Reflection

In my first reading response, I synthesize various sources discussing NASA's Voyager space mission, and the Golden Record time capsule, created by Carl Sagan, that was sent into space with it. This writing functions partially as a rhetorical analysis, while simultaneously examining the contents of the record, and the biases that contributed to their selection, creating a holistic analysis of the material. Based on my examination of the primary sources about the Golden Record and the Voyager mission, I concluded that the content selected showcased Sagan and the research teams' biases, which is also a larger-scale representation of human bias. Additionally, I assessed that the medium of communication, a binary set coded to the hydrogen atom, was a solid way to universally communicate with any other spacefaring species. Overall, I was able to fully understand the rhetorical situation of the Voyager Golden Record and demonstrated that understanding by identifying positive and negative aspects of the rhetorical situation Sagan and his team created. My second reading response features analysis of two pieces discussing the technological development of the 1990s. In the second response, I analyze and distill the ideas from the two articles to present their opposing viewpoints in an equal and academic fashion. Nardi and O’Day take a very optimistic view of technology, with firm beliefs in their abilities to understand it and use it for good. Dietrich contrasts this viewpoint, with his argument that all technological advancements introduce secondary costs that outweigh their benefits. In my analysis, I explain my personal viewpoint based on the information from the two articles, and I strike a middle ground between the divergent attitudes. While I personally align more towards Nardi and O'Day's stance on technological development, as its benefits have directly changed my life, I can understand the logic that Deitrich employs. Removing this personal bias from my writing is a careful balance between maintaining both my personal style and objectivity, and though it is difficult, it is necessary in academic writing. This is a key aspect of contributing to an existing conversation, as it is necessary to place one's own writing in context with previous topical literature in order to make a meaningful contribution to an academic discussion.