Advances for the Better or Worse?

Pedro Aguilar

English 114B

Professor Wexler

3-8-11

Advances for the Better or

Worse?

            Many advances have occurred in the modern world. For example, phones, computers, mp3’s, and even video games. Video games have had the most improvements and technological advances in modern society. These advances can be a good or bad. World freedom has always been an issue in history and will always be. The technological advancements in video games have put issues like world freedom in the media through new gaming technology. Video games portray this ideology in a hypocritical matter.

            Video games will keep improving no matter what happens and the more revolutionized they get the more it deals with war, sex, and drugs. Before physics became a vital part of video games everything was simple. Ping pong was as hard as it could get, and the idea and purpose was simple, get the ball across the stick across from you. It only involved two sticks and a ball. Modern games involves pointless characters that repeat their same actions, the settings are realistic, and now every hit game has to do with warfare. Simple games have become this complicated devices that use the laws of physics and most popular games either deal with sex, drugs, or war. War plays an important part in world freedom because in order for world freedom to occur something or some force must go down and be destroyed, for the other force to rise. Once this new force is stable enough to do its job then it can proceed in the technological advances just how video games have started to be more and more played because of its graphics that deal with violence.

             Advancement in video games have gone from games that involve simple physics like ping pong and have transformed into a new virtual reality. In modern games this physics is become more realistic, which is allowing for things like shapes and textures of a game to change and this leads to better graphics. This innovation of better graphics creates a new virtual reality that will only keep advancing and get more real. This is not necessarily a bad, but then these new realities always have similar plots which always ties into with the ideology of world freedom.

            World freedom has been something that activists have always been lobbying for. In my opinion you cannot have world freedom without having war. War is inevitable and will always be around no matter what people try to do, because once people realize that a diplomatic solution is not possible then it converts to something of violence and destruction. World freedom is portrayed in many popular games such as the Halo series and Call of Duty. I want to focus more on Call of Duty, as they recently had a sequel come out, Call of Duty Block-Ops. Now I have not personally played the game but looking at the story line and the past games, it has to do with the idea of world freedom and helping a country or nation become independent with a democratic government. In a YouTube clip the character says a very interesting line, “you will use every means necessary to stop the wars that are hidden from the world.” This is a very strong line in that he claims you, the player, will do whatever it takes to stop a hidden war.

            This quote is an example of how the technological advances in video games is hypocritical in showing world freedom, because the idea of the game is set a country free, but to do that the player will do anything, which involves and promotes warfare itself. Many people do not pay attention to this idea of world freedom in video games because although in the game the bad guys are dead and people are free, but it all leads back to the age old question, “at what cost?”

            People support and encourage world freedom but in order for something good to happen something bad must happen first and then everything will get better. For example, Nazi Germany was taking over, but then war started and it was a bloody massacre that occurred and then led to the end of it but before things started to improve it was hell on earth. All things must go through a bad or horrid stage before it can convert into something of beauty, like a butterfly. Call of Duty has been portrayed in the media as a gaming sensation that contradicts what it is trying to accomplish, just like in reality it goes against its ideas and beliefs to put an end to something else.

            The media use to be a source of information and were something from which people would get updates about what is happening around the world and in the country itself. Modern media has completely revolutionized and is now something that only involves scandal and what new things are a hit. People do not care or even know what has been happening in Egypt. People are more concerned about what shoes or what phone is going to come out. Media has now ignored the idea of world freedom and covers it up by having some kind of scheme or brainwashing.

            If anything needs to be done it has to have the attention of the media so that people will be exposed to what is happening. For example, some drastic has to happen so it can get the media’s attention, like people will not be aware of something until it impacts their daily life or affects the lives of someone close to them. The media exposes anything that will cause controversy and will get people’s attention just like gas prices is the center of attention right now. Video games portray world freedom in a hypocritical form while the media exposes it right from the roots and shows the hardcore stuff like what is really happening. The media provides the reality that virtual reality cannot bring to people.

            Just how world freedom can unite people it also tears countries apart. Video games for example portray world freedom in a hypocritical way in that there is war for freedom which is redundant. This cannot just be blamed on video games, but also the technological advances in physics that go into the video games. The media also lays a role in world freedom and how impossible it is for this idea of world freedom to become a reality. In my opinion games are created for people to escape into the virtual reality of it and then in their mind it creates a utopia that is nearly impossible to happen because one war ends and another war starts, regardless if it is an arms war or a civil war.

           

Mankind’s Invention and Weakness

Erik Duarte

Professor Steven Wexler

English 114B

March 10, 2011

Mankind’s Invention and Weakness

             Throughout history humanity has fallen to the idea of using war to resolve international conflicts. War has become a concept that is commonly accepted in the world to keep humanity safe, but safe from who? The objective of war is to protect on group of people from another. Technology has become a major aspect in warfare between nations. As more conflicts arise, nation’s technology advances to protect themselves from others. There is an idea that technology establishes a nation’s status in power, which creates a widespread epidemic to enhance and create technology for military use. This competition has afflicted the world and continues as technology continues to advance. The media has used this principle as a form of information and entertainment through movies, video games, news and other forms of mass media.  Humanity with the influenced of the media is in a constant war that is impacted by the evolution of technology.

            War has existed for as long as humans and continues to reside with it because it is an invention by humanity. A famous Anthropologist Margaret Mead, believes that war is an invented idea by humanity that has become so common that those surrounded by it develop an instinct of it. She states, “Warfare is nevertheless inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle of power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear…” (Austin 275). War is generally fought to attain natural resources, property, wealth and power, but if these issues were resolved. What would be the reason for war? There would not be a logical reason for nation to battle for the anything, but the media conflicts this idea through what they produce for the viewers. For example, after September 11 when the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorist attacks, the news in the United States focused towards how a group in the Middle East (Al-Qaeda) was responsible for the attack and almost instantly the United States sent troops to several nations in the Middle East to fight to protect themselves from any other attacks. After that tragedy many American viewed people from the Middle East with disgust and fear because of what had happened. The media created an image that made people from the Middle East look as if they were part of the attack. The concept of war surrounds a person, which allows humanity to grow with a mentality that war is fine. Video games have become a significant part of a childhood and through these games the media has presented war as a normal thing. Children, teens and some adults play games that have violent content, war scenarios, and other war attributes that allow the player to kill, conquer, and fight. When the player defeats the enemy, they are considered the winner. How is killing other winning? The media has established methods to overlook basic human morality and focus on mistakes of humanity. Thomas Jefferson stated, “The world is indebted for all triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.” (Brainy Quote 1).

            The evolution of technology has a large impact to war and continues to progress the danger of it. War has been fought with all form of combat from clashing with sticks and stones to dropping weapons of mass destruction on each other. We are in the middle of the Modern age and a new age of technology, which could be for the better or worse for humanity. After the United States launched the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the idea of nuclear war is too dangerous that has become an option for a last resort, but many nations have been developing new technology that is more stable and centralized to certain targets. The United States has been proposing to send military humanoid robots to war instead of human. David Gutierrez a writer for online news Natural News announced, “Controversy erupted when reports emerged that the Pentagon was close to completing a robot designed to forage for its own fuel by consuming "biomass in the environment," raising concerns that the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR) might be intended to fuel itself from the bodies of the dead.” (Natural News).  Is it humane that the United States created a robot that fueled itself from corpses? No it is not, that is wrong in several ways because a dead human is still human and not fuel for a machine. Warfare is evolving with technology and now that we have created androids governments like the United States want to fight against others with these machines. Reporter from The Register, Lewis Page stated, “Two rival firms in the USA are vying to develop military exoskeletons - powerful motorized robotic suits intended to endow soldiers of the future with superhuman strength and other abilities.” (The Register). These companies have developed a suit to give people super human powers. War was hazardous when humans had there normal capabilities and now with extraordinary power, war will become more gruesome than before.

            Technology is progressing at a fast rate, which will create new forms of warfare. As I mentioned military humanoid robots were proposed to go to war. What will occur when fully functional androids are sent to war? With numerous technological research and development, the idea of machines going to war is highly probable. Renounced New York Times journalist, John Markoff stated, “War would be a lot safer, the Army says, if only more of it were fought by robots.” (New York Times). Logically it sounds good to send machines to fight instead of humans to die because it is inevitable that in war people die. Military officials say that the robots will only replace human soldiers when it is a “high risk situation”. War in itself is a high risk and to say that these robots will be on duty only in high risk situations is to say that they will always be at war. These machines are programed to fight against any threat and the target set by the controller. Androids are machines and just like every machine they have glitches. The androids are the future of warfare, but can our own creations turn on us? It is possible that they could because just like the thought that 15 years ago we believed android were just in movies. An example of technology going against humanity is the film Terminator 3. In this movie the humans creates a cyber-network that controlled numerous robots created to protect people and over time it became self-aware and launched an attack on the human race to terminate them. Some humans survived the attack and they fought against the machines to achieve freedom. A well-known computer scientist, in his essay “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” Bill Joy expresses, “If our own extinction is a likely, or even possible outcome of our technological development, shouldn't we proceed with great caution?” (New York Times). Congress has approved an amendment which offered to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act that will help science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students. If we educate our children to be aware of the consequences that will occur if we are not careful with our technological advances then the destruction of the human race may just be prevented. If all students are to be well educated about the possible technology of the future whatever that may be including androids then I can say that they will make the right decision based on knowledge.

            Technology a key factor to the advancement of war has evolved in the sense that war changes throughout time. War an invention of humanity is commonly accepted by people to resolve international problems. A new age of war is approaching mankind, where robots and machines will fight our wars at the risk that they might have errors. Albert Einstein said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” Is the advancement of technology beneficial to civilization?

Word Cited

"Battle of the US Super-soldier Robot Suits Hots up with XOS 2.0 • The Register." The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/xos_2/>.

Joy, Bill. "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us--Bill Joy." Primitivism. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.primitivism.com/future.htm>.

Gutierrez, David. "Military Horror: Proposed Military Robot Would Literally Feed off Dead Battlefield Bodies to Power Itself." Independent News on Natural Health, Nutrition and More. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.naturalnews.com/027584_military_robots.html>.

"Humanity Quotes - BrainyQuote." Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/humanity.html>.

 Kurzweil, Ray. "The Promise and Peril of Technology in the 21st Century." CIO.com. 22 Sept. 2003. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cio.com/article/29790/Ray_Kurzweil_on_the_Promise_and_Peril_of_Technology_in_the_21st_Century>.

Markoff, John. "War Machines: Recruiting Robots for Combat." Science. New York Times, 27 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/science/28robot.html>.

Page, Lewis. "Battle of the US Super-soldier Robot Suits Hots up with XOS 2.0 • The Register." The Register: Sci/Tech News for the World. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/xos_2/>.

"Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) - Memorable Quotes." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/quotes>.

                                        

 

The Transparent Immediacy of World Freedom

Simon Grigorian

Professor Wexler

English 114B

10 March 2011

The ideologies of world freedom have a deep philosophical immediacy that categorize under the Aristotelian argument. Freedom is the essential goal most humans fight for. Its ideologies create an immediacy like non-other. If you were to think about world freedom, you would have a small picture in your mind of what it would feel like. But deep inside the picture lie meaning, emotion, and life that is hidden but true. The idea of Transparent Immediacy gives the idea of world freedom a new perspective. A perspective that shows how action with aid of others, is needed throughout the world to make the world a better place to live in. In a religious point of view one could say that freedom is achieved through simple tasks that can change the world. In a scientific view one could argue that  “The first and, to a certain extent, most fundamental argument for the freedom of science is based on the anthropological premise that the human being is curious by nature, is searching for knowledge and asking what holds the world together at its core” (Bayertz 378). But is freedom really being achieved, after knowing more about it? Are we really free? Through recent surveys I have seen that only 46% of the world is considered free, where 20% is considered partially free (Freedom of the World, 2010). Through a Newspaper article from the year 1975, there was research showing that a total of 42% of the world population is considered free where only 23% was considered partially free. Can this 4% difference mean anything? The fact that the % increases as years come by, is the world’s freedom still constant or can 4% is a gradual difference? Sometimes people have the answer to a freedom, but only through careful reasoning, can we find the truth.

            As a Christian exemplary Rev. Gerald Kennedy, president of the Council of Bishops of the Methodist Church, and by Prince Hubertus Zu Lowenstein, historian and former German Bundestag member, have created a contributions list that is said to help launch a freedom offensive in the world. Bishop Kennedy cited four ways that the Christian faith has contributed to our outlook and values (Launching of world freedom drive urged). 1-Its insistence upon the value of the individual and the right of private judgment. 2-Belief in a God who has something on His mind, which in turn leads to a faith in progress. 3-Belief in the sanctity of the common life, in which a man’s work contributes to the kingdom of God. 4-A conviction that is teachings bring results and therefore make a difference in the lives of individuals and society. These lists of steps taken by the Christian community may at first seem simple enough to create stability around the world. But its transparent immediacy goes beyond just a set of rules to change the world. The human being itself must first be changed emotionally in the reasoning that Christianity is the right step in life where by following God peace can be achieved. Through my perspective and reasoning, one cannot bring freedom into one’s life by trying to covnert them to the belief of God, in order to bring peace. In my opinion the first step the Christian community took is one that can be agreed upon different perspectives, but contradicts with the rest of the list. The insistence upon the value of the individual and the right of private judgment should not make anyone be pressed in having belief of God. Everyone has their own perspective in how things should be run in the world. This is why there is so much suffering in the world. Everyone wants things in their own way, and when someone or something is in the way, as a last resort, violence and war shows its ugly face. I guess in a way, we must first philosophically think about what freedom really is. In a scientific view of freedom, “The first and, to a certain extent, most fundamental argument for the freedom of science is based on the anthropological premise that the human being is curious by nature, is searching for knowledge and asking what holds the world together at its core. The locus classicus, where this guiding conviction was formulated, can be found in the introductory words of Aristotle's "Metaphysics", which state that "All men by nature desire to know, as is indicated by the love we have for our senses, even apart from their practical uses” (Bayertz 378). And in the same paragraph Bayertz conclusion, is based on the rational nature of the human being and innate need for knowledge and truth, out of which the hypothesize of scientific freedom is then interpreted as, the Aristotelian argument. The Aristotelian argument suggests that there is three ways to persuade someone. Rather than leaning towards war, using the Aristotelian argument by persuasion of logos, pathos and ethos, we can help each other understand our problems.

            The Aristotelian argument can in some way be categorized under transparent Immediacy of world freedom. Through freedom, we experience the logic (logos), the leadership (ethos), and emotions of others (Pathos), we can understand the pain of others. In that same sense, result in helping each other rather than fighting for our needs. For example, if we were not to understand the need of others, we cannot know why that person or people act the way they do. If we take away scientific freedom from someone, it is taking away the human right to think beyond religion and reasoning. Bayertz states that, from a liberal perspective one will have to say that discrediting science as a "vice" or "evil" may be a legitimate stance, but nevertheless, it is one that is irrelevant to the problem of scientific freedom. In a liberal society, every individual must have the freedom to pursue even those activities that are regarded by some as "vice" and "evil"; the satisfaction of whichever impulses and needs is a legitimate right as long and in as far as it is compatible with the analogous rights of others (Bayertz 380). Science was considered evil until we understood through time, and after our logos, pathos, and ethos reasoning of science we are able to understand it and now accept it. There are many other things in this world that is ignored, and that is why we cannot get passed through violence.

            The survey reports show that as time goes by, as the world becomes more complicated, and advanced, we take little time into understanding each other. We see things as a picture that explains it all. But the ideologies of world freedom are not the hypermediacy we see. The ideology of world freedom goes into in-depth reasoning of transparent immediacy that follows the reasoning of the Aristotelian argument. This is the future now, and we need to think like this is a world of more advanced ages, and that our years of history, and logic can help us avoid violence. The movie 300, depicts the titanic clash in which King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fought to the death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. This is an example of the past, where civilizations had no option or power to go to war against corrupt minds. Some can argue that what gives us power now? One for example, is fear. The fear of USA having nuclear bombs in reserve, threatens other parts of the world to stay at ease; for a nuclear war would cause a massacre, and neither side of the opposing forces would have fought for their cause. Xerxes, wanting to take the freedom, and land of other races, gave the Spartans, no option but to fight. The past is the history of uncontrolled corruption. This is the future now, and we can learn from the past. We can learn from our leaders, and history, such as Aristotle, Plato, and our World Wars. There is a cliché that states “history repeats itself”.  But in truth, we let history repeat itself because we don’t think beyond the box, rather we think in the past. This is transparent immediacy of the ideology of world freedom. We see world freedom as a form of hypermediacy, rather than realizing the reality of world freedom, and understanding the steps to take to help form it.

           

Work Cited    

Asali, Ziad. "Washington must not be a global policeman or dictators' patron Read more:  http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=125589#ixzz1GBBuzncK (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)." Daily Star 4 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Web. 7 Mar 2011. <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=125589#axzz1GBAwQz00>.

Bayertz Kurt. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Aug., 2006), pp. 377-398

Launching of World Freedom Drive Urged :Christianity's Contributions to Civilization Told at Opening of Institute of Affairs. (1960, December 12). Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File),32.  Retrieved March 10, 2011, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1987). (Document ID: 451123962).

“Freedom of the World" Ask the Editors. Infoplease. © 2008 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. 8 Mar. 2011 <http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/freedom.html>.

Survey Finds World Freedom Slipping. (1975, February 5). Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File),p. b12.  Retrieved March 10, 2011, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1987). (Document ID: 602682132).

300. Dir. Snyder Zack. Perf. Butler Gerard. Warner Bros, 2003. DVD.