Nicholas Carr vs Kevin Kelly
Imagine a world where the internet, electronic devices, smartphones, or any type of technology that you have ever known, did not exist. How could you live without these tools? Technology has been innovating society for the past centuries. People all around the world have been benefited by the new products that technology has to offer. It is almost impossible to imagine a society without technology. This new tech era has made communication stronger than ever and will keep improving with time. The authors Nicholas Carr and Kevin Kelly have different opinions on how technology has affected society throughout time. One point that both authors have reached to, is that people use too much technology in their daily life. …show more content…
Kelly sets up the stage for his argument by creating a scenario in where many people will be unemployed and replaced by robots. Kelly tries to make the reader feel fear of losing their job and only having the option to give it up. He engages the reader by setting up a future in where people will have many benefits when robots and machines replace human labor from many areas of work (299). Also, the author supports his argument with evidence from the 19th century, where farmers lost their agriculture job and found new industrial job (299). He tries to make the reader think the change will be a pattern from the past and that the economy would be better off with robots doing the work. Kelly assures that if robots take away the jobs that humans do not want, people will have time to reach their dreams …show more content…
The difference in convincing the reader is easy to tell. Nicholas Carr has a pessimistic approach, but he offers many points of views that can question his argument. Carr’s argument goes deeply into what technology has caused to the human brain and its way of processing information. Kevin Kelly’s essay is more persuasive than Carr’s, he avoids giving different opinions that can contradict or question his argument. Kelly has a positive outlook of the future with robots helping manage people’s lives and Carr is terrified by the idea of that happening. Kelly’s article was meant for an audience pro technology, because Kelly does not answer questions of fear that a person less enthusiastic with technology would have. He focuses on the reader thinking what he wants them to think and having a positive opinion on robots and
Imagine a world where the internet, electronic devices, smartphones, or any type of technology that you have ever known, did not exist. How could you live without these tools? Technology has been innovating society for the past centuries. People all around the world have been benefited by the new products that technology has to offer. It is almost impossible to imagine a society without technology. This new tech era has made communication stronger than ever and will keep improving with time. The authors Nicholas Carr and Kevin Kelly have different opinions on how technology has affected society throughout time. One point that both authors have reached to, is that people use too much technology in their daily life. …show more content…
Kelly sets up the stage for his argument by creating a scenario in where many people will be unemployed and replaced by robots. Kelly tries to make the reader feel fear of losing their job and only having the option to give it up. He engages the reader by setting up a future in where people will have many benefits when robots and machines replace human labor from many areas of work (299). Also, the author supports his argument with evidence from the 19th century, where farmers lost their agriculture job and found new industrial job (299). He tries to make the reader think the change will be a pattern from the past and that the economy would be better off with robots doing the work. Kelly assures that if robots take away the jobs that humans do not want, people will have time to reach their dreams …show more content…
The difference in convincing the reader is easy to tell. Nicholas Carr has a pessimistic approach, but he offers many points of views that can question his argument. Carr’s argument goes deeply into what technology has caused to the human brain and its way of processing information. Kevin Kelly’s essay is more persuasive than Carr’s, he avoids giving different opinions that can contradict or question his argument. Kelly has a positive outlook of the future with robots helping manage people’s lives and Carr is terrified by the idea of that happening. Kelly’s article was meant for an audience pro technology, because Kelly does not answer questions of fear that a person less enthusiastic with technology would have. He focuses on the reader thinking what he wants them to think and having a positive opinion on robots and