Read the following short commentary and post a response to a question or pose your own question.
"The Transhuman Future: Be More Than You Can Be"
This is a good text to begin conversation. It is short-overall length, paragraphs, sentences. The rhetorical stategies are pretty transparent, and the author invites thought and conversation. Rhetorical strategies include syntax of short, simple sentences, questions, modes of definition and examples, and an allusion to the famous novel Brave New World. Think about why the author uses these strategies. How does it affect you as an audience to read all the questions in the opening? What does the author define and why does this need definition? Where does he add some specific examples and why might he include them there? Why might he end with the allusion to Brave New World? What might he want his audience to get out of reading this piece? Finally, what are your thoughts after reading this? You do not need to answer all the questions, and we are beginning conversation. Do not worry about a "wrong" answer.
What does the author define and why does it need definition?
ReplyDeleteIn the article the author asks “How is it that we define a human?”. I think that would need explanation in this article because it is about the future development and evolving of humans and how do you discuss the future of humans without recognizing how they are in the present. The author lists classifications like body, genome, behaviors, self-awareness, compassion, and minds. The author does not really give a definition for human right away. He just asks questions and gives suggestions. Maybe it’s too late to define a human. Maybe we are already changing and no one is purely human anymore. Back to the first question, “How is it that we define a human?” I think our brains, our thoughts and our emotions define us the most. There are billions of people in the world and each one has their own thought process and unique personality.
In this article the author asks when exactly will the human race totally be transformed. To be honest, I don't know if we would go that far. The opportunity to put technology in our brains sounds pretty intense but the cost would be crazy. I think we will get to the point where that is possible but I highly doubt many people will do it. It seems rather dangerous and what if it doesn't work? There will have to be many tests done just to see if this new technology works. To me, I don't think that its worth the hassle. The author does have a point though. We are always on our phones and other electronics. so if this continues, the ability to put technology inside might just happen.
ReplyDeleteWhy might he end with an allusion to Brave New World?
ReplyDeleteThe author is trying to use pathos and leave us with words to remember. It is supposed to strike a little fear in anyone who has read this book. It is also a cautionary reminder of what may happen if we let our technology control us. "I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction." This quote from Albert Einstein is a good representation of why the allusion to the book was made.
I personally think this article is very strange. I think it goes a little far to say that medicine and plastic surgery evolve you. Yes in a manner they do but they don't change your make up. Anti-depressants help you return to your previous happy state. Plastic surgery modifies your body and self confidence. For the human race to evolve and function with major chemical, and technologic changes in our bodies I don't think it will happen. The human race has come a long way but I don't think the species itself has evolved. The things around us have, we humans learn one thing and build it up. I think homonovis would make more sense. A new human or new man could have those things but for our species to evolve I don't find possible. Currently I think the world is more possible to take steps backwards before major stuff like "Transhumanism" or Homonovis" occurs.
ReplyDeleteHow does it affect you as an audience to read all the questions in the opening?
ReplyDeleteThe questions in the very beginning of this article affect myself as a reader because it gets me thinking and wondering about the article and how it affects my life and how it relates to me. The questions in the beginning are questions that probably haven’t even crossed our minds so to me as a reader it was a little weird.
What does the author define and why does this need definition?
The author of this article defines what it means to be a human. In the article the author right in the beginning asks the audience, “How is it that we define a human?. He doesn’t answer it in the beginning he asks more questions to get the audience interested in the article and then gets into the actual question. I think it does need a definition because do we ever truly stop and think about what it actually means? He goes on to say no one is purely human. But I disagree just because you are on a medication or have a prosthetic leg or arm doesn’t mean you aren’t a pure human. You never plan on losing an appendage or having high blood pressure. So I do not think those make us any less of a human. But if you do chose to advance your body or mind through technology I believe hat would be an exception.
What might he want the audience to get out of reading this piece? I think that he wanted his audience to have to sit back, and actually think in depth about the possibility that some day people have some of the qualities such as; translucent skin, super strength, and an enhanced memory. It would basically be like living in a world with superheroes. But then again what would a good superhero movie be without an evil villain? So the he also wants us to consider the bad parts of being enhanced as well. Like what the reactions of all these changes will be, within ourselves and within society. I found this article very interesting and honestly it does scare me thinking about these possibilities, but if these new qualities can be used appropriately I think lives could be made simpler and lots of things better in general.
ReplyDeleteWhat might he want his audience to get out of reading this piece?
ReplyDeleteI think that he wanted the audience to really think about the how the future of the human species could change so much. Technology is getting more advanced, and as that technology advances, he explains that we will become "less human". This is always good because people could live longer or have "superhero like powers" you could say since people could have enhanced strength and memory. Although this could eventually cause the world to overpopulate.
I think that the author is trying to tell how dependent we, or the world is on technology or technological advances. He mentions that "If it isn't vitamin or performance enhancing drugs, who can live without their cell phone?" People or more so teens have become so dependent on their phones for everything, there's a app of everything. But also he said that all of this causes a change in us he uses a metaphor comparing Transhuman to medications for depression or high blood pressure. It cause it change in us but not a drastic one, but slowly over time it will.
ReplyDeleteAlso, all the questions at the beginning just confused me. I wasn't really sure about what the article was about at first. And I was a little confused throughout the whole article. I felt that the authors transitions where a little off, or made it hard to follow the flow of the article.
Over all I felt that the article was good and gave a good insight on how the future would be like if we keep up with the technology advancing the way we do. His finally line about Brave New World is just wrapping up that we're changing so much and we can only hope its for the better.
Where does he add some specific examples and why might he include them there?
ReplyDeleteThe author has multiple specific examples. One of the first ones he has in the article is medication. I think that he added this example because before that, he was talking about technology evolving us into something else. I don’t think that medicine evolves us, but just changes our emotions and how we feel about ourselves. He is right that it is still a change, just not a dramatic change. Another example the author includes is prosthetics. He talks about how people with carbon fiber prosthetic legs should or shouldn’t be competing with people who have real legs. I think that the author includes this because the people with prosthetics may have an unfair advantage, but most people who have something different with them would compete in the Special Olympics so that it would be fair to everyone. A third example that the author includes in this article is cell phones and how people are hooked to them. Some people feel naked without their cell phone when they most likely didn’t have it 5 or so years ago. I feel as though some people are dependent to their cell phones too much. I would rather be 15 in the 90s rather than today simply because my childhood is online. When I didn’t have a phone, I was outside from the minute I woke up to when the street lights came on. I think that the author feels that technology will take over and we can only deal with it.
As Alea said, all the questions at the beginning of the article really gets me thinking as a reader. By starting the article like this it sets up the reader for a more deepened reading. At first you read these questions and most likely think something along the lines of "What the heck?" But as the author continues to explain how our human race is evolving rapidly you start to understand; and instead of being scared or confused it becomes more fascinating. After reading this article I began to see just exactly how powerful we as humans are and how far we are coming into technology. Some people think that technology such as our phones are hurting us more than helping, but after reading this article it shows that there is much more to modern and upcoming technology than just our smartphones.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the author define and why does this need definition?
ReplyDeleteThe author defines transhumanism which is "'the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations especially by means of science and technology.'" Gleiser, the author defines this because the majority of the article is based off of this term. We as humans are evolving into something different whether we know it or not. It's not just smartphones, vitamins, or medicines that are changing us. Soon enough there's going to be all this crazy technology that it might even change us into something that's not so human anymore. We'd still have some human attributes but it'd be different. It might make is walk different or look different because we all know humans adapt to their environment and a more exact, technological environment wokld make us walk more precisely. Transhumanism was very much needed to be defined in order to fully understand the article and I feel that humans are going to have some very drastic changes in physical and mental appearance sometime soon.
My thoughts after reading this article are that the human race has come a very long way since its introduction to the world thousands of years ago. We started off very basic, but even in the beginning, we have put things in our body that some may consider have “changed” us. We have had medicine since the Ancient Egyptians, and maybe even before then, that some may think have “changed” us. In my personal opinion however, until we put something that was once external into our bodies permanently, such as a computer chip, we have not really “changed” our body, but rather helped it out, or maybe enhanced it. The things mentioned in this article, such as medicine and drugs, have helped our bodies, but not necessarily made them different enough to cause a real outbreak. Technology has recently become a major factor in this field, as mentioned in the article, with cell phones becoming almost as advanced as our own minds, and becoming an essential part of our lives, with all their amazing features and capabilities. This type of advanced technology is really helping the human race out, but it is not changing our bodies at all, because it is an external piece of hardware that does not necessarily change how our body develops. Until this type of technology is actually installed inside the human body, and we can use it on a daily basis to change how we function, it really has not “changed” us at all. I know that this argument may bring you to think of things that actually do go inside our bodies, like pacemakers or permanent medications, but those do not change how our body functions, they just help out the already existing functions. The technology though, if it were installed into our bodies, especially into our brains, that could actually change how we process thoughts and store information, then that would be making a real change, and pushing humans further along on the evolutionary scale. In conclusion, my thoughts after reading this article are that unless we actually install things inside our bodies that change how we function beyond how we already do, then that will be making a real change in the human species.
ReplyDeleteHow does it affect you as an audience to read all the questions in the opening?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the questions in the opening it really got me thinking. And while I was thinking I realized that I never ever thought of those questions before because when you ask how you define a human many people have different reasoning and views on humans. When I looked up the definition for human it said, "a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien."
I noticed that that doesn't really tell you what a human really is.
What is it that we define a human? This is the author's first question, and i think this is a good question. What is a human, why are we human. In my opinion a human is an animal, a supreme animal, that has gained so much intelligence that it has surpassed all other life forms. This is due to evolution, but is evolution due to knowledge gain? In the article the author mentions medications and changes we make to our selves. Many years ago, we didn't have the medication we do now, and we still evolved and changed. And Even if the medication caused us to change now, that would be for a short period. The only way I believe the author's theory could work is if we founded a medicine that made you superior to other human beings. If many people took that medicine and some did not, it would force the other humans to evolve or die. And even this theory is nearly impossible to achieve. Another way evolution occurs is when other animals interaction with us. If we were being over run with venomous snakes all of the time, we would have to evolve to be immune to their venom. Or we could possibly develop wings to fly away. The only completely realistic way to evolve is by natural selection. No medication can force humans to evolve. A human is the top of the food chain.
ReplyDeleteWhat might the writer want us to get out of this piece?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the writer wants us to be aware of how technology is effecting us. Medicine, our phones, vitamins, and super foods are just a few things that we use to enhance our bodies. “If you have a purist definition of what it means to be human, without any intervention from outside gadgets, it's time to come to terms with reality: almost no one in modern society is purely human.” The technology of the 21st century is slowly making us less and less human everyday. In a few decades from now, we will have so many new tools that we can use to make our bodies perform better, but humans will be different. Humans are no longer pure humans. The writer wants us to be aware so, maybe, we will try to protect our bodies.
What might he want his audience to get out of reading this piece?
ReplyDeleteI think the author is trying to make his audience think about the past and the future with technology and life. Everything is so much more advanced and is progressing daily. It makes you think about the future of technology and what it will hold for the future of life. With more and more people leading to urbanization, will that lead to a polluted world? Or will new technology be created to clean the air efficiently. He also wants people to think about what really is a human. What do people have to do to become a part of that definition. Does it have to do with advancement? This article was interesting and has new take on things. It makes me wonder about the possibilities ahead in life and what it will hold.
In the article it started with a lot of questions that helped create a full vision of the problems that the author is about to discuss and give an opinion about. The introduction gives the audience this sense of wonder because none of the question fully come out and say what is going to be discussed. The questions get the reader going and none of them are just simple, and easy to answer questions. The author does a good job of making your mind think outside the box. What I found most interesting, is unlike most articles, this article is discussing a future problem, a problem that the author predicts will happen. The author also gives good support as to why he thinks it will happen. He gives the example of medicine and steroids and how they are a problem today, and its an argument over whether that is un human like or not. Overall the article gives the audience a bigger understanding, while still leaving them to wonder.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the beginning gives the reader a lot to think about. Gleiser, the author, has very deep questions, questions that I could not even answer. This catches the readers attention, because they automatically want to know the answer. Gleiser introduces transhumanism as "the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology." The author had to introduce the word and the meaning because that is what the whole article is about. Gleiser gives the audience a look into the future, and what he strongly thinks will become of the human race. We think we have technology that is huge, but wait even five years, and it will all change. Our whole species may change. And not just because of medications, steroids, vitamins and our smart phones. As a reader, I want to know how we will turn into a different species. I want to know how we can stop or speed it up. That intrigues me greatly.
ReplyDeleteHow does it affect you as an audience to read all the questions in the opening?
ReplyDeleteAs an audience reading the questions at the beginning of this article make you truly question what makes you and everyone around you human. " How is it that we define a human?" This is the authors first question and I feel as if this question is not thought of often, let alone answered. Then the author follows up with possible answers to what makes us human, and it sparks your interest and makes you want to continue reading.
After reading this article I can't help but think of what is to come in human evolution, will we still be human or something totally different. What are future generations going to be, act, or look like? Hopefully whatever is next in our evolution, will be great.
How does it affect you as an audience to read all the questions in the opening?
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I think that reading all the questions in the beginning got me thinking about what the author was going to say before he even got the chance to say anything. The questions prepped me to not only read the article, but to analyze and process it. It engaged me as a reader and it made me feel more like I was having a conversation throughout the piece rather than just repeating the words on the page.
I think this article does bring up a reminder that we are changing ourselves and we are constantly trying to improve our apperance and skills. Nothing is good enough anymore. We always want the newest thing, the best technology, the best looking body. With technology advancing the way it is it's easy to have most things that you want. The problem with this is people need to be able to realize when enough is enough. As long as people can learn to say no and limit themselves to a healthy moderation of everything new, the advances our species is making can be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteAs for us becoming a completely different species I don't believe a few "upgrades" will change anything. For us to become a different species it would take a tremendous change in the way we think, do things, and just the way we are all together.Yes we are going to evolve and yes we are going to change but not to the point where we are no longer human.
The article, "The Transhuman Future: Be More Than You Can Be", or the question "What Makes Us Human?" are questions that everyone has a different opinion to. I believe that the author's opinion was more of a physical judgement in the way they claimed that medicine affects a person. Of course it affects a person! What else would medicine, steroids, enhancements, and drugs be used for? Another thing that got me irritated was the way they compared books to apps. I wouldn't use apps for this comparison but a person's taste in music, like what they have on their phone or who their favorite band/singer is even their genera is a topic more worthy to be compared to books. They are comparable because it expresses a persons opinion/personality unconditionally. But I still wouldn't 100% agree with that. Because music, books, and apps are only things that influence your person, as does your initial environment and people around you. So they are not something that you personally concluded without help. In the end though, I do in some sense agree with the authors view on what makes people human because I myself have been affected by many of those things but THAT is what makes me human, or different from others. What makes us human is our individuality which has nothing to do with our outer appearance. We may get a little help from things like medicine for things we cannot help but that also makes us who we are. Even identical twins personalities don't match each others.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the author think a human is and what do you think a human is?
ReplyDeleteThe author of the above article thinks a human is defined by what is around us (wearable and mobile technology) and what we consume (vitamins, protein powder,etc…), but I disagree with him because what truly defines what a human is is our biological makeup and what the DNA that biological makeup has forms (our body), and as soon as we tamper with our biological makeup and/or we integrate technology into our bodies, we change into a being that is not human anymore, but a synthetic machine made by humans.