LITR 4632: Literature of the Future

Sample Student Final Exams 2011 Essay 1

Jenn Tullos

30 June 2011

Technology: Is It Worth It?

            Supposedly, the average American now refuses to wait longer than twelve seconds for a download. In the age of technology, it is sometimes difficult to imagine we have barely brushed the surface of the possibilities science fiction portrays. However, there is no denying that technological advancements are happening faster as of late. Best Buy advertises it best with a man coming home with his brand new, top of the line TV, only to see a better one already being introduced. We are steadily advancing to new heights, but is this always for the best? It is easy to immediately say yes—any productivity must be positive. Technology can lead to greatness: such as the cancer-curing fabric in “Drapes and Folds.” However, Johnny in “Johnny Mnemonic” would probably disagree, seeing as how his brain is used as a climate-controlled storage unit. Literature shows the advantages and disadvantages to high-tech and low-tech visions of the future—advantages and disadvantages that should be carefully weighed, considering the difficulty in retracting technology once it has been developed. The literary high and low-tech visions of the future portray the possible consequences of our desires and postulate whether or not our current technological advancements are worth those results.   

            The high-tech future scenario is based solely on virtual reality. Within this future, everything is clean, sleek, fast-paced, and seemingly unreal. High-tech futures provide what we currently cannot, such as the enhanced eye implants seen in “Stone Lives,” or the permeating cleanliness depicted in “Cyberfiddle.” Because high technology is focused heavily on the gadgets and games, it tends to leave the characters and the readers unfeeling. For example, in “Cyberfiddle,” the low-tech, or “outside” as it is referred, is “dust, and a fell wind, and a scatter of malcontents, and the dilapidated leavings of some singularity or other” (159). The reader is encouraged to “begin Inside, where there is no dust at all” (159). The characters in this short story have almost no patience for Pryer when he decides to briefly abandon technology, because they see their high-tech world as perfect, while the outside is barely worth mentioning. They are so caught up in their tech-savvy world that they assume organic, old-fashioned living has nothing to offer. Technology is a great tool, but sometimes life is better when viewed more slowly. Although a high-tech vision on the future seems alluring, it is important to acknowledge the risks that couple the flashy advantages.    

                 Every reader brings a different perspective to a story, and will therefore observe various appeals or repulsions to the high-tech future vision. The main appeal to this style is the possibility it provides for human advancement. Upon discovering Stone in “Stone Lives” stoically functions sans eyes, most compassionate people enjoy the idea of his eyes being restored. It seems amazing that technology can perform miracles—until we realize that perhaps his eyes are too advanced, creating the possibility that he may not be witnessing actual reality at all, but instead a government-imposed alternative. Similarly, in “Cyberfiddle,” everything is at Pryer’s fingertips. Although he chooses to remain authentic when making his violin, the technology on the Inside questions why he does not “just have me sim the violin” (168). He does not choose to take the easy way out, however, that option is ever appealing to readers. Instead of preparing dinner each night, how much easier would it be to “sim” it? However, as Josh Hughey observes, “technology cannot make an organic world out of mechanical parts.” And that leads us to Johnny in “Johnny Mnemonic.” Clients hire him to store classified information in his mind—as if his brain were a walking, talking USB device. When the clients are ready to retrieve their information, Johnny spews it unconsciously, like a student relaying rote facts on an exam: useless and uncreative. The progression of technology in “Johnny Mnemonic” achieved nothing but trouble and pain, but the concepts are fascinating. High-tech stories appeal to a stressed and hurried group of Americans, looking for convenient advancements, despite the possible loss of human qualities. The most disturbing repulsions regarding the high-tech scenario is the loss of human contact. Generally, virtual reality occurs in isolation, the only interaction being through a video game or computer screen. Without exposure to socialization, people are subject to psychological breakdowns, losing their sense of identity without a reality warmer and more sensitive than that of pure technology. Low-tech visions of the future provide just that: a rough but real glance into the picture of humanity.

            Readers tend to be more familiar with a low-tech future scenario, as it is grounded deeply in reality as we currently know it. As we see in “Drapes and Folds” and Parable, low-tech stories are intimate and messy—they do not necessarily depict life glamorously, but instead remain true to it. Life is messy. Life is unfair. And as of now, life remains low-tech. Although low-tech literature in this class postulates the future, it shows a future not overly different from the present with which we are familiar. High-tech futures are difficult to envision because so much seems impossible, while low-tech futures do not drastically change. “Drapes and Folds” portrays technological progress: fabric that prevents cancer, regular and uniform nourishment—while maintaining a semblance of the family unit. Human emotions and priorities remain the same, as do the issues of the world. Parable is excruciatingly low-tech, with rape and murder abounding and the exploitation of their only technology: fire. This novel refuses to shy from the ugliness of a low-tech reality, making the reader aware of the potential future consequences of current actions. Low-tech visions of the future observe the idea that new technology can be integrated without the immediate loss of what makes us human, be it positive or negative.

            Human characteristics are not always positive—in fact, they are often maliciously negative. However, since Eden, we have seen that good and bad must both exist. Low-tech acknowledges this balance, bringing with it unique appeals and repulsions of its own. At times (such as the 9:00 news) a high-tech, introverted reality seems appealing, but the ultimate loss of community is not worth the unguaranteed promise of a better future. The foremost advantage of low-tech stories such as Parable and “Chocco” is the idea that humanity triumphs over technology. In Parable, Lauren is surrounded by people taking advantage of the technology of fire, using it as a drug for destruction, yet she clings to her friends for support through the struggles they face. Even the highest achievements in technology cannot replace the bond of community in times of need. True, low-tech societies may seem un-evolved or unintelligent, but I maintain a slight technological sacrifice will ultimately be more productive for the world. “Chocco” describes it best when Jon and Mikal discuss the Machine People—current Americans—and how their thirst for knowledge and technology resulted in their demise. Instead of focusing on bettering themselves technologically, the Sun People in “Chocco” expend the entirety of their energy on creating meaningful relationships with their community, resulting in a harmonious and successful future. We could learn a lot from the Sun People, recognizing technology is not everything, but that humanity will be the last remaining factor.

            With so many examples of a high-tech future, one has to wonder if that is our fate. I believe technology will continually advance—there seems to be no alternative—but I do not think we will ever lose our humanity. Perhaps this is naivety, but I would like to think that we admire compassion and socialization enough to ensure a completely high-tech future will not evolve. One cannot deny the ease or power of technology—indeed it carries many positive aspects. However, ultimately, technology is not worth the sacrifices it requires. Hopefully, we will never lose our ability to discern between the alluring high-tech possibilities and its detrimental effects. Hopefully, we will prioritize well, valuing community over isolation. And hopefully we will always maintain the goodness of the human heart: humanity.