel that all this work lead me to write my research paper in the way that I did and will help me in the future to be a better writer. I now believe when I sign up for classes next I will not be as worried when I see the word “research” in the course title.

Face to Face Conferences

I think the hardest part of writing my research paper was picking the topic. I had plenty of ideas but I did not know how to turn those ideas into a 7 page research paper. I finally decided on gun control because it held my interest more than the other topics. Even though it held my interest I had a hard time extending the length of my first draft. I knew what revisions I needed to make but once I did revise I still had a whole page that I needed to write to fit the criteria.

I ended up deciding it was important to say in my paper about how the authors of my sources did the same throughout their books. I did this because when I was looking through my sources before I started my paper I noticed everything started to get repetitive and I was interested to why these facts were coming up in every single piece.

I think I enjoyed the face-to-face conferences more than online editing. I got more out of it. It helped that you were able to interact with the person peer editing your paper, you can ask question to what they are saying and you can ask them to show you places where to improve. I feel like online editing just says in general what to do better but face-to-face shows specifics. I would have been really lost on my final draft it they didn’t tell me how to expand my paper and what to do to make it better. I thought that my paper was pretty good, but they showed me that it could be better.

They thing I got away from, from the conferences was that my paper needed to be more scholarly. It made it seem like my paper wasn’t up to college level which I wouldn’t of been able to understand on my own. I also got showed the things that were good in my paper, and that helped a lot because I knew to put more of that in when I edited my paper.

Research Paper

Saving At Least One Life

Whether or not civilians should be allowed to own guns, is more of a complex question than a simple yes or no answer. However, if you think of positives for both sides of the issue, it is clear that keeping guns out of the hands of civilians is the right choice. It may be a hard law to enforce but if this law saves the life of one person the work going along with enforcing the law is worth it. If people had to work and put thought into harming someone instead of just going out and buying a gun, would violence go down? If guns weren’t present in a house during a family argument, would the person have more time to think about what they were doing instead of harming their family? Would making guns less available to kids make school shootings a thing of the past? Guns need to be taken out of the hands of civilians to save lives and to stop violence.

“Roughly two-thirds of all gun-related deaths were self-inflicted accidents, suicides, or murders within the circle of family and friends. Guns purchased as protection against criminals or intruders all too often killed the people they were expected to protect.” (Nye 67) If this is true what’s the point of owning a gun? If it’s for self defense, is it worth it to have a gun to protect your family from a danger that may or may not happen? It seems to me if someone is trying to protect their family they way to do it is by not having a gun in the house. If having a gun in the house makes you feel safe in case of a burglary, wouldn’t you feel even safer knowing that guns cannot be purchased and this person wouldn’t have a gun on them? “Americans found guns ready to hand when they were careless, angry or depressed.” (Nye 167) David Nye the author of “Technology Matters” brings up a good point by saying how it is dangerous to have guns around while in arguments or feeling upset. When an argument gets heated its hard to think twice about what you are doing while you are angry. I feel like the phrase—sleep on it—can actually change someone’s mind and make them think about the situation going on, however, if the person has a gun readily available to them and has such strong emotions going on they aren’t as likely to think twice about their actions.

“In 1993, about 39,595 persons were killed with guns, the highest number in the nation’s peacetime history. Nearly half of these deaths, 48% were suicides, 47% were homicides, 4% were fatal gun accidents, and 1% were due to legal intervention.” (Kleck 1) Suicide is a serious issue, some may have suicidal thoughts for a long time before they decide to act on them or some may decide to act on a brief intense emotional experience. For both cases, it’s the time that they make up their mind to harm themselves that is relevant to the gun control issue. If a gun wasn’t around would they have the chance to change their mind or simply find a different way to kill their self? “A suicide attempter is only temporarily intent on dying, denied a gun, he substitutes a slow acting method. This allows others to intervene to prevent death, without the attempt being followed by later attempts.” (Kleck 273) I feel if someone attempts suicide by using a gun it is like a 100% chance that it will be fatal, however, if a gun is not the weapon choice maybe it will give the person more time. For example, if someone tries to overdose on pills while the affects of the pills are kicking it, it gives them time to think about their actions and find help or it gives them time for someone to find them before the worst happens. Basically without guns it gives a person with suicidal thoughts a second chance in most cases. Gary Kleck the author of “Targeting Guns” thinks that there is an association with gun use and victim death, since guns are so lethal. (Kleck 216) Since the choice of weapon really does play an impact in suicidal cases, maybe it is important to look into making guns illegal for this fact alone.

However some argue that it isn’t the guns fault it is the person using the guns fault. Constance Emerson Crooker the author of “Gun Control and Gun Rights” agrees with this. He says, “the majority of gun owners are responsible, and that you cannot blame crime on the tool, but on the criminal using the tool.” (Crooker 8) If this is true than why are so many people making the same mistake with the same tool? For instance in the article “Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Abusers: Handgun Purchases and Restraining Orders” it states that over half of guns purchased are bought after the persons restraining order expires. (Vittes 1) “Households in which intimate partner violence has occurred may be more likely to contain a handgun than households without incidents of violence, intimate partner assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.” (Vittes 1) After reading this it is obvious that it is true it is the criminals fault for doing the crime. However, with guns around instead of just injuries the chances of death are higher. I think the criminal and the weapon go hand-in-hand, it’s the criminal’s choice to use the gun but if guns were illegal maybe it wouldn’t be around when domestic violence gets out of control.

Along with purposely using a gun to harm someone, accidents can occur when having a gun around. “By definition injuries caused by accident are not prompted by any intent to kill (unlike suicide and to a lesser extent homicide). More than half of all gun accidents occur in and around the home; most of the rest are hunting related.” (Spitzer 55) It is uncommon to be killed by a gun because of an accident but it still happens. It is more likely for someone to get injured. Accidents from firearms normally consist of people being irresponsible while handling guns, or keeping a loaded gun in the house especially when kids are present. (Spitzer 50) “Accidents are directly attributable to three factors: gun availability or density (the number of guns in a locality), the accessibility of guns (the ease or difficulty in operating a gun), and conduct (how guns are actually handled, including frequency and skill).” (Spitzer 54) Even if it is uncommon to have accidents while handling guns they do happen which makes sense if there are no guns there wouldn’t be accidents involving guns. The main reason someone has a gun around is for self defense but this is where the most accidents happen. “The risk of a gun accident to the average gun owner will outweigh any reasonable estimate of the defensive value of guns.” (Kleck 293) How bad the accident is depends on what gun the gun owner is using, some guns do a lot more damage than others, if guns can not be banned from citizens hands should a certain types of guns be banned?

“What remains a constant is the effort to identify and more strictly regulate guns or ammunition that are regarded as especially dangerous and criminally useful, to search for especially ‘bad’ guns that are even more problematic than guns in general.” (Kleck 106) The main type of gun used in crimes are ‘Saturday Night Specials’ these are small, cheap handguns, these are specially used from criminal use and have really no other purpose. (Kleck 130) They could cause injury or even death but one would have to be a skilled guns man to be able to deal either to a victim because these guns are hard to aim, unreliable, and have low power, they are useless for someone to own it just for self-defense. Another main type of gun used is hand guns, however if these were banned the user would just go to a long barrel gun which is more lethal. (Kleck 136) “Never place restrictions on a subcategory of weapons without also placing restrictions at least as stringent on more deadly, easily substituted alternative weapons, Thus, controls aimed solely at handguns or small, cheap handguns are a mistake, because they encourage substitution of more lethal types of guns.” (Kleck 139) It seems like even having restrictions wouldn’t help with the problems of violence with guns, the only way to go is banning civilians from owning handguns.

COMPARE THE AUTHORS HERE

I feel like all the authors, Nye, Spitzer, Kleck, and Crooker would agree that it may take time but focusing on gun control could help save lives. There is no guarantee that criminals will not change their choice of weapon to something other than guns but there is also no evidence that taking guns away will not lessen the violence. I feel that gun control is important because if it saves one life it is worth it, that person will be out of harms why by the government stepping up and enforcing new laws to help save citizens.

annonated

Crooker, Constance. Gun Control and Gun Rights. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003.

Constance Crooker use to practice law, her main focus was defense of gun crimes. Before she retired she had her own private practice mainly involved criminal defense. The stakeholder that Crooker represents is lawyers or those directly dealing with the law. The audience for her book “Gun Control and Gun Rights” is to anyone who is interested in viewing both sides of the gun control debate. Crooker’s purpose in this book is to show the positive and negative effects on gun control. She balances both views by using theories, looking back throughout history, and talking to other politicians. She choose to add facts about gun rights groups and talks about different gun control laws show that this debate will not end anytime soon. This book allows readers to formulate their own opinion, this will be a useful source to help my opinion be unbiased.

Kleck, Gary. Targeting Guns. Hawthorne, NY: Walter de Gruyter Inc, 1997.

Gary Kleck is a Professor at the University of Florida, in the criminology department. He represents one of many researchers in Criminal Justice. The author’s audience is aimed at those who agree there should be gun control. He also talks to those against gun control and try to get them to agree with him. Kleck’s purpose is on the debate of gun control. He uses research, statistics, and real life examples to show how gun control would be a good thing. He does leave out how gun control could be a bad thing, mainly because his opinion for gun control is so strong. This source will be very useful for my research paper because of how in depth he goes and he is a credited source with good facts.

Spitzer, Robert. The Politics of Gun Control. 2nd. Chappaqua, NY: Seven Bridges Press, 1998.

Robert Spitzer is a Political Scientist. He received his PH.D from Cornell University. He is a stakeholder for those interested in politics. His audience is to anyone who wants to be more informed on gun rights and how groups for gun control are growing. He looks into the history of gun rights more than any other author I have used so far. He looks into the positive and the negative effects of gun rights. He explores why gun control is such a huge debate between people. This is a helpful source because it shows the history of guns and takes a closer look at the laws regarding gun rights.

These three sources are my best sources because they focus primarily on my question on whether guns cause citizens more harm or make them safer?. I feel like these sources did a good job of exploring the debate on gun control. They did make me questions if guns make us safer, and made me want to focus on the negative effects on guns. They are helpful because they explore the positive and negative effects on gun control so it allows me to see both sides of the argument.

Research Topic

For my research paper I chose the topic of technology and military. To get more specific I changed my question to how does lack of technology affect soldiers in basic training? If I do need to expand my question I will look into how civilian technology affects any soldier in the military.

I have always been interested in the military and I knew I wanted to research more on it. However, I came to my topic because recently many of my friends have joined the military. It was hard not only talking to my best friend everyday but seeing him everyday than he left for Marines basic training and I got to talk to him once or twice a week through a letter. I also have many friends enlisted in the Army. They all said the same thing they could handle the physical challenges they experienced but it was emotionally really hard on them. I want to research why it is so important to cut soldiers off from communicating with their family and friends.

I would be a stakeholder in this because I am one of many that is waiting for letters from a friend. My perspective on this situation is that I think while in basic soldiers should get more time on the phone to call their family and more opportunities to call. Civilian technology has increased so much I think it would be great if they even explored web cams in basic for a chance for the soldiers to see there family.

I understand I may not be able to find out a lot about this unless its inside sources but I think it is an important topic.

Blog 7

To be able to successfully write assignment 5, I had to critically read through the sources. I read more than just the passage where Nye mentioned these sources, I reread the chapter so I understood how that particular passage fit in with the chapter. When reading the sources it is important to understand what the author is saying but also why Nye used this author. I concentrated most on the parts that were closely related to how Nye used that author.

I thought that peer editing was just as helpful this time. I like hearing what I did right so I know to add more of that to my paper. Also, knowing what you did wrong helps to know what to change. I feel like when people peer editing they did a good balance of both of these, which made peer editing successful.

I feel it was important for Nye to use sources because it really strengthened his book. It proved that many people agree with him. He not only told you how he felt but by mentioning other sources he showed you. From what I read Nye always used his sources accurately. He never really bashed any source, which worked because he was try to prove his own points instead of trying to prove someone they are wrong. However, I thought some of his sources weren’t as powerful because he assumed we knew what he was talking about. I think he could of done better explaining on a few to strengthen those sources.

I think writers could have a lot of difficulty when uses sources. Sometimes its difficult to connect your own opinion to theirs and you don’t always know when to use quotes or if you are using the right quote to strengthen your topic. The only thing I would do differently with Nye is explain the sources I will be using. I think it is more complicated to the reader if you just throw in a quote, even if fits in, its better to explain it. I think overall putting sources into the paper will not be as difficult as the length. However, if I use the right amount of quotes in the paper it will be easier to add more of my own opinion into it.

Globalization

I didn't finish but this is what i had done.. had a hard time writing it..

In David Nye’s book “Technology Matters” he writes about how technology affects all aspects of our lives. In Chapter 5, he talks about what globalization is doing to us. He says, “Recently, debates about globalization have addressed the question of whether technologies are being used to create a more homogeneous or heterogeneous world.” (Nye 80) I feel like he is wondering if technology is making countries more alike or even more diverse. In this chapter he uses sources to support both ideas. However, neither of these sources talked about technology which I thought was interesting. I did agree with the sources supporting the fact that the world is become more homogeneous.
The first source he used was George Ritzer who wrote “The McDonaldization of Society”. He says that McDonaldization is “The process by which the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American Society as well as the rest of the world.” (Ritzer 1) Ritzer is stating that many other companies are adapting to the working style of McDonald’s, and the main qualities that they have which are efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control (substitution of nonhuman for human technology). (Ritzer 4) I think the reason Nye mentioned Ritzer at this particular part of his book is because Ritzer is showing how everyone is starting to work the same way so of course society is going to start becoming more alike rather than different. Nye uses Ritzer in his text by saying that Ritzer is “arguing that fast-food restaurants epitomize an impersonal standardization that Western nations aggressively export to the rest of the world.” (Nye 80)
Benjamin Barber also agreed with Ritzer’s concept of McDonaldization. Barber uses the phrase McWorld though. He says that in McWorld “there is no activity more intrinsically globalizing than trade, no ideology less interested in nations than capitalism, no challenge to frontiers more audacious than the market.” (Barber 23) I think Nye brought up Barber as a source because he did capture how people are looking more into what is efficient and consistent to what the consumer likes rather than the company just doing there own thing. Nye uses Barber in his chapter by saying, “Benjamin Barber has attacked the cultural imperialism that, he argues, is transforming a rich cultural variety into a single bland, McWorld.” (Nye 80) I think Nye’s reason for putting Barber’s ideas in his book is because Barber shows how the economy is becoming similar and transforming. He is just showing how yet another thing is becoming alike throughout all cultures.
I feel like Ritzer and Barber left out how McDonaldization can be positive and also how McWorld can be positive. I feel like Nye did a good job at showing both sides and the other authors could of too. However, it was a little confusing as to why Nye didn’t use authors that talked primarily about technology. Once you read through the sources it was understandable why Nye used them. They did a could job on expanding upon his thought of how globalization is making the world homogeneous.

Nye & Vicente

I chose to read the last chapter in the David Nye book, its called “Not just one future”. He says, “We need to consider the questions that technology raises because we have many possible futures, some far less attractive than others.” (Nye 226) Throughout the chapter he explains the positive and negative effects technology will have on our future.

I feel like this chapter relates to Vicente’s chapter “The Human Factor”. I like it relates so much because Nye talks about global warming and humans are definitely a factor in this happening. “Most people refuse to believe that there are imminent limits to growth and do not fear global warming.” (Nye 214) I think if humans were knowledge it would help. However, a part of me still believes that even if people knew they wouldn’t care because society as became so greedy with getting the newest technology that they don’t care of the effects it has on the environment. “By ‘we’, I do mean everyone, because no one is immune to environmental degradation.” (Vicente 26) This is just one of the futures that Nye brings up in his chapter.

Nye also brings up a good point by saying, “It cannot easily be separated from social evolution, for the use of tools stretches back millennia, long before the invention of writing. It is hard to imagine a culture that is pre-technological or a future that is post technological.” (Nye 210) I think by this he is just saying the technology is a part of evolution; it is a part of all of us. Of course, our future is going to be a technological one, it isn’t possible to just stop technology now. I think Vicente would agree with this. He says, “Never before in the history of human civilization have we so quickly amassed so much knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering, and never before have we seen such tremendous advances in technology.” (Vicente 14) I think this shows Vicente agreeing with Nye because as we humans gain more knowledge it just goes hand in hand with technology. Having more knowledge lets new greater inventions to made.

I like how both Nye and Vicente end their chapters, it leads you wondering about technology and where it is going. I feel like Nye is saying its up to you, you get to have your own opinion of it but whether or not you agree technology is going to continue to grow. “By refusing to let any ensemble of objects define our world as already given, we can continue to choose how technology matters.” (Nye 226) Vicente takes the approach saying that since technology is advancing everything else is going to go down hill, it forces his readers to question if he is right or not. “Technology—with all its promise and potential—has gotten so far beyond human control that it’s threatening the future of humankind.” (Vicente 28) Technology has a lot of positive and negative effects but its up to you to decide which one outweighs the other.

Are technologies deterministic?

In Chapter 2 of Technology Matters, David Nye poses the question “Are technologies deterministic?” (Page 17) He first exploded this question by explaining how at first Japan refused to use guns, it worked for a while. “A society or a group that is able to act without outside interference can abolish a powerful technology.” (Page 18) He than goes onto explore whether technology is inevitable or not. It is simply up to the individual they do not need the newest technology, its their choice whether they get it or not. “Awareness of particular tools or machines does not automatically force a society to adopt them or to keep them.” (Page 20)

“People become enmeshed in a web of technical choices made for them by their ancestors. This is not determinism, though it does suggest why people may feel trapped by choices others have made.” (Page 21) I feel like many times he answered his own question by stating that it is very common for people to follow along with society and keep themselves up to date with the newest technology. However, it isn’t the only option, if you really think about it you don’t need the new flat screen televisions or you didn’t need to upgrade your cell phone to the new iphone.

“Rather than assuming that technologies are deterministic, it appears more reasonable to assume that cultural choices shape their uses.” (Page 21) I feel like this quote sums up my response to David Nye’s question. I don’t feel that technology is necessary deterministic. I agree that we can not control what is being invented but we can control if we use the product or not. Its our culture though that determines which devices of technology we use. It matters where you live, who you live with, or how much money you have or even how much you want to show off your money.

Blog to Essay

When I read “Cat’s Cradle” I focused on the technology aspect of the book. I think this is why I decided to write my essay in the way that I did. I tried to really look into how Vonnegut was portraying technology. Also, I tried many times to compare Vicente’s idea on the human factor into “Cat’s Cradle”.

Throughout reading “Cat’s Cradle” I highlighted quotes that I found were interesting or important to the story. I feel like this helped me a lot throughout writing my essay. If I was stuck in an error I would look through these quotes and it would help me keep my essay flowing. With my notes from “The Human Factor” I took down a lot of notes about what exactly the human factor is and some examples that she used in her chapter about it. Taking those notes helped me to compare the human errors that were also made during situations in “Cat’s Cradle”.

I feel like when I started reading “Cat’s Cradle” I should of made notes as I was reading on how “The Human Factor” was different than Vonnegut’s novel. I think having notes on this would have made it easier, instead of at the time I was writing the essay trying to think of how the two stories contrasted. I really don’t think I said at all in my essay how the two were different; it may have been interesting if I decided to do that.

I liked doing the peer editing online. It was a lot different than when you physically have their paper in your hands. I think when I have the paper to write on I write a lot more comments. However, with doing it online I feel that I concentrated more on how to expand their ideas and trying to help them make their paper better. Normally, I just stick to fixing little grammar errors and spelling mistakes. I think it is more helpful for the writer to get comments on how to fix there overall paper than just a few spelling mistakes.

It was difficult for me to move from writing a blog to writing a formal essay. I think that in general I just would rather write blogs because I feel like I have more freedom to say what I feel and I worry less about my grade. However, once I got started writing it became easier because I did have my blogs to look back on and to read my ideas and put them into my new essay. Its easier to have already written about a topic instead of just reading a book and going straight into a formal essay. Also, now that I have written the essay I feel like my blogs will be better because now I know what to write in them to help me for when the next essay comes along.

See the cat? See the cradle?

Throughout Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle” and Kim Vicente’s “The Human Factor” they explore the good that technology brings to us but also the struggles that come along with it. I feel that both have the question in it that if technology is actually becoming this dangerous, should we continue to invent these harmful things? Should some things just be left to the imagination? Like Newt says, “No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat’s cradle is nothing but a bunch of X’s between somebody’s hands, and little kids look and look and look at those X’s, no damn cat and no damn cradle,” (Vonnegut 166). I think like the cat’s cradle may be a metaphor in the novel for technology. Like having imagination for the game cat’s cradle people may need to start using a child’s imagination to see the negative effects new technology could have on the future.

“More and more, we’re being asked to live with technology that is technically reliable, because it was created to fit our knowledge of the physical world, but that is so complex or so counterintuitive that it’s actually unusable by most human beings,” (Vicente 17). I think Vicente is wondering if technology is becoming too advanced for human knowledge. For the case with Leonid Toptunov the technology was too complex for him, which resulted in 31 deaths including his own. “The problem was that the plant designers hadn’t paid enough attention to the human factor—the operators were trained but the complexity of the reactor and the control panels nevertheless outstripped their ability to grasp what they were seeing,” (Vicente 11). I feel that Vicente is trying to show us in this example how technology is getting out of hand, that these workers did what they were trained to do but they weren’t informed about what this technology is capable of. He raises awareness that with these technological advances humans now have to make advances with the technology to keep up and be informed of what dangers are involved with using it.

I think he reaches a good point by saying, “Human beings are capable of doing some pretty remarkable things, but if we become alienated from technology our full capacities won’t be realized,” (Vicente 18). I feel like he is saying that humans have the power to create a lot of miraculous things and have talented ideas; however with technology can anyone just come up with these gadgets and ideas. Maybe now we only try to create new technology instead of concentrating on improving our quality of life, we are creating machines to ‘improve’ it for us.

I feel like Kurt Vonnegut’s ideas in “Cat’s Cradle” are also about if technology is going too far. I feel up until the atomic bomb, science and research was purely considered a good thing, it was meant to improve lives and make your day easier. “Science has now known sin,” (Vonnegut 17). I feel like Vonnegut says this because after the atomic bomb is when questions starting raising about what technology can really do to our lives.

I wonder if Vonnegut chose to write about the apocalypse because he is scared to see what technology will be in the future. “This I assumed: tornadoes, strewing the poisonous blue-white of ice-nine everywhere, tore everyone and everything above ground to pieces. Anything that still lived would die soon enough of thirst—or hunger—or rage—or apathy,” (Vonnegut 264). I wonder if Vonnegut explored the idea of ice-nine so much because he thinks there is a possibility of something happening like that. Also, I wonder if he was exploring ice-nine because he sees technology as humorous, maybe as though some of these new ideas seem out of the ordinary.

One thing that is clear in Vonnegut’s novel is the roles humans play when it comes to technology. I feel this is how Vicente and Vonnegut connect. I think Vonnegut based his story off of the life of Hoenikker to show the ‘human factor’ in technology. Just because the person has the intelligence to create something like ice-nine should they? I feel like Vonnegut’s answer to this would be no. The end of his book ended with ice-nine being the end of the world. Maybe he is showing that technology is going too far.

Whether we approve or not technology is going to continue to grow and expand. Maybe we just have to be concerned about who is holding this powerful technology, can we trust someone who is capable of making something as powerful as the atomic bomb not to do anything with it? Vicente may answer that humans make mistakes, with technology now though these little mistakes can be fatal. Vonnegut may answer we can’t trust these people because how do we know if they are creating it just to prove it to themselves that they can or if they are creating it to destroy something. Maybe it is time to start using our imagination to think of what could be instead of making it reality. “See the cat? See the cradle?” (Vonnegut 179).

Angela && Newt

“ ‘I wish I’d seen the letter.’ She implied that Newt was too immature to deal directly with the outside world. Angela was a God-awfully insensitive woman, with no feeling for what smallness meant to Newt.” (Page 112)

This quote says a lot about Angela and Newt’s personalities. It shows that Angela may be insensitive to many things other than Newt, it also shows that she speaks her mind and doesn’t consider how people may react or how they may feel to what she is saying. I feel this quote makes Newt look like a person you can walk all over. That maybe he really is as immature as Angela makes him out to be.

I don’t agree with how Angela treats her brother throughout this novel. I feel like he is discriminated against because of his size. She has clearly taken over the novel of being his mother, however, maybe she has taken over her role too much by babying him. For example, she wanted to read the letter he wrote first. However, Newt was in college at the time which makes him perfectly capable of writing a letter too someone. I think this angers me because I think like a college student needs to experience life on their own and someone shouldn’t hold their hand through it. If Angela wants to know about things like who he writes letters too I wonder what else she makes him tell her.

I think that Angela’s character throughout the novel shows how strong gender roles were. She shows it in the way they talk about how she took care of her father, how she takes care of her brother, and how she takes care of her husband. It sounds like Angela’s husband does the work for the family and she does the housework. That is how it also seemed for when Angela’s father was alive she waited hand and foot on him. I think that with being married Angela should concentrate more on herself and her relationship that worrying about taken care and being the mother figure for Newt. Knowing all of this though maybe Angela is so insensitive because she is so busy taking care of everyone. Maybe all she knows she helping out people she is close too by providing for them.

I feel I respond to Vonnegut like this because this part of the story stuck out to me the most. Mainly because I dislike Angela’s character and I especially dislike the way she treats her brother. I wonder if she babies him because he is her younger brother who had to be raised with a mother or does he size play a factor in it? Is she really as insensitive as she is made out to be? Also, is Newt really okay with the way she treats him and the way she talks to him?

Human Error in Technology

I feel that one of the main disadvantages to technology is the way that humans use it, mainly because of the errors made when using it. Kim Vicente’s “The Human Factor” also agrees with this. She states, “Never before in the history of human civilization have we so quickly amassed so much knowledge of science, mathematics and engineering, and never before have we seen tremendous advances in technology.” (Vicente 14) I feel like Vicente is saying that because technology is becoming so advanced so fast it is impossible for anyone to keep up. I feel that it was a good idea for her to use different examples of human error. The examples went from technology as powerful as mistakes in a nuclear power plant to having an unorganized work schedule. It seems like a tragedy-- that no matter how extreme or normal technology is human error can occur when using it which may lead and has lead to fatal accidents.
“More and more, we’re being asked to live with technology that is technically reliable, because it was created to fit our knowledge of the physical world, but that is so complex or so counterintuitive that it’s actually unusable by most human beings.” (Vicente 17) I feel that is quote what connects Vicente to Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle”. Mainly because I feel that both authors understand scientists have the knowledge and tools to create just about anything but should they? He shows this by exploring the life of Dr. Felix Hoenikker. He is able to show that Dr. Hoenikker had the talents to create something as powerful as the atomic bomb but how it morally made him because his ‘talent’ affected the rest of the world. It also showed that because Dr. Hoenikker created the atomic bomb what else could he have made.
I feel that Kim Vicente’s ideas on technology were clearer than Kurt Vonnegut’s. This may be because Vicente talked more about particular pieces of technology and how error is has been made with them. It is just clear when you read her chapter “The Human Factor” that she is wondering if all this consequences to advancements in technology is worth the advantages. Whereas with Vonnegut’s ideas he refers just to the atomic bomb or ice-nine so you don’t know exactly how he feels on things that aren’t as powerful as that. So therefore, I get the idea in my head that he sees technology as destructive. I want to read more of “Cat’s Cradle” to maybe to get some answers to my questions about it. For example, why is he only concentrating on the atomic bomb, or more importantly on what Dr. Hoenikker’s family was doing on the day the bomb was used. As I continue to read though I can connect Vicente’s idea on the human factor more and more with Vonnegut’s story and I feel like I will be able to continue to do so with the rest of the novel.