The Machine Stops Project-Ali M

Acquiesce the Machine!

The three primary techniques I use in this poster are Plain folks, Bandwagon, and glittering generalities. I Use Plain folks by having a normal baby be a part of the poster to make it seem that it’s normal to take this type of action because seeing a regular baby being used means it gives them the idea of also using their normal baby. Bandwagon, which is basically the sense of isolation, then triggers the fear of missing out in specific people who want to be part of some desirable group. This is depicted in the propaganda poster where ‘the Machine’ is taking care of everything in the world. This consists of children, academics for children, and new ideas for the people of this society. Glittering generalities uses appealing words and images to make the consumer more interested in buying that product. This is embellished in the indoctrination poster that was created to make people more interested in ‘the Machine.’ The words ‘trust’ and ‘reward,’ stand out in this propaganda poster, for the reason that, when people see the slogan “you can trust us,” they get reeled in by the term trust. This word is important considering the context of this situation. People have the false sense that their lives will be significantly better and easier with ‘the Machine.’ ‘Reward’ is used in this propaganda poster from the slogan “great genes mean even greater rewards” when their society sees the word ‘reward,’ they get eager to have ‘the Machine’ and have the undying desire to have the greater rewards promised in the poster. ‘Genes’ is also used in this indoctrination poster considering that The Machine Stops, talks about genes using eugenics to exterminate people with phenomenal athleticism capabilities, and this was to create a better society. Considering all this, all three primary techniques are used evidently throughout the poster and The Machine stops. 

Why E.M. Forster’s The Machine Stop’s and Andrew Stanton’s Wall-E can be seen as warnings for our future

E.M. Forster’s The Machine Stop’s, and Andrew Stanton’s Wall-E are some of the most interesting dystopian visions/stories from the past, for our generation. The story/portrayal of the future truly is incredible because of its many similarities to modern-day society. The fact that makes this story even more astounding is its release date of 1909, 113 years ago. This story becomes feels like a warning to our generation. A good portion of what E.M. predicted for the future, came to life. Such as the “blue plate” and its abilities, which is similar to our tablets, phones, and computers. So, it’s almost telling us that we are somewhat destined to leave the outer world, in some way shape, or form. The Machine Stops can almost act as a view of the future, even though it isn’t necessarily accurate, it gives us a reasonable possibility, when you look at the path of ‘making everything easier’, that humanity is taking. Many stories have the same roots, but different looking environments and characters, but the characters still play the same role. The Machine Stops is a story that takes place in the future and simply is a society that is cut off from the outer world, where each person lives in their own world, in their cell, and a lot of the technology used like a respirator, a blue plate, and self-moving furniture, etc., are all things that we have but isn’t commercially used but might be in the future. all-E is very interesting because it came out in 2008 and had a similar idea where society instead of being underground, they’re in outer space, and there is a group that wants change, who are curious, similar to how in The Machine Stops Kuno wanted to change, and there were other like him, who were already living on the surface. They both show a similar dangerous vision of the future that is like a reminder to us to avoid that, since it isn’t too far-fetched, both stories had that conclusion because of the way the world is progressing. Or as Kuno said “But Humanity, in its desire for comfort, had over-reached itself. It had exploited the riches of nature too far. Quietly and complacently, it was sinking into decadence, and progress had come to mean the progress of the Machine.” (p.23). Captain McCrea like Kuno, was looking for the truth, and wanted to share the truth with others. Before reaching the outer world (Earth), he had an argument with “auto” the captain’s co-pilot/autopilot robot. When he realized the beauties of nature that he and everyone else was missing out on, he said Earth is amazing! There are these things called farms. They put seeds in the ground, pour water on them, and they grow into food, like pizzas.” Both of these dystopian visions are connected to society because of the current direction we are headed in right now. When you look at both stories, they had to remove themselves from the outer world because of pollution, consumption, and neglect of our own environment. Even though it might seem childish at first, we don’t know what will happen when the time comes, and we make the outer world inhabitable, so looking at these two stories can be more than just stories, they could be possibilities for our future. Nothing is too far-fetched at this point, since the majority of our predecessors would have never predicted the severity of the state of our planet right now.

 

Works Cited:

How to interpret propaganda posters – History Skills

Celebrate Star Wars Day with These Sweet Propaganda Posters – Paste (pastemagazine.com)

WALLoE world | WORLD (wng.org)

Histomap: Visualizing the 4,000 Year History of Global Power (visualcapitalist.com)

Spoken Word – “Lies”

Why, 

Why is it that when a Ukrainian kid defends himself, he’s a hero, but a Palestinian, he can die. And no one bats an eye. 

Why is it that a conflict that’s been going on for decades is being trumped by one that started in our time. I mean, the media definitely lies. 

Palestine, they’ve been here for ages, but Israel came in stages, and when they commit massacres, no one ever phases. 

Just think about it a sec, let it sit in for a while, look at the magnitude of both situations and what makes them both vile 

One uses guns and bombs, one uses sticks and stones, both defending their homes, both going the full mile 

Except those on one side are described as terrorists, and on a similar side, being treated as favorites. 

I sympathize with the Ukrainians, I really do. But it’s the technology of media that changed so many views. 

Look at the Israel-Palestine crisis of 2021. Even after everything they did to Palestine in that case, there were still millions that supported them and stayed mates.  

The Gaza strip, the northwest bank, even before 2021 

the Israelis have been terrorizing ever since day one. Long before, and after the recent crisis, they still made choices similar to ISIS. 

I’m not here to just talk about the atrocities of Israel, but I’m mainly here to let you know that not everything the media tells you, is real 

Just try imagining it, you’re peacefully practicing your faith in the Mosk, and tens of Israeli soldiers raid the place. They throw tear gas canisters that fill the air with toxins. Due to the tear gas, and being in an enclosed area, you lose your vision. Your eyes, mouth and face begin to feel burning. Your chest tightens, and you start coughing, choking, and wheezing. 

Look at other examples, like the Sudan-South Sudan war, the Kurdish conflicts, etc. Just like Palestine, they’re all very similar to the Ukraine-Russia war, but most of the time, none of them get half of the attention or sympathy the world is showing for Ukraine, in these tough times. 

All I want is for the world to become more aware, aware enough to give the same sympathy to ALL nations. 

Think about it, there have been countless conflicts similar to the one with Ukraine right now, but they rarely get attention, ever thought why, maybe racism, carelessness, I’ll leave it for you to decide. 

New Media 11 – Are Social Media Platforms Neutral ? – Ali

National View: Republicans, Democrats agree: cancel the cancel culture - Duluth News Tribune | News, weather, and sports from Duluth, Minnesota

 

 

Name: Ali Mahdi                                                                                                                                                                                              Date: 2/28/2022 

 

                        Should Social Media platforms of free speech, regulate the actions of their users? 

Spotify collapsed under all the pressure and did what they disagreed with, basically, they didn’t stand their ground. Them doing this would in some way “open the floodgates” and can affect them negatively in the future. Because now, if a large group of people wants Spotify to ban someone or do what they want, they now know to just keep on annoying them and repeating to get what they want. 

A social media platform, A system for disseminating information over the Internet to a selected group of followers”. Can the owners be held responsible for the actions of those using their platform, or should they let those using their platform say what they want? On one side there’s a “Free speech at all costs” perspective people say mention that Spotify is a platform of free speech and don’t assume responsibility for their users say, so Joe Rogan for example should be able to say what he wants, which in this case Spotify would be neutral. Simply, when it comes to free speech, Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections or not.” The other side/perspective is believing that companies need to self-regulate or be regulated. In this point of view, people say that there is a point where free speech at all costs gets too far and that the owners of the platform should step in. In this case, people are saying that the rule of free speech is getting out of hand since it’s affecting other people negatively.  Some believe that this is the case with Joe Rogan and that he should he “crossed the line” with free speech, because he gets millions of views per episode, some think that he should be held accountable for him saying what he wants since his popularity gives him a power which means there are a big group of people that believe what he says blindly. But is that their fault for being ignorant, or Joe Rogan’s for saying what he wants without much of a filter? Now, we as a society are very diverse in opinions about these subjects.  

We as a society should come to realize that Spotify and other platforms like it are neutral. And that, we should follow the “free speech at any cost” side. Here’s why, if you look at the two perspectives and the situation with Joe Rogan, the free speech at any cost only makes sense, because Joe Rogan didn’t choose to have a percentage of his viewers believe his every word. The only ones that can be blamed are those being ignorant enough to believe someone’s every word, who completely disregard that his podcast is a podcast that is in the entertainment and talk show genre, which is meant for having a good time. The “Free speech at any cost” perspective doesn’t work in every case, but in this context, if social media platforms like Spotify are neutral, this perspective does make more sense. Therefore, we should all be more open to other perspectives before concluding, for future cases, rather than choosing sides right away. Ultimately the subject is a “slippery slope”. But no matter what, when it comes to the U.S.A., everyone has their right to free speech, and silencing someone like Joe Rogan, or taking down the majority of their content, would be completely going against that. Think about it, does it make sense for a platform of free speech to “regulate” and manage what their users are saying? 

What Darwin Never knew – Ali M.

Name: Ali                                                                                                                                                                                                    Date: October 18, 2021

What Darwin never knew

-How did the discovery of DNA prove that Darwin’s theory of evolution was correct? (Note: James Watson & Francis Crick, with the aid of Rosalind Franklin, discovered the structure of DNA in 1953. Charles Darwin died in 1882)?

The discovery of DNA proved his theory of Natural selection and adaptation because through the discovery of DNA, the mutation was also eventually discovered. And Darwin’s theory was proved by mutations since, he said how the animals of a certain species that had an advantageous change, like a longer neck, would prevail and survive better than the rest which led to their genes being passed on. And DNA/Mutation proves that.

-How does it change the way we view evolution today?

The discovery of DNA gives us a more in-depth, and detailed understanding of the mechanics of evolution, and how it works.  It helps us understand how mutation happens, which is the origin of Darwin’s theory. It changes how we view evolution, by showing how it happens since darwins theory explained what was happening on the outside, and the discovery of DNA explained what’s happening on the inside which made what darwin was noticing and his theory.

-How does it change the way we view and study evolution in the future?

Our studies of evolution in the future, similarly to today, will most likely have the discovery of DNA as its foundation. New discoveries will be connected and based on DNA. So his discovery will, in turn, lead to more complex and deeper discoveries in the future of DNA. It might even lead to breakthroughs that can help with diseases that are incurable at the moment, but maybe not in the future.

 

Skip to toolbar