Oh my lanta, Bush’s article took me a long, long time to process. As a whole, I don’t think the specific ideas presented throughout the article were too difficult to understand or identify. However, what made it tedious for me to read was the way in which the ideas and thoughts were presented: they seemed to jump from one idea to the next, without a clear structure or ultimate goal.

Furthermore, as I sit here typing, trying to think of some lesson I learned or idea from the article that I will take with me, I’m coming up empty. When I think of information that stays with me after reading the long, wordy article, I’m remembering things like Bush’s statement that photographers of the future will have little walnut-sized bumps on their foreheads that take little pictures. This is something that extremely confused me. Why does he mention this? There is no further elaboration on the idea, but after mentioning the specifics of the walnut sized, forehead bump camera, he moves on to another area of focus. Does anyone understand this?

Though I was not a fan of the article over all, parts of it were interesting. Specifically, the beginning of the article addressed the idea of scientists contributing to the efforts of warfare. One of the few sections I fully understood, this part of the article brought up some really interesting points. This specific quotation from the article resonated with me:

They have done their part on the devices that made it possible to turn back the enemy, have worked in combined effort with the physicists of our allies. They have felt within themselves the stir of achievement. They have been part of a great team. Now, as peace approaches, one asks where they will find objectives worthy of their best.

To me, this quotation basically asserts that scientists have contributed to helping their nation defend itself through means of creating specific machinery in order to defeat its enemies. Through this utilization of their skills, scientists are able to feel fulfillment as their side wins battles. The logic here is that “The country won the war because of its weapons. The country’s scientists created the weapons. Therefore, the scientists won the war for their country.” Clearly this would, as the quotation suggests, cause the scientists to feel achieved and validated. However, this idea brings into question the idea of finding fulfillment simply through scientific discovery. Ultimately, this section of the article left me with asking myself some difficult questions:

• Can scientists not feel achieved for simply creating or finding something new?
• Is there a way for scientists to create machines that do not fight for or defend their country and still feel accomplished?
• As a nation, should we prioritize scientific contributions to defense and militarism over basic scientific discovery and innovation?

All in all, this article proved to be extremely dry, confusing, and full of big words and abstract ideas. I probably actually understood about six paragraphs, but hey, I hope there are some people out there who really enjoyed the reading.