Lesson Report:
Title
Dystopias, Optimism, and Writing Clearly: Huxley vs. Kurzweil and Crafting Strong Essays
The class contrasted two visions of technology’s future: a dystopian, efficiency-driven society in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and a techno-optimist view from Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near. Students closely read excerpts, discussed how technology can shape (and control) human behavior and bodies, then began composing dialogues between Huxley and Kurzweil. The session ended with a focused peer-review sprint on thesis statements and topic sentences, plus individualized writing feedback.
Attendance
– Absent/excused students mentioned: 1 (Zara left early due to electricity/laptop battery issues)
Topics Covered (chronological)
– Community check-in and session framing
– Quick participation check (“thumbs up/heartsâ€�).
– Objective: move from near-term tech discussions to far-future visions via two short excerpts from long-form texts. Emphasis on how technology can engineer people and shape societies.
– Context for Brave New World (Aldous Huxley, 1930s)
– Set the premise: engineered caste system (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon) designed to fill preset social roles.
– Key idea: people are not just assigned roles; they’re biologically and psychologically conditioned to accept and feel content in those roles.
– Popcorn Reading 1: Bokanovsky’s Process (mass-producing humans)
– Text segment: from “My good boy…â€� to “…even it was difficult.â€�
– Core content unpacked:
– “Bokanovsky’s processâ€� applies the principle of mass production to biology.
– One egg yields up to 96 identical twins (average ~72), enabling “standard men and women in uniform batches.â€�
– Economic/social rationale: social stability through predictability—“96 identical twins working 96 identical machines.â€�
– Motto highlighted: “Community, Identity, Stability.â€�
– Discussion prompts and takeaways:
– What’s being created? Not just people, but standardized workers in batch form.
– Why identicality matters: easier training, interchangeability, maximized factory efficiency, predictability.
– Popcorn Reading 2: Conditioning consumer behavior (flowers vs. country sports)
– Text segment: from “Patiently the DHC explained…â€� to “hence those electric shocks.â€�
– Core content unpacked:
– Earlier policy: condition lower castes to love nature/flowers to “compel them to consume transportâ€� (buy tickets/services to go out of the city).
– Problem: nature is “gratuitousâ€�—enjoyment doesn’t drive continuous consumption or factory work.
– Policy shift: condition lower castes to hate nature but love country sports requiring elaborate equipment, sustaining both transport and manufactured goods consumption.
– Definitions clarified:
– “Conditionedâ€� = engineered/indoctrinated preference or aversion.
– “Consumeâ€� = purchase/use repeatedly (not eating).
– Analytical takeaway:
– Huxley’s world optimizes human feelings and leisure to serve production and consumption cycles; people are shaped to fit economic imperatives.
– Comparative turn: Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2004) — “Nanobots in the Bloodstreamâ€�
– Role-play reading (journalist “Maliâ€� vs. “Rayâ€� the scientist).
– Kurzweil’s claims:
– Nanobots at blood-cell scale could destroy pathogens, reverse damage/aging, and be user-directable (“tell them to do something differentâ€�).
– Devices communicate with each other and the internet; neural implants already get software updates.
– Security debate:
– Concern (Mali): if bodies run software, malware could cause catastrophic harm (e.g., nanobots destroying blood cells).
– Response (Ray): mission-critical software already runs ICUs, 911, power plants, aircraft, weapons; security (firewalls, private networks) is imperfect but workable and improving. General adoption likely “in a couple of decades.â€�
– Synthesis:
– Huxley warns about centralized control shaping bodies and desires to fit economic systems.
– Kurzweil envisions empowering internal tech with manageable risks through evolving cybersecurity.
– Small-group writing: Dialogue between Huxley and Kurzweil
– Task: in breakout rooms, choose 1 of 4 instructor-provided prompts and write a short dialogue (minimum three back-and-forth exchanges) contrasting their views.
– Product: compose collaboratively in Google Drive for use in next class.
– Timing: ~15 minutes; no in-class sharing due to time; to be revisited and extended in the next session.
– Note: Instructor referenced earlier dialogue exercise (Socrates and Antigone) as a model.
– Transition to next class: Connecting with Rumi
– Plan: Use students’ Huxley–Kurzweil dialogues and selected poetry by Rumi to bridge ethical/technological themes and human values tomorrow.
– Instructor will send Rumi readings in advance.
– Peer-review sprint: thesis and topic sentences
– Pairing: Students matched 1:1 in breakout rooms.
– Instructions:
– Step 1: Read only the thesis (final sentence of the introduction). Ask: Does it clearly forecast the main points/body paragraphs?
– Step 2: Read only the first sentence of each body paragraph (topic sentences). Ask: Does each predict exactly what the paragraph will argue/develop (no vagueness)?
– Time management: Initial check today; more in-depth peer review to continue next session.
– Individual writing support and clarifications
– Formatting requirements reaffirmed:
– Word document, Times New Roman 12, double-spaced, standard header; ~2 pages (close is acceptable when properly formatted).
– Development guidance:
– Add ~2 sentences per body paragraph to elaborate arguments with specific examples and reasoning.
– Avoid placing quotations in topic sentences; topic sentences should be author’s claim in the student’s own words.
– Improve quotation integration:
– Don’t drop “platitudeâ€� quotes; explicitly explain how the quote’s logic supports the paragraph’s claim.
– Example discussed: MLK quotes must be tied to the argument (e.g., how individual courage or resisting silence leads to societal change because privileged groups rarely yield power voluntarily).
– Portfolio timeline: Overview/discussion scheduled for Tuesday.
Actionable Items
– Urgent (before next class)
– Post Rumi poetry excerpts/selections to Google Spaces.
– Upload the “Decision Treeâ€� file to Google Spaces (student flagged it as missing).
– Share/confirm the four dialogue prompts (Huxley vs. Kurzweil) and the Google Drive folder/links for group drafts.
– Prepare breakout room assignments in advance to avoid isolates (e.g., ensure no one is “aloneâ€� in rooms).
– Check in with Zara (electricity issue) and send materials/recordings to keep her on track.
– Next class preparation
– Allocate time for groups to finalize and then share selected Huxley–Kurzweil dialogues.
– Plan the Rumi activity to explicitly connect poetic themes (human desire, agency, ethics) to technological futures.
– Continue peer review:
– Deepen focus on development and quotation integration.
– Provide a quick model paragraph showing strong thesis forecasting, clear topic sentence, and well-integrated quote.
– Remind essay formatting requirements and acceptable length expectations.
– Follow-up with individuals
– Send written feedback to the students who requested it (e.g., Mariam, Umani) noting:
– Where to expand body paragraphs.
– Specific places to tighten quote integration and remove quotes from topic sentences.
– Offer a brief resource on integrating quotations (signal phrases, context, analysis).
– Longer-term/course-level
– Portfolio guidance session on Tuesday (outline expectations, components, formatting, and submission process).
– Track name spellings and attendance consistently (several variants appeared in chat; standardize roster).
– Consider a mini-lesson on dystopia/utopia frameworks and cyber-ethics to support upcoming synthesis work.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Because the instructor explicitly said, “There is no additional homework for tomorrow as far as I’m aware,” and noted that unfinished tasks would be continued in class (“we can take the time tomorrow” for the Huxley–Kurzweil dialogue; “We will be finishing up the peer review tomorrow”), with Rumi texts only to be sent for use in class.