Weblog 4

There have always been concerns amongst scholars about the advancement of technology. It is almost a taboo not to think of technology as the beast waiting to destroy mankind. Authors Nicholas Carr and Clay Shirky have obviously tackled this issue in their writings. Both authors have very poignant views on the issue of Web searching and how it has affected people’s way of thinking and processing information.

Carr seems convinced that surfing the web and goggling has replaced his love for reading. According to Carr, “Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do”, he claims, “deep reading” has not only become and issue for him but also his peers.  He even admits that he would rather surf the web than look through pages of articles and books for research. His argument that people may lose their ability to process and exercise their brain is supported throughout his article. He does not imply or suggest that we stop the advancement of technology but rather think of its repercussions.

Shirky agrees with Carr that the advancement of technology has changed the way people process information. He believes it has also changed the way people view reading. But he believes that people have evolved and no longer require reading long literary novels such as “War and Peace”. He believes that it is insignificant literature and people are not “genuflecting to the idea of reading War and Peace”. He does bring up a good point that Carr and his peers have not come up with a solution but would rather “whine”. He even calls Carr and his peers Luddist because it is his belief that they would rather “turn the clock back” instead of conforming to change. He suggests that we find ways to perfect web searching and the advancement of technology. He believes it would be a “waste of people’s energy” to whine and complain about what has already happened.

Carr’s points were dually noted but I must say that Shirky was right on point when expressing his belief that we must conform to change. Advancement in technology is going to happen. Mankind would prefer the better and easier route. I can remember when we used to listen to records than tapes and now compact disc. I have not heard anyone complain and say lets go back to records. One reason is because records scratch up much easier and compact discs are much easier to replay. I agree with both Carr and Shirky on some of their views. Carr is correct in that we would rather surf the web rather than “deep reading” because of its benefits. This has also changed the way people read and process information. Shirky is correct in his views because we can’t just stop the clock and we must embrace what we have become and find ways correct the flaws

Weblog 3

Poverty

I have read two viewpoints dealing with the issue of world poverty. Author Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher, shares his opinions on this issue in a very unconventional way while author Greg Schaefer focuses his viewpoints on the genius and absurdity of Singer’s solution to world poverty.

Many people would probably agree that the issues surrounding world poverty is both alarming and dismal. Singer is very clever in dealing with this issue. He uses children to represent the poverty stricken population.  He knows that people are more inapt to feel sorry for children than adults.  Singer’s portrayal of the boy who was sold for his organs is very heartfelt. The story is sad enough to get a reaction out of the reader because of its severe implication.  He also implies that if middle to wealthy class people would donate at least $200 this would solve a lot of the issues associated with sick and malnutrition children. At the same time he contradicts himself because he then suggests that $200 is not enough. He reasons that people that give should take up the slack for those who refuse to give. The only way that they can do that is to give most of their money to the impoverished. I think that his reasoning is illogical. It is not practical to have the burden of solving world poverty by giving the torch the givers. It is not realistic to think that everyone will give but why not educate those who don’t give. One way to educate the non givers would be suggesting the benefits of giving.

The story about the man who bought a Bugatti and refused to sacrifice his car for a child’s life is a good example of self gratification. Most people don’t have a problem spending money when they see it as an investment. Bob, the car owner, saw value in his car and not in the strange boy. Although, this sounds harsh it would be much more logical to think people are going to make sacrifices for those things that give them the most self gratification.

In the beginning Schaefer agreed with Singer in his views on world poverty. He also agreed with his solution to the problem. Schaefer himself writes, “I felt very compelled at this point in the article to donate $200 because I realized what little sacrifice I would have to make…”  Later on Schaefer disagrees with Singer when he makes the statement that people should donate most of their money to the needy. According to Schaefer, “Earlier I could not see how anyone could object to giving $200 but I can see here how some people would object to giving all their extra wealth”.  Even Schaefer realizes how absurd it would be for people to give up most of their money and risk not having “financial stability” for themselves.  Although, Schaefer does not provide a solution to poverty he does seem much more reasonable in his views about this issue.

In the end I agree with Schaefer’s viewpoint on world poverty. My solution to the problem would be to educate non givers on the benefits of giving such as tax write offs. I think that if people were more aware of the benefits of giving they would probably give more.

Writing Reflection 1

Adora names a handful of writers she admires, and talks about what she likes about their stories and their style. Name one writer you admire and who has influenced your writing style. What do you like about this writer’s work? What have you noticed about this writer’s style of writing? How has this writer influenced your writing style?

I really feel that my style of writing has worsened since I don’t read as much as I used too. I can remember as early as third grade reading books like Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Montgomery or North and South by John Jakes. I used to love reading especially historical fiction books. I really can’t say which author has influenced my style of writing because I have read so many books and also because I feel don’t have much of a style.  There are certain authors that have impressed me with their styles of writing. I really enjoyed reading Alex Haley’s books because his writings were very detailed and descriptive. He was the type of writer that brought the character to life. I was also impressed with the book he wrote on Malcolm X.  Another book that impressed me was I, Claudius and Claudius the God by Robert Graves. These two books were magnificent.  The way he composed his book were amazing and almost surreal.  Robert Graves’ depiction of his characters made you feel as if he were there during the Claudian dynasty. There used to be a time in which I would write and words seemed to flow onto the paper. Now it takes forever for me to write anything. My writing has changed drastically and I have lost my creativeness. I have had issues with constructing my sentences and it takes forever for me to come up with ideas. This particular assignment has taking me at least two hours to complete because I have to go back and reconstruct sentences. I used to be very creative. I loved writing when I was younger. I guess my writing style used to be similar to the books I loved to read. My writings were very descriptive and wanted the reader to have a vivid visual of whom and what I was writing. I definitely need to make a change because it is affecting  my assignments in all of my classes.