Project 3 Proposal: The Affects of Genetic Engineering on Human Life Expectancy

As a pre-medical student, I know a good deal about the human body, and take its efficiency, durability, and strength for granted. What has truly fascinated me, however, is how a complex organism like Homo sapiens only requires a simple mechanism to keep track of all of its physical traits.

When examining DNA, it is important to note that it consists of four different compounds arranged along two separate strands. To the untrained viewer, the sequence in which the compounds appear may seem arbitrary, yet as we have all learned—whether you are a science major or not—there is nothing arbitrary about the human body. Everything happens for a reason. As it turns out, the sequence in which the compounds are bound together is the secret to DNA's coding properties. With this discovery in the twentieth century, a new scientific field emerged—genetic engineering—and showed great promise. Soon after, researchers from around the globe all began innovating, and the modern practice of genetic engineering was born.

During this research project, I aim to explain how genetic engineering has affected human life expectancy. This will involve answering questions such as can genetic engineering influence life expectancy in the first place? Were there genetic engineering methods before the advent of modern technology? What are the ethical and moral concerns of this practice? Will our innovation reach a point where we can become immortal? Are there alternative means that will similarly affect life expectancy? Overall, these questions will help to develop my thoughts on genetic engineering and lead me to formulate a conclusion, yet I should say beforehand that I am already biased in my prediction of the end result. Having done research in similar areas before, I expect to see that there will be an increase in life expectancy, corresponding to the use of genetic engineering. Based on the little research I have done thus far, my prediction holds true, and it can assumed that progressive use of genetic engineering will lead to an exponential increase in human life expectancy.

As a final note, I don't expect to run into many problems during my research. In fact, unless I come across a shortage in data, I don't believe there are any other possible problems. Of course, if I do stumble upon one, I believe it will be beneficial for me to describe it in the final paper.

Annotated Bibliography

• Benetos, Athanase et. al. "Telomere Length as an Indicator of Biological Aging: The Gender Effect and Relation With Pulse Pressure and Pulse Wave Velocity." Hypertension 37.2 (2001): 381-85. Hypertension. American Heart Association, Feb. 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4epk32o>.

In this scientific study, Athanase Benetos and his team examined telomere length as a possible indicator of a human's age. It was found that telomere length is inversely correlated with a subject's age, indicating that the longer the telomere segment, the younger and perhaps even the healthier a person is. While this article includes little, if any information on genetic engineering, it does provide valuable background information on the aging process, which as noted in Leon Kass's report, is an important factor when evaluating life span.

• Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge In Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>.

Written by Lara Farrar, this article matches one of the points that I wish to investigate during my research: the possibility of man becoming immortal by merging with machines. On the contrary, the article is fairly short and only discusses the possibility of a Gibsonian style human-computer combination in the last two paragraphs. So, while I may be able to pull some information out, it may be wise for me to find another article.

• "Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.

This article explains genetic engineering at a basic level, and shows how it is used in various fields (pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.) Furthermore, it discusses the use of genetic engineering before the advent of modern science, which may prove to be a useful discussion point later on. Most importantly, however, it illustrates several pros and cons of genetic engineering. I believe that I will draw upon this article a lot when drafting my paper.

• Hodge, Russ. Genetic Engineering: Manipulating the Mechanisms of Life. New York: Facts on File, 2009. EBook.

Russ Hodge's Book begins with a broad discussion of several theories associated with genetics—Mendelian inheritance, natural selection, and evolution. While these first chapters may be useful for small amounts of research, I doubt that I will use them for broad support. In fact, I am only interested in the preceding chapters which cover genetic engineering, along with ethics and chronology. For the most part, however, the information covered in this book seems to only reiterate what Leon Kass's said in his report. So, I may replace this source during the actual drafting of the paper.

• Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.

Leon Kass outlines many ways in which a human can be modified, whether it is through invasive "genetic manipulation" or the non-invasive selection of embryos. Although the report doesn't seem to propose any new aspects of genetic engineering to write from, it instead deeply describes topics such as the aging process—perhaps the most critical element to understand when examining life expectancy. Additionally, it analyzes the moral and ethical aspects of genetic engineering that other literature may not cover.

• Thompson, Tamara. "Social Implications Of Life Extension Debated." How Far Should Science Extend the Human Lifespan? Greenhaven, 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/68wg8zk>.

This article begins with the announcement that life expectancy may increase by several decades in the near future. Yet, after this dissertation Tamara Thompson begins to describe the affects that could arise from a lengthened lifespan, including living in a world where the generation gaps were almost nonexistent and children could "be born 40 to 50 years apart." By listing all the downsides of an increase in life expectancy, this article will provide the opportunity to seek out counterpoints to discuss in my paper.

The Unabomber

Having just finished spring break, I must say that the flight back to Richmond was unbearable. It wasn't the unclean airports, mediocre food, or even the jarring turbulence that annoyed me. Frankly, being cooped up in a small seat for two hours, jostling with my neighbor for control of the arm rest, and all the while refrained from making any comfortable adjustments was enough to drive me mad. I'm sure that most of you would agree. So how does a sensible person cope during the flight? Most choose to sleep or read, or both. So sleep and read I did, slowly working my way through the unjustly assigned homework assignments until I came to "The Unabomber's Manifesto," which, due to length, I saved for last.

As mentioned above, the first thing that caught my eye was the sheer size of the document—roughly 250 paragraphs—which rivals that of most short stories. Yet, buried in the sea of words, "Ted" Kaczynski makes numerous well-thought-out points, primarily focusing on technology's detrimental affects on mankind. For instance, he claims that "drastic changes in technology...inevitably break down traditional values," which in turn lead to "the disintegration of small scale social groups." In my opinion, he is correct in coming to this assertion, because while each new communicative innovation (say texting) brings the capability of carrying on ten times the number of conversations, in the process our individuality that played such an important role in small social groups is lost. This in fact reminds me of Sven Birkert's article "Into the Electronic Millennium," where he similarly argues that through continued technological usage, we will see a "Waning of the private self."

What Birkerts and Kaczynski differ on, however, is the way in which they wish to accomplish and maintain their anti-technological revolutions. While Birkerts believes that stopping cold turkey is the best solution, Kaczynski says that in order to maintain the movement, technology must be used—primarily for communicative purposes—to a small extent. Either way, both believe that their ideas will be influential, and will bring a stop to the widespread usage of technology.

Towards the end of the manifesto, I was intrigued to look at the Unabomber's Wikipedia page. What I found shocked me. Born in '92, I was maybe 2 during the height of the bombings, and up until today, except for the occasional mention of his name, I had no idea who the Unabomber was, what his/her motives were, or how many people he/she had killed. So, looking through the paragraphs, I was shocked to see that he had killed 3 and injured 23 more. What still nags me, however, is what drove him to become a domestic terrorist? Why did he quit his job at Berkley to live in a cabin and make bombs? I suppose I will never know, but after finishing, I was glad to stand up, grab my things, and disembark from the plane.

Pitfalls of an Internet Dependent Society

What do we, or rather I, use the Internet for? I don't know how many times I've answered this question already, but once more shouldn't hurt. Aside from looking up class assignments, I utilize the Internet for just about everything: reading news updates off of MSN, watching videos from YouTube or Hulu, and browsing through Facebook—if you recall from my post "How much Facebook is too Much?," I almost always have a browser tab dedicated to the site. So, it's safe to say that I am an Internet junkie, and as a consequence, my laptop is rarely more than a few feet away. Instead of reanalyzing the symptoms of my Internet addiction as I have done in past posts, however, I think it might be interesting to subject them to the critical ideas of Sven Birkerts.

Birkerts, an essayist widely known for writing The Gutenberg Elegies, is, as Scott Stossel describes in an Atlantic Online conference, a technophobe. He doesn't own or use a computer, and certainly doesn't plan on it during his lifetime. In fact, he scorns the use of electronics altogether, stating "[cell phones, television, and computers threaten] to swamp us in an element of connectedness." While we, the members of the current generation, clearly enjoy the creativity and mobility that the Internet and other technological devices offer, it is obvious that Birkerts doesn't share our enthusiasm. But why? To cite another of Birkert's articles, "Into the Electronic Millennium," there are three ramifications —the erosion of language, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self—that he believes will emerge during the development of the "'proto-electronic' era," all of which seem to hinge on the replacement of written text by online media. Yet only his first idea can be seen as a critical judgment of our Internet dependent lives.

While we will not literally see an end to the spoken English language, Birkerts claims that increased usage of the Internet will encourage users to develop a sort of "'plainspeak.'" In cases such as this, it is suggested that syntactical elements such as wit-fast and ambiguity will be replaced by "simple linguistic pre-fab." This is what he describes as the erosion of language. In any case, it is unfortunately an accurate assault on my Internet addiction, because I often use simple sentences when typing having a conversation online. But, after all, this is because the speed at which you type literally determines whether or not your idea is heard or rather seen by the other person. So, the more easily you can sum up your ideas in a smaller sentence, the easier it will be to rapidly convey them to the other person. On the contrary, this "'plainspeak'" only stays within the boundaries of social networking sites, while in other places (here, for example) I continue to use the traditional English language, still full of imagery and irony.

So, although Sven Birkert's idea of the erosion of language strongly criticizes my use of the Internet, it is clear that I have managed to keep separate the domains in which I use "'plainspeak'" and regular English. I believe that this is the most important way to keep the erosion that Birkerts speaks of to a minimum. Yet, with the continual development of technology, who knows how long this simple precautionary measure will hold? When technological innovation ultimately destroy society?

Works Cited:

• Birkerts, Sven. "Into the Electronic Millennium." Boston Review Oct. 1991. Boston Review: A Political and Literary Forum. Boston Review, 1993. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR16.5/birkerts.html>.
• Stossel, Scott. "Is Cyberspace Destroying Society?" The Atlantic Online. The Atlantic Monthly, 30 May 1995. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/aandc/trnscrpt/birkerts.htm>.

What Does the Future Entail? Project 2 Final Draft

Contemporary authors writing on today's internet revolution, both William Gibson and Tim Wu are notable for their ideas on the current and future progress of technological innovation and cyberspace. Yet while each has written several books on the topic, their visions of the future remain drastically different. This may be due to the generation gap between each author, or the twenty years between the publishing of their two most notable novels -- Neuromancer (1984) and The Master Switch (2010), respectively. Either way, however, it is apparent that Wu has a much better conceptualization of what the future world holds.

Though Gibson wrote Neuromancer out of pure ingenuity, the future he predicts is flawed. Describing a twisted world where humans and computers have become intertwined, Gibson pushed science fiction in a direction never before thought possible. In doing so, he managed to develop a world that, in few ways, remains similar to the one we live in today. For example, the 'jacking-in' that Gibson so often illustrates can be compared to society's immersion in technology, with one important difference - we know where to draw the line between human and cyborg. While we, figuratively speaking, bind to the high-tech devices around us, I believe that this is as far as society will take us into technological development. I believe that long before we even begin considering strapping nodes to our heads, the more cautious and concerned social elites will begin questioning the morality behind giving up our human qualities in order to get the latest technological advances. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will come around and see what they are actually doing, what they are giving up, all we can hope is that it will not be too late.

Strangely Gibson also includes references to drugs, which although fairly subtle, again point to a society that he predicts will be even more defined by its drug use. For instance, on multiple occasions, Case, along with several other side characters, can be seen using 'derms', small attachable patches infused with a potent cocktail of stimulants. Yet again, what makes Gibson so sure that this is what the future holds? Why does he believe that in just a few decades, we will all be a bunch of junkies looking for our next fix?

Also noteworthy of pointing out are the artificial intelligences Wintermute and Neuromancer. By including these two super computers, it is clear that William envisioned a future where society develops an artificial being with intelligence comparable, if not superior, to our own. Today however, while we do have AI's capable of carrying a basic conversation with a user, or playing against or with someone in a first-person shooter, they are nowhere near the advanced state of Wintermute and Neuromancer. Additionally, while Gibson asserts the domination of 'console cowboys' (experienced hackers) over 'zaibatsus' such as the mighty Tessier-Ashpool family, we see no such occurrence of the common man overpowering a large company in present life. In the real world, in fact, it is quite the opposite.

More interesting, however, is the comparison of Gibson's novel to Tim Wu's The Master Switch. In his book, Wu outlines the history and development of the telephone, radio, and several other devices that have become incredibly popular in today's society. Yet, while he does an excellent job outlining each technology's successes and failures, it is his claims that make his book so interesting. When outlining each piece of innovation, for example, Wu makes sure that he ties in his central idea, 'The cycle', to show how each one has developed from an idea, to a working piece of equipment, to a monopoly on the product. He then theorizes that in the future, each monopoly will reach a point where it will begin to control what its users are able to access in terms of information, which he fears will deliver an abrupt end to net neutrality. Take for example the mighty Bell Corporation before its breakup. According to Wu, “What made bell labs partially so successful was the fact that Bell, controlling an absolute, government guaranteed monopoly -- the telephone lines -- could raise enough money, and centralize it to direct it to what it considered the most important project” (Tim Wu on the Master Switch). By directing funding to where it wanted, Bell could control what items were given resources for development, and which were denied funding and ultimately suppressed. The best example is the household answering machine, which was developed by Bell, but kept under wraps until the public was introduced to captured German versions after World War II. Afterwards, Bell began marketing the answering machine, but why did Bell engage in such covert tactics pre-release? There is no clear answer to this question, yet it can be assumed that by maintaining a hold on what the public had access to, Bell strove to prevent the further development of items that had the potential to corrupt its monopoly.  Furthermore, Wu believes, and for obvious reason, that monopolies, like Bell, are only out to produce a profit and that "It is too much to ask of any corporate entity...to be the guardian of the general economic good" (Wu 195). Thus, Bell was acting in its best interest to maintain the monopoly it had, and produce maximum revenue. Furthermore, it can be ascertained that Wu believes monopolies can and will continue to exist long into the foreseeable future.

After comparing Gibson and Wu, it is clear that while both have several points of connection to the modern world, only Wu has an accurate prediction of what the future will bring. Wu understands that big business will continue to get bigger, following a life cycle mapped out by "the cycle," disregarding the individuals it serves. Yet, if Wu's future does hold true, are we looking at a world where monopolies will continue to exploit the individual?

Sources Cited:

• Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print.
• Tim Wu on the Master Switch. Perf. Tim Wu. Youtube. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZLl4EKQis>.
• Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: the Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.

What brings us back to the screen?

By GAME.co.uk

Selling more than 3.3 million copies within the first 24 hours, Blizzard Entertainment's most recent expansion, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, jumped into the gaming market, and became the fastest-selling PC game to date (WORLD OF WARCRAFT...). With a constantly expanding user base of more than 12 million players worldwide, WOW is undoubtedly one of the more, if not most, popular computer game series in the world (World of Warcraft...). What this shows, however, is that for most, what used to just be a simple pass time, has now become an unquenchable addiction to an alternate reality. So what compels so many to play these massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG)? What keeps the over 50 million dedicated players coming back (Second Skin)?

Those two questions are easier asked than answered, because in reality it really all depends on the type of gamer. For starters, there may be some at low end jobs who are looking for ways to empower themselves, and online gaming is their solution. They feel that they can choose who they want to be, and what they want to look like, without anyone there to judge them. So, they log on several times a week to roam the virtual world, showing off their avatars -- idealistic images of themselves.

Or, a little less common than the empowering gamer, there are some looking to make a basic living off of long hours spent in front of the computer screen. Much like Julian Dibbell does in his book Play Money, some hardcore gamers will collect gold pieces (or another type of in-game currency), rare artifacts, homes, and so on, sell them on eBay, and make a quick profit, all from the comfort of their living room chair. That sounds a lot better than a typical nine-to-five, doesn't it? Yet, while it sounds easy, stories of gamers who make as much as a businessman aren't too common; the profit margins on some items are minuscule, if not nonexistent. So, in order to make the best of it, working gamers play for days on end in some cases, all so they can continue to pay the rent and keep food on the table.

This last group is the one that most people, including myself and probably many of you, fit into. We are the gamers who play solely for the entertainment, and while we don't play often -- maybe once or twice a week -- we get a lot of fun and new friends out of it. In fact, while the typical stereotype of gamers today depicts us as lonely couch potatoes that sit in front of a TV or computer screen, what many forget is that while we are there playing, there are others beside us in the virtual world, playing the exact same thing. So, in a way, playing Call of Duty creates a social scene ten times bigger than any other you could ever encounter on a small college campus.

So, while there are many types of gamers, they each have their own reasons for being drawn back to the game, whether it is to get their minds off of the real world, empower themselves, make money, or even meet new people. Yet, this brings me to one final question: If the world continues to shift towards online gaming, and people continue to devote increasing amounts of time in virtual worlds, where is the line drawn between the pass time gamer and agoraphobic addict?

Works Cited:

• Dibbell, Julian. Play Money. New York: Basic, 2006. Print.
• GAME.co.uk. World of Warcraft: Cataclysm for PC. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo Inc., 18 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/game_online/5240939484/>.
• Second Skin. Dir. Juan C. Pineiro-Escoriaza. Prod. Peter S. Brauer and Victor Pineiro-Escoriaza. By Victor Pineiro-Escoriaza. Warner Music Inc., 2008. YouTube. Pure West Films, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpYkPZC89dc>.
• "WORLD OF WARCRAFT®: CATACLYSM™ SHATTERS PC-GAME SALES RECORD." Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard Entertainment, 13 Dec. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/press/pressreleases.html?101213>.
• "World of Warcraft Cataclysm Takes PC Sales Crown." BBC News. BBC News, 14 Dec. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11991041>.

They're Smarter Than You Think

Using some much deserved free time last week, I looked through Facebook, watched a couple short videos on Hulu, and read the headlines off of MSN. Then, about twenty minutes into my surfing joy ride, I got a message from a good friend telling me to search a site called Cleverbot. Curious, I typed in the URL, and the page popped into view. Having not the slightest idea what Cleverbot was, I looked around and quickly noticed that towards the bottom of the Cleverbot webpage, two comedic warnings were posted: "Cleverbot learns from real people...use with discretion" and "Visitors never talk to a human, however convincing it is - the AI knows many topics - use ONLY WITH OVERSIGHT." Chuckling to myself, I concluded that the site was devoted to providing a simple, text-based interface between humans and a computer, so I typed a simple "what's up?" in the Google-style text box. The response and following conversation were, to my surprise, very much human.

Taken from Cleverbot.com; my words are shown in black, while Celverbot's are in blue 

After having several extensive conversations with the AI, I noticed that it had a noticeable slip up every once in a while (incoherent sentences or an illegitimate answer to my questions), but for the most part the computer's thoughts were well put together. I can't even begin to explain how impressed I am with this technology; it's amazing to think that here we are with computers that can already recognize a question proposed by the user, and provide a reasonable answer within a few moments.

Afterwards, I began to wonder just how smart this AI is in comparison to others like it. Scrolling down, I noticed a little side note underneath the conversation feed, reading "Cleverbot wins Machine Intelligence Competition 2010." To follow up on this, I decided to do a little research of my own. Similar to the infamous Turing Test mentioned in both Neuromancer and our newest book Play Money, The Machine Intelligence Competition is held annually, and allows for five teams and their artificial intelligences to compete in front of a panel of judges. The panel  will then award a prize to whichever team demonstrates the most "'progress towards an intelligent machine.'" Thus, while the Machine Intelligence Competition does not determine whether an AI can fool humans into thinking that it is another human (like the Turing Test), it does show that we have come a significant distance in the development of artificial intelligence. How far with this technology go? What will happen when computers become smarter than humans? To end with a cliché, only the future holds the answer.

Work Cited:

• Carpenter, Rollo, JabberWacky, and Icogno Existor. "Cleverbot." Cleverbot. Rollo Carpenter, 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2011. <www.cleverbot.com>.

What Does the Future Entail? Project 2 Rough Draft

Contemporary writers on today's internet revolution, both William Gibson and Tim Wu are notable for their ideas on the current and future development of technological innovation and cyberspace. Yet while each has written several books on the topic, their visions of the future remain drastically different. This may in part be due to the generation gap between each authors' birth, and the twenty years between the publishing of their two most notable novels -- Neuromancer and The Master Switch, respectively. Either way, it is apparent that Wu and Gibson believe in two different futures, ultimately leading us to question 'who, if either, is accurate in their predictions?'

Written before the advent of the public internet, Gibson wrote Neuromancer out of pure genius alone. Describing a twisted world where humans and computers have become intertwined, Gibson pushed science fiction in a direction never before thought possible. Yet in doing so, he managed to develop a world that, in a few ways, remains similar to the one we live in today. For example, the 'jacking-in' that William so often illustrates can be compared to society's immersion in technology -- cell phones in particular -- where we, figuratively speaking, bind to the high-tech devices around us. So adapt have today's youth become to the modern cell phone's capabilities, that many use them with the expertise of a skilled multi-tasker, even when driving seventy miles per hour down the highway. Also noteworthy for comparison are Gibson's inclusion of drug references, which although fairly subtle, again point to a society that he predicts will be even more defined by its drug use. For instance, on multiple occasions, Case, along with several other side characters, can be seen using 'derms', small attachable patches infused with a potent cocktail of stimulants. While it seems strange that an author would include such explicit references, it does add some personality to the characters, making them seem more human. On the contrary, aside from these two references, the majority of Neuromancer focuses on ideas and events that have yet to occur. Thus, while these examples show that Gibson was on the right track when writing his novel, he did not drive far enough with some of his assertions, and fell short with some of his futuristic predictions.

Take for example the artificial intelligences portrayed: Wintermute and Neuromancer. By including these two super computers, it is clear that William envisioned a future where society will have developed an artificial being with intelligence comparable, if not superior, to our own. Today however, while we do have AI's capable of carrying a basic conversation with a user, or playing against or with someone in a first-person shooter, they are nowhere near the advanced state of Wintermute and Neuromancer, as Gibson portrays. Additionally, while Gibson asserts the domination of 'console cowboys' (experienced hackers) over 'zaibatsus' such as the mighty Tessier-Ashpool family, we see no such occurrence of the common man overpowering a large company in present life.

More interesting, however, is the comparison of Gibson's novel to Tim Wu's The Master Switch. In his book, Wu outlines the history and development of the telephone, radio, and several other devices that have become incredibly popular in today's society. Yet, while he does an excellent job outlining each technology's successes and failures, it is his claims that make his book so interesting. When outlining each piece of innovation, for example, Wu makes sure that he ties in his central idea, 'The cycle', to show how each one has developed from an idea, to a working piece of equipment, to a monopoly on the product. He then theorizes that in the future, each monopoly will reach a point where it will begin to control what its users are able to access in terms of information, which he fears will deliver an abrupt end to net neutrality. Take for example the mighty Bell Corporation before its breakup. According to Wu, “What made bell labs partially so successful was the fact that Bell, controlling an absolute, government guaranteed monopoly -- the telephone lines -- could raise enough money, and centralize it to direct it to what it considered the most important project” (Tim Wu on the Master Switch). By directing funding to where it wanted, Bell could control what items were given resources for development, and which were denied funding and ultimately suppressed. The best example is the household answering machine, which was developed by Bell, but kept under wraps until the public was introduced to captured German versions after World War II. Afterwards, Bell began marketing the answering machine, but before the release of the German versions, why did Bell engage in such covert tactics? There is no clear answer to this question, yet it can be assumed that by maintaining a hold on what the public had access to, Bell strove to prevent the further development of items that had the potential to corrupt its monopoly.  Furthermore, Wu believes, and for obvious reason, that monopolies, like Bell, are only out produce a profit and that "It is too much to ask of any corporate entity -- pace Theodore Vail -- to be the guardian of the general economic good" (Wu 195). Thus, Bell was acting in its best interest to maintain the monopoly it had, and produce maximum revenue. Furthermore, it can be ascertained that Wu believes monopolies can and will continue to exist long into the foreseeable future.

After comparing Gibson and Wu, it is clear that while both have several points of connection to the modern world, only Wu provides an accurate depiction of what the future will and has brought. On the contrary, while Gibson's model has thus far proven to be incorrect, it can be used as a model to show the consequences of a world where we are no longer 'human,' but a combination of flesh and silicon.

Sources Cited:

• Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace, 1984. Print.
• Tim Wu on the Master Switch. Perf. Tim Wu. Youtube. 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZLl4EKQis>.
• Wu, Tim. The Master Switch: the Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Print.