Rhetoric of the American Future: 2008-10-05

The 2008 Olympics was nothing short of spectacular. From the athleticism to the opening and closing ceremonies, every aspect of the competition was planned effortlessly. This clip adds a sci-fi and comical perspective to the future of the Olympics. If you are familiar with these SNL shorts, you know that Andy Samberg LOVES taking very abstract, ridiculous ideas and making them completely comical. This is not one of his better ones but its still funny, both the idea...and his outfit. Enjoy!

http://listverse.com/history/10-fascinating-buildings-never-built/

This list depicts ten buildings that were never built due to various problems that arose in planning such massive structures. The earliest drawing of a futuristic building on this list is 1891 and the newest one is from 2004. All of these buildings are massive in their design. What’s particularly interesting about this is that the building topping the list was planned by Hitler. However, it was never built due to the war. Also, there is a building on this list that was considered for the rebuilding of Ground Zero in Manhattan. Accompanying every picture of these architectural designs are interesting facts that either describe why the building was never built or how the design came to be. I’ve been studying the evolution of architecture and how it is transforming in order to shape emerging technologies, and I found that this list of buildings was extremely intriguing due to the various visions of future architecture depicted. Most of these buildings were never built because they were so intricately designed that they would provide numerous difficulties in building. These buildings of the future, designed so many years ago, provide a basis for what architecture may look like in the coming future. If our technology continues to expand, we might see some buildings like these built within our lifetime.

1950's School of the Future

Modern-day School of the Future

I researched technology's effects on education, so I youtubed "School of the Future" and found these two examples. The first one is probably from sometime in the 1950's and it's predictions of furture education was not in computers but in homely skills such as sewing and cooking for girls and advanced "shop" classes for boys. This "state of the art" approach assumes classic gender roles, despite it being a "school of the future", and even states "these girls are going to make great housewives". The modern-day School of the Future, from the second video, teamed up with Microsoft to build a technologically advanced super school with environmentally friendly architecture, laptops given to every student enrolled, and the entire educational program revolves around preparing kids to be tech-savy in the real world. It's interesting to see how the same title can have such different connotations with a mere matter of decades dividing the two. The difference reflects past and current social and professional norms and how they effect education.

This is a clip from the Colbert Report that talks about the appearances of the candidates at the debate last night. Stephen makes fun of the idea that the town hall format allows for candidates to dress in a more relaxed fashion. This correlates to our class discussion about arguments based on character. A candidate's appearance can make a huge difference as to how they are perceived by citizens, and is a way for them to establish credibility in the political community.

http://openvault.wgbh.org/saybrother/MLA000938/index.html

"national identification number" which

I researched media in the future. In Journalism we talked about how readership for newspapers is declining. I wondered how the Internet would affect this in the future, and from the four sources I looked at the authors all agreed that the news will move online. We can expect to see all papers and magazines having online components. A lot of people, especially younger generations, will get their news through the Internet. Surprisingly, the authors did debate over whether or not this technological advancement would help increase readership, or boost advertising. The readership for already existing Internet news sites is also declining.

Personally I think getting the news online is helpful, but I hope print media won't be pushed out of the way. There is something about picking up a newspaper or magazine to read that feels like true journalism. Also considering that I want to do print journalism in the future, I hope I could still have a career. This cartoon comes from offthemark.com, which is a site dedicated to media cartoons. Most of the cartoons deal with changes in TV shows and celebrity news, but this one relates to the competition between print and online news pretty well.

“In the future everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes” – Andy Warhol

The 1960’s was one of the most progressive decades in terms of social and technological development in the 20th century. This decade is the first to set various major precedents that we continue to use and follow today. The above image is entitled Marilyn Diptych (1962) and is a photograph of Marilyn Monroe silk-screened on to the canvas. The diptych is a dilectic portrayal of image versus icon, where Warhol concedes that Marilyn is the latter – a development of the media. His quote refers to the way a celebrity is an object of media attention, but then passes to some new object as soon as people's attention spans are exhausted. Warhol plays on the idea that celebrity culture activates our desire to be visible, awakening this kind of ennui. This is seen through the repetitive nature of the piece which questions the originality of something that is produced over and over again (i.e. mass production). This production, along with new packaging and ads have served as developmental parts of American popular culture, giving life to products and styles desired around the world. The innovation of marketable product production along with celebrity culture was linked by Warhol through the diptych. These elements that were representative of the decade continue to represent American popular culture 50 years later, and will probably continue to do so for another 50 years.

I talked about the ethical views about stem cell research for my research paper. This topic and the debates surrounding it can use all 3 types of arguments we have discussed so far. There were definition arguments on what the impact of stem cell research includes and how life was defined. There were evaluative arguments on the ideas concerning stem cell research. Many ideas were given on the course to take for how research should be continued. Certain people view their morals and ideas as the “right” ones and do not view others opinions. Finally, there were many causal arguments to consider. Most of the arguments about stem cell research focus on what the cause and effect relationship would be if this happened over this.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/

I recently finished reading this book and, coincidentally, it coincided with our study of arguments. The authors use every kind of argument when attempting to show how, for example, real estate agents are like the Ku Klux Klan. The authors reveal a truly hidden side of how economics can reveal correlations and predict future trends. A common theme throughout this book is the concept that the world "is not impenetrable - it is not unknowable." In a futuristic light, these two economics have collaborated to revolutionize thinking in a way that might bring about future revelations and "literally redefine the way we view the modern world".

In this clip from last Wednesday's episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert talks about the future of journalism. In this edition of "The Word", Colbert condemns old fashioned, after the fact reporting in favor of future reporting, or reporting on events that have yet to occur. Colbert uses examples such as China's reporting its manned space mission a major success before the shuttle even took off to demonstrate such future reporting. Colbert also states by reporting on future events, we can stay ahead of the biased main stream media by reporting the facts before they actually exist. Colbert then turns political and points out how the McCain campaign was able to predict a winner of the first presidential debate before it even took place. Although this video clip must be taken for what it is, a comedic version of the news, it is still interesting to think what would happen if politicians and journalists were somehow able to report on events before they occur.

In writing my paper, I came across one source that took a harsh stance against the use of autonomous weaponry. The definition for autonomous weapons that the author used, and which I discussed in class, was any weapon that can think for itself and, thus, choose its own targets. His opinion was that any weapon used should have someone that can be held accountable if mistakes (like mass killings of civilians) are made, and the three possibilities seemed unreasonable. These three were the programmer, the person in command, or the robot itself. He argued that since the weapon was programmed to think on its own and make its own decisions, then the programmer could not be held accountable. He also believed it would be difficult to condemn the commander because of similar reasons. And, finally, he stated that condemning the weapon itself was somewhat of an absurd idea, and that something made by man couldn't be held accountable for such things.

Personally, I think the entire way the author tackled the problem was a bit absurd. For one, I think he looked too far into the future. For that matter, I think he may have just looked to far into unreality. I think that the possibility of such weapons is highly unlikely, if at all possible. And I think that he over thought the whole process of placing blame. If fully autonomous weapons exist, I believe there are cases in which all three of his given possibilities could be blamed: The programmer if the weapon malfunctions, the commander if the weapon makes a mistake on his orders, and the weapon itself if it makes a personal choice. If it can think for itself and make moral decisions, it must also have some sense of fear of persecution. That way if it makes a mistake, punishment would be applicable. Simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

I have included two campaign ads from this year's presidential election because I find political campaign ads to be an interesting form of media. In each ad a candidate has a very short amount of time to make a very big impression on voters. Campaign ads primarily highlight a candidates strengths, but on occasion they can also draw attention to an opponent's weaknesses. They can draw attention to how an opponent assesses a situation and makes an "incorrect" plan of action for the future.

The first ad is a McCain ad that calls Obama a celebrity and questions if he is ready to lead. In this ad McCain also talks about the present high gas prices and criticizes Obama's decision to not support off-shore drilling which would help bring down the future price of gas. This is an example of a candidate criticizing an opponent's future plan of action. The second ad is a spoof ad from Paris Hilton in response to the first ad. I included it mainly for laughs.

In my random Internet surfing, I stumbled upon a website dedicated to the topic our class is constantly exploring - what will the future bring us? Newsoffuture.com publishes future news stories about sports, politics, entertainment, and the economy for the years 2020 - 2050. News of the Future uses the trends of the past and reasonable predictions for our future to provide what they believe to be "the most accurate picture of the future possible." The creator of the website urges readers to be a part of "shaping the future," by providing comments on the stories with their own predictions. Realistic predictions can lead to the revision of the news.
This website does much more than provide us with projected technological advancements, which is often the first thing that we think of when we hear the word "future." News of the Future reads much like our modern newspaper, with stories about everyday life. The sports "section" tells of the first man to run a marathon in under two hours, and on August 23, 2025 we read of the first hotel being opened on the moon. Each article is ended with an argument and a question relating to the article, designed to probe for comments.
News of the Future is a creative way of warning society of what our social, fiscal, technological, and political values could lead to. The purpose of the website, I believe, is to remind the public that it is not too late to incite change for our future. If we see unsatisfactory projections for the the years to come, we must act today to prevent them from happening.

The Hydropolis Underwater hotel is currently under construction in Dubai. Upon completion in 2009, it will be the first underwater luxury hotel. The hotel will consist of three elements: the land station, the connecting tunnel and the submarine leisure complex; all of which are the visions of developer and designer Joachim Hauser. I found this underwater masterpiece exceptionally interesting due to the designer's motivation behind the architectural design. Hauser expresses his passion for water and the sea with the direct analogy between the physiology of humans and the architecture of his hotel. He says "Humans consist of 80% water, the earth consists of 80% water; without water there is no life." The components of the hotel can be compared to that of human organisms: the motor functions and the nervous and cardiovascular systems. Geometrically, the hotel is a figure eight lying on its side and inscribed inside a circle. Restaurant, bars, meeting rooms and themed suites will all be contained within the spaces created by the basins of the 8. To Hauser, the central sinus knot represents "the pulse of life." To me, this was the most significant aspect of this futuristic hotel. It embodies all of today's most innovative technologies, as well as represents the most primitive model of human existence, our physiological makeup, which has evolved very slowly in comparison to human creativity.

In my paper, I wrote about the different views on the future of warfare. The two general outlooks that I found were that of pro and anti distance warfare. Distance warfare can be described as conflicts fought from hundreds of miles away, made possible by advanced satellite and communication technology. Advocates of this form of warfare claim that it will reduce casualties due to the fear factor that occurs from the system's ability to execute quick, unexpected, devastating attacks capable of completely annihilating an enemy. This capability can deter an enemy from mobilizing altogether, but can be an effective weapon if needed. Weaponry will become so advanced and powerful that no one will want to use it in fear of a global holocaust. Some, however, believe that this concept is dangerous. They feel that that a defense system based too heavily on technology is vulnerable to attack by hackers and advanced computers. Even if one chink in the technological armor of a country is exposed, the ensuing attack could be catastrophic. These theorists believe that no matter how advanced military technology gets, it will never replace boots on the ground and planes in the air. I personally subscribe to a combination of both theories as they both have merit. We must perpetually seek to enhance our defenses, modernizing them so they will be ahead of our enemies. At the same time though, no machine can will ever have the same instincts as a well trained soldier. By adopting a proper balance of the two military theories, the U.S can ensure the safety of its people for years to come.

My topic for the first paper was the electric car. I tried to find sources that described what they thought the of role electrics would play in their future of the auto industry and of the american home. I used two sources from the 1960s and one from 1990. I found it a little disheartening that one of the biggest gaps between the earlier sources and the one from 1990 was the voice of the writers. The way Bongartz and Furnas (1960s sources) wrote about electric cars was filled with optimism and a strong desire to overcome any obstacles that stood in the electrics way. The electric car had a long way to go in their time but their articles made it seem like the perfect model would be out in a week, with all its problems miraculously solved. Now the article from the Economist in 1990 was written in a style polar opposite to the happy-go-lucky type of Bongartz and Furnas. It left the reader with more cynicism and doubt in the success of the electric than anything.
Then I thought maybe one of the reasons behind the contrasting voices was technology. Even in 1990 technology was superior to anything they had in 1967. I know I am sortof rambling but after writing the paper I came to the conclusion that the voice of a writer depends greatly on what era they are from, how much information is available at their fingertips. Whether or not that is a good thing I'm not sure. All I know is I felt alot worse about the future of the electric after reading the article from 1990.

http://www.history.com/video.do?name=modernmarvels&bcpid=1767981841&bclid=1803311452&bctid=1603341604

I couldn't figure out how to embed this video so I hyperlinked the cite. The cite has some interesting videos on failed visions such as impractical machines and past visions of the future. All of the videos are fairly interesting but the one of the future house is particularly interesting. I'm a sucker for that 1950's gender role ploy. Clearly the artist of this vision of the future hadn't the forsight to see the change in gender roles. The cartoon of the woman hosing down the entire living room sold this for me.

This video, from 1994, presents the Internet as the way of the future. I thought the video was an interesting look back at what the internet was like almost fifteen years ago. A lot of the predictions being made, and services offered within the video, are actually quite available to us today, though in 1994 they probably weren't nearly as accessible as the company would have you believe. There was a lot of accuracy presented in the video, as well as an amusing glimpse backward to see how far we have come.

The framing of the video, by the company, was that the Internet would revolutionize the future. And, in many ways, they were right.

Rhetoric of the American Future

Friday, October 10, 2008

Jordan's Post

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

10 Fascinating Buildings Never Built

School of the Future...then and now

Stephen's Town Hall

Muhammad Ali on the Vietnam War

Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary

Giuliani on Obama

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Political Spoofs and the Use of Rhetoric

Ordering Pizza in the Future

Media in the Future

Marilyn Diptych

3 types of arguments over stem cell research

Freakonomics

Future Reporting

Autonomous Weapons

Campaign Ads

News of the Future

Monday, October 6, 2008

Hydropolis Underwater Hotel

Warfare in the Future

Ignorance is bliss??

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Some Visions of the Futute and Failed Inventions

The Internet: Glimpse of the Future, 1994

Course Documents - Unit 1

Course Documents - Unit 2

Course Documents - Unit 3

Links

Blog List

Blog Archive