Brave New World have ya read it?

  • Thread starter avant-garde
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the idea of living in a society similar to the one portrayed in the book Brave New World, where everyone is happy and everything is sustainable. However, there are concerns raised about the lack of freedom and individuality in such a society and the question of whether true happiness can exist without its opposite, sadness. The conversation also touches on the importance of accumulating knowledge and skills to achieve utopia, and the potential for people living in less developed societies to be happier than those in more modern ones.
  • #1
avant-garde
196
0
I wouldn't mind moving to a society like the one in Brave New World. In that society, everyone can be happy, there is stability, and there are no worries. In fact, everything around them is sustainable. Sustainability + happiness sounds like utopia to me.

Why, then, are most people I talk to afraid of the scenario? They say there is no freedom. Well, of course they have less freedom than us but why should they care? They live and die happy, which is all I could ask for.

Also, why does there have to be a distinction between 'real' and 'illusory' happiness? In the eyes of the subject who experiences it, it's happiness.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Errgh

Ever heard of natural selection? Or how things have to struggle to survive in order to survive?
 
  • #3
Just because everyone is happy in the book doesn't mean everyone would actually be happy. Noone's ever going to be happy all the time... the very idea of this is completely idiotic.

Everything is relative.

You spend ten years making ten dollars a week, and become used to it... then suddenly you make twenty dollars a week and you're happy for a short period of time. Until you get used to THAT... and decide that things would be better if you made forty.

Happiness ceases to exist without sadness. If there is no warmth, there can be no cold. Without the "large" there would be no "small".
 
  • #4
I suppose if you think that "being happy" is worth giving up your individuality, then go for it. Is happiness just being content in the fact that you've been brainwashed by everyone else to accept your current circumstances as the best you can strive for?

I guess, in a way, it is. I prefer the truth over "happiness" any day. The world is a harsh unforgiving place... and I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

Edit: Lol, oh. Nice Obama picture in your profile. This explains EVERYTHING.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Is a society where you throw everyone out that doesn't go along with it really a happy society? Or is it an illusionary happiness reinforced by the fact that if anyone dares to go against it they are thrown out? All the real world states that have come close to that "Brave New World" idealism in their philosophy (the late Soviet Union for one) where people have their individual freedoms taken away, are not places I would like to live in. I remember a trip I did to East Germany 5 years or so ago...it was an eerie feeling comparing the looks on the people living there to the people living in the "corrupt west". In fact, eerie feeling doesn't quite describe it, it was just downright depressing.
 
  • #6
Renge is absolutely correct. A world in which you have no worries is a world in which you have no say in your own life. It's like longing to be back in high school living with your parents and having your decisions made for you. No bills, no problems... just complete dependence.

Remember how much it sucked that you had to be home by 10:00 PM? (You were safe that way. You'd be home snug in your bed, the outside world couldn't touch you.) Apply that to every facet of your life and that's what you get with your Brave New World.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
tchitt said:
Renge is absolutely correct. A world in which you have no worries is a world in which you have no say in your own life. It's like longing to be back in high school living with your parents and having your decisions made for you. No bills, no problems... just complete dependence.

Remember how much it sucked that you had to be home by 10:00 PM? (You were safe that way. You'd be home snug in your bed, the outside world couldn't touch you.) Apply that to every facet of your life and that's what you get with your Brave New World.

Yeah, but in the scenario you described, life pretty much sucked and nobody was happy. In Brave New World, everyone is happy and thus life doesn't suck.
 
  • #8
It's a work of fiction for a reason.

Okay. Yes, I'd also like to live in a society where everyone is truly happy and everything is sustainable. Is that what you want to hear? I don't think anyone would disagree with that... but it's impossible.
 
  • #9
I'm kinda wondering how you could read the book and think of it the way you do. Its sort of like reading Kafka and being inspired to become a bureaucrat.
 
  • #10
tchitt said:
It's a work of fiction for a reason.

So, you are agreeing with my original argument? I said 'what is wrong w/ the society portrayed in BNW?'
 
  • #11
tchitt said:
Okay. Yes, I'd also like to live in a society where everyone is truly happy and everything is sustainable. Is that what you want to hear? I don't think anyone would disagree with that... but it's impossible.

That's why we have physics, the study of everything.
 
  • #12
So physics is the answer to utopia?
 
  • #13
Well, we need to accumulate more knowledge and skills to get there. To get to the point where we don't need any more knowledge for the sake of knowledge but rather to just sustain ourselves and our happiness.
 
  • #14
I will always remember a comment made by a person who fought in the Korean War. While in Korea, he used to watch the local women come down to the river to wash their clothes. They would smile and laugh and sing the entire time. He was quite struck that they seemed to be genuinely happy in the most dire of circustances; and much happier than his own wife who had all of the modern conveniences.

I am also reminded of a young man who lived deep in the heart of Mexico - back when much of Mexico was fairly primitive - who spent a week in New York city for I think a medical procedure. He was so traumatized by his experience in NY that the locals in his village thought he had been possessed by a demon, and performed an exorcism.
 
  • Like
Likes xAxis
  • #15
What is happiness? Happiness to one person is not happiness to another.

It's all subjective, like most things, which makes utopia IMPOSSIBLE. One man derives happiness from killing people, another derives happiness from saving people. You really believe science is going to solve this problem?

You're basically telling me you'd rather be high for eternity than have to deal with life. Sure... we could keep everyone dosed up to the eyeballs on their own psychoactive substances all day every day so that they feel "happy", but would that be the right thing to do?
 
  • #16
You may enjoy watching the old 1936 classic, "Things to Come", which was based on the HG Well's novel, "The Shape of Things to Come".
Part 1:


It toys with the notion of a utopia created by scientists and engineers.[Also, it addresses the fear at the time that the next war would never end until all of the machines were gone]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
tchitt said:
What is happiness? Happiness to one person is not happiness to another.

It's all subjective, like most things, which makes utopia IMPOSSIBLE. One man derives happiness from killing people, another derives happiness from saving people. You really believe science is going to solve this problem?

Exactly. There is a "pleasure center" in the brain once physically stimulated causes a person to be happy. The only difference is what experiences trigger this set of tissue, which differs for everyone. Yes, I believe that it is possible to physically solve this problem, and it might be humanly possible.

You're basically telling me you'd rather be high for eternity than have to deal with life. Sure... we could keep everyone dosed up to the eyeballs on their own psychoactive substances all day every day so that they feel "happy", but would that be the right thing to do?

Tell me what is the "right thing" to do. I'm a big fan of cultural relativism. If we teach our kids to respect the customs of other societies, why not Brave New World?
 
  • #18
avant-garde said:
Exactly. There is a "pleasure center" in the brain once physically stimulated causes a person to be happy. The only difference is what experiences trigger this set of tissue, which differs for everyone. Yes, I believe that it is possible to physically solve this problem, and it might be humanly possible.

The elusive "happy pill".
 
  • #19
I've got some experience with physically stimulating my own "pleasure centers". And there does exist a "happy pill". The problem with the happy pill is that your brain can only take so much.

If you snort cocaine for six days, it stops being a euphoric experience, and becomes a horribly dysphoric nightmare complete with nightmarish hallucinations and psychosis. All drugs serve to do is stimulate the pleasure center... like electrical impulses would. Why would you think that the outcome would be any different?

I think it's undeniable that there's a natural balance to all things in the universe. Like I said before... without sadness there can be no happiness.
 
  • #20
Probably the happiest people I have ever known were nuns.
 
  • #21
tchitt said:
I've got some experience with physically stimulating my own "pleasure centers". And there does exist a "happy pill". The problem with the happy pill is that your brain can only take so much.

If you snort cocaine for six days, it stops being a euphoric experience, and becomes a horribly dysphoric nightmare complete with nightmarish hallucinations and psychosis. All drugs serve to do is stimulate the pleasure center... like electrical impulses would. Why would you think that the outcome would be any different?
I think it's undeniable that there's a natural balance to all things in the universe. Like I said before... without sadness there can be no happiness.

Well bud, I would have to disagree with you here again. But then again, we would both be speculating so let's leave these particular parts settled. Have a happy christmas ;)
 
  • #22
Uhm, ok. :rolleyes: Way to engage me in a philosophical debate and take the intellectually lazy way out, while at the same time noting your disagreement without giving any reason.
 
  • #23
tchitt said:
Edit: Lol, oh. Nice Obama picture in your profile. This explains EVERYTHING.

The only thing missing from this ignorant comment is a sprinkling of racial hatred and it would be like any other "comment" on libertarian or conservative forums for the holidays.

As someone who's studied Huxley's works, care to explain how his vision of society fits in with Obama's?
 
  • #24
OrbitalPower said:
The only thing missing from this ignorant comment is a sprinkling of racial hatred and it would be like any other "comment" on libertarian or conservative forums for the holidays.

As someone who's studied Huxley's works, care to explain how his vision of society fits in with Obama's?

Don't talk to me of ignorance while at the same time revealing your own with your "racial hatred" comment.

It's a common theme in modern liberal thinking that the state has some sort of obligation to provide happiness to the masses. Don't worry... everything is taken care of. We'll educate your children, pay for your healthcare, manage your finances. Unfortunately the state wouldn't exist without me and my paycheck and I don't care about your children, your healthcare, or your finances. I found a way to create my own happiness without taking anyone elses (I am, however, paying a weekly welfare check to some deadbeat out there somewhere), and I'm not any more special than you are.
 
  • #25
Well, I've read the book and am thus kind of surprised by the comments here. I think people make the same mistake with Brave New World that they do with 1984, missing the forest for the trees.

Brave New World didn't seem much like the USSR from my reading of it, and its satirical outlet seemed to be much more the consumerism and the attitudes of Westerners and the predictions of where they would lead, whereas 1984 can be read as criticism of propaganda, endless warfare (Eurasia is the enemy, Eurasia has always been the enemy), using totalitarianism as an outlet. In fact, Orwell himself said that the book described what he saw as the sitution in the UK in 1948, where rationing was still in in place, the news papers reporting the triumphs of the declining British Empire, etc. (in fact, England did have "Ministries of Propaganda" etc. and the US had these as well under different names). The book "Brave New World" was written in 1931 when Stalin had not yet got into his stride and before Hitler had risen to power; its predictions seemed to be on the logic of consumerism, not those totalitarian states. Furthermore, Huxley himself said that the totalitarian methods of punishment that do appear in 1984 etc. were less effective than the propaganda and soothing techniques, dysgenics, and the other "non-violent" methods in BNW. In his book "BNW: Revisited" (recommended) he contrasts the differences of propaganda and control in totalitarian countries versus that of "democratic-capitalist" ones.

The critiques of industry or consumerism and its values are pretty obvious, for example, the eugenics and dysgenics in the book are described on p.7 as "the principle of mass production at last applied to biology." "Mass production" seems to be the constant aim of Huxley's satire, and the references to it are endless, with the book even taking place somewhere in the 6th or 7th century After Ford.

The reason soma is used is because it is a "non-violent" means of controlling the population, in contrast to the USSRs heavy amount of violence against the individual. The only time direct violence is used is when you're advocating open rebellion or sabatoge against the government (just like in the US or any other country). For example, police are brought in when John the Savage tries to incite a rebellion in the hospital, and they play "pacifying music" that recalls their hypnopaedic training and soma vapor is used to calm them. And even here the instigators are not murdered (bernard, Helmholtz, and John) but are asked to leave.

In his long argument with the "controller," where John seems to be unable to adequately refute his arguments, it is made clear that the purpose of denying people literature, access to the arts, and so on, is to continually get them to "consume the new" arts, products, and so on. When John tries to refute the argument that the "feely movies" are garbage and not about human passion or emotion, etc., the controller counters that these things create instability and are thus banned.

After this chapter, Bernard comes to the relization that the consumerism that exists in the World State infantilizes adults in their everyday lives (their movies, their mindless trival pursuits, their pluralistic sexual relationships) are to this effect. (In fact, a good book to read in conjunction with BNW might be the non-fiction book "Consumbed.)

In the next chapters about religion it is pointed out that people turn to it as they lose control of their own lives, and this can serve as another critique of consumerism because when you turn to religion etc. you're often looking for a "higher purpose" in life but this can also be seen as a critique of values in a capitalist system as well, as pre-industrial philosophies tended to emphasize living the good life or a purposeful life over just being superficially "happy," over just satisfying your artifically constructed wants.

How all this can be turned around to be about "the USSR" is beyond me.

Also, I'd recommend reading it along with Island to contrast the ways drugs etc. are used by the societies:

Island Brave New World
Drug use for enlightenment, and self-knowledge Drug use for pacification
Group living (in the form of Mutual Adoption Clubs) so that children would not have unalloyed exposure to their parents' neuroses Group living for the elimination of individuality.
Trance states for super learning Trance states for indoctrination
Assisted reproduction (low-tech artificial insemination) Assisted reproduction (high-tech test-tube babies)
Free modern contraception to enable reproductive choice, expressive sex Universal forced sterilization, meaningless sex
Dangerous climb to a temple, as spiritual preparation Violent Passion Surrogate
Parrots trained to utter uplifting slogans Ubiquitous loud speakers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel [Broken])
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
tchitt said:
It's a common theme in modern liberal thinking that the state has some sort of obligation to provide happiness to the masses.

The society in BNW is an unequal society with a forced implementation of social darwinism whose goal it is to maintain stability for consumerism and new products. This can also be seen to maintain "industry." The science that appears in the book, while worshipped by the society, is mostly focused on discovering new engineering contraptions, rather than discovering truths about the natural world as science was originally designed to do, etc. Humans are created to be like robots to keep the machines flowing without interuption to provide goods and services for themselves and especially the higher castes of society.

Contrast this with liberalism where it is advocated that people (of all classes, colors, creeds, what have you) participate equally in a fair and just government, and are given certain rights to privacy etc. as guaranteed by the civil libertarianism that liberalism necessitates, and you can see that they are polar opposites.

BNW is about as much of a critique of "liberalism" as it is a critique of equality or the USSR; in fact, the phrase, "community, identity, stability" appears very seldom in the book and does not serve as a critique of liberalism in the first place. The community that is ultimately formed is one that supposedly is the "best" for the individual, anyway.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the pharmaceutical industry works in a collusion with a government and the soma is distributed by the work places.

tchitt said:
We'll educate your children...


In the book it is made clear that only certain children of the "upper classes," like the Alpha Double Pluses, are given access to a good education. Furthermore, there is an allegiance to the state and state enforced cirriculum. This reminds me more of "conservative" education, such as an emphasis on the pledge of allegiance, etc., or private education, where only the upper classes can get an education.

Furthermore, the liberal sciences and the humanities ("History is bunk") are not emphasized and are only utilized to mock ancient cultures - much the way conservatives view history and like to mock other cultures. All criticisms of totalitarian and the work of social sciences is banned, and democracy is nonexistent. This, the part about liberalism having ended, is brought to the attention early on in the book "Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England. There was something called liberalism. Parliament, if you know what that was, passed a lw against it. The records survive. Speeches about liberty of the subject. Liberty to be inefficient and miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole."

tchitt said:
pay for your healthcare, manage your finances.

Are you certain you've read the book? There is actually an emphasis on consumerism, so it would be assumed that the workers manage their finances and purchase what they want to purchase.

It is made clear in the book that inequality and the division of labor is necessary for the conditions of stability and most people perform uninteresting tasks. Near the end, this is kind of contrasted with the world we live in, or the world of 1932 at least, which was more capitalistic in nature. There is probably just as much inequality and menial slave labor in today's world as there is in the hypothetical scenario of BNW, the "controllers" are just more upfront about it.

tchitt said:
Unfortunately the state wouldn't exist without me and my paycheck and I don't care about your children, your healthcare, or your finances. I found a way to create my own happiness without taking anyone elses (I am, however, paying a weekly welfare check to some deadbeat out there somewhere), and I'm not any more special than you are.

"...democracy and can hardly be expected to flourish in societies where political and economic power is being progressively concentrated and centralized. But the progress of technology has led and is still leading to just such a concentration and centralization of power. As the machinery of mass production is made more efficient it tends to become more complex and more expensive -- and so less available to the enterpriser of limited means. Moreover, mass production cannot work without mass distribution; but mass distribution raises problems which only the largest producers can satisfactorily solve. In a world of mass production and mass distribution the Little Man, with his inadequate stock of working capital, is at a grave disadvantage. In competition with the Big Man, he loses his money and finally his very existence as an independent producer; the Big Man has gobbled him up. As the Little Men disappear, more and more economic power comes to be wielded by fewer and fewer people. Under a dictatorship the Big Business, made possibly by advancing technology and the consequent ruin of Little Business, is controlled by the State -- that is to say, by a small group of party leaders and the soldiers, policemen and civil servants who carry out their orders. In a capitalist democracy, such as the United States, it is controlled by what Professor C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite. This Power Elite directly employs several millions of the country's working force in factories, offices and stores, controls many millions more by lending them the mony to buy its products, and, through its ownership of the media of mass communication, influences the thoughts, the feelings and the actions of virtually everybody. To parody the words of Winston Churchill, never has so many been manipulated so much by so few." --BNW: Revisted.

I know what you advocate, you advocate a Jennifer Government.

Your version of totalitarianism, where the government exists for the protection of big business alone, would be a nightmare, and as George Orwell said worse than even fascism -- which I agree with. However, Huxley's novel was something of an inbetween of capitalist dictatorship and this 'power elite.' The version of totalitarianism you advocate is better exemplifed in novels like Jennifer Government or Player Piano (the latter being by Vonnegut, who was also scientific minded, like Huxley, where corporations have essentially become the government, run by managers and engineers, and the state is too inefficient to do anything about it; needless to say it is also a nightmare).

Thankfully, modern economic theory and political science, and the historical record of failure laissez-faire capitalism has caused, has relegated this "libertarian" society to the archives of history where it belongs.

However, a scientific dictatorship and fascist societies (a mix of social conservatism and corporate/captialist economics) are still very viable threats, the former in the first world and the latter in the third world where countries are at presdent capitalist "democracies."
 
  • #27
OrbitalPower said:
How all this can be turned around to be about "the USSR" is beyond me.
fairly tenuously. I'm suitably chastised.

"Mass production" seems to be the constant aim of Huxley's satire,

I didn't notice this, but it has been a few decades. Care to elaborate?

My impression was that Huxley simply wrote of the (somewhat) logical results if the world were run by madison avenue ad agencies (Or how things would be if we were convinced that female under arm hair were unfeminine, and things like that.)
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Phrak said:
It certainly is a fantasy fiction. When we give away our power (you-all like to call this freedom in this thread) to those who promise the collective good, recent history tells us that we don't get soma, but sadism and murder in seven digits.

The problem with BNW is that there is nothing like the eugenics or dysgenics that are practiced in the book, and humans remain a viviparous species who breed at random. However, there is a minor amount of eugenics in our society, and it is not impossible that it would exist more in the future.

This really just served as an avenue for Huxley's satire, though. Just as 1984 isn't made irrelevant by the collapse of totalitarian societies, as the book is so much more, I don't think BNW is made irrelevant by the fact that humans have resisted the kind of "non-violent" control that exists in BNW. That is another problem the book faces, though, that people generally have shown themselves resistent to all forms of control after a while.

In any case I believe both books are still quite popular in literary circles and are still widely read, mostly for their satire on current society. BNW is the far more challenged book as well, appearing at #37 on the ALA's list of frequently challenged books, probably because Orwell's work can be seen to be criticizing "official" enemies.

Actually, the pop-science fiction book "Jennifer Government," Player Piano, and It Can't Happen Here I think are closer to the type of societies that the US has. Player Piano is a society run by managers and engineers, and it is not a good society.
 
  • #29
Phrak said:
I didn't notice this, but it has been a few decades. Care to elaborate?

I thought I had explained it, but the theme runs throughout the book beginning on the first few pages. For example, "Bokanovsky's process" -- where an egg is divided up to "ninety-six buds" -- is explained in terms of having "ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines." And the purpose of the "mass production of biology" is so that people know their place (i.e. where you will work in industry) for the "first time in history, and that small factories can have workers who are the same individually.

The purpose of conditioning the egg and the embryos depended on where the person would be going. For example, if a person was decanted to work in a hot environment, they would be giving heat conditioning. If a person was to be classified as having a job that requies menial skills, they would be a delta-minus or an epsilon. Meticulous records are kept of the eggs on their production lines (racks). This continued into their upbringing, as they had not found a way to accelerate human growth. If a worker was meant to work outdoors he would be given sleep therapy to get them to work outdoors, etc.

As I explained above, this is further explained in the later chapters starting from 16.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_society explains it as well.

Phrak said:
My impression was that Huxley simply wrote of the (somewhat) logical results if the world were run by madison avenue ad agencies (Or how things would be if we were convinced that female under arm hair were unfeminine, and things like that.)

The only reason freemartins exist is because in the society is described in terms of fertility. It is explained (also in chap 1) that "one fertile ovary in twelve hundred" would be a sufficient, but they want a good choice. So they allow as many as thirty per cent of the female embryos to develop, an the others get doses of male hormones.

I don't remember ad agencies being mentioned but there are the typical forms of "media" that exist in today's society like movies, music etc., only except these are "interactive" with you feeling the sensations of the environment their in due to the seating being electronic. The plot of the films are about as involved as Kangeroo Jack or Kung-Fu Panda, though, the music as well being simplified.
 
  • #30
If I think I'm happy then I'm happy. I don't care how I get that way. If I had a problem with the methods making me happy I would be unhappy about it which would mean I wasn't happy, negating my original statement of being happy. So If I'm happy I must not be unhappy about it.
 
  • #31
avant-garde said:
I wouldn't mind moving to a society like the one in Brave New World. In that society, everyone can be happy, there is stability, and there are no worries. In fact, everything around them is sustainable. Sustainability + happiness sounds like utopia to me.

Why, then, are most people I talk to afraid of the scenario? They say there is no freedom. Well, of course they have less freedom than us but why should they care? They live and die happy, which is all I could ask for.

Also, why does there have to be a distinction between 'real' and 'illusory' happiness? In the eyes of the subject who experiences it, it's happiness.
I'm horrified by these questions! How can you believe that drug-induced, mind-controlled slavery is a good thing and that happiness achieved by such methods could be real or moral? If you read in a book that being hung upside-down by your toenails is a good thing, will you believe it? The purpose of such books is to provoke thought - to get you to consider whether the world described actually is good or even possible. It's supposed to convince you that that world is flawed. Then again...

Are you like Cipher in the Matrix? As long as he doesn't know he's a slave, he's ok with it. Maybe you really believe that. I'm still horrified if you do, though.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
russ_watters said:
I'm horrified by these questions! How can you believe that drug-induced, mind-controlled slavery is a good thing and that happiness achieved by such methods could be real or moral?

Are you like Cipher in the Matrix? As long as he doesn't know he's a slave, he's ok with it.

why not? if you don't know it and you are happy. Then you are happy. don't go pushing your morals on to me. gene Roddenberry had it right with the prime directive.
I'll bet you wouldn't let someone of a different religion force you to change yours because they think you are immoral. If a person is happy no one should have the right to force them to change and become unhappy.
 
  • #33
I don't see what liberalism and politics have to do with the brave world. It wasn't a work like 1984, describing the outcome of a government. Huxley's work was more a prediction of the effect of technology. He was saying that technology would make effort and struggle outdated, the government just reflects this.

BTW happiness is not dependent on technology or government or whatever. It is all too complicated to make direct relationships between them. A person can be perfectly happy in a communist China, depending on his interaction, prestige, and value with those people around him. And some one in the U.S or other democracies can be downright miserable too.
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
I'm horrified by these questions! How can you believe that drug-induced, mind-controlled slavery is a good thing and that happiness achieved by such methods could be real or moral? If you read in a book that being hung upside-down by your toenails is a good thing, will you believe it? The purpose of such books is to provoke thought - to get you to consider whether the world described actually is good or even possible. It's supposed to convince you that that world is flawed. Then again...

Are you like Cipher in the Matrix? As long as he doesn't know he's a slave, he's ok with it. Maybe you really believe that. I'm still horrified if you do, though.

tribdog said:
why not? if you don't know it and you are happy. Then you are happy. don't go pushing your morals on to me. gene Roddenberry had it right with the prime directive.
I'll bet you wouldn't let someone of a different religion force you to change yours because they think you are immoral. If a person is happy no one should have the right to force them to change and become unhappy.
'

Morals? This has nothing to do with morals. Russ Waters was questioning the intelligence of a person who allows others to trick him into thinking he is happy. He is certainly not trying to push his "morals" on you- he is simply expressing his shock that anyone would be stupid.
 
  • #35
tribdog said:
why not? if you don't know it and you are happy. Then you are happy. don't go pushing your morals on to me. gene Roddenberry had it right with the prime directive.
I'll bet you wouldn't let someone of a different religion force you to change yours because they think you are immoral. If a person is happy no one should have the right to force them to change and become unhappy.

No one should have the right to force anyone else to be "happy", either.
 
<h2>What is "Brave New World" about?</h2><p>"Brave New World" is a dystopian novel written by Aldous Huxley in 1932. It is set in a future society where people are genetically engineered and conditioned to be content with their assigned roles in a highly structured and controlled world.</p><h2>What are the main themes of "Brave New World"?</h2><p>The main themes of "Brave New World" include the dangers of a totalitarian government, the loss of individuality and freedom, the dehumanizing effects of technology and consumerism, and the importance of human emotions and relationships.</p><h2>What are some important symbols in "Brave New World"?</h2><p>Some important symbols in "Brave New World" include the drug soma, which represents escapism and control, the Savage Reservation, which symbolizes the outside world and the possibility of a different way of life, and the Ford Model T, which symbolizes the dehumanizing effects of mass production and consumerism.</p><h2>How does "Brave New World" compare to other dystopian novels?</h2><p>"Brave New World" shares similarities with other dystopian novels such as George Orwell's "1984" and Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" in its depiction of a controlling government and a society devoid of individual freedom. However, it also differs in its focus on the effects of technology and consumerism on society.</p><h2>What is the significance of the title "Brave New World"?</h2><p>The title "Brave New World" is a reference to a quote from Shakespeare's play "The Tempest", in which the character Miranda exclaims "O brave new world, that has such people in it!" The title is ironic, as the society depicted in the novel may seem perfect and advanced, but it is ultimately a dystopia where individuality and freedom are sacrificed for stability and control.</p>

What is "Brave New World" about?

"Brave New World" is a dystopian novel written by Aldous Huxley in 1932. It is set in a future society where people are genetically engineered and conditioned to be content with their assigned roles in a highly structured and controlled world.

What are the main themes of "Brave New World"?

The main themes of "Brave New World" include the dangers of a totalitarian government, the loss of individuality and freedom, the dehumanizing effects of technology and consumerism, and the importance of human emotions and relationships.

What are some important symbols in "Brave New World"?

Some important symbols in "Brave New World" include the drug soma, which represents escapism and control, the Savage Reservation, which symbolizes the outside world and the possibility of a different way of life, and the Ford Model T, which symbolizes the dehumanizing effects of mass production and consumerism.

How does "Brave New World" compare to other dystopian novels?

"Brave New World" shares similarities with other dystopian novels such as George Orwell's "1984" and Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" in its depiction of a controlling government and a society devoid of individual freedom. However, it also differs in its focus on the effects of technology and consumerism on society.

What is the significance of the title "Brave New World"?

The title "Brave New World" is a reference to a quote from Shakespeare's play "The Tempest", in which the character Miranda exclaims "O brave new world, that has such people in it!" The title is ironic, as the society depicted in the novel may seem perfect and advanced, but it is ultimately a dystopia where individuality and freedom are sacrificed for stability and control.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
872
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
799
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
67
Views
25K
Replies
19
Views
21K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
582
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
431
Replies
1
Views
920
Back
Top