1. Which do you prefer? Are you driving change or are you being driven by change? Explain.

As change is the only constant thing in the world, I would definitely prefer to drive change than
be driven by it. Being driven by change is like the saying “Just go with the flow” and I never really liked
riding the flow as it never made me feel like I’m actually living. I want to be in control in my life than be
controlled.
2. Why do you think that anything that cannot be digitized will become more valuable?
Technological change is now exponential rather than gradual. As it happens at a speed we don’t
even realize, human work which is compassionate, ethical, and moral will become more valued as it is
what makes us “Human”.
3. Explain why machines are good at simulating but not at being.
Machines are just useful servants and tools to be employed. It is us, humans who make use of it.
It is our state of being that controls the simulation we made machines to be.
4. Discuss things that cannot be automated.
Human only work is the things that cannot be automated. The things that make us human which
was referred to as “Andra Rhythms” in the video.
5. Discuss how we can embrace technology and not how to become it.
Technological change may be exponential but we can start embracing it to avoid becoming it. We
can start to check ourselves whether we are too involved in these technological advancements that we
only become busier rather than happy. We need to think about how to co-habit with the intelligence that
we created. We should realize that we have to govern ourselves and get the future to happen than letting
the future just happened.

1. Discuss the moral implications should these modern inventions will expand in the 21st century.
These modern inventions that will expand may erase our morality. As Jolly said, humans may
cease to exist as we merge with these technological advancements which means we might all might be
driven by the change that could eradicate the essence of morality or being human itself in this matter.
2. Describe a possible scenario in the future that may take place if these inventions will fully expand.
If these self-replicating technologies may expand in the future, I’m afraid to think that humans
can not be of control of themselves. The world may become very dependent on technologies that people
won’t even recognize that they gave up the governance on their selves to these technological
advancements.
3. Which are more dangerous 20th-century inventions or inventions that are being planned for 21st-
century? Why?
I believe that 21st century's inventions are way more dangerous than 20 th-century. The reason for
this is that technology in the 21st century is more advanced that a small group of people can bring about
massive destruction. Furthermore, 20th-century inventions were focused on warfare while the 21 st century
revolved around seeking advancement for some things that I believe don’t even matter.
4.  Discuss the effects of these modern inventions to humanity.
 These modern inventions have made humanity live in comfort. There may have been a lot of
ethical dilemmas humanity is facing today however, we can’t deny that it made us live in comfort and
luxury. I still believe that modern inventions affect us based on how we want them to affect us.
5. Are we going to risk our survival in exchange for happiness and immortality that we can get from
genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics? State your position and arguments.
I prefer not risking our survival for immortality. I want to also point out that I do not
think that immortality equates to happiness. I would rather live a good life and learn to think of things as
how it is base on what I realized from Heidegger’s theory. If people would realize that living a contented
life may bring us happiness and would come to an acceptance that everything has an end, I do believe that
there is no need for immortality. Immortality will make us neglect the very essence of the existence of the
things around us which is why I do not see the need for risking our survival in exchange for an absurd
concept of immortality.