# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit  451 Ray Bradbury uses the advancements in technology to show how society is dependent on machines instead of real human work. Looking at the research today it has been proven that people are losing their jobs to robots.

# data[].attributes.body
The video shows robots doing different jobs like flipping burgers, or a robot that can open a house door. Its basically showing the advancements in todays technology and how it can be a "good thing".

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Cal shows how he doesnt have social media and he significantly happier. He claims that social media makes people unhappy, and that you should just get rid of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quit social media | Dr. Cal Newport | TEDxTysons

# data[].attributes.body
The picture shows how kids today play with ipads and iphones instead of playing with eachother and interacting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Question(s)

1. Which comic device do you think cartoonist Gary Varvel uses to illustrate his main idea?
a) hyperbole
b) irony
c) understatement
d) satire
e) caricature

2. Explain cartoonist Gary Varvel's intended meaning.

3. What is your reaction to Mr. Varvel's cartoon? (Is is accurate? Is this funny or distressing? Sentiment is defined as: a view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an attitude or opinion. Do you agree with his sentiment?)
Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the answers.
Answer(s)

1. b) irony - when the opposite of what you expect to happen occurs. The sign leads you to believe you will see children playing in the playground or playing some type of game. Instead they are playing on their electronic devices.
The cartoonist did not use:
hyperbole - An extreme magnification or exaggeration of actuality. It blows something completely out of proportion for a distorted effect. The purpose of hyperbole is to create a larger-than-life effect and overly stress a specific point. (Used as a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in "I could sleep for a year" or "This book weighs a ton")

understatement - A figure of speech in which statements are purposely understated. It may be used to indicate the speaker's nonchalance (or obliviousness) regarding an often important or otherwise remarkable situation. It often results in irony where, for instance, the speaker's response to an event does not match how the viewer expects the speaker to react.

satire - satire is defined as: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

caricature - A description or characterization that exaggerates or distorts a character's prominent features, usually for purposes of mockery. For example, a cartoon of a gaunt Abraham Lincoln with a giant top hat, a very scraggly beard, and sunken eyes could be considered a caricature.

2. The phrase "Children Playing" is associated with physical activity: running, jumping, playing ball or some type of outdoor game. The phrase "Children Playing" has taken on a new meaning with the emergence of tablets and other hand-held game devices. Now children play by sitting staring at a screen.

3. Opinion question. Answers vary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Question(s) 1. Which comic device do you think cartoonist Gary Varvel uses to illustrate his main idea? a) hyperbole b) irony c) understatement d) satire e) caricature 2. Explain cartoonist Gary Varvel's intended meaning. 3. What is your reaction to Mr. Varvel's cartoon? (Is is accurate? Is this funny or distressing?

# data[].attributes.body
The picture is saying how we feed our ego with likes we get from different social medias. Sometimes people ffeel bad about themselves just because one of their pictures doesnt get enough likes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
65 Satirical Illustrations Show Our Addiction To Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Art is often a mirror, reflecting the social issues and problems of the day. With the rise of ubiquitous Internet, smart phones, and other Internet enabled devi

# data[].attributes.body
The picture shows how people dont realize whats going in the real world because they are on their phones 24/7.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tweet, Tweet: Satire, Social Media, and Rampant (Dis)Connection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's funny how when you're asked to find an image you like, you freeze. The internet is full of images, and Facebook buries me in new ones d...

# data[].attributes.body
People get so addicted to their phones or any technology, that they mediforically fall into a hole that they cant escape. Its all about how instead of enjoying real life, they enjoy the virtual world on their phones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media Addiction – Les illustrations satiriques de Brecht Vandenbroucke

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
L'illustrateur belge Brecht Vandenbroucke s'amuse à mettre en scène notre addiction aux réseaux sociaux, aux smartphones et à la vie ultra-connectée avec

# data[].attributes.body
The picture shows how people are creating robots and new technology to take peoples jobs. So more people are becoming unemployed because of this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Once the Luddites had been suppressed, the Industrial Revolution resumed its course and, over the ensuing two centuries, proved the most effective wealth-creating force ever devised by man. So it is easy to say the authorities were on the right side of history and the Luddites on the wrong one. But note that this is based on the assumption that individual sacrifice in the present-in the form of lost jobs and crafts-is necessary for the mechanized future. Even if this were true, there is a dangerous whiff of totalitarianism in the assumption.

Neo-Luddism began to emerge in the postwar period. First, the power of nuclear weapons made it clear to everybody that our machines could now put everybody out of work for ever by the simple expedient of killing them and, second, in the 1980s and 1990s it became apparent that new computer technologies had the power to change our lives completely.

Thomas Pynchon, in a brilliant essay for The New York Times in 1984-he noted the resonance of the year-responded to the first new threat and, through literature, revitalized the idea of the machine as enemy. "So, in the science fiction of the Atomic Age and the cold war, we see the Luddite impulse to deny the machine taking a different direction. The hardware angle got de-emphasized in favour of more humanistic concerns-exotic cultural evolutions and social scenarios, paradoxes and games with space/time, wild philosophical questions-most of it sharing, as the critical literature has amply discussed, a definition of 'human' as particularly distinguished from 'machine'."

In 1992, Neil Postman, in his book Technopoly, rehabilitated the Luddites in response to the threat from computers: "The term 'Luddite' has come to mean an almost childish and certainly naive opposition to technology. But the historical Luddites were neither childish nor naive. They were people trying desperately to preserve whatever rights, privileges, laws, and customs had given them justice in the older world-view."

Underpinning such thoughts was the fear that there was a malign convergence-perhaps even a conspiracy-at work. In 1961, even President Eisenhower warned of the anti-democratic power of the "military-industrial complex." In 1967 Lewis Mumford spoke presciently of the possibility of a "mega-machine" that would result from "the convergence of science, technics, and political power." Pynchon picked up the theme: "If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will come-you heard it here first-when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology, and robotics all converge. Oboy."

The possibility is with us still in Silicon Valley's earnest faith in the Singularity-the moment, possibly to come in 2045, when we build our last machine, a super-intelligent computer that will solve all our problems and enslave or kill or save us. Such things are true only to the extent to which they are believed-and, in the Valley, this is believed, widely.

Environmentalists were obvious allies of neo-Luddism-adding global warming as a third threat to the list-and globalism, with its tendency to destroy distinctively local and cherished ways of life, was an obvious enemy. In recent decades, writers such as Chellis Glendinning, Langdon Winner, and Jerry Mander have elevated the entire package into a comprehensive rhetoric of dissent from the direction in which the world is going. Winner wrote of Luddism as an "epistemological technology." He added: "The method of carefully and deliberately dismantling technologies, epistemological Luddism, if you will, is one way of recovering the buried substance upon which our civilisation rests. Once unearthed, that substance could again be scrutinised, criticised, and judged."

It was all very exciting, but then another academic rained on all their parades. His name was Ted Kaczynski, although he is more widely known as the Unabomber. In the name of his own brand of neo-Luddism, Kaczynski's bombs killed three people and injured many more in a campaign that ran from 1978-95. His 1995 manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," said: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race," and called for a global revolution against the conformity imposed by technology.

The lesson of the Unabomber was that radical dissent can become a form of psychosis and, in doing so, undermine the dissenters' legitimate arguments. It is an old lesson and it is seldom learned. The British Dark Mountain Project (dark-mountain.net), for instance, is "a network of writers, artists, and thinkers who have stopped believing the stories our civilisation tells itself." They advocate "uncivilisation" in writing and art-an attempt "to stand outside the human bubble and see us as we are: highly evolved apes with an array of talents and abilities which we are unleashing without sufficient thought, control, compassion or intelligence." This may be true, but uncivilising ourselves to express this truth threatens to create many more corpses than ever dreamed of by even the Unabomber.

Obviously, if neo-Luddism is conceived of in psychotic or apocalyptic terms, it is of no use to anybody and could prove very dangerous. But if it is conceived of as a critical engagement with technology, it could be useful and essential. So far, this critical engagement has been limited for two reasons. First, there is the belief-it is actually a superstition-in progress as an inevitable and benign outcome of free-market economics. Second, there is the extraordinary power of the technology companies to hypnotise us with their gadgets. Since 1997 the first belief has found justification in a management theory that bizarrely, upon closer examination, turns out to be the mirror image of Luddism. That was the year in which Clayton Christensen published The Innovator's Dilemma, judged by The Economist to be one of the most important business books ever written. Christensen launched the craze for "disruption." Many other books followed and many management courses were infected. Jill Lepore reported in the New Yorker in June that "this fall, the University of Southern California is opening a new program: 'The degree is in disruption,' the university announced." And back at Forbes it is announced with glee that we have gone beyond disruptive innovation into a new phase of "devastating innovation."

It is all, as Lepore shows in her article, nonsense. Christensen's idea was simply that innovation by established companies to satisfy customers would be undermined by the disruptive innovation of market newcomers. It was a new version of Henry Ford and Steve Jobs's view that it was pointless asking customers what they want; the point was to show them what they wanted. It was nonsense because, Lepore says, it was only true for a few, carefully chosen case histories over very short time frames. The point was made even better by Christensen himself when, in 2007, he made the confident prediction that Apple's new iPhone would fail.

Nevertheless, disruption still grips the business imagination, perhaps because it sounds so exciting. In Luddism you smash the employer's machines; in disruption theory you smash the competitor's. The extremity of disruptive theory provides an accidental justification for extreme Luddism. Yet still, technocratic propaganda routinely uses the vocabulary of disruption theory.

Meanwhile in the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a very neo-Luddite column that questioned the consoling belief that education would somehow solve the probem of the destruction of jobs by technology. "Today, however, a much darker picture of the effects of technology on labour is emerging. In this picture, highly educated workers are as likely as less educated workers to find themselves displaced and devalued, and pushing for more education may create as many problems as it solves."

In other words-against all the education boosters from Tony Blair onwards-you can't learn yourself into the future, because it is already owned by others, primarily the technocracy. But it is expert dissidents from within the technocracy who are more useful for moderate neo-Luddites. In 2000, Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems and a huge figure in computing history, broke ranks with an article for Wired entitled "Why the future doesn't need us." He saw that many of the dreams of Silicon Valley would either lead to, or deliberately include, termination of the human species. They still do-believers in the Singularity look forward to it as a moment when we will transcend our biological condition.

"Given the incredible power of these new technologies," Joy wrote, "shouldn't we be asking how we can best coexist with them? And if our own extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn't we proceed with great caution?"

Finally, there is Jaron Lanier, one of the creators of virtual reality, who lost faith in the direction technology was taking when his beloved music industry was eviscerated by the destruction of jobs that followed the arrival of downloading. Why, he repeatedly asks in books such as You Are Not a Gadget, should we design machines that lower the quality of things? This wasn't what the internet was supposed to do.

Moderate neo-Luddism involves critical scepticism about the claims by the makers of the new machines and even more critical scepticism about the societies-primarily Silicon Valley-from which these anti-human ideas spring. At least now there is a TV satirical comedy about the place-HBO's Silicon Valley -which will spread the news that the technocracy consists of very strange people who are, indeed, capable of building "machinery hurtful to Commonality." The running joke in the first episode was about the way the technocrats always claim to be working to make a better world. As if.

Luddite laughter is a start. But there's a long way to go before the technology beast is tamed. For the moment, you still may lose your job to a machine; but at least you can go down feeling and thinking-computers can't do either.

This article originally appeared in the New Statesman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The New Luddites: Why Former Digital Prophets Are Turning Against Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Very few of us can be sure that our jobs will not, in the near future, be done by machines. We know about cars built by robots, cashpoints replacing bank tellers, ticket dispensers replacing train staff, self-service checkouts replacing supermarket staff, tele­phone operators replaced by "call trees," and so on.

# data[].attributes.body
In Ray Bradbury's book Fahrenheit 451 the people in their society have a bunch of advanced technology such as a “Mechanical Hound” or “Seashells”. Most of their technology is named after something in nature. For example, the “Seashells” are little transmitters in their ears that can connect to the radio, or can work like a technology. Their society uses these names to cover up how they are so reliant on technology. The government is trying to relinquish the suspicion of people like Guy Montag, and are using different names to do so. In the boo Faber gives Montag a seashell so he can listen to Faber's advice. “It looks like a Seashell Radio. And something more! It listens! If you put it in your ear Montag, I can sit comfortably in my house warming my frightened bones, and hear and analyze the fireman's world….”(Bradbury 87). The Seashell is a advanced piece of technology, and most people in Fahrenheit 451 use it to listen to the radio or to play music. Faber and Montag are taking advantage of this and using it to help Montags journey in reintroducing American Literature. “And in her ears the little Seashell, the thimble radios tamped tight, and an electronic ocean of sound, of music and talk…”(Bradbury 10). In the book it indirectly shows how Mildred is in a trance with her earbuds, and the Walls. Those things are ruining their relationships. The government knows that these pieces are ruining lives so they take nice “Nature” names and give it to them to hide them.

# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit 451 there is a fake dog called the “mechanical hound”, its made up of metal and it has 8 legs and is supposed to hunt people down who read books. “Light flickered on bits of ruby glass and on sensitive capillary hairs in the nylon brushed nostrils of the creature that quivered gently, gently its eight legs spidered under it on rubber-padded paws.”(Bradbury 22).  The hound can symbolize a police officer in way because usually policemen are the ones to track people down if they break the laws. The hound is replacing the policemen by  doing their jobs for them. Even though it doesn't directly tell us, we know that this is happening to more and more  people because in the  book it says “Montag reached inside the parlor wall and pulled the main switch. The images drained away, as if the water had been let from a gigantic crystal bowl of hysterical fish. The three women turned slowly and looked with unconcealed irritation and then dislike at Montag.”(Bradbury 90), so if the women are getting really irritated when Montag turns off the Wall, it's clear that they spend a lot of time watching TV.  Since everyone is addicted to watching TV that means they don't have jobs because they spend all of their time watching television. The “Wall” symbolizes a robot taking away other people's jobs. Everyone in their society spends almost all day watching TV programs that they don't even go to their jobs anymore. The only job the book mentions is the firemen. The author could have done this because it shows that society's main concern is burning the books, and it's the only job people need, because technology can do everything else.

# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit 451 there are many references to how society is very dependent of the technology they use. Right in the beginning the book says “Someone--the door---why doesn't the door-voice tell us---. I shut it off.”(Bradbury 68). You can clearly see how flustered Mildred gets because she's used to the door telling her who the people are. She's in a clear state of panic just because of a piece of technology not working. Also when Montag was looking at the Mechanical Hound, and it started growling he got scared and instantly touched the pole and it brought him to safety. “He saw the silver needle extend upon the air an inch, pull back, extend, pull back. The growl simmered in the beast it looked at him. Montag backed up. The Hound took a step from its kennel. Montag grabbed the brass pole with one hand. The pole, reacting, slid upward, and took him through the ceiling, quietly.”(Bradbury 23). The quote shows how montag relied on the pole to save him. He didn't even have to think about it he just touched the pole and it moved him. The “Wall TV” can symbolize entrapment and brainwashing of people. For example, with the quote I used earlier when Mildred got upset at the TV being turned off, her and her friend looked like they were in a kind of trance with the TV. Even if Montag asks Mildred a question she wont answer and just stares at the TV and waits for him to ask again. Montag is one of the only people who isn't obsessed with technology and is very skeptical about how their society is ruining the world.

# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit 451 technology is replacing jobs of people, just like the “Mechanical Hound” can replace the police in their world. It's a fact that more than 70%  of humans are scared that robots one day will take over the jobs of many humans (Solon). At one point people were scared of people from foreign countries taking their jobs. Now I don't think people are realizing how serious it is that machines are replacing them because everyone thinks it so cool. Although money does have a factor in this, and article on how robots put our jobs at risk says "It's cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who's inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries.” (Today). More complex jobs like being a surgeon or a particle physicist are harder to replace with technology, because those professions need a unique form of thinking that machines just don't have. A new thing engineers have built is a robot that can come to your house and open your door (Rajan). This machine can replace many jobs such as mailmans, and pizza delivery boys. This can be bad because most young adults use these jobs as a way to make money for college or other important things, so if robots are replacing this the kids aren't getting the sufficient payment they might need. Robots are replacing people at fast food places now, you can order from a machine as certain restaurants. “ When we walked into McDonalds an attractive women in a suit greeted us and said, “Are you planning to visit the play area tonight?” The kids screamed, Yeah! “McDonalds has a new system that you can use to order your food right in the play area.”” (Marshall Brain). This brings me back to how society is turning into Fahrenheit 451, soon the people who are losing jobs in our society will resort to not wanting to work anymore and stay at home.

# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit 451 Mildred and Montag's relationship is breaking apart because of Mildreds use of technology. In our society we are so addicted to the technology we have, and it affects our behavior towards each other. “As more and more adults from older generations are starting to utilize social networks to stay connected with their friends and families.” (Social). Social media does have some positive things to it, like broadcasting news worldwide, or it can help people express themselves. But with positives there are negatives, for example people become addicted to their technology, and that can affect human social interaction. Everyone wants to know the news going on anywhere but what’s going on right next to them. “Symptoms of anxiety, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder can be triggered by the overuse of social media, as individuals are constantly concerned about their posts and communicating with others.” (Social). The main social media app everyone is talking about is Facebook. Facebook is an app where you can see all of your friends posts and posts they have liked. The main issue with Facebook is communication. “people no longer feel the need to communicate in a more typical human fashion -- talking to each other, either on the phone or in real life.” (Purewal). Nowadays instead of confronting a person about what they did “wrong” to you people hide behind Facebook and say what they have to say without talking to a person’s face. This causes some people to become unhappy with each other, and in the long run can make everyone unhappy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Social Media is Making the World Unhappy

# data[].attributes.subject
Social Media is Making the World Unhappy

# data[].attributes.body
In Fahrenheit 451 you can sense the dull, almost miserable like feel from the society. This can be caused by how unhappy people are because of how they are living. They are controlled by technology just like we are. “One study a few years ago found that Facebook use was linked to both less moment-to-moment happiness and less life satisfaction—the more people used Facebook in a day, the more these two variables dropped off.” (Forbes). Some people can fall into depressions because they aren't getting enough likes on their posts, or people are writing rude comments. The people who become most affected by this are teenagers or young adults. We are so caught up trying to be like other people because we think it will make ourselves happy. “Social media also causes many young adults to compare themselves to others and envy a life that may not be attainable since many brands and individuals only share a small percentage of their lives online.” (Social). This generation will grow up to lead and control the nation, but with social media running us we can be the downfall of our own society. Most people blame social media apps for ruining the world and there are some positives, but people forget that we control social media, and we can stop it. People let technology run them, but they have complete control over if they let social media make them happy or not. “It is up to us to decide how we view social media and how we allow social networking to either benefit or harm our lives.” (Social). It's up to the leaders today to stop our world from being controlled by likes, or comments.