Kevin Kelly's Ideas

In the short story “Better than Human: Why Robots Will-and Must-Take Our Jobs” by Kevin Kelly on Page 299 in They Say/ I Say with Readings book there are various of positive and negative aspects of the story in which areas develops two sides to the argumenting point.In the short story “Better than Human” by Kevin Kelly there is a big conflict point in whether humans will end or create better jobs.

The personal persuasive essay was by hands down the best essay I have written and also the most enjoyable to write. This was the only essay that I felt that I was just talking on paper and it was the only essay that I can see myself actually saying the words that I said in my paper. The fact that it was so natural to me is the reason why I enjoy it so much, it’s not something I had to research and it all came from me, I was the only source. From this paper I learned the art of convincing, now I can sweet talk my way in person when I’m talking to someone but it’s hard to do it on paper where you can’t read off a person to see their reaction. You have to know your audience well so that you can anticipate what they need to hear without you being

The article ‘Rise of the Machines’ is Not a Likely Future (2015), Michael Littman addresses the issue and worries that people have with regards to technology. The article attempts to persuade readers to believe that there is no need to fear technology as it is just not possible that they can overtake humanity. Zeynep Tufekci touches on the issue of machines taking over jobs of human, titled “The Machines are Coming (2015)”. She attempts to argue that there is no need to reject or blame technology for taking over jobs at the workplace. Littman’s argument is stronger than Tufekci as he provided logical reasoning due to a well balanced structure with consideration of opposable viewpoints with substantial evidence and effective usage of Pathos to appeal to the reader. Tufecki’s argument is weak due to the lack of evidence and her claim was only brought in at the end of her article which makes it seem very lop-sided.

In Nicholas Carr’s essay “All Can Be Lost: The Risk of Putting Our Knowledge in the Hands of Machine’s” he brings up the ethical problem of technology. Technology is all around today, but people are starting to wonder if this surplus of technology is starting to make the world less smart. Carr’s primary argument is as technology becomes more prevalent, people are losing knowledge to do certain tasks. Carr claims this is bad because people are putting their lives at risk and dying due to this lack of knowledge. People are starting to get lazier because of technology. They start to care less and think they are gaining something extra by using the technology, when, in fact it is the exact opposite. Carr states, “most of us want to believe that automation frees us to spend our time on higher pursuits but doesn’t otherwise alter the way we behave or think. That view is a fallacy” (5). This fallacy is affecting how people think and how current children are being taught in schools. Children as young as preschoolers are now starting to use tablets and computers for learning instead of having a teacher doing their job fully and actually teaching them. Instead of adding something to a task or helping to get it accomplished technology, “alters the character of the entire task, including the roles, attitudes, and skills of the people taking part” (5). Throughout his entire essay, Carr argues mostly why he believes too much technology could be harmful in the long run, but also states

Draw Conclusions: What does Carr suggest about the effect the Internet is having on us? What evidence from the text supports your conclusion?

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the rhetorical appeals(ethos, etc.) of an argument presented by two different authors who have written about the subject of how technology is affecting our lives. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, he describes how over the years, using technology has evolved his way of thinking in a negative way. On the other hand, in the article “How technology has changed our parenting lives” by Christine Organ, she promotes the use of technology, for it has improved her as a parent. This paper is to examine the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos found within each of the two articles. While each author had a different viewpoint, their rhetorical appeals show both similarities and differences.

In the articles “Alone in the Crowd” and “As technology Gets Better, Will Society Get Worse?,” Michael Price and Tim Wu, respectively acknowledge the effects of technological advances. While both Price and Wu use effective rhetorical strategies in their articles, one presents their argument in a more persuasive manner. Wu effectively convinces his audience that as a society we continue to advance technologically, but for the wrong reasons. Price references an interview with Sherry Turkle, to convey his opinion that the social media frenzy consumes our society. Price and Wu both present their point of view, but Wu has more factual information to justify his argument. The appeal to emotion is stronger in Price’s article; however, in this situation Wu’s logos appeal is more rhetorically effective. Beyond Ethos, Pathos, and

The advancement of technology has changed tremendously to the point where everybody depends on it. Technology can be utilized for personal use, education,isolations, relationships and so much more, where in Reclaiming Conversation by Sherry Turkle, discusses how detrimental technology can be through her studies and others sources. In chapter, Four chairs, Sherry Turkle mentions how the utilization of machines is influencing humans negatively. Therefore, the use of artificial intelligence is unsuitable for children and adults.

Essay three contains my response to Charles Yu’s highly emotional take on technology. Initially, I chose the topic simply due to my interest with technology without sufficiently analyzing the article. As I read more deeply into his tone, word choice, and argument structure, I found a poorly backed argument based almost

The least persuasive essay out of the four was Harlan Ellison’s An Edge in My Voice. Ellison presents his argument in a style that seems to me is more of a disgruntled rambling about both famous and infamous people that die from gun shot, than an article about gun control. Ellison spends the first few pages asking the reader if they cried when a certain person died; he begins with famous people such as Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and John Lennon, and then moves on to more obscure examples. Instead of trying to build an argument, Ellison seemed to be more caught up with anger and the notion of conspiracies. He does however try to use the “intensify” technique of Rank’s model, to persuade the reader of the horror of deaths caused by guns and their importance. Although Ellison did try to persuade his audience in a different manor, I felt it was ineffective at best,

This essay will focus on the Compare/ Contrast of Kevin Kelly and Nicholas Carr essays. Both authors are technology, writers. As both authors talks about the future and technology of the world, Carr suggest that we will become lazy due to use of Google and the web and Kelly believes robots will take over present day jobs, Who is right about what going to happen in the future and will technology actually take over.

To conclude, "We Robots" and "Mind over Mass Media" both took very different views on the technology field and also used a different approach to sway the reader. Pinker used a more logical and ethical approach with lots of facts that made it very comforting to believe in his views and Lehrer used an emotional appeal that I do not believe was to his benefit. Lehrer's text almost gave technology power by saying it consumes us while Pinker reminded us we are in control of what we let consume us, we all know who is really in control of what we let into our

Andy Clark, in Natural-Born Cyborgs, offers an extended argument that technology’s impact on and intertwining with ordinary biological human life is not to be feared, either psychologically or morally. Clark offers several key concepts towards his line of reasoning. Clark argues that a human being thinks and reasons based on the biological brain and body dynamically linked with the culture and technological tools transparently accessible to the human. This form of thinking and reasoning develops new "thinking systems" that which over time become second nature thoughts and reasons and are the basis of even newer "thinking systems." It is a repetitive cycle that continues forever being built upon previous systems.

For Paper 4, It should be a either a Compare and Contrast essay or a Persuasion essay since we've covered those sectors of writing within the Logman Reader and Discussion Board Posts. I don't really have a topic for a compare or contrast essay although for a Persuasion essay I think since we've been covering social issues it should be a social issue thats somewhat of an epidemic like the whole "tweens" article. On the other hand, the topic for the Persuasion essay could be as follows: Despite cell phones being a very popular and mainstream form of communication, some indidvudals are starting to interact less with people. Based on the given claim, do you agree or disagree? Why? . The overall audience of the audience would be members of the

I think Lyubomirsky, article “How Happy Are You and Why” is persuasive. She includes evidence, she had included/mentioned interviews she had done, and she included a couple of diagrams among other things to back her up(to back up what she had written) (to make it easier for the reader to understand/ follow what she was talking about), she also included/ mentioned some studies that has been done that were relevant to the topic/thyme of the article that she was talking about. She broke up the article into sections