Brave New World

So I have just read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. In case you haven't, this novel focuses on a futuristic "utopia" in which infants are pre-conditioned to "passively serve" a higher power.

Now, given this is a novel of fiction, this does seem like a frightening thought; A world in which genetic engineering is manipulated to suit the desires of a government, and propaganda completely changes the psychology of a human being.

Within the text, examples are given that show the good of such a world. All are happy, because they are conditioned to be content with what they have, and many concepts (love, art, religion) have been completely eradicated for the sake of peaceful existence. Additionally, the use of a legal drug known as soma instantly gratifies any citizen feeling less than perfect.

This "utopia" also contains a class system, in which members of the lower class are mass produced, and work for the good of the state. These "Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons" are also conditioned through processes starting when they are mere fetuses, and are happy with the world in which they live in. One example of these processes is the tampering with fetal growth to prevent above average intelligence.

The thought of utilizing this science to benefit a controlling power seems dishearteningly realistic. Thoughts? I would recommend the novel, as it is an incredibly interesting (and horrifying, in my opinion) outlook on the future.

Thoughts: It's one of my favorite books and it's wonderful. At the end when John the Savage is debating with Mustapha Mond. Christ that part is amazing.

It is a great novel, perhaps not as great as 1984 but much more accurate.

The important thing to note is that Huxley's view of control is reflected every day. People do not educate themselves either when many things are censored or the population is made passive by pleasure and media. However, through censoring, a permanent conspiracy arises. Everyone is discontent. In contrast, the alternative (which Huxley embraces), is that we are not curious to find out things because we are in a state of distraction. For example, ADHD was unheard of until recently, and many people are frankly dumber than they have ever been or should be.

That went off for a while, so getting back on topic, it's a pity that the ending was as it is. Huxley was pressured to complete the book on time.

I think he meant thoughts on if that actually happened. I would hate that sort of society nothing would be that great in any class =/

Brave New World is almost certainly my favorite novel to debate (its only challenger being King's The Dark Tower) because the book's advertising drives so many readers away from Huxley's (rather clear) intended point and into all sorts of colorful personal interpretations. I'm not sure if I've seen Umi's before, but its hard to recall...

Anyway, I'll try to play Mond here and argue that the citizens are not working in "passive service" of a higher power: they're working in "passive service" of their own happiness. The vast vast majority of the population - Epsilon through Alpha - enjoys his work, enjoys the fruits of his labors, enjoys his compensation, and enjoys the (rather minimal) ultimate consequence of everything he does. In the end he could only be serving some "higher authority" if those "above" him were working to some ultimate purpose, which by the very definition of Huxley's society they are not.

Originally Posted by Captain Ivan

For example, ADHD was unheard of until recently, and many people are frankly dumber than they have ever been or should be.

People are no dumber than they were. The rise of documented ADHD is not because it has only recently sprung into existence, it is that it was not documented before. You said it yourself, it was unheard of until recently. It still existed in the same quantities long before it was recorded.

But yeah, back on topic.

I've never read it, but I think I just might. I do agree that the government is not above such means, or not too above it at least. They'd find some way to spin it and make it sound appealing. Perhaps using the whole happiness thing.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Brave New World is almost certainly my favorite novel to debate (its only challenger being King's The Dark Tower) because the book's advertising drives so many readers away from Huxley's (rather clear) intended point and into all sorts of colorful personal interpretations. I'm not sure if I've seen Umi's before, but its hard to recall...

Anyway, I'll try to play Mond here and argue that the citizens are not working in "passive service" of a higher power: they're working in "passive service" of their own happiness. The vast vast majority of the population - Epsilon through Alpha - enjoys his work, enjoys the fruits of his labors, enjoys his compensation, and enjoys the (rather minimal) ultimate consequence of everything he does. In the end he could only be serving some "higher authority" if those "above" him were working to some ultimate purpose, which by the very definition of Huxley's society they are not.

Though the above is all true, the entire population is hired, censored, and conditioned to preserve stability. This is the ultimate purpose. The desire of stability is the desire of the government, and the means to preserve this desire are accepted by the population through government conditioning.

In my interpretation, of course

But there is no government: just 10 rather well-known janitors. Mond and co are no-more-or-less committed to and no-more-or-less responsible for the direction of the society than any other citizen. The society as a whole works for its own stability and continuance, and for the happiness of its people... but then, so do all societies. Huxley's was just particularly good at it.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

But there is no government: just 10 rather well-known janitors. Mond and co are no-more-or-less committed to and no-more-or-less responsible for the direction of the society than any other citizen. The society as a whole works for its own stability and continuance, and for the happiness of its people... but then, so do all societies. Huxley's was just particularly good at it.

Hmm, well the concept is complex. You are correct in your theory; this society works to ensure its own happiness. However this happiness is shaped in definition by few (Mond and co.). Therefore, all are happy because of their desire to do what is told of them, passively serving higher power.

Society works for its stability and continuance, because it is conditioned to. This conditioning causes one to be ignorant of injustice, and happily blind to his suppressive environment.

The World Controllers do not shape the definition of happiness: Mond had to learn to love his society as it was before he could serve it. Happiness, for Huxley, is just the raw emotion: the method by which the emotion is achieved is ultimately unimportant... hell, it doesn't even have to be realistic: the man rewrote biology and chemistry as needed to give his people the good life.

There is no injustice: everyone is given all that they need to live happily and peacefully. There is no oppression: everyone is free to do what they want, including leave the society (their wants are conditioned, sure, but so are yours and mine: outside of animalistic need, society is the only source of desire).

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

The World Controllers do not shape the definition of happiness: Mond had to learn to love his society as it was before he could serve it. Happiness, for Huxley, is just the raw emotion: the method by which the emotion is achieved is ultimately unimportant... hell, it doesn't even have to be realistic: the man rewrote biology and chemistry as needed to give his people the good life.

These World Controllers did not, but predecessors did. They keep making rules to fortify their way of happiness. Plus, Mond learned to love his society because he was threatened with exile.

There is no injustice: everyone is given all that they need to live happily and peacefully. There is no oppression: everyone is free to do what they want, including leave the society (their wants are conditioned, sure, but so are yours and mine: outside of animalistic need, society is the only source of desire).

There is no perceivable injustice; Society knows not of its censorship, however this censorship is an injustice. Particular Alphas such as Marx and Watson, and later the savage John, are not free to express personal beliefs, because these beliefs are seen as a threat to society.

If you follow Huxley's argument, the WC's predecessors are today's humanists: everyone who holds universal happiness above all other ultimate goals for humanity could be guilty of (or congratulated for) bringing about the Brave New World.

If Mond had chosen exile, he'd be happily doing particle physics in Hawaii while another WC explained history to John. What's your point?

The case for the censorship of "true" science (and claiming John and Marx are censored is going out on quite a limb, BTW) is made in the book: Hermholtz is free to believe as he wants, but he's not allowed to bring down the system of the world to satisfy he need for recognition (not that he even seems to have such a need...)

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

If you follow Huxley's argument, the WC's predecessors are today's humanists: everyone who holds universal happiness above all other ultimate goals for humanity could be guilty of (or congratulated for) bringing about the Brave New World.

No argument here

If Mond had chosen exile, he'd be happily doing particle physics in Hawaii while another WC explained history to John. What's your point?

That Mond is only going along with society's rules because of his desire of power. He even states that he finds Christianity to be 'probably true,' though he goes against his own beliefs for political power.

The case for the censorship of "true" science (and claiming John and Marx are censored is going out on quite a limb, BTW) is made in the book: Hermholtz is free to believe as he wants, but he's not allowed to bring down the system of the world to satisfy he need for recognition (not that he even seems to have such a need...)

It seems that some are more censored than others, though society as a whole is blind to much of 'past culture.'

Quick, off-topic question. Marx works around the processes that create the humans of this civilization. Is this why he knows so much about the therapies that infants go through to become conditioned? Or is it public knowledge in this society?

Originally Posted by Umi

Now, given this is a novel of fiction, this does seem like a frightening thought; A world in which genetic engineering is manipulated to suit the desires of a government, and propaganda completely changes the psychology of a human being.

The thought of utilizing this science to benefit a controlling power seems dishearteningly realistic. Thoughts? I would recommend the novel, as it is an incredibly interesting (and horrifying) outlook on the future.

Are you afraid of happiness? Do you fear a world where people don't suffer?


From a previous thread I started on the book:

Aldous Huxley seems to be criticizing the society he has described, but this is one thing I fail to understand - what is his problem? It's actually a eutopia.

In my view, the main problem with this form of society is that the human race doesn't advance. The World Controllers keep brand new technologies under wraps because they know it would lessen the workload, which would result in society becoming unstable. But this lack of advancement isn't what Huxley seems to be criticizing - it seems like he has the same problems as the savage in question, that in such a society there is no hardship, and hardship forms character. But in such a society, where people are conditioned not to need this hardship or any sense of achievement, why is this a bad thing? This society is only bad to people of a society like ours, people who have grown up with hardships, and people who deal with emotional turmoil and other variant forms of suffering on a daily basis.

But as I am all too ready to point out, our society is far from stable. Is this a good thing? From a humanistic perspective, I would say so. Humanity cannot advance and become greater without its natural humanism. In a society like this, humanity would simply stagnate. But I simply don't like Aldous Huxley's tone in the way he's criticizing an actual eutopia, and what exactly he's criticizing, as it fails to make sense to me for the reasons I state above.

In summary, I ask you - why is a society without hardship a bad thing?

It's not a utopia for Aldous Huxley. It is a world where the majority of people openly accept an authoritarian order because it fulfills their most basic pleasures. However this stability comes at the cost of any chance for self actualization for people like Helmholtz. In addition to him we see two other examples of people who still felt unfulfilled despite the conditioning they received growing up in this world.

It is a world that erased its heritage. The stagnation of civilization comes as natural result of this as society slips into passivity.

I believe that Nietzsche would call such a world a society of last men. The very opposite of his concept, the ubermench, that believes it has reached the destination and no longer cares about the journey. Such a creature will linger on until it is wiped out by some calamity it never bothered to watch out for.

Originally Posted by Red Dingo

It's not a utopia for Aldous Huxley. It is a world where the majority of people openly accept an authoritarian order because it fulfills their most basic pleasures. However this stability comes at the cost of any chance for self actualization for people like Helmholtz. In addition to him we see two other examples of people who still felt unfulfilled despite the conditioning they received growing up in this world.

It is a world that erased its heritage. The stagnation of civilization comes as natural result of this as society slips into passivity.

I believe that Nietzsche would call such a world a society of last men. The very opposite of his concept, the ubermench, that believes it has reached the destination and no longer cares about the journey. Such a creature will linger on until it is wiped out by some calamity it never bothered to watch out for.

But such a creature doesn't care, and that's precisely the point. It is happy. That world, to its inhabitants, is a eutopia even if not to us, and he's trying to pass it off as a bad thing that none of us should ever desire. "Look at this world where nearly everyone is happy and those that aren't are mildly inconvenienced at best! Look at how HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE and DISGUSTING it is! *slit slit*"

I've already said it's not my idea of a perfect world either, but it is a eutopia. In Warhammer 40K, Orks beat each other up in bar brawls and knock each others' teeth out and go to war for fun, and they are considered by the superior races as eutopic. Sure, we'd never enjoy it, but if its inhabitants do, why call it a dystopia? Dystopia is a "bad place", and to its inhabitants it's a good place, thus "eutopia" for them.

Originally Posted by Umi

That Mond is only going along with society's rules because of his desire of power. He even states that he finds Christianity to be 'probably true,' though he goes against his own beliefs for political power.

But again, what power does he have? We can't analyze Mond's motivations without falling into a "no real altruism" debate, but its clear that the man is anything but a tyrant.

By the first chapter I would judge that History and "Neo-Biology" are well covered in the public education of the Alphas and Betas, though Marx's incredibly detailed knowledge would obviously be career-specific.

Zero: Unless your pre-determined to look at John as an author mouthpiece, I'm not sure how your judging Huxley's "tone". In their discussion, John and Mond both behave in keeping with established character, and so of course end up at odds. John has some measure of emotional advantage because he's the more emotional participant, Mond has some measure of rational advantage because he's the more rational participant... but this is not rhetoric, its simply good story telling. Either side calmly giving in to the ultimate arguments of the other would have allowed Huxley to make a quick point, but it would have destroyed the consistency of his narrative (and thankfully, Huxley is a considerably better author than Orwell, so this is not an option).

The actual argument is not in John's character, it's in Hermholtz'. Huxley's problem with his society is its stagnation: its failure to work towards any purpose greater than it has already achieved, its failure to dream.

[Orks] are considered by the superior races as eutopic

Oi! Hu is you sayin' is superior to da Boyz?

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Zero: Unless your pre-determined to look at John as an author mouthpiece, I'm not sure how your judging Huxley's "tone". In their discussion, John and Mond both behave in keeping with established character, and so of course end up at odds. John has some measure of emotional advantage because he's the more emotional participant, Mond has some measure of rational advantage because he's the more rational participant... but this is not rhetoric, its simply good story telling. Either side calmly giving in to the ultimate arguments of the other would have allowed Huxley to make a quick point, but it would have destroyed the consistency of his narrative (and thankfully, Huxley is a considerably better author than Orwell, so this is not an option).

I'm aware they're in-keeping with their established characters, but what I'm saying is that Mond, as a character, is the advocate in favour of that world, and John, as a character, is the advocate in favour of the more savage, harsh and cruel life. Huxley makes an argument against the world from the perspectives of all of Marx, Hermholtz, that one guy who saw himself as superior, and the Savage, and it culminates in the argument between him and Mond. The story is not just a story, otherwise people would stop reading it as a kind of social commentary or message. Apparently Huxley himself is unhappy with the way he finished it, and I wouldn't say that he's a good author precisely because he didn't end the damn thing properly. The entire book tries to make a point, then when he makes the point more directly in that admittedly excellently written argument, he defeats his own point, then proceeds to end it pointlessly.

Give me Nineteen Eighty-Four anyday. The narrative was consistent, and the points were made adequately, on top of it being a book you can bring up in any discussion AND a damn good story. Brave New World I enjoyed right up until the ending to be honest.

The actual argument is not in John's character, it's in Hermholtz'. Huxley's problem with his society is its stagnation: its failure to work towards any purpose greater than it has already achieved, its failure to dream.

Hermholtz is barely in the damn book, and I'm fully aware that his problem is its stagnation, but there's a difference between saying "welp, I disagree" and "THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE DISGUSTING UNIVERSE THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT FOR IT IS THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES", which is basically what Huxley seems to be saying at any pause.

Oi! Hu is you sayin' is superior to da Boyz?

Well, the Eldar, in their infinite wisdom, wish they were the Orks instead of the emo doomed master race that they are. It was in a quote from some Eldar Farseer that I read something along those lines.

Again, John is constantly throwing his opinion in the readers face because that's who John is, not because Huxley is yelling through him... and as loud and emotional critique of the society doesn't come through any angle but John's, its unfair to claim it as Huxley's attitude.

Huxley was unhappy with the ending because he didn't give John a way out: the savage was left with no choice but "to go insane or kill himself", and both made for a disappointing denoument... but I can see how Orwell giving Smith insanity without the choice was a mark of better control.

Re: Nineteen Eighty-Four; in what literary underworld does dropping an encyclopedia in the middle of your narrative make for a good story? When did having imaginary characters in an imaginary world act as if your unsupported assertions are true begin to constitute "making points"? I'll give the book consistency, I'll give it atmosphere, and I'll bow to its popularity... but its billed as a "philosophical novel" and fails to be much of either.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

But again, what power does he have? We can't analyze Mond's motivations without falling into a "no real altruism" debate, but its clear that the man is anything but a tyrant.

Perhaps he wished to make the rules? Or perhaps he wanted the ability to break them? After all, he is quoted stating that he has the ability of both.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Are you afraid of happiness? Do you fear a world where people don't suffer?

No, I fear a world in which humans are treated like livestock. I fear a world in which emotion, the very quality that separates humanity from nature, is eradicated.

One could argue that wild animals do not suffer (unless at the hand of man) though I do not wish to resort to this. I would rather utilize the gifts of humanity to prevent suffering.