Classroom to Online

Blogging is an online version of writing in a diary, or so I thought. Blogging, however, can be used it different ways. I never really considered blogging before and I didn't think it would be effective as a classroom setting. In my opinion, blog peer editing seemed to be effective, at least for me it was. I enjoyed doing it online much more than in class. In other English classes when we would have editing days, I didn't put much effort into it, i was always more worried about getting done quick hoping to be let out early. Doing peer editing online, you are able to find a paper that interests you and you can take your time editing it. You can also take a break between essays instead of doing them all right away, that way you can put some thought into what you think they should do.

Blog editing was also more effective because there were actually suggestions, many times in class people would right on papers "great paper...really well written...could use some improvement" without actually giving any suggestions.

While editing i tried to take in every comment and see how I can add that into my paper. It really helps to have that option out there, it gives the writer more to write about. It also allows them to really know that they are connecting with the reader with they get feed back.

I wasn't sure what way my essay was really going to go when i first started writing it. I first focused one finding one or two quotes outside of our readings, i thought it would add something unique to my paper. Once I found the quotes that I actually liked, it just kind of guided my paper with the path that I took. A big part was the quote from Cat's Cradle. I chose that because I was able to relate it to my life (i.e. my friends joining the army and possibly being shipped away). When I'm able to really relate to a text is when I feel i get the most out of it.

Notes didn't play too much part through out writing my paper, I hope that changes. However, I did look back to my blog entries quite a bit. Overall I feel that online peer editing helped me more than any of the in class peer editing sessions ever did.

For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press 3

“For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press 3,” Alice Kahn. The first thought that crossed my mind after reading this quote was “This is nowhere close to being true,” however, I dare you to really think about the technology surrounding you right now. How many times has the computer you are sitting next to failed at the most critical time and you lost all your work? Sure, a computer for the most part is pretty reliable, but at some point during our life a piece of technology has certainly hindered us from moving forward.

What is technology to you? Is it the computer you are using to type your next paper? Is it the iPod you are listening to during class or your cell phone that goes off at the exact time that it shouldn’t go off? Is it the camera you use to capture memories? As a civilian, I would agree that all those things listed are technology. Now ask a solider what technology is…my guess is your answer will be a little different. Technology is the M-16 (rifle) they are carrying on their back. The plane that brings them to the war zone, and the jeep that carries them from their camp to their battle station. Technology is the bulletproof vest that they are wearing. Technology is what saves their lives…or is it what destroys them?

Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is a book about how technology affects our lives. The main character tries to write a book about the scientist who helped create the atomic bomb. On his adventure to learn more about the scientist, Dr. Hoenikker, he learns about other things that Dr. Hoenikker created. One such creation consisted of something called “ice-nine.” To destroy the earth, one only needed a piece of “ice-nine.” “Ice-nine” was a piece of technology that was able to freeze anything that touched it.

At first “ice-nine” doesn’t sound that deadly, it could actually be a little useful. If something were wet and sloshy, one drop of “ice-nine” and it would become as hard as stone. Only everything in this world is, in one way or another, connected. If a lake freezes, that means anything touches the lake also freezes; it is like a domino effect.

While Vonnegut talks about technology destroying lives, Kim Vicente, another author that discusses technology, talks about technology hindering our lives but not necessarily destroying our lives in “The Human Factor.” Vicente brings up issues that involve a different spectrum of technology such as a work schedule. Many of us don’t think of a work schedule as technology, but it affects our lives and we are dependent on it.

Another thing Vicente talks about is how technology is supposed to improve our life and make us more efficient. He brings up the point that technology that is suppose to make our life better, in all actuality may be hindering us. Why would it do that? Some technology is WAY over our head; it is too hard for us to comprehend how to work that piece of technology.
Some technology is pure leisure. People have an iPod to listen to music or a cell phone to communicate to others; that kind of technology, obviously, doesn’t destroy our lives but what about technology that does? Technology, in the beginning, was meant to enhance our lives not destroy them. How did it get out of control? “Today we rule Germany, tomorrow, the world” –Adolf Hilter. This quote, I believe, provides us with a reason. We are never satisfied with what we have. Once we have one thing, we want the next better thing. Once we have a weapon of mass destruction then a different country thinks they need a weapon of mass destruction. Then what? Then the first country feels the need to “protect” itself from the other country. Both countries then feel threaten, so a war breaks out.

Once in war we are force to send troops over to defend our country. These troops may be nothing more than boys.
“‘I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays.’
‘But they are murdered children all the same’ (Vonnegut p 248).”
Many join the army as boys, but most leave as men. However, when they leave, are they going back to their family or are they going to see the Lord? The way they died, the way they fought for our country they deserve to be called men. Vonnegut wants us to know that the men that died for us, in reality are just boys. They still had a life to live, but they gave it up so we could continue our lives. Had they not done that, they might not have died as a child.

Vonnegut also wants us to think about the causes for war. He states that the children were murdered. In a sense that is true. They chose to fight for our country, but why do they have to fight, what caused the war? Was it our selfishness? Their death isn't just the fault of the enemies that killed them; their death also lies on our hands. The technology that we built so we could surpass someone else ultimately caused the war; we are guilty of the deaths of those soldiers. Technology that was meant to protect us was in return used to kill. I do not consider that enhances our lives at all.

I know that our world will never be able to go back from technology, and I know that it is virtually impossible to try limit technology. However, how many people...how many boys will have to die before we realize what is going on. Competition is good, it provides enjoyment for many people; but when competitions between countries start to kill people is it worth it anymore?

Boys as Men

" 'I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays.'

'But they are murdered children all the same' (Cat's Cradle pg. 248)."

Vonnegut wrote this around 20 years after the Second World War. Twenty years is enough time to recover from the war and maybe not see as many effects; but twenty years is also short enough to remember everything that happened. I wondered what made Vonnegut write this, my first instinct was that he knew someone that was shipped off to war and died a "child." After some researching, I found out that he, himself, enlisted in the Army and was sent off to fight in the Second World War. He was a "child" when he enlisted; chances are he knew many men that were merely boys...chances are some of those boys never made it back.

Many join the army as boys, but most leave as men. However, when they leave, are they going back to their family or are they going to see the Lord? The way they died, the way they fought for our country they deserve to be called men. Vonnegut wants us to know that the men that died for us, in reality are just boys. They still had a life to live, but they gave it up so we could continue our lives. Had they not done that, they might not have died as a child.

Vonnegut also wants us to think about the causes for war. He states that the children were murdered. In a sense that is true. They chose to fight for our country, but why do they have to fight, what caused the war? Was it our selfishness?  Their death isn't just the fault of the enemies that killed them, their death also lies on our hands.

Vonnegut writes in a unique way. Having read "Cat's Cradle" without any back round information, I felt as though it was just a story. After I read his biography, I realized that he put many aspects of his life in the story. It lets the reader relate to the story without thinking they are relating to the actual writer.

What made me pick this quote? I never gave the Army much thought, then 4 of my friends enlisted in the National Guard and 1 in the Marines. It was then that I realized that any one of them could die for our country. This passage made me wonder what I would think if one (or all) of them died. Would I consider my friends as boys and not men? 

Cat's Cradle pt 1

I was extremely excited to start reading Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. So far it has been very interesting. However, while reading it, I often could not help but wonder if Dr. Hoenikker was human. He showed no signs of emotion, fear or anything. Then I wondered if he was like that because his whole life was based around  science and technology. He placed himself in a technology based world that did not know emotion and fear, and there fore learn to adapt to that. Dr. Hoenikker was able to come up and create things (equipment, machines and etc) that an average human brain could not imagine.

Both Kurt Vonnegut and Kim Vincente (author of The Human Factor) write about technology and how it may or may not be above and beyond our comprehension. They go about it in different ways though. Vincente asks the reader to think about technology that may be too complicated for us, while Vonnegut picks one piece of technology (atom bomb) and elaborates on that. Another differenece is that Vonnegut talks about a piece of technology that can destroy millions of lives while Vincente discusses different pieces of technology that are meant to enhance our lives.

Technology is often thought of as something mechanical...a new cell phone, new software, a totally new machine...but really technology doesn't have to involve anything mechanical. KimVincente mentioned how technology can be something as simple as a work schedule. It is hard to think of that as technology, but technology is something that influences our lives-certainly our work schedule influences it. 

While reading both "The Human Factor" and "Cat's Cradle" I thought about if technology really causes so much trouble in our lives than why infact do we put up with it, why do we keep it around in the first place? In many countries there is no technology, we consider them 3rd world countries. They live simple, worries less (or just have different worries); could America ever go back to that? Could Americans drop their cell phone, computers, cars and etc without looking back, could they adapt to living that way? Is it just the fast pace of us, Americans, that makes the technology level rise? We always seem to be in a rush to get things done, but if we took a minute to step back and slow down would things improve even just a little bit?

To improve our lives, I believe, we need technology- we would not be able to turn away from those amenities, and the greatest of them all-medical care- we would be lost without. I do think that we need to slow down, or more specifically we need to slow technology down (the production of new technology). Slow it down at least to a rate where we have a chance to learn what the latest piece of technology does and how it does it.

Technology has the capability of giving one person too much power, in my opinion. In Cat's Cradle Dr. Hoenikker created the atom bomb, something that can destroy millions of lives and then he created "ice-nine." Something as simple as "ice-nine" could destroy the world. It was meant to freeze streams, rivers, mud etc, but everything in the world is interconnected. By freezing one thing it is possible to freeze almost the entire earth, and destroy mankind. Technology is great, but it is important to think of limits and remember that somethings humans aren't meant to be incharge of.