Tamaren vs. Ullman

Ellen Ullman and I have many similarities and differences on two main points of comparison. The first is the amount of time we spend online, and the second is our ability to cultivate online relationships. Both Ullman and I spend way too much time checking our mail online. Ullman would check hers at every opportunity she got, where as I do somewhat of the same thing. We are both obsessed with being kept up to date on whatever piece of information we are awaiting. The main difference there is that we are checking our mail for two different reasons. Her motives are for personal relationships and mine are for business. Ullman searches for friendships in her email, and I am merely looking to talk to teacher and get important information for my school work and other academic benefits. Although we both frequently check our mail, Ullman checks for personal reasons and I check for academic purposes.

Although maintaining online relationships is not my first priority like it is Ullman's, I do occasionally use it for personal reasons. Before the use of cell phones, around the time I was in about 8th grade I always used email for personal reasons like Ullman. It was my main form of communication next to face to face. I felt braver online and was able to talk to whatever boy I had a crush on without so many inhibitions. Ullman writes with those same feelings in mind. Both Ullman and my 14 year old self felt much closer to certain people online than in person. The main difference is our ages. I felt that way at the age of 14, and Ullman is a grown woman. It shows how technology influences different age groups. As a child growing up with that kind of technology, I was able to feel that way at a much younger age.

The Real You

Which person is real? Is it the normal person that is inhibited by social views, that holds their thoughts in with fears of social exclusion?, or is it the person who can be whomever they wish online? In Ullman's article, she discusses the different between her physical and virtual self. In everyday life, she acts like a normal programmer. However, during the night she becomes her true self. She expresses herself in a new manner, without any fear of criticism. Ullman and I share many similarities in this way. In life people are held in by their fears of how they look and how they will sound, but online they can become their true self. In the movie, The Matrix, Morpheus talks about our real and virtual perceptions of ourselves. When Neo re-enters the Matrix he is his own virtual representation of himself. This is true with Ullman's email relationship. In the office she becomes what society says is "normal," but in her emails she releases a side of herself that is new and unseen. She shows her own virtual representation of herself: not as an image but as a persona.

Although we have many similarities, we also have many differences. Because this article was written 12 years ago, there are many time gap issues. The functionality of email has changed and now has become a more formal type of interaction. Today the main interactions are on social networking websites. Instead of shooting a flirty email, a friendly poke is substituted. These websites have similar security provisions. Ullman was careful to be very business like when talking to him in a public setting, but in emails became more intimate. On Facebook, walls and comments are viewable by all, but a private message could simulate the intimate interaction Ullman demonstrated.

Come in CQ

Ullman in this article talks about “an odd intimacy” that occurred in her online writings and responses. She was making a connection that she appreciated and welcomed. She loved her email interactions. Truth be told, email for me doesn’t hold that promise. I use email very infrequently and almost never for personal matters. Email is for business due to its rigid requirements. In email what you say has to be exactly what you mean. You have to declare absolutely that something has to be done. For example, Ullman is given the task of reading a certain book, going for a dinner, and then responding thankfully and thoughtfully to a personal story. Words do have power and emails are often lists of required tasks or instructions, but Ullman’s list of tasks seems rather extreme to me.

When using other forms of online communication, such as Skype and AIM, the communication is less formal. I think this is because these programs are more instantaneous. There is no long delay between what is said to each other. Since Skype or AIM conversations can flow more like an actual talk, people can focus more on the key parts of the conversation and not get hung up on formalities like responding to everything in a neutral polite form. Because participants respond quicker, they can actually have a communication that is both personal and collaborative due to the increased back and forth rhythm and pattern of the conversation.
This is why my online community usually will not talk through emails. My online community includes friends I have personally met and know. Others are gamers that I have never met except through gaming sessions. My friends and I instant message and talk on Skype because we are able to respond to various points or the story faster. When I was working with other artists this summer on a project, AIM was the only way we could effectively collaborate due to the group being able to quickly respond and share. Through my various conversations with people online, I have personally experienced that odd intimacy that Ullman experienced. The feeling I think comes from our mixture of shared experiences that overlap. I know this person on the other side of the wire is a friend… But do I really know him or her? The intimacy comes from the camaraderie we have from experiencing the same things. In other places or in other times, we may not have that camaraderie and share nothing at all.

Common Interests

First off, Ullman and I definitely share a liking for technology. I have always been big on having many different types of technology and keeping up with the latest electronics. Ullman tells of all the pieces of electronics that lie in her house. She describes how her computer, cell phone, clocks, fans, disk drives and PC all sit quietly in the early morning as if they are going to sleep just as she is. When Ullman starts her day the next morning, her electronics will do so as well. While the technology I have may be a little different, our obsession seems very similar. My digital devices include a blackberry, ipod, laptop, ps3, and other, more modern day devices. I have a great affection for each and every one of these and make sure they are close to me at all times just as Ullman does.

It seems as though Ullman enjoys the Internet very much. Whether it be for searching, emailing or just surfing the web, Ullman has a strong connection with her computer. Email is definitely very important to me as well. Although I have never created any intimate relationships through email I have definitely been able to build many different relationships through the internet. For instance, before coming to the University of Michigan I used Facebook to find people that I could potentially be friends with at school. Once I encountered these people I used the Facebook inbox tool to develop relationships. Ullman uses email to connect with a coworker named Karl. While Ullman may have developed a relationship on a somewhat higher level, we definitely share a liking towards communication over the internet.

Awkward Relations

Ullman and I share a need to keep in contact with people through the internet, in particular with people we care about. Ullman formed an online relationship with one of her co-workers, named Karl. During the article, she described how there was a need to keep in contact with him - seeing his email arrive in her inbox and her need to press 'r' to reply. I too have had such experiences with people close to me. Two summers ago I traveled overseas to India for two long months on an engineering internship (Ullman, also an engineer). My girlfriend at the time was back home in the United States and keeping in contact was hard. Phone calls could not work because of the time difference and hassle it would create for one side. Skype would also not work because of the lack of fast internet connections in India. We settled for email as a means of communication. Similar to Ullman, there was a urge to reply to an email I received from her immediately. The email I would receive were longer and more letter-like, unlike Ullman's, which were more conversational. However, there was that sense that the email should be cherished, read over and over, and after a day of two, replied too. However, that is not the case with email because its ease at which one could reply caused me to reply to my girlfriend's emails almost instantly. There were nights I would wait for an email from her, similar to Ullman's insomnia, because I knew my girlfriend would soon awake back in the United States. The speed and ease of email caused me to react this way to these messages, similar to how it caused Ullman to react to her conversations with Karl through email.

Another point of comparison however is that I have never had to meet someone for the first time after months of communicating online. All of my online communications were with friends of family whom I have previously met. My friends, in particular, I would meet everyday. I however would, during times we were apart, talk with them online using instant messenger. Ullman's relation with Karl was one where she had never really met him. They were coworkers, but their relation during work was not the same as the one she shared with him online. Only after months of email communication were they allowed to really be themselves with each other when they went on their date. My relationship with my friends and family were the same as they would be online. I would act and say the same types of things online as I would in person with my friends. That 'awkwardness' when I would meet my friends was not there, unlike the awkwardness Ullman felt when she met Karl for the first time.

The Body on the Wire Could Be Real.

As technology creeps in and takes control of many parts of our lives, I hope to keep my life as free from this domination as possible. While appreciating technology, I do not enjoy feeling dependent on it for everything in my life. I like to think that I do not need technology for everything, especially for interacting with people. However, although I feel that I generally do a pretty good job at this, I know that there are many times when I do depend on technology to fee connected with others just like Ullman did in her story. I know that there have been times for me when I have gone on facebook or checked my emails multiple times during the night to avoid feeling alone. Every time I hope that maybe someone has sent me something or has written on my wall. However, although I do understand the dependence on technology to relieve loneliness, I do not go nearly as far with this dependence as Ullman did in her story. There have been multiple times when I have met someone via some Internet site, but if I have ever slightly connected with someone I have met them immediately and continued the relationship in person rather than online. Also, I don't often use technology such as social networking sites and email to communicate with people that I have met unless I am not able to meet with them in person because of long distances or other complications. It is in this area that I differ from Ullman. Her relationship progressed more through email than in person, even after they had met. I do my best to avoid this situation because I do not want to have to depend on technology for communication with people that I know, however I do sometimes find myself in the same situation, trying to find others though technology so as not to feel so alone.

Another similarity that I have with Ullman is that I often have a very different method of speaking to people through technology than in person. There are many times when I say something on facebook or in an email that would be uncomfortable or even embarrassing in person. Ullman mentions that in her emails with Karl they talk about beds which is something that would never be mentioned in person. Sometimes, if I take the time to consider it, I realize that the distance that technology provides makes saying some things less personal and more appropriate. It is very strange that technology could do such a thing, however I know through personal experience that this is so. Technology presents us with a wall. We can say nearly anything through technology because we have the notion that it is not the real world, therefore what we say doesn't actually mean anything. We know that nothing will come of what we say online, so it is ok to say it. There is a general understanding that the other person will know this unwritten rule and will immediately know that it is not real and will expect nothing from those online conversations. Ullman and I have both experienced this world of false security and understanding that technology presents. However, the strange thing to think is that we have control over the laws of technology. My online conversations and Ullman's emails are only as real or fake as we decide to make them. While we feel that it is technology and its characteristics that provide us with this unreal world, it is actually us. We decide what is real and what is not, and of we wanted, everything that is said through technology could be as real as if they were said in person.

Ullman Comparisons

Ellen Ullman and I do share some similarities in trying to establish and maintain a relationship though electronically talking to someone. However, we differ in our abilities to keep these relationships on a close and long lasting level. When I first discovered who my roommate would be for my freshman year this summer, the first thing I did was become friends with him on Facebook so I could contact him, since I never use my regular email to contact friends. Through this online connection I was able to talk with him and learn his hobbies, interests, and anything else I wanted or needed to know. I, like Ullman, was able to grow closer to another person using an electronic form of communication that would not otherwise have been created until weeks later.

Although we were both created a relationship through electronic means, the degree of our connections were much different. While Ullman was able to create and sustain an intimate and romantic relationship, I was merely able to discover what my roommate's basic interests and activities were at the time. This is in no way uncommon as I never establish a closer connection to someone else through electronic communications. To truly get to know someone I have to meet him or her in real life, where I feel much more comfortable talking and creating a relationship. I especially could not imagine retaining one of intimacy solely based on a number of e-mails.

Twelve years. One difference

Because Ullman’s article was written twelve years ago, it is difficult to draw many comparisons between her and me due to the development of other social networking tools. Although Ullman was able to foster a relationship via email, I believe it is much less common to do so nowadays. With the development of other online social devices, such as Skype or Facebook, it seems that email is not the most conducive way to establish a relationship. I feel that video chatting and instant messaging have become much more efficient tools to keep in contact and maintain relationships with others, whereas email is much better suited for business work. This is because programs like Skype allow for a much smaller time frame in between each response, so it is much more representative of who a person really is and how they would act in real life, whereas email allows the user to spend as much time as he or she wants to compose a well thought out reply. As a result, almost all of my emails are informal and are used for school or other related activities, rather than forging relationships with others. Although I do not completely rule out the thought of maintaining a relationship through email alone, I do acknowledge that it has become much less common due to the development of other more efficient communication tools.

However, one comparison that I can draw with Ullman is the feeling she felt when she talked to Karl the first time outside of the online world. It is a completely different situation when you are interacting with someone online, as opposed to actually meeting them and talking in person. For example, prior to coming to Michigan, I spoke with my roommate for the first time via Facebook. Although we only discussed trivial matters, such as what we were bringing, rather than intimate matters that Ullman had become accustomed to, it was still a unique experience to meet him in person for the first time. I feel that there is some dichotomy that exists between someone’s online persona versus their real life counterpart. The internet can only reveal so much about us; just as Ullman discovered it was an awkward experience to speak with Karl outside of the internet world, this also holds true for me as well when I speak to friends that I have grown so accustomed to chatting with online.

Come in CQ

Author Ellen Ullman of the memoir "Come in CQ: Body on the Wire," and myself have a few experiences in common when it comes to internet interactions. I have met someone online whom I have previously not met in person but plan to at some point. When I decided I was coming to University of Michigan, I joined the Facebook group: "Accepted: University of Michigan Class of 2013." Through that site other freshman could see who else was in their class. I received friend requests from people who also visited/were a member of that group. A few of the people I came to learn were in my orientation and a few were also in Kinesiology. At my orientation I was able to meet up with them and talk with them in person. It was slightly awkward and unusual to recognize a face and place it with a picture and the personality you know through the Internet. Luckily, the people I corresponded with are now friends of mine and we still talk, and comedically, it is still mostly through the internet. Another similarity that Ullman and I have are how emails are more like instant messages as I keep my email open and tend to read them immediately and reply to them almost immediately. It is an impulse to check it and almost a need to reply to it.

Differences that Ullman and I have in our experiences are that my Internet interactions are through social networking sites such as Facebook and I have never had a romantic relationship with someone from over the internet. To exchange an email with someone, I feel is almost more of a personal interaction; something that you do once you have met the person. Being friends and talking on Facebook is not as personal as you have many friends and talk with many friends on Facebook. With email, it is more of a one-on-one interaction. Ullman's feelings for Karl were evidently more on a romantic level in which she felt more connected with him. I have always just had friendship-relationships through the internet that led to in-person friendship-relationships. Nonetheless, this piece, though written 12 years ago has an appalling resemblance to many internet-users' experiences today.

Points of Comparison

The author of "Come in CQ: The Body on the Wire," Ellen Ullman, and I have many similarities and differences. Something we have in common is the fact that we both use technology very often to communicate with those we know and do not know. I find myself checking my email and phone every single day, even at odd hours of the night, much like Ullman. She wakes up at 2 AM and goes online to see who else is awake. I have also awoken in the middle of the night and looked at my phone or checked my computer if I am unable to fall back asleep. Ullman uses her email to communicate with coworkers and friends all the time. I also use forms of technology such as email and texting to communicate with my friends everyday.

While Ullman and I may have something in common, we also have differences. I have never become attached to someone though email or technology as she has. She has formed an intimate relationship with another person by emailing back and forth. Even though I do use technology to interact with people all the time, I still interact with them in person and do not rely solely on technology. Ullman only speaks to Karl through email, and they develop an intimate relationship before finally meeting in person. I have never developed such a relationship with someone without first meeting them in person. I find it necessary to see someone in person often in order to get to know them better; Ullman does not have the same view. These are just two points out of the many similarities and differences that Ullman and I share.

Ullman vs. Smith (Ellen vs. Alex)

One point of comparison between Ellen Ullman and myself is the frequency of our use of e-mail for communication. Ullman uses e-mail to maintain an intimate relationship with someone by constantly sending messages back and forth, while I use e-mail much less frequently and for more formal reasons only. If I am having a conversation with someone on an intimate level or just to chat I will use an instant messaging feature of a communication/social networking tool like Skype or Facebook. This difference is undoubtedly a result of the change in the times between now and when the article was written. When it was written, e-mail was the only way to have such conversations without being in person or using snail mail, and now there are much more efficient ways of doing this.

Another point of comparison between the author and I is the fact that she has two different worlds because of the use of technology. Although I do converse with friends and family over the internet often, it is not awkward later on when I meet them in person. She described her situation with e-mail as a completely different world than her real life, and I do not experience this effect as much. This may be because communication via the internet has become more personal since the article was written, but whatever the reason, I can generally talk to someone in person just as well as I can talk to them online.

Points of Comparison: Ellen Ullman

Ullman and I are similar people in that we have both experienced late nights working on a computer program. I am a computer science major, and I am currently enrolled in a computer science course that requires a lot of programming. In high school, I took AP computer science, which required a fair amount of programming. Most of the homework in these classes were just programs that we had to write and turn in by a certain day, with usually a week or two in between. And, I would often save too much of the assignment for the night before. This would result in nearly sleepless nights, similar to the night Ullman referred to in the article.

However, I have never felt feelings for anyone, whom I have solely contacted via email. Sustaining a long distance relationship that was started in person in one thing, but falling in love with someone via email is completely different. I strongly believe that one cannot really love someone through email. Email is an extremely impersonal way of contacting someone. If employers cannot learn about their employees without meeting them in person, then how can one person fall in love with another person without face-to-face contact?

Ullman and I

Ullman and I do have some things in common. To start, I have met someone in person that I have previously only encountered on the internet. After my sophomore year of high school, I went on a program for six weeks at UCLA. A Facebook group was started by a person attending and many of the program's participants joined the group prior to the summer. Because of the group, I was able to meet many kids my age before embarking on the trip. Although this was fun and seemed like a good idea, I was surprised by my first interactions with them just as Ullman was when she met Karl. Even though I thought I knew my Facebook friend very well, I still felt like a stranger to some extent because it was my first time interacting with them in person. Just like myself, Ullman too experienced a sense of awkwardness the first date with Karl because although they had known each other for months online, they had little idea who the person behind the composed, well-written email responses that they received.

Although Ullman and I share similarities, I have never had a relationship with someone through email correspondence. For me, email is a very impersonal form of communication. In my opinion, a phone call or even a text message is more personal. Ullman completely opened herself up to this man over the internet and was fully engaged in a healthy, yet odd relationship. When I had met people through Facebook, I would still have not considered these people my friends, only acquaintances. It is her ability to allow herself to become open up and make herself vulnerable through online communication that differs between Ullman and myself.

2 points

Such fascinating story Ullman has. But the way she uses her email is far from how I do it. For one thing, the frequency of the use of emails, including on work related matters differ from mine. For my projects, teamworks, and organizing emails are mainly used to keep a record or otherwise set up times for conference calls or actual meet ups to get the real progress done. And even on personal emails, they are used to set things up rather than hold actual conversations. Her use of emails rather resembles how I used to use instant messaging a few years back. Often interpolated, and quick comments with some wait time for a response, instant messaging did not require for me to check consistantly for an email and required little attention. However her case may be simply due to the lack of technology available instead, where instant messaging has not become a major tool yet.

The second point of difference I would say is how we go over programming codes while far away. due to the extremely tedious nature of computer programs, instead of sending emails about each individual component of the program, I would email the entire code with suggestions and changes commented in. However this also makes the process much less personal, with the exceptions of occasional jokes thrown in there. The way they worked together obviously opened room up for actual conversation on the email.

Intimacy and Alternate Reality in Emailing

Ellen Ullman's anecdotes of conducting an email-based relationship revealed two points of differences between my emailing style and hers. The first obvious difference between our styles is the level of intimacy in our conversations. Ullman is very personal in her online interaction--enough so that she is willing to sustain a romantic relationship via email. She decided that her personal life could survive without personal contact. Ullman uses email as a medium for solving her loneliness while I often feel that email forums contribute to loneliness because they preclude personal interaction. My emails are not nearly as personal nor intimate as hers for this reason; I see emailing as second to real interaction or talking on the phone in terms of intimacy. I email in much more formal circumstances and I don't really see email as a forum for intimate and personal contact; it doesn't feel right to me. I reserve email more for work and friendship-related contexts than for romantic contexts. Email, more often than not, is a drain on emotional conversation, not a boon.

A second point of comparison between our ideas on emailing is the idea that people hold two separate lives--their online, emailing lives and their real daily lives. Ullman tries to make a distinction, saying that she feels like a different, more confident person by night at her computer than by day at her job. I disagree with this notion, though obviously I cannot fault the author for not knowing about online social tools that have emerged after this article had been published. Social tools have created an internet space by which people can have very informal conversations (akin to daytime chatter) without much thought. Maybe in the early days of email, there was a sense of purpose or formality to emailing that made Ullman feel like she was conducting a strange alternate life at night while on her email. But I just feel like emailing has become second nature and doesn't really constitute a change from my normal everyday life.

Frequency and Informality Makes Ullman's Email More Personal

One way in which I could compare myself to Ellen Ullman in regards to email is its use for intimate conversation. While Ullman frequently used email to talk with her "lover," I rarely use email to talk to friends and family. I generally use email for more formal purposes, rather than recreationally or for chatting with people I know well. Most of my email is correspondence with people that I don't know as well, such as professors or GSIs. For this reason, I can't relate to Ullman's use of email, and certainly can't imagine falling in love with someone who I had only talked to online. I supposed that Facebook (which didn't exist at that time) is my replacement for Ullman's email, since I use this to stay in touch with friends and have more personal discourse. Still, I can't fathom developing such strong feelings for a person as Ullman did through an online connection.
A second way that I differ from Ullman is the frequency of my email or Facebook use. While she was on the computer much of the day because of her job, I only use the computer a couple times per day. This enabled her to check her email very often, while I have many fewer opportunities. This likely contributes to how often she emails, and the strength of the connection she feels with Karl. Also, the frequency of her emails and the shorter time between them would make her threads seem more a like a conversation than my emails or wall posts. Perhaps if I had the ability to check my Facebook and email more often, I would better understand Ullman's feelings.

Batson and Alexander: Similarities and Differences

Obviously, both articles are about the use of Web 2.0 in modern education. The two articles focus on the collaborative aspect of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 allows for tasks to be completed and reviewed by numerous parties all over the world. This is different than the way traditional teaching methods make use of a single textbook produced by an education company. Batson and Alexander point out that now students are the creators of information and a key tool in the education of themselves and other students.

On the other hand, the two articles do have differences. Batson discusses Web 2.0 as a single entity that has many tools and uses. Alexander, however, uses Web 2.0 as a grouping term that includes many different webtools such as Google Maps or social networking websites. These different approaches provide different perspectives of Web 2.0, even though they have similar arguments.

Batson and Alexander on Web 2.0

Batson and Alexander both attempt to define the new Web 2.0. However, Batson discusses it on a more educational level in reference to teaching styles, while Alexander examines Web 2.0 on a more general level in direct relation to the internet itself. Batson essentially makes that point that Web 2.0 has made sharing knowledge far easier than in the past. And therefore, traditional methods of education have been made obsolete. He even goes on to bring our learning styles into play. The ease and availability of social networking has made learning more natural and less of a linear process, as traditional learning suggests that it should be.

On the other hand, Alexander looks at Web 2.0 conceptually, versus in relation to a particular subject such as education. He initially points out that a version number implies that there was some sort of previous version of the Internet. He then goes on to attempt to define Web 2.0 conceptually and through web tools have emerged from Web 2.0. One of the most notable of these tools is social networking. Alexander also points out that Web 2.0 has changed the shape of the internet. No longer is the internet necessarily page based. However, it is becoming increasingly less linear.

Web 2.0

Web has evolved from a one way system of a user accessing information in a new version or, web 2.0, that allows much user interface and endless possibilites. The two articles by James Batson and Brian Alexander are similar in many ways. The main agenda that these articles are stating is the improvement of web 2.0 from a previously used system. These articles agreed that web 2.0 is a more user-friendly and interactive version that allows more people to become involved with the web. The titles make the articles seem very similar, in that, both articles somehow relate back to learning and education. Although the arguments differ later for the ultimate use of web 2.0, both articles focus towards learning and education. The possibilities are endless applications for the use of web 2.0
These articles also differ mainly in their outcomes of the product. Alexander argues that teaching methods will remain the same just be enhanced by technology. In my analytical paper, I noticed on my video that they agree with this philosophy. There is a debate among professors whether the technology will replace or just enhance the classroom. The professors in my video and Alexander(although not a professor) lean more towards the enhancement side; while Batson leans more towards the replacement side. The titles of the articles themselves demonstrate the differing views of the school officials. The title from Batson's article, "Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education," implies he is arguing not if it is important, but how it is important. In Alexander's title, "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" he is implying more of a question. Is Web 2.0 a new wave of innovation? The titles are a great way to gauge the intent of the writers. Although they both agree Web 2.0 will be vastly important to education, the end result for both is different. The main question is: Enhancement or Replacement?

The two articles are very similar. Both point out the openness of Web 2.0 and how the technology is more efficient than Web 1.0. They both also point out how Web 2.0 could be used in the classroom.

I think the main difference between the two are the the style in which they are written. Batson's article makes the information seem much more relevant and understandable. The article by Alexander is written more academically and therefore is a little more complex.

Web 2.0verview

The two articles, one written by James Batson and the other written by Brian Alexander, are very similar in aim, and in title. They both aim to argue that Web 2.0 is defined by its openness, its accessibility to cyber content, and the fact that anyone can now change/edit content on the internet. They both agree its openness is crucial when discussing what defines Web 2.0.

Their arguments thought differ on many aspects. Firstly, since Batson is an English Professor, his article is focused on how Web 2.0 can revolutionize teaching and education. He argues that Web 2.0 is a manifestation of what humans are, helping us rediscover "our naturally cooperative, creative, and gregarious nature." this rediscovery is key in allowing Web 2.0 help education. Alexander on the other hand, being a research director, focuses his discussion on the flow of microcontent between domains and servers. He discusses the use of user-generated tags to categorize content, allowing users to quickly access a content they want using the tags. Unlike Batson, Alexander focuses more on the architecture while Batson focuses more on the benefits.

Web 2.0

The two articles written about web 2.0 written by Bryan Alexander and James Batson talk about the same subject, and have many similarities and differences in their articles. Both authors focus a lot on the the use of web 2.0 for higher education. They describe how it is a positive thing that they both clearly support. Both authors also attempt to describe what web 2.0 means to them. They bring the readers to a better understanding of its many components.

Alexander and Batson's articles also have many differences. Alexander's article, for one, was written much more technically and was consequently harder to understand. Batson's article seemed to target a different audience because it was written in more plain terms. However, the most important difference that I came across while reading was that Alexander argues back and forth on the idea that web 2.0 may or may not be a real thing. Batson is much more certain that it is a real thing. 

Web 2.0

The articles written about Web 2.0 both describe the technology and how it is used in education. They state that the technology opens new opportunities for students and others alike. The advance in technology allows people to learn more quickly and in an alternate way that is beneficial. batson and Alexander both state that Web 2.0 is not just a single new creation, but a mix of pre-existing technologies that can be used in a helpful way.

The articles also have differences between them. The articles appear to be written in a different style. Since batson is an English professor, he looks at Web 2.0 from the view of an instructor would would use the technology in the classroom. He argues that it would be useful in the classroom for students and professors. Alexander takes a more analytical approach to Web 2.0. He attempts to discover whether or not the technology is effective when used in education. While both articles are very similar, they also have many differences.

Web 2.0 Opinion Comparison

The articles on Web 2.0 by Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson have similar arguments in many ways. First of all, both are discussing different uses Web 2.0 has. Alexander notes the various social networking tools that utilize Web 2.0 as well as openness and microcontent, and Batson discusses the possibilities of using Web 2.0 for higher education. Secondly, both arguments are for Web 2.0. Alexander tries to describe the many different components of Web 2.0 and Batson describes the uses it has in education in a positive way. Both these viewpoints show that both authors are proponents of the concept of Web 2.0.

While the arguments between these two articles are similar, they are also different in many different ways. In the article by Alexander, he tries to argue the point that Web 2.0 is a real thing. The reason he tries to do this is because many skeptics of the term say there is no Web 2.0, and that it's the same technology that the web has always had. Alexander then goes on to describe the many different components of Web 2.0 and why they are to be consolidated into this new concept. In the article by Batson, however, he argues the many positive uses for Web 2.0 in education. He argues these points on the assumption that Web 2.0 exists for sure, and that it was a historical turning point in the technological world. While Alexander argues whether or not Web 2.0 exists, Batson states that it exists and that it is and will continue to be revolutionizing the way we conduct higher education.

Similar Themes, Varying Views

Although dissonance does exist between Alexander’s Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? and Batson’s Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education; there is much similarity as well. First examine how closely worded the titles of the two pieces are. Right from the start we can already notice similar themes in writing – both choose to see Web 2.0 as it relates to education. In addition, Alexander and Batson both believe that the introduction of Web 2.0 is monumental a change in society. Batson likens its significance to that of Pearl Harbor, D-Day, 9/11, and even the 1960’s. When attaching a definition to Web 2.0, both authors stumble around the fact that the formerly viewer-only internet was transformed into an interactive internet where viewers can edit, contribute, and comment. The basic gist of each piece is similar; it is the style and view where they differ.

One piece comes from an English professor (Trent Batson), while the director for research of a national technology institute authors the other; the differing backgrounds result in different views. Batson discusses Web 2.0 from a more sociological viewpoint. He reasons with the effects it will have on society, and the changes that will result in the classroom. Alexander’s perspective shows more of a focus on the technological progression and history that lead to Web 2.0. Alexander also believes that even with the emergence of this new technology, teaching methods will remain; Batson disagrees and feels that lecture classes will be abolished because interactive classrooms are the way of the future. Similar themes may be found in these pieces, however the style and argument vary fairly significantly.

Web2.0- Social learning

Web2.0 is a relatively recent concept that has stirred up a great deal of controversy as well as many different opinions and ideas. The articles by Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson show some of the ideas that people have about Web2.0. Actually, these two articles are very similar in their main points and their arguments. The main concept that they both attempt to convey is the interactive, social aspect of Web2.0. They both explain how the Internet is no longer simply reading web pages that are very similar to reading pages in a book. The web is now about connections, sharing, and interacting with other people to find or provide the knowledge that is desired. The prevalence of social networking sites, blogs, and wikis allow people to provide information to others and edit this information as needed. Anyone from around the world can present, erase, or manipulate the information that is available on the web thus providing people with the exact information that they want, possibly even with a personal touch. However, as both of these articles point out, the web is not just about finding information anymore. Now, we can learn on the web without even trying. We can learn socially simply by interacting with other people through these new Web2.0 tools. This social aspect of learning can be very useful for higher education as well as simply for personal improvement.

Despite the major similarities in their arguments, there are some aspects of the articles that are very different. Batson focuses his article more on the use and implications of Web2.0 in the classroom. He points out how it would specifically benefit students by providing them with the ability to learn from each other and to learn from communication of ideas and thoughts. His argument is very specific to higher learning and how the manner in which we learn is changing back to a more natural, effective method. His argument is that we, as humans, are social beings and do most of our learning from being with other people, listening to other ideas, arguing and refuting ideas, and solving problems. He says that the traditional lecture style of learning does not fit with our natural tendencies and that Web2.0 with its tools that allow us to communicate, share, and argue online is much more natural and effective. Alexander's argument focuses less on how Web2.0 will specifically affect higher learning and more on how learning can be more social today with the use of Web2.0. We can learn from the information that other provide as well as provide our own information. This idea is that main argument of Alexander's article. He tell us how the tools can be used to share information, like how wikis can be edited by anyone, anywhere and how we can learn from each other about things even as simple and tagging. His arguments focuses more on the idea of how information can be shared around the world and less on how this directly impacts those involved in the higher education system.

Web 2.0

Advancement, improvement, and success are all synonymous with the Internet now. Progressing from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 seems almost unbelievable considering how the Internet came into existence less than 20 years ago. The immense growth of the Internet has caused it to become Web 2.0 and is considered a huge occasion in human history. As Batson mentions, it is comparable to D-Day, Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. Alexander also places great importance on Web 2.0 and how much of an impact it has made on daily life for humans. The accessability, endlessness and hype the is the Internet is is discussed in both articles in great detail.

Batson focuses on Web 2.0 in the classroom and how it has become almost another teacher and partner in education. The traditional way of learning of simply the use of books, teachers and blackboards is a time of the past. The present time and future of education are looking to include much more technology, especially that of Web 2.0, and less to include physical human speech to learn. Alexander's article focuses more on an older/everyday user of the Internet, more of an older student. The wording he uses and examples he gives relate more to a college student or older person still in education. Nonetheless, Alexander explains the dynamics of the Internet and how sites like Google have tools such as Google Maps that now bring satellite imagery directly to one's screen. His topics are less strictly about education in the traditional sense, and more about education in the real world.

Comparing and Contrasting Web 2.0

In their theories about Web 2.0, both Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson see the new innovation as a form of social software that will lead to great changes. One such change is the vastly increased and open use of the internet, which will expand in a way like never before. It will also bring people together, the two argue, as it is conducive to cooperation. Though it should bring people together, individualism is also encouraged and will be able to easily thrive with the new system. This creates a best of both worlds situation, showing the clear advantages that will ensue upon the rise of Web 2.0. Although both authors seem to agree on many aspects of the system's advantages, they have many differing points about its rise and ultimate use.

Many of the authors' contrasting points throughout the two articles largely stems from their differing backgrounds, as Alexander writes as if he is investigating the innovation while Batson takes the viewpoint of a teacher. It is because of this background in education that Batson talks about Web 2.0 in terms of its potential with teaching while Alexander sees it as another stepping stone in terms of technology in general. The main contradiction in the two arguments, however, is how big of an impact they think Web 2.0 will have. While Batson believs that it will be of such great importance that it will actually change the field of teaching in a completely new and sweeping way, Alexander sees a more gradual rise that, rather than changing its predecessor, will simply make it more efficient and easy to use. Although both authors see many similarities in the importance of Web 2.0, they differ in the way in which it will become popular and its application.

Web 2.0: Changes and Effects

Both authors, Alexander and Batson, view Web 2.0 as profoundly impactful change to society. They also use the term "the social Web," pointing to the way that this revolutionary technology connects people from across the globe in a way not previously possible. Whether it be information sharing, research, or social networking, people are able to relate and communicate with ease. The significant difference from Web 1.0 they highlight is the familiarity and accessibility of Web 2.0 to the common person. Although some of this technology has existed for quite awhile, it was not as readily understood or usable except to (as both authors call them) geeks, or persons who were very knowledgeable on the subject.
Although both authors recognize the effect of Web 2.0 on all of society, Alexander's discussion covers a broader topic. Batson aims his arguments at the use of the new technology offered by Web 2.0 in high education specifically, while Alexander encompasses new technological changes in more general terms. Alexander's article is also more technical because it focuses on the technological improvements since Web 1.0. Batson on the other hand, focuses more on the effects of the technology, particularly in the classroom. Basically, the main difference between the articles is that Batson talks about the actual technological changes themselves, while Alexander talks about a specific effect of these changes.

Web 2.0, welcome to the real world.

Our little Web 1.0 is finally growing up. He has come a long way, but he is finally starting to open up to others. He is now more social, has more friends, interacts with others better, accepts new ideas with open arms, and accepts new changes into his life without any resistance. This is Web 2.0; the newest sensation that is changing the ways we can access and view content on the web, at least according to the articles written by Bryan Alexander and Trent Batson. Both authors agree that Web 2.0 has transformed the face of the internet, making websites much easier to use, and giving users much more customization freedoms. This new concept has emerged in the forms of blogging, wikis, podcasting, and social networking sites, such as Facebook or Myspace. As a result, the internet is no longer “an exclusive domain of the geek or the brave,” rather it has become a gathering place of individuals all across the globe, allowing them to share ideas, converse, and collaborate with others in real time.

Although both authors would agree that this openness is crucial to the success of Web 2.0, Trent Batson, focuses much more on the small scale implications of Web 2.0, whereas Bryan Alexander focuses more on the birth and development of it. Alexander’s title implies that Web 2.0 may be a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning, but Batson centers his argument specifically on the way in which Web 2.0 is changing the face of higher education, and more specifically, how it is changing the classroom. In the past, traditional classroom instruction was typically a one way interaction between teacher and student, whereas Web 2.0 is now creating a three way interaction between teacher, student, and technology. Batson argues that computers will soon begin to replace textbooks and teacher instruction as the primary learning tools of the twenty first century. The way that students will be able to interact and collaborate with other students will become crucial to the learning environment, more so than the lecturing aspect of class. To sum up, the primary difference between the two articles lies within the content. Whereas Alexander focuses on a much broader aspect on how we can modify the web in the forms of “microcontent,” Batson focuses on the way that students will be able to access all these open resources and create their own new knowledge, thus creating a new form of open education. Whether or not Alexander and Batson would agree on the same application use of Web 2.0, they both could agree on one thing: Web 2.0 is ushering in a new age of internet freedom, giving users an abundance of resources and tools that has not been seen before.

Similar Views, Different Viewpoints on Web 2.0

When reading both of these articles, I was struck by how similar they were even though they were written from such different perspectives. Bryan Alexander writes from the perspective of a researcher while Trent Batson writes from the viewpoint of a professor. Yet both articles share much ideology--that Web 2.0 is a social software that encourages cooperation, that it expands horizons and creates openness never before seen on the internet, and that it emphasizes personal control and creativity. And although they write from different perspectives, they share a common purpose--to streamline teaching through the advent of a more advanced and interactive internet. Both authors view the invention and implementation of Web 2.0 as a natural progression, though in different lights; Alexander sees it as the child of preexisting social networks, while Batson sees it as the child of an innate human efficiency that arises through increased cooperation.

On the other hand, discord is evident in their descriptions of the Web 2.0 movement--Alexander describes the shift to Web 2.0 as a gradual shift from the old web and as "the gradual emergence of a new type of practice." He seems to think that Web 2.0 has made life easier and more efficient, but has not really provided a game changer in teaching terms. Batson, though, seems to view the advent of Web 2.0 as a total paradigm shift, which should change classroom discourse. He claims that Web 2.0 emphasizes communication and cooperation in such a way that schools ought to discard lecture classes because they are outdated and don't emphasize cooperation. In addition, the aforementioned difference in perspective is a major difference in the pieces, if not in content then at the very least in style and outlook. Batson talks about Web 2.0 in terms of teaching practices, while Alexander discusses Web 2.0 in terms of its technical advancements.

Ultimately, the articles seem to differ more in style than in substance because the authors share similar views but lack similar viewpoints.

Different viewpoints of Web 2.0

It is clear that both authors understand how web 2.0 is revolutionizing the classroom in its use of interaction and through new technology. As stated by Bryan Alexander in agreement with Batson's viewpoint, Web 2.0 has revealed a diverse set of digital strategies with powerful implications for higher education. Both authors also seem to recognize the different and important elements of Web 2.0. Alexander comments on Web 2.0's use of tags and it's tools that that allow tags to be organized.

Although both authors seem to recognize what exactly Web 2.0 is and the importance of its emergence, the authors definitely have different styles in their writing. While Batson, an English professor, seems to look at Web 2.0 from a teacher in the classroom's stand point, Alexander takes a non bias and candid look at the new technology. Batson takes the side of the argument that favors Web 2.0 in the classroom and seems to reject all questions against it. He comments on how it will be easier for children to learn and stay focused, while the jobs of teachers will become easier as they become less of the center of attention. Alexander on the other hand looks at questions proposed by those opposed to Web 2.0 and insightfully answers them through analysis of this type of browsing, stating why it is effective or why it might be unproductive. Alexander does not center his analysis solely on Web 2.0 in the classroom as Batson does, making his argument somewhat more valid.

Web 2.0

Both texts from today stand together under the ideas that web 2.0 is a vast improvement for people as a whole. They each felt that web 2.0 was merely the unlocking of the technology that already existed for the general public. With this unlocking of the tech, people have been able to use the knowledge of the masses in order to learn faster and improve by cooperativeness teach ourselves.

The difference from this view come from the authors individual backgrounds and audience. Because Trent Batson is a professor of English, he would not have on hand knowledge perhaps of the inner workings of the new web systems.Instead Trent would try to relate to the feelings of his audience personally. This is why he starts off with the "I hate that term." On the flip side Bryan Alexander is a director for technology. Basically he knows how it works and can talk about it. Not only that but his Audience is people like himself so they too might look at it the same way.

Literacy in Digital Terms.

The definition of literacy is, "a person's knowledge of a particular subject or field." Literacy can be used in many different terms but the most common is the ability to read and write. Countries measure their scholastic success on literacy rates and judge to see if they need to revise their educational policies. Today a new form of literacy is now taking over the world. As technology becomes a larger and larger part of the world, it is more important that people become more acquainted with digital technologies and the ability to use and access these technologies frequently. This is also know as digital literacy. What exactly is digital literacy? Digital literacy is defined as "the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate, and create information using digital technology.
Why is this important? Digital literacy is the key to becoming a world power in a new technological savvy world. More and more of the world is using computers in all forms of life. The economy is completely based off computers. Schools are quickly switching to integrated systems to improve learning and make information more accessible. Even the government is updating their systems to allow President Obama to use his technology in the White House. In a new digital world this is key to keeping up with the rest of the world. Many jobs now have requirements relating to digital literacy such as use in excel or Microsoft Word. To compete in an ever-toughening job market, one must become digitally literate and learn to use these programs efficiently and effectively.

Email: The New Letter

Emails can be used in many forms to many different people. Emails are now being used for more formal situations as our country becomes more technologically savvy. As older people become more acquainted with these technologies, emails have began quickly replacing written letters. The new way to communicate is through email or even text message. Although letters show more thought and sincerity, the email is quickly being dubbed the new letter. The idea of an email is a electronic letter sent with the same sympathy but more quickly and safely. In the postal services, a letter could be lost or delayed. Online an email is sent within seconds and many even have options of knowing when its been delivered and even read. These features have made the letter nearly outdated.
The etiquette and strategy of these emails range in many ways. It all depends on the audience and purpose. I use email in a variety of ways to email friends, professors, family, acquaintances, and whatever is needed. I vary my strategy and structure based on my audience. In an email, your diction and your etiquette depends on your audience. If you are writing a formal letter for an interview to a professor you will obviously use precision and conciseness to speak intelligently to a person of authority. However, if you are speaking to a friend you may use phrases like "gtg", "lol", or "ttyl". These phrases are acceptable in speaking towards friends, but should never be used in formal situations. If I am speaking to my family, I may be a little formal and a little informal. These strategies help me to communicate more effectively and as quickly as possible.

A Flap vs A Tweet

The online Flutter video on youtube is a mockumentary about the idea of our world trying to condense websites like twitter even smaller than normal. The origins of these blog websites started with normal blogs where people could expell their inner feelings or thoughts to a group or observers, typically friends and aquaintances. That evolved into facebook where people could update statuses to tell in a short setting how they are feeling or doing, show a video, or yell about something that upset them. Then life got shorter. Twitter began. Twitter has turned into a microblogging phenom, in which, people update their every movement to people who, probably, could care less if they saw a mud puddle in the shape of Jay Leno's face or suddenly stepped on a pinecone that made a loud "crunch" noise. The video flutter mocks this idea by showing a new website that is intended to make microblogging event shorter for those who don't have enough time to even read the updates. Twenty-six characters and your post is done.
This symbolizes America's new view of technology and our attention spans. We have progressively gotten more impatient and our attention spans have shrunk. We want information in the quickest, most concise way possible. The time it takes to tweet is under a minute, but the time for a "flap" is probably a few seconds. Where is the line between necessity and excessiveness?

Nature vs. Technology

Of the 4 possible bodies that are presented by Mischa Peters in her article "Exit Meat," I would most prefer the natural body. Nature was created as something greater than anything we as humans can possible make. It is above all of our science and technology. We cannot compete with it. The objects that we create only last for a limited amount of time. They break and fall apart. They cannot tolerate the environment that they are in for an extended period of time. However, nature can. Nature has survived the changing environment for billions of years. It has changed itself, in response to what is happening around it. It adapts, evolves. Its dependencies are only on other natural things that will evolve with it. There is nothing that can destroy all that is natural. Technology, on the other hand, cannot do these things. It depends on us, the natural human species for its very existence. It cannot change or evolve by itself. It has no ability to create more of itself or adapt. Technology exists because nature has created it. Nature can continue to be without technology, but technology would cease to exist without nature.

It is because of this that I would prefer that natural body above all others. Although the other bodies have certain advantages, these will quickly die out. For instance, the bodyguard who has the modified body has features that are advantageous to her life. She has better than human vision as well as knives that can project our of her hands. While these features would be helpful to her, they will not be passed on to her children and will quickly die out, so what use are they? And what happens if her environment changes and those adaptions are not longer useful? Will she be able to adapt and produce other, new features that are also "modified" from the normal human body that will assist her in her survival in these new surroundings? The answer is no, she will not. These temporary adaptions will not help her if her surroundings change and they will not be able to adapt to the new conditions. The natural body, however, can do so. It will be able to adapt and grow new features to help us survive. Although it does not have the obvious indestructibility that built in knives and super-human vision have, it is much more durable. And although that first generation may die out due to changing conditions, the new generations will survive. This makes the natural body the most indestructible and the most useful. This is what makes the natural body my preference.

My Body Choice

I would most like to have a natural body because of its simplicity and obvious advantages. After thousands of years of evolution, the body has become an advanced natural wonder in itself, one that does not need any additions from the technological world. It is completely self sufficient and does not need any of the advantages provided by any added machinery, especially because of the cold way in which the additions are described by the author.

Another advantage of having a completely natural body is that one can still use many technological innovations without having them to be part of their creation. This creates a situation in which one has the best of both worlds and a choice of the degree to which one will indulge in such advancements. Having a natural body also makes each individual more unique as we have different features from one another that helps distinguish who we are.

The Modified Body

As we walk through the streets of Ann Arbor, there is such a diverse crowd to examine. People of different races, ethnicities, heights, weights, etc. However, did you ever think that some of those people could have been MEDICALLY (and there for technologically) altered? Would you think that the girl sitting next to you has breast implants? How about the guy next to you; did he have rhinoplasty? We're already inching toward being technologically advanced. Although no operation actually places a technological device inside the body, it takes technology to enhance the body. I truly don't find it to be so far fetched that we would be willing to alter our bodies further than bigger breasts or more shapely noses.

The modified body described in the article "Exit Meat" by Mischa Peters obviously goes beyond implants and a new nose, but the advancements are so profound. Molly, the bodyguard who has vision beyond human capability and knives that retract in and out of her hands, has what we would now consider "superhero" powers. The price she had to pay to become advanced and equipped for her profession was something she obviously was willing to pay. Despite that, the need for prostitution is highly objectionable. To become superhuman shouldn't require stooping down to such a low human activity. A true "superhero" would find ethical and productive ways to raise the money so that it can hold true to the "superhero" stereotype. However, in the end, I believe living with the best technology possible so as to perform her job adequately and productively, it is worth it.

Ben - The Modified Body

I feel that I identify most with the modified body. I do not have technology physically attached to me, as in the case of the patient with the skull cap. However, the technology that I use and depend on every day does have both physical and financial impacts. From the physical standpoint, I rely on technology to wake me up in the morning. Sometimes, this means getting up earlier than my body would otherwise. Often, I will have to get up really early in order to get in some last minute studying, which can have tremendous physical repercussions later on in the day. While technology does not directly cause the low energy, tired feeling that I feel later on during the day, my reliance on the alarm to get me up in the morning has an indirect physical impact.

Financially, it costs money to purchase and maintain the technologies that I rely on everyday. For example, I have an iPhone. An iPhone initially costs money for the device itself. Then, I have to pay for the wireless service. I rely on my iPhone for organizing my schedule and keeping up with my emails. Another example that many college students are familiar with is the laptop. I have a laptop that I rely on everyday for homework, keeping up with friends and family, and just keeping my life organized. Laptops are a major expense. There is the laptop itself, the costs of making sure that I have the most up-to-date software, and the costs of repairs and upgrades when necessary.

Competition in our world

Conceptually thinking, the idea of enhancing the body with futuristic computer chips and technologically enhanced muscles is a great thing. Who wouldn’t want to possess the same memory capacity as a computer, or the same athletic ability of a world class sprinter? But ethically and realistically thinking, it is much more complicated to transcend the metaphysical world and achieve the status of a posthuman cyborg, rather than just staying in the form of our natural bodies. By conforming to an altered state of physical being, such as the ones proposed in the article, we are essentially dehumanizing ourselves, as well as eliminating the competition that our world thrives by.
Our natural body defines who we are and what we are capable of. We are allowed to think independently and act independently of others – it’s what makes us, as a human race, unique. But what if we all had the same strength and endurance of world class athletes? What if we could all run as fast as Usain Bolt or swim as fast as Michael Phelps? One thing is for sure, the Olympics wouldn’t be as exciting. In fact, economically speaking, technological enhancements are hindering society moreso than improving it. Who would watch the Olympics if everyone were a super athlete? And if we could develop “enhanced optical devices” for everyone, what would happen to all the optometrists? And if people could no longer become injured or handicapped, what would happen to all the doctors? And what would happen to businesses if everyone had the same entrepreneurial prowess as Bill Gates? Competition suddenly goes away – we all become one common mass, rather than millions of unique individual natural bodies. Our natural body defines us, and without it, we are just flattening the bell curve of society. We will no longer be able to identify ourselves by our own mental and physical abilities, and there will be no distinguishable features from the top 95% of society or the bottom 95%. We will all become the middle 50%; nothing more, nothing less.

The Tin Man Was Right: You Can't Live Without a Heart

There is no greater feeling than being a natural human – being able to experience true emotion and joy, hardship and frustration. These feelings are such that no robotic being can simulate. Sure robotic beings can jump high and shoot rockets out of their arms, but show me a robot that has experienced the gut-wrenching feeling of heartbreak, or the joy and ecstasy of love. Emotion is the source of all creativity and want for living. Imagine being able to jump high enough to dunk a basketball, but not be able to feel the satisfaction that follows; or think of being able to soar through the air like superman, but not be able to enjoy the wind blowing through your hair. Robots have some physical abilities that would be nice to enjoy, but without emotion it is nowhere near worth it.

Movies such as The Terminator and iRobot feature robot beings that have enhanced bodies and physical capabilities. These capabilities allow them to perform at a much higher level than the average human being. However, in these movies and many like it, these beings seem to find conflict in that the fact that they are different and lack the inner workings of the average human being. They don’t possess a heart, they don’t know what it feels like to work for something, and they haven’t experienced any common satisfaction. As far as robots are portrayed in the movie industry, all they want to be is human. The greatest example is in Bicentennial Man. True satisfaction is only reached when he becomes a human being. Being a natural human is far greater than having robotic capabilities without a soul.

The Competition Between Enhancements

Although the other options sound very intriguing, I would have to side with the natural body. The option to be another body, enhanced or not, would take away the actual sense of humanity. In a way everyone would be equal. Speaking in terms of athletics and physical aspectics, the person that would be best at these would be the one who could afford the most upgrades. Competition between humans have been a joy for everyone to watch; however, with these enhancements the sense of competition would be gone. Competition has always been about one persons strive to become better give that 110%: the human factor. A machine can only go as far as 100%, but with heart a human can go above and beyond their physical limitations and achieve almost anything. With machines, this possibility is eliminated. Although their initial power would be greater than ours, humans always will be able to out-do machines. When someone goes above and beyond their limitations, they are said to have "heart." This "heart", which I interpret to be will power, would be skewed with the physical enhancements provided by machines. A machine does not think. A machine does not live. A machine does not have "heart." They are only cold, hard metal, and the only thing left is cold, hard limitations.

Enhanced Body

The human body is a amazing masterpiece of natural selection, processed, refined, and slowly evolving through a process started billions of years ago. We have a powerful brain, streamlined body, and our most useful appendage, our hands. With training our body becomes extremely powerful, capable of crippling any animal, rending steel, and pulverizing stone without fangs or claws. Yet our body is also very easily crippled as well. an average human is very weak, unable to control their own body properly, and, in the modern society very lazy. Our bodies now suffer from obesity, all sorts of sickness, and a general lack of use.

Some say that the age of powerful warriors has long past, reserved merely for athletes and soldiers. In many ways I agree, however I still feel the primal urge to progress. I want to be stronger and faster. Survival instinct, even if outdated in daily life, still tells me to be the best I can be, and to never be satisfied. To that end, I dream of a truly enhanced body. But I am not talking about drugs or a few enhancements here and there, but being able to do things I can only dream of. I want to fly into the sky, jump higher than any building, and break free of my physical limits. That is why I identify myself with the enhanced body.

The Natural Body is the Only True Body

I cannot imagine identifying with any body other than the natural one. I consider my body an integral part of my identity because my passion for sports and other physical activities often involves the use of my body. I would love to be able to run faster or jump higher, but I enjoy working on these things to improve them. It would feel like cheating to have robotic body parts that were not my own to enhance my body. How could I be proud of athleticism and sports ability that I bought rather than working to obtain? I can't even imagine considering some artificial robotic enhancement part of my body. My body is simply the human flesh and bones that I was born with.
One key exception I would consider, however, would be if a person was born with a disability or suffered some injury. I think that an artificial limb or other body part is more than acceptable in that case, and I have naught but the utmost respect for people who do not let these seemingly incapacitating conditions stop them. But other than this condition, it don't see it as morally correct for someone to attempt to enhance their body with artificial robotic parts. And regardless, the reality still remains that no matter how hard humans strive for perfection, we will always fall well short.

Identity with the Natural Body

I strongly believe that I identify with the natural body most. It is not conceptual to me to have a healthy and unmodified body be tainted by technology. A body being modified by technology is somewhat illogical. Although the natural body may be weaker than the other bodies since it does not involve the use of technology, this also makes it the strongest.

What is a body that is altered by technology? Although it is still your body who is in control. I would not want an identity where technology has more power over my body than I do. As shown with the modified body and cyberbody, the body relies on technology as a necessity. It seems somewhat frightening to me as I would be more of a machine than an actual person. I believe the natural body uses technology to a good extent and does not completely rely on it. When looking at the other bodies I ask myself many questions. Is it moral to replace a god given specimen with man made technological parts? The natural body is safe, secure and untarnished.

Au Natural

When we first received this blog topic, I was almost positive I would pick one of the three bodies that were enhanced by technology. However, after reading the article again, I have concluded that the natural body is most fitting for me. Although the lure of being one with technology sounds interesting and cool, Mischa Peters describes the three alternatives in a very cold, unsettling manner.

That being said, I still believe the advanced interaction between human and machine is very important. Technology is always improving, and we should embrace these breakthroughs by applying them to everyday life. I cannot wait for the day that computers no longer need mice or keyboards, and can instead respond to our eye movements or brain activities, similar to how computers connect to a Bluetooth device. The line must be drawn when the technology becomes an actual part of our body or an extension of our body. At first it seems tempting, but at the same time it scares me.

The Natural Body and Indentity

While reading the Exit Meat piece, I could not help but think about what comprises the human identity. This question--what is humanity?--is at the center of the article. Is our body simply an accessory to our mind? Or is it more--an integral aspect of our humanity without which we aren't a person but a machine? This question is integral to understanding whether a person should infuse technology into his or her body.

I don't have a problem, I guess, with people discarding their bodies, if they so choose, because there are many instances where such actions would make lives easier. Think about diseased patients, for example. I think that what makes us truly human is the human mind, which is something no other animals in the world share. If a person were to choose to infuse his or her body with technology, I would still regard them as human, because I think the defining aspect of humanity is the mind.

That said, I would not want to alter or lose my body to technology because I think that my body is an integral part of who I am, in an individual sense. Thus, I would like to keep the body I have now, the natural body. While speaking generally about humanity, I would be okay in principle if others thought it convenient to discard their bodies, but I would never do such a thing. I was born with this body and I feel attached to this body--it is a key element of my individual identity. And with the image of Darth Vader etched into my mind, I think I would always have second thoughts about altering my body. I like the way I am now, and I would not sacrifice my body for convenience. I am not trusting enough of technology nor inclined enough to see my identity as an individual vanish to be anything but the natural body. The way I see it, a human can keep his or her identity as a human even in an altered state--but that person will lose his or her individual identity by losing the body.

The Natural Body

After reading through the descriptions of the four different types of bodies in "Exit Meat" by Mischa Peters, I have decided I would most like to be the natural body. This body does not have any technological add-ons or modifications. However, it still has access to technology and culture without directly being connected. To me, the natural body is the most appealing. Something about combining technology directly with a body makes me uneasy. Two of the four bodies are posthuman, which is also weird to me. I would prefer to remain human with my natural body. Some may believe the natural body is inferior to the others because it is not combined with any form of technology. However, the natural body is just a simple form. It still has the ability to strengthen and be modified in the future. I would choose to be the natural body because it is the most appealing to me.

Still human…. Even if my shell is made of steel.

First off, I am making my choice under the assumption that the world I in which I make it would actually be industrially, technologically and economically be able to back up my choice. I would not buy a car if I could not have it fixed. I would not buy a mansion if I cannot afford it. I will not augment myself if the technology is not an improvement to what I relinquish. This is why while open to the idea, I would not transfer my mental sparks into a completely virtual body. Even if “the net is vast and infinite,” I feel that it would be a smaller cage than reality is. To live only in the virtual world is to be at the mercy of many gods and constant change. This I cannot see as an improvement to my condition.

With this out of the way, I will declare that I will choose to have an enhanced body. I am willing to trade every part of my flesh and allow my brain to be encased in a new shell. I hope to experience the reality that we have all grown up with and to see it again through new eyes. I would like to view the world from a metal form so that I may both satisfy and increase my curiosity of the world. By looking out from the perspective of a steel form I would like to find out if the physical shell of mankind has any true meaning. I would like to see if and how society and culture would change in a world where the soul and individuality take new meaning.

I realize that this is perhaps a minority opinion, but I do not feel horror for humanity when I look on the ideas proposed from the article and the science fiction novels. I realize that there are fears of losing our humanity. Fears that we are going too far. People feel that the overuse of technology is putting our selves at too great a risk from defects and bugs in the systems.

In order to answer these questions let me ask you questions of equal weight. because of the risks that exist in the world why should you do anything?

There are viruses and cancers and birth defects like brittle bone syndrome that we inherit without any personal say. So to say that our technology will break and destroy us is to ignore the natural defects that harm us.

To those who say that we might be going too far: “do you think that we should as both as a culture and as a society become stagnant in our ideas?” I cannot see a world lasting without progress. We have gained much from new ideas and views, but there are still problems in the world to solve. Would you really say that you are fine with how everything in the world works? I say that if we augment ourselves by personal choice than it is not too far. To those that say we will lose our humanity, I must ask a very personal question:



“What is a human?”



This I believe is the root of the fear that some of you possess on this issue. This is the question that may very well personally decide if you would let yourself trade your body for a new one. This is a very difficult question due to complex issues that can be raised. For me personally I believe that a human is an individual being with a personal system of thought and belief, able to change and grow within whatever form it manifests as. Because I’ll carry this with me into my steel shell, I will still be human.

No Strings Attached

When asked to choose which of the four proposed conceptual bodies from Mischa Peters's "exit meat" I would most like to have, the choice was obvious: the natural body. Even though the natural body is simply the body I have right now, I desire nothing more. The thought of technology doesn't really scare me that much when it is a separate entity from myself, but I do feel a little chill at the thought of technology becoming a part of my body. Like the reading says, the natural body is not any less marked by technology than any of the three other bodies, it is just separate from that technology.

I feel much more secure in my body the way it is than I would if I was dependent on technology. If technology becomes a part of my body, then do I really even have a body of my own anymore? I am not willing to give up my identity as a human being just to enhance my abilities; I am perfectly fine with the abilities that I've got. Sure it is an interesting idea to think of the possibilities of machine integrated with human, but at the end of the day I want my body exactly the way it is.

The Natural Body

If I had to choose one of the four bodies that I would most want to be, I would chose the natural body. Although the natural body may seem to be the most boring of the four choices, it is the one that I am most comfortable with for obvious reasons. I would not like the other bodies because of all the technological advances and the complications they bring. I'm not going to lie, excessive technology scares me a little bit. We as humans are already tremendously dependent on technology as it is; I do not want my own personal body to also be that dependent on machines. If you ask me, what it would take to have the one of the other three bodies is way to much of a risk and that level of risk highly outweighs the rewards.

I also question the ethical aspect of this level of technological advancement. Is it right to replace any human part of people with artificial intelligence? What if the technology malfunctioned or failed. What if human life was lost as a result of attempts to produce the other three bodies? Personally, I believe that the natural body is the safest, most ethical option.

The Enhanced Body

After getting this assignment, I was set on writing about the idea of the natural body. However, after reading through each type again, I was drawn to the enhanced body. I definitely don't identify the most with this type of body, but I feel strongly about giving my opinion on it. Personally, all of these ideas about conceptual bodies really scare me, as I am forced to look far ahead into the future that may become an entire new world with the advancement of technology. The enhanced body encompasses the merging of human and technology so far that one could not even distinguish between the two anymore. While reading this particular section, I felt disgusted that this could even be a possibility. I couldn't image why anyone would want to become so inhuman that they could live forever and fix everything wrong through technology. On the outside, living forever seems like an intriguing idea, but when thought about extensively is much more haunting. Nothing would be real anymore and we would all loose the will to live. This blurring of the lines is frightening, and I hope that it never becomes a reality.

On the other hand, however, this level of technology would "enable paralyzed patients to communicate by thought alone." (55) This notion would change so many people's lives, and give them a chance at life that they would never have had under normal circumstances. I suppose that with any amazing new discovery comes the chance to abuse those new powers. The enhanced body, overall, would bring about nothing but the destruction of our wonderful, thoughtful, and genuine population.