whats to come

When it comes to the idea of singularity there is one big question that people worry about is “By beating death, will we have lost our essential humanity?” (Kurzweil 4). who is to draw the line on when we lose are essential humanity? That is a point that can be arugd around and around but it all ways come to the same thing it will always come back to the person that it concerns to deiced that. For one can say that hunting and fighting is a lose of humanity. Where someone else can say that as long as you are intending on eating and using all you can from the animal and not just out there for the sport of it and that’s all, is not losing your humanity. But what if we are able to live for ever by being “able to transfer our minds to sturdier vessels such as computers and robots.”(kurzweil 4). would we still still count as human? We just defied the rules of evolution and natural selection. The old die to make room for the new. The new grow old and then they to will die and the new will replace them. It is a contentious cycle that helps keep the world from running out of food and living space. What if every one lived few hundred years because they take a couple hundred pills a day where would we put every one? That is what we have to think about. If computer take over what would happen to the human population will they keep us around for an energy source like they did in the Matrix? Or will they think of them selves as a highly superior being to us, and send use either under ground or just kill us of? These are all things we will have to worry about because science unpredictable, and what is unpredictable is dangerous.

rhetorical analysis: vampires

The report I chose was on the fear and ever changing portal of vampires in literature. How they have evolved in both looks and the nature in which the creachers’ hunting style is depending on whom the stories are written by.
The student does not stick to the normal writing prompt that has been drilled in to us since we had started school. I did notice that the does keep them selves out of the writing. They never use the words I, me, my, or we in well writing the paper. Next to no contractions are used in the piece unless they are in quotes taken to support what ever point they are trying to make at the time. To me it did not seem like there was really one main point that they where trying to prove they jumped from one writer to the next. Some times giving background info. on the writer or the book(s) that they wrote. From the book they went to movies and TV shows but they would switch back and forth in between the books and movies. By the end of the story they had moved on from the movies/stories/ TV to the myths of vampires in real life. The different stories depending on where in the world and what the vampires are called in each place. They ended the paper by talking about the possibility of there being real vampires and the different stories about them.
 I found that it was quit hard for me to keep up with what they where trying to prove as their main theme. I was actually never able to find that theme was it the way vampires had changed depending on whom it is writing the stories? I’m not sure because even though I read the paper time and time again it never became clear to me. I did not like how the writer would just switch topics with out a lead in. this once more showing how they are differing form the original prompt that we are taught. Could it be because I have a hard time adjusting to thing that caused this confusion or is it just because they did not do a good job putting their point across to us the readers? I can see how this paper could have a very good chance of making a great paper if to whom they where writing to and why they where writing the paper in the first place, was clearer.