These are totally random and written in about 3 minutes each, so don't take them as my best work.
Writing Assignment #2
Could you be enslaved? Why, or why not and under what conditions? How do our attitudes toward slavery differ from those who lived before the Enlightenment?I think the question needs to be rephrased. Could you be enslaved? Yes, I could. Quite easily, I'm not very strong and probably couldn't put up much of a fight. The very nature of the question leaves no course of contrary action for the enslavee. They must do as the enslaver dictates; if someone wanted to enslave you, you have no choice. Now, if the question was “Do you think you would be able to cope with being enslaved?” That is another matter entirely.
Do I think I could cope with being enslaved? I don’t think I could. My spirit is too free and my personality too stubborn to be able to be submissive to a master. Historically, slaves were not treated well. The women were used as chattel to breed future slaves. They were paired up with random men and were forced to carry their babies. Upon delivery, the babies were ripped out of their mother’s arms and either branded and put to work in the fields as soon as they were ready, or sold and sent down the river to live and serve another slavery owner.
Under what conditions could I cope with being enslaved? Some slavery owners were kinder to their slaves, teaching them to read and learn to do math. Some took care of their slaves when they were sick and allowed them to marry and have Sundays off. This is the type of condition I would have to be in in order to cope with slavery. I think I would like to be a house slave. You get to wear nicer clothes and stay out of the fields. You’re more likely to endear your master to you, and have them teach you letters and numbers. You get to wear shoes and eat the leftovers from fancy meals, instead of the pig slop they feed the field slaves. You might be resented by the field slaves, though, so that wouldn’t be as easy as I think.
Our attitudes toward slavery are quite different from those who lived before the Enlightenment. I’m assuming the question refers to the Emancipation Proclamation. If so, then before the Emancipation Proclamation, people thought owning slaves was fine. Many of this nation’s founders owned slaves. It was thought to set you apart from the common man, owning another human being was a mark of aristocracy and wealth. Now it is a mark of barbarity and cruelty. In the bible, some people owned slaves or servants, and this was thought of as acceptable. It didn’t matter whether you treated your slaves nicely or beat them every night like criminals. They were yours. You most likely received them as spoils of war with a neighboring country, or bought them from child enslavers who went around the country picking up stray children and forcing them into bondage. You were responsible for clothing and feeding your slaves, but no one talked about how you treated them otherwise. I don’t think I could be a slave in the bible. It seems like times were worse then than they were in the
I’ve read many books that involve slavery, and I’m not sure that I could ever be enslaved for very long. The people in the books seemed to have to destroy a part of themselves, a part of their soul in order to succumb to the hatred and condescension from their masters. They became literally like beasts of burden; they kept their heads down and did the work that was assigned to them, but no more. Today we see people in business going far above what is asked of them in order to succeed. But there is no succeeding for a slave. You don’t get promoted or treated better because you work harder. You don’t get any perks for overachieving. No, I don’t think I could cope with being enslaved. A strong spirit and a desire to speak my opinion would soon get me killed, if not sold to another family.
WRITING ASSIGNMENT #3
Transport yourself into the 21 c. when the world has experienced another ‘industrial revolution’. Inexpensive replicators, with the push of a button, can cheaply produce anything out of heaped recycled materials. What social changes do you imagine would accompany such a transformation in economic production?
In thinking about the assignment I immediately decided that if this was to happen, the wealthy people of the world would find some way to make the replicator too expensive for the common people to have. Even though it can cheaply product anything out of recycled materials, they would make one component of the machine too expensive for any middle class or poor person to afford. This is called capitalism. If everything suddenly became inexpensive, the economy would plummet and money would be next to worthless. Rich and poor wouldn’t mean anything anymore.
I don’t think it would be a good thing if everyone in the world suddenly had access to any material possession they desired at the touch of a button. People are selfish and greedy. I don’t think there is one person on the earth who wouldn’t abuse the privilege if given the chance.
I’m a little confused by the question. If this replicator can produce anything with the touch of a button, what would be the point of jobs anymore? Would it produce any CD of music you want to listen to? I think artists would still have jobs, because a machine may be able to replicate a work of art that has already been produced, but it wouldn’t be able to produce an original work. Humans would still need to produce songs, paintings, poetry. There would still be clothing designers coming out with styles and patterns heretofore unseen in this world. The machine is a “replicator” and therefore able to replicate something, but it’s not an “originator” and couldn’t design brand new objects. So some people would still have jobs, but not everyone. Manufacturers would be out of a job (the replicator manufacturer who made the first one would be rich, after that, the replicator can make more replicators), but the shipping companies would probably still have fruitful lives. They would ship replicators out to everyone, most likely raising the shipping costs exorbitantly because no matter how many trucks you replicate, you can’t make them run without gasoline and personnel.
Things like gasoline would be very cheap compared to now, which would plunge the Middle East into poverty, but that would be ok because everyone there would get a replicator and would have plenty to eat, to wear, to read, etc. This is actually an interesting question, almost one of the Law of Consecration. If material possessions cost no money, what would we all do? If all of our needs are provided for at a negligent cost then we can stop worrying about buying the $150 pair of jeans to look cool. Capitalism would die, we’d all live a more Communistic lifestyle, and people can finally stop worrying about whether they are better than other people. Inventions would most likely be slower to come out, though, as people wouldn’t see a need other than for the good of mankind. I think the world would be much worse off if these replicators were a reality.





