AR, AI, & TP

I'm kinda digging this acronym thing I got going on with these titles... But that's besides the point.

Immediately, it seems pretty clear what apocalyptic rhetoric is trying to do. And that's make people more tech pessimistic... But in a strange way. According to Johnson, one of the things Killingsworth and Palmer mention as a common theme in apocalyptic rhetoric is the tendency to not directly or wholly critique the social/political/economic structures that belie technological advances (34). To illustrate this example, she talks about how Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth condemned the effects of anthropogenic global warming, but still "[relies] on the language and discoveries of science, [mentions] solutions offered by alternative technologies, and [offers] the political process as a means for repair" (35). Similarly, while I, Robot, Ex Machina, and even articles about Dick or Watson use apocalyptic rhetoric to signal a pretty awful future, they don't actually critique progressivism or sociopolitical structures/factors that allow for or contribute to technological advancements in certain areas over others.

Ultimately, however, as I mentioned before, the point of a lot of apocalyptic rhetoric is often to spark a fire and incite a brief moment of political action. Obviously, it doesn't have to; not every film or magazine article is made to be a firm political statement. But it can. Is that good, though? Do we really want action to be taken only because it was spurred by apocalyptic rhetoric?

One of the problems columnists Gross and Gilles have about apocalyptic rhetoric is its ability to make anything and everything seem like the end of the world--and therefore, they're all top priority. But realistically, not everything can be top priority, so then "top priority" often falls back to what's in the media. And the media reports on what's interesting. You know what's interesting? Epidemics. You know what's not? Climate change. Things that aren't as sensational are typically swept under the rug, even though they pose much larger threats than more "interesting"issues. Paul Glastris, a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, feels similarly. He's noticed that a budding issue with apocalyptic rhetoric is its tendency to make people feel as though these apocalyptic problems need "desperate" and extreme reactions when they merely need slight tweaks. He references comparisons of Obamacare to slavery, Obama to psychopaths, and several other examples. While not related to technology, I'd imagine it'd have the same effect in the technological sphere.

If tech pessimism is constructed at least largely in part by apocalyptic rhetoric, is it tech pessimism that can change things? Or will people be too overwhelmed by the sheer number of apocalypse-causing technologies that have arrived in the last several years? Or maybe they'll overreact, causing delays or declines in what could be very necessary technological advancements/changes? A healthy amount of skepticism for anything is healthy--you don't want to accept anything you hear as true, ESPECIALLY if it's from the media--but is this skepticism misguided? Is it just a way to oversensationalize real problems so people who are tech pessimists, and most likely to do something about the rapid advancement of technology, freeze in their tracks? Or are most tech pessimists already frozen in their tracks, and apocalyptic rhetoric is trying to convert more people to tech pessimism? Am I being insane right now?

The apocalyptic rhetoric used in various different media promotes, at the very least, a skepticism of the advancement of technology. It certainly promotes tech pessimism in films such as I, Robot and in Jennings' use of the word "overlord." Is it, however, a tech pessimism that will bring about change for those who ARE tech pessimists?

References (listed by order of reference)
Johnson, Laura. "(Environmental) Rhetorics Of Tempered Apocalypticism In 'An Inconvenient Truth.'" Rhetoric Review 28.1 (2009): 29-46. Academic Search Premier. Web.

Gross, Matthew Barrett, and Mel Gilles. "How Apocalyptic Thinking Prevents Us from Taking Political Action." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 23 Apr. 2013. Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-apocalyptic-thinking-prevents-us-from-taking-political-action/255758/>.

Glastris, Paul. "Apocalyptic Rhetoric Can Lead to Apocalyptic Politics." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 3 Aug. 2013. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/03/when-should-voters-take-a-presidential-candidate-seriously/apocalyptic-rhetoric-can-lead-to-apocalyptic-politics>.