Firstly, one passage I found notable in Kelley’s essay pertains to the nurturement of technology– not only in the functional sense, but as an art form (Page 6 para 2). My stance on this argument is complicated. While I believe that items of interest to the individual may be preserved, I don’t totally agree with his remark. While it may be true that some individuals’ intents are to preserve and fix these automobiles for admiration and appreciation, there is also a subset which I am sure have ulterior motives. Whether these motives are composed either for wealth, respect, or some other purpose, there is also a variety of reasons why someone—who has little to no interest in treasuring these vehicles for the sake of enthusiasm. Much of the same may be applied for technology. Hypothetically, let’s say that the newest PlayStation is imminent of release. I may go to my local Walmart or Target, buy the entire stock, and resell them for an absurd price. Once could state I do not show any respect for the technology whatsoever, as I am responsible for selling these “beloved” articles of technology for a hiked price, which is inhibiting a real consumer fanbase of enjoying these products without an act of injustice. If anything, I am exploiting the individual for their money in turn for a product I would not otherwise have a purpose of purchasing. Therefore, by this definition, one could enjoy the result of what the product may bring to them without exhibiting any love for the product itself.

Additionally, I found the viewpoint of para 3 on page 8 to also be quite complicated. While I majorly agree with the standpoint that the “magnificence of certain patches of the technium will rival the splendor of the natural world,” I also think that there would most likely be some form of regulation prohibiting this from ever occurring. Surely, there would be a meeting of bio-ethical concerns between the United Nations, in which would come to a sound conclusion to declare the development of this form of AI an illegal process. The reason I raise this awareness is due to a prior precedent: The Dolly Experiment. For those reading who do not have any background with this, the Dolly Experiment involves a parent lamb, whose child is an absolute biological clone—or copy—of that same parent lamb. This experiment was the first ever experiment which successfully cloned another mammal from an adult cell. Immediately after Dolly was announced, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization banned cloning. Furthermore, if we can develop the same caliber of intelligent life—disregarding the actual nature or origin of that life—there will surely be a cap to the reproducibility of this new life form.

To conclude, I strongly disagree with the idea the author expressed in para 4 of page 5, when he states how he wants to remain submerged inside of the web— as well as the way he says this. It is almost as if the author is claiming that if he had a choice between living in the real world and living in the Metaverse, that he would most likely pick the latter if he could do just that. Perhaps at first, living a life solely for the intent of living on the web would be fun at first, with the negative liberty to venture down any path you ever so wish. With time, however, this intent would diminish ever so slightly, eventually becoming an object of regret. On the web, there is only such thing as a superficial existence. You cannot reach out and feel the features of the web, like you can touch the grass. You cannot feed from the nourishment of limitless web articles and games like you can with food. And you most certainly cannot clear your mind without stepping away from the constant stream of information pooling in all direction surrounding your every step—your every constant thought, abhorred by the restless and ever-so-changing wrath of the internet. Perhaps one would like to think for themself upon their own accord?