56 comments
Life can be like the "Last Day the Earth ever existed."
THE PHENOMENON CALLED LIFE THROUGH MY COLLECTION OF SHORT STORIES .. http://lifeshortstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/pushing-the-papers/
seriously, have you left the house? do you know what it means to live in an oppressive government? keep up your BS and you will find out.
The ignorance portrayed these days makes me sick, people willing accept a communist state thinking it's safe, people willingly accept a nanny state thinking it makes them safe, people are stupid, THEY make themselves safe, reliance on something or someone else is doomed to failure and corruption. Get a brain, or go screw some other country over with your ignorance.
In fact, go live in one of those countries for a while, tell me how liberated and able to fulfill your dreams you are/feel (unless your dreams are boozing and having sex with 12yr olds....)
Try starting a business, try rising above to provide for children/family, try having hope for something better, nicer, less screwed up, less broken; Try changing things so your kids don't come home crying, sad. Get yourself killed, and your family thrown in jail. GET REAL.
Mr Chez, I am not saying American is a terrible place to live, I merely used the US's treatment of terrorists (i.e. those who plot the downfall of the state) as a counterpoint to Aldous Huxley's point that governments are using vice's to control us not just force.
In addition to clarify, I agree Meghan I simply felt that countrie's governments today are far more likely to use force to control us, it is our society/culture/religion which controls us in other ways and the majority of the time those 2 groups are seperate.
Secondly, the reason why people dislike/fear/hate the depiction of the Brave New World government is because even though people are allowed to disagree with that government, their disagreements are made meaningless. In Huxley's thought experiment, people were healthy, fed and sexually gratified, but completely pointless. The example that springs to mind for me in particular was that there would be no more great literature, I.E. no more Shakespeare, because no one would have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the kinds of moral arguments that underpin great works of art. Without challenge and struggle, there would be no truly great joy either, just a kind of fuzzy, incomprehensible malaise of general happiness. People actually like and want to live lives that have meaning and that include overcoming challenges. But being trivialized in the way that Huxley envisioned is generally considered "the lesser evil" by the public at large, and in my experience Huxley's message is so subtle that many younger people don't seem to understand why we might be concerned about losing a culture in which great literature like Shakespeare is still relevant (although they can easily grasp the reason why we would not want the culture of 1984). I personally don't even care for Shakespeare, but I do agree with his point that, as Socrates is often paraphrased, "the unexamined life is not worth living".
Lastly, these books aren't just about the governments, they're foremost about the cultures that might be created as a result of the influence of these governmental styles. Different people within our existing cultures might lean in one direction or the other and given enough clout over time might eventually bring the budding world government closer to one or the other vision. I hope that doesn't happen, although I do tend to feel that Huxley's vision has been realized to a greater extent thus far and that given what I've read of cognitive science, I feel it's the vision that is more likely to continue to dominate the cultural landscape. I hope that in the end neither of them become fully realized and that instead something more like Gene Rodenberry's vision of our cultural future might emerge. Maybe once we solve the problems with food distribution, poverty, etc. a culture in which people seek out more meaningful pursuits than "reality TV" might emerge. It might not -- we might just be on course for something like the movie Idiocracy, but one can hope. :)
Firstly I mostly added that comment out of humor more than anything else.
Secondly I understand Aldous Huxley's argument that the worst reality is one in which all acts are meaningless, but I feel that if we are realistic the nature of our species and even life in the universe is meaningless and inconsequential. Say if the human race today fired this planet’s surface into oblivion killing all multicellular and most single cellular life, what little extremophilic bacteria which remained would precede to start the whole evolutionary cycle all over again. Also even if we examine the possibility humanity destroys the entirety of the Earth, still I say would it truly matter on a Galactic or even Solar System level? No, not really, the basic rules of physics would still apply and our Universe would remain. Then even if we examine the remote possibility that our Universe were to be completely obliterated, would that even matter? I say no, especially given present understandings of Astrophysics there would still be infinite amounts of other alternate Universes. So in response to this I say as an Existential/Apatheist, do whatever makes you tick as long as it does not interfere with anybody else in a life threatening way.
In response to your paraphrased Socrates, "the unexamined life is not worth living", while I would agree, I feel it still is not as bad as in the 1984 government. For while in Brave New World people for the most part did not examine life (which I feel lowers to you the same level of existence as bacteria and viruses), at least those who do are let live and potentially in my mind shows that humanity (i.e. rationality, self conscious and individual etc.) still lives on in the few as opposed to the majority even if only in secluded islands. I still do not know why this is considered more sinister that in 1984 where those who seek to examine life are not only sought out but literally converted back into the mindless unobservant, uncaring slaves who occupy the horrifying landscape of Oceania.
Also I do realize that both of these book are not just about government, Brave New World had an amazing societal message, I simply object when people talk about it like some prophetic visions of a potential government. While I love how Aldous Huxley addressed the dangers of ignorance and apathy in society, I never found the government in Brave New World even slightly realistic. So I guess what I am really saying here is that I feel 1984 and Brave New World are not comparable. 1984 is an unparalleled commentary on Government while Brave New World is an amazing book about the societal situations listed above earlier in this paragraph.
also I wrote this really quick so forgive any grammer errors please
Of course, when we talk about meaning in our lives, we're talking about meaning in a human context. To talk about meaning in a universal context is kind of meaningless, at least imo. We only really understand meaning in a human context because we are human, we don't really have a choice but to view meaning through the lens of what a human comprehends as meaningful.
Though between the two, I honestly found BNW to be a more believable prediction of the future (again polarization). However I also always felt like, no matter how much 1984 attempted to create the illusion of an impenetrable regime, there was always the possibility that someone might find a weakness or a flaw in their system that could be exploited. Maybe some day some member of the inner party gets tired of the whole thing and blows up the Ministry of Truth. And I never got that feeling from the BNW. Remember that BNW begins with the comment that people are genetically engineered to fill precisely the roles they fill -- engineered to be happy fulfilling those roles. There were aspects of it that were described in unbelievable ways, like the fact that there were guys who were engineered to be happy doing nothing but running an elevator all day (which modern elevators don't need), or the fact that people were "decanted" out of bottles. But the basic premise is plausible imo. At which point trying to inject meaning into the society becomes like trying to teach an ant to read Kafka. That to me seemed impenetrable in a way that the world of 1984 was not. And sure they could go to the island and the indian had chosen to go somewhere else, but he killed himself. So yes there's the potential for people on the island to get what they want out of life, but imo, they're each equally icky outcomes, just for different reasons. I think the reason why a lot of people view BNW as more sinister is a combination of this sense of it being impenetrable and the sense of it also being invisible in a way that Big Brother was not.
I never judged your comment on Shakespeare because I myself found myself impressed almost solely by his ludicrous use of iambic pentameter and found his touching on the subjects of human nature and such like equaled and/or furthered by many of his contemporaries, older and future writers.
As for our addressing personal interpretations of BNW and 1984, while I realize your argument, I feel George Orwell was more or less saying even if the name of the Empire/Nation changes things remain the same and the world will be locked in it’s belief that "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength." These 3 tenants, I feel, are the ultimate double thinks of human government, if you want I can find common versions of these in nearly all “civilized” cultures today. In addition the whole concept that governments can create false realities has always struck a chord with me. Finally the most powerful element in the book to me was how the main character went through many realizations which I have gone through, though thankfully earlier in life, but then in the end was transformed into an uncaring member of the Party, this I feel was the ultimate message of the book. I felt specifically it was a cautioning to the intelligentsia of the world, to never to simply accept reality but to keep the spirit “de la revolution” if you will, less so a prophetic vision of 3 tyrannical governments locked in conflict in an eternal Cold War (which any idiot with the most basic grasp of history could tell you would never happen).
In addition I understand why people could one disturbed by the fact that humanity is it’s own big brother, but still I always felt like that book was Utopian if not for the ending which I felt was pretty much just added to shock the reader, though I am willing to be wrong about that. I just never really got much out of BNW, only that humanity, more than government, can be the problem and it seemed to stretch the concept like to little butter over a large piece of toast leading to a only semi-pleasing crunchy flavor in my case but good I suppose if you like butter and large pieces of toast. 1984 was comparatively in my mind was like an attempt to put some insane medley of spices and butter onto only one piece bread leading a sense of disgust in some but primarily confusion in most and immediate love from myself in that the book covered so many realizations and feelings which I felt in a masterful and to the best of my knowledge unparalleled way. So forgive the analogies, for now that I think about it, I am would not really be tempted to eat either of those in real life but none the less I think you understand where I am coming from and vice versa. What I am not saying here is that 1984=epicwin BNW=3picPhail, I am nearly saying 1984 struck a chord for me in that I felt it summed up many of my experiences and gave a strong warning if not a challenge for people to change. While I personally did not get much out of BNW I understand that it could have been much more meaningful to other readers. So there ||:^).
I feel somewhat like the devil's advocate on this comment box but I would have to disagree. In china throughout much of it's history it has been a long line of very oppressive governments yet it was exceedingly wealthy because the governments always saw the value of progress and trade. While in the West Orwellian government does not work because wealth is accumulated more through individual enterprise.
Huxley and Orwell depict in their works just some possible extremes they think this society will produce. We must not let these extremes to "amuse us to death". Stand up for all that surrounds you, first in consciousness and understanding, then in actions.
seek yourself, think yourself and just let go of all that is not really necessary.
At least, that's the impressions I remember. I haven't read BNW in over a decade, though I read 1984 fairly recently. I would say to IanHunter that the government of BNW wasn't entirely soft-touch. It was intentionally crippling most of its population by engineering them to be stupid. As I recall, the alphas were the thinkers of their society and could have done things differently, but instead convinced themselves that prenatal lobotomies were all for the best. I think that makes them worse than 1984 Party members, who weren't asked to think. Loyal Party members wanted everyone to be slaves for Big Brother, but they were slaves themselves and proud of it. The alphas took other human beings and, "for their own happiness", turned them into dolls. It's more egotistical, and it's more cowardly to maim a fetus than a grown man who's already against you.
1984 was scarier to me. I think the posters who've said it's more realistic than BNW where there isn't money are right. (This includes the underbelly of rich societies as well as poor ones.) But some of the trouble with BNW is that the technology isn't there to make it happen in a socially acceptable way yet. Americans wouldn't make a kid intentionally stupid, but what about those "aggressive genes"? What about depression, hyperactivity, or any of the myriad things kids are drugged for now? Maybe in 50 years we won't need drugs; we can alter people for life with genetics, or stick chips in them in a pinch. Personally, I get worried anytime I look at pop-psych, pop-neurology, or pop-genetics articles. It's not that I don't like science. It's that I don't like people who want to dehumanize other people and their choices.
So, either 1984 or BNW is still a valid warning. And culture can change quick sometimes. But hopefully I'm just paranoid.
...I'm not really sure what you're saying. Some people find peace in aceticism (a spartan lifestyle), but sometimes aceticism is its own form of excess (see 1984). There's nothing wrong with enjoying life a little. I don't think that if I stop eating chocolate that it will stop any wars or free any political prisoners. I buy fair trade and organic when I see it, but I don't consider it a huge exercise of social responsibility on my part. And whether chocolate is good for you or bad for you, I would eat it anyway, because it adds a small, yummy amount of value to my life. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about, or am I completely missing you?
That doesn't really make much sense though - what I think I mean is that a 'wise' totalitarian govenment would both watch it's people fanatically and ensure that they lacked the education, intelligence (there is some proof that intelligence is at least partially derived from mental stimulation as well as genetics) and drive to ever consider rebellion
One part of the system would both ensure conformity (through peer pressure perhaps? In which case it could well be self maintaining) and nullify any feelings of discontent; the average citizen, feeling depressed or troubled might simply turn to those things he knows will provide an easy comfort.
The other part would be to make constant observation and an external enemy a fact of life - a further distraction from the problems of govenment, and a justification for the acts of the same.
In short; Huxlian distractions disguising (or rather cushioning) the harshness of an Orwellian govenment (though this might have been covered by 1984; where the 'proles' are apeased by the liberal aplication of porn and drugs); a sort of double shield against dissent.
Oh gawd; we're already there in Britain
As FZ said, "Information is not knowledge."
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
It was a manual on how to create a stable society.
And there is a paradise, for those who rebel against the system.
A true dystopia would surely kill off those unwanted elements?
And fearing too much information is pretty stupid who is to determine what is usless information. If no one cares about it then it would not be out there. Just because it is not the information you consider important. Maybe some info is 'more important' but I think it should be up to an individual to decide like it is now.:)
Orwell talks about a society that has recently shifted from a constitutional (representative democracy) to a totalitarian (communist) system, in the middle of purging intellectual and emotional dissent from those that survived the transition.
Huxley talks about a society where everything (including the inhabitants' life spans) are subject to regulation, essentially sustaining consent amongst the population by following strict operating parameters and removing intellectual and emotional pressure cookers from the reach of the general population.
The rulers of Ingsoc England were essentially engaged in an ideological war, making the whole population think the way they want them to with the limited propaganda mechanisms they have at their disposal (hence the thought police), while the rulers in brave new world were essentially chosen by the system to prop itself up, believing what was fed to them since they were raised to believe it and had no reference point to calibrate their bullshit meter with.
In Orwell's world, resistance to the system is still led by internal forces who can still pin-point the flaws in their society and try to change it, but are gradually being eroded and purged due to the ubiquitous surveillance network and the sophisticated (or highly mechanised) behavioural analysis systems implied by the existence of the thought police. In Huxley's world, on the other hand, no internal resistance to the system exists, since it has ostensibly found the formula for "contentment" of its citizens (i.e. short attention spans and drugs. huh, sounds familiar, all right) and simply replaces those that choose to leave the society. even external factors have little resistance to offer to citizens, who have accepted the idea that their life is meaningless and limited and will spend their days screwing and/or working on their designated tasks.
In my opinion, 1984 reflects a society looking for the best way to control its inhabitants, often by any means necessary. Brave New World, on the other hand, has found those controls and has applied them to every aspect of its citizens' lives. The three examples above cite where, it could be argued, Brave New World completes 1984's society in transition, despite being written and published earlier than 1984 was (check wikipedia out). They are both dystopias, but the only ostensible difference is that 1984 reflects a society that has yet to achieve BNW's levels of technology and automation (BNW features advanced medical technologies, such as vat cloning and healthy, safe drugs while 1984 features modern surveillance technology if you had a modern world without computers).
and the amazing thing is, they are both right. not 20-80 or 50-50, but 100-100 in the way they foreshadow the way our society operates. This is largely because they have both entered into our society more as hand-books on what to do if you want to achieve a particular goal:
If you are a politician, reading 1984 gives you a whole range of recommendations on what tactics to use for various situations that would not normally be within your reach as a democratic representative: done something embarrassing or was your government caught with its pants down? manufacture a crisis, spin the story or just re-define the language to get the desired outcome. want to put in place a surveillance network for monitoring who does what? invent a fictitious enemy and place them in the shadows, making it a public issue and scare-monger until the cows come home. eventually, you'll be given the right to do anything. surveillance nets, newspeak (doctored definitions of words for a political purpose) smoke screens, enhanced interrogation techniques, behavioural analysis and control, use of foreign countries as ill-defined enemies and evil people that can be targeted continuously with maximum public impact and minimum need for action (North Korea, anyone? How about Iraq? Or Al-Qaeda? Mice made into elephants, except for the miscalculation that Al-Qaeda turned out to be). If you have a question about how to control and subjugate the population of your choice, Orwell has answered it, often in excruciating detail. No wonder the Brits tried to censor the damn thing; it's the equivalent of a budding dictator's anarchist's cookbook, spilling the guts on how to turn a society into a prison in 10 easy steps. with the benefit of hindsight, Orwell may have been trying to warn freedom-lovers everywhere, but achieved the exact opposite, since the great unwashed only recently woken up to a fact every budding PolSci student understood in their first class at university: this is not fiction (well, not all of it).
But, if you are a capitalist pollie or businessman selling stuff to consumers, being seen reading 1984 is something of a joke. Their book is Brave New World, THE reference material for the end-game of a society of conspicuous consumption. And why, would you ask? Well, it turned out your average capitalist society became modelled to BNW's basic social structure after good old WW2: Low class, Middle class, High class and 'foreign people' who don't really belong. The basic part of society you interacted with depended on what your job and status was. funnily enough, your status also dictated income and what drugs you had constant access to. Sound familiar up until now? How about how our consumer society emerged in the 1950's and has become ever more short-term ever since? This is because BNW is THE unsung marketing textbook of the 20th century; if you understand how each and every aspect of BNW's dystopia actually could represent a utopia for your average joe (sex, drugs and short shifts with beautiful people and little in the way of bad news coming your way from birth to death), and if you could sell your product as a way of getting to that world (everything from car loans to tanks are sold by either showing you getting laid, working less or looking more imposing/attractive on the rest of the world); congratulations, you have just manipulated joe the plumber into buying you a swimming pool, one ton of cocaine and a harem of ukrainian prostitutes living in your ensuite casino. Is it surprising, then, that BNW became such a sleeper hit? Or that more products were sold to give you a BNW lifestyle? Or that our entire culture is now consumption-based, eerily reflecting a lower-tech version of BNW? Not really, not when you consider it having captured our wildest dreams and shown us exactly what we were heading towards, again giving it the 'manual' status achieved by so few such science fiction books outside of a company's financial reports due to it showing what our wildest desires are and how they could be systematically implemented.
So this is the scary thing: both societies in these books are becoming our society, growing more real with every passing minute. I disagree with the tag line of the drawing in that both societies are co-existing and emerging at the same time, largely as a consequence of its implementation by groups with the same goal (controlling or being capable of anticipating our behaviour) but different ways of getting there, which is starting to clash and will eventually cause a lot of pain and drama for the people caught in the middle (but i digress). And the only way we can counteract the emergence of this society in real life is by creating an area where new ideas, values and cultures can emerge.Traditionally, this is done by exploration. Since we have earth down pat, this must be accomplished by going into space. but then, we run an even greater risk of turning to societies that ultimately result in the extinction of the human race as we know (do not kid yourself, that is literally the final outcome of a static society taking over the entire human species). Actually, i hope that we end up with Iain M. Banks's culture, which is by far my favourite dystopia of all ;-).
