Singularity and Humanity

The article "2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal" brings up the concept of singularity which is the combining of human and machine, or machine AI overcoming humans'. In my opinion, singularity would seem to take away our humanity, our meaning in life. "By beating death, will we have lost our essential humanity?" Well, yes. The deadline that we have in life affects our decisions and our morals that we have. Most of us choose to do or not do things because of death. Most of us want to do things that will leave a good memory of us when we have passed. Take away death, take away that stoppage, people will get more rash in their decision making and they will feel they can do anything they want. Also this article brings up the question of "Who decides who gets to be immortal?" To juggle something as impactful as immortality around, naturally some people are going to want others not to be immortal. So who would get to decide who gets to live forever? Leaving all that power in people's hands would be to great even for all of our minds combined because their would always be a bias. All in all, even if the singularity did happen, that does not mean it would be a good thing. Becoming super intelligent isn't always a good thing and having all that power would drive so many people to the point of insanity and being obsessed with power, the whole world would probably be in war. In war for technology. In war for power. In war for immortality. Which would eventually lead to death.

I am going to analyze this student essay. Katherine Blakeney's purpose is to try and break down the descriptions of heroes and villans people characterize others as, particularly in the european culture. This seems to be geared more towards people looking into the european culture or literature, especially Shakespeare, since that is one of the playwriters that Blakeney mentions. However, she seems to start to depict what makes a hero or villan in general, and how sometimes the terms hero and villan may be to vauge to actually catagerize a person as such. Also, she seems to argue that stories of people get altered in history to make people seem to be more than they actually are. She uses the evidence of real people, such as Richard II and Richard III. They are strongly accused as being villans in history books and literature, but argues that no one takes the time to look at their whole life, just the bad parts. All the evidence seems convicing that, how Blakeney describes, the terms hero and villan are to vauge to actually call someone that term and have them perfectly fit it. She doesn't adhere to any particular pattern or format. She just explains the point or topic she's trying to make in each paragraph, although doing it in a smooth fashion. She makes the transitions and word choice intelligent, but not hard enough for people not to understand. Blakeney quotes a lot of literature and history so she seems to deem herself credible and well knowledgeable of what she is talking about. Her writing seems to say that she can get her point across without holding to any "rules" that past educators and teachers teach us. She has a message she wants to speak and speaks it fine without a strict format that would otherwise restrict her from saying all that she wants to say or alter it in a way she wouldn't want it to be altered.