Talking, Walking Objects

TALKING, WALKING OBJECTS 1

Talking,Walking Objects

Fromreading the article walking, talking objects by Carla Diana asprinted in the New York Times Newspaper, one starts to ask questionslike: what is the meaning of being human? How does the art oftechnology approach the art of being human? How do human beingsapproach technology? And finally, where is the line betweentechnology and human drawn? The author of the article, Carla Diana,in her opinion perceive that not only do human beings createtechnology, however, she also possesses the notion that human beingssubsequently exhibit pillars through which during the process ofevolution they too become part of the technology itself.

Theworld is a blend of technological outburst, a core of significantrevolution, perspectives and exceptional dreams and promises, this isa deduction from Diana’s piece. In this context of humanoid race,where comes the technology? Diana commences her article by sharingher personal technological experience with the reader. She gives outan a good example of a great project that she thinks has the capacityto change the way in which human beings perceive robots. She succeedsin using Ethos as a means of persuading the audience, this she doesas she indicates that she is also a specialist in the world ofrobotics and even designed Simon at one point of her career. She usescredibility to convince the reader as she has a real connection inthe robotics world. By her introduction of Simon, she is preciselydirecting the audience to her already chosen the path of argument.She uses vivid description to capture the attitude and mind of thereader. By doing so the reader obtains the capacity to visualizeabout the whole thing, this is when she says talks of Simon as givingher a casual hand wave, a deep eye gaze and even a coy head nod.

Onemight think it is a living person being described.This is asuccessful use of pathos to captivate attention. This is because sheinflicts emotion in her writing as a means of connecting with theaudience. To further sustain her assertion, the writer uses instancesfrom daily contact with technology. In her statement, she writes ofthe acceleration in technological changes which she perceives asbeing nothing but just a regular inevitable shock which is to lead toan informational discharge. She states that this is meant toestablish resilient ties between social environment and technology.Later in the statement, she provides more details which are specificon the way technology is already a complex and consistent part of thedaily living. So as to deliver a superior sense of claim to thereader, she argues with reasons like the change in the wayproduction, broadcasting and consumption of information takes place.Similarly, she appeals to the high responsibility and morality aperson ought to possess in the use of a high technological level.

Technologicalapparatuses are subject of elementary principles and rules that humanneed to comprehend. Even though there is a chance that the approachmight exhibit some sort of rigidity at the start, it unlocks a hugeground of alternative use. It is precisely this gap between techniqueand power that explains and illustrates the need of using a moresuperior technology, which Diana proposes and supports. Technologicaleducation is required for technological products- this one instanceof how the she thinks technology should be approached. In her claim,she raises up what technological entails and the approach to befollowed so as it is attained, this can be said to be a logicalargument.

Inthe article there is a belief that there ought to be comprehension oftechnology as an improvement in effort, in multiplying, in extendingand in developing senses. Technological undertakings are notinconsistent and contrary to nature. This point is illuminated whenthe article demonstrates this discrepancy as a flop to approach newtechnological mentality. With the skills the writer puts to task, itis easy to note that the idea being driven is that in order for thehuman race to live an easy life they should turn to technology,however there is need for an understanding level Diana considerssuperior.

Thisis to ensure maintenance of balance between the relationship ofhumanity and technology. From an early stage, it is quite easy forthe reader to tell where the argument is to lead to. The audiencegrasps a better sense of the article’s assertion when it describesthe human approach of technology and the manner in which futureproduces are a mere response of the day-to-day wants, just someupgraded version of objects that have already been established.Beinghuman is relative- this argument implies that there is nothing morelike human. Even with the ideas, thoughts and promises in placeeveryone still became humanoid. The entire life of a human can bedescribed like a cruel circle of improvement and research andtechnology possesses the answering key.

Itis very viable to deduct that the target audience of Diana’sargument is characterized by readers of the New York Times who can besaid to be of high intellect thus already possess a sense oftechnological advancement and subsequently want to experience atechnological evolution perspective of a future which is welldefined. In conclusion, the writer succeeds in creating an emotionalconnection with her audience through her style of persuasion whichinvolves the use of vivid description.

Reference

Carla,D. January 27, 2013.Talking,Walking Objects.TheNew York Times.