4 ms·

The thing about Brave New World is, it's awful in a bunch of obvious ways, but it's distinctly not awful in many more ways that we've all learned to ignore. Out

The thing about Brave New World is, it's awful in a bunch of obvious ways, but it's distinctly not awful in many more ways that we've all learned to ignore. Outside the reservations, no one goes hungry, no one is lonely, no one needs fear violence, no one is homeless or jobless or denied basic medical care. There are millions of people in the world today who would give anything to live as well as the lowest Epsilon in BNW. It's a bad place. But I think the world we live in today might actually be worse.

magduf 8y ago
I honestly don't see how the world of BNW is really a bad place at all. There's huge advantages to it: as you said, no one is homeless or jobless or denied medical care, there's no violence, etc. Even better, kids are raised better: instead of having children raised by complete amateurs as we do today, which causes all kinds of horrible problems (abuse, neglect, teaching poor values or insane belief systems), children in BNW are raised by trained and experienced professionals. Really, I don't see what the real problem with BNW's world is, aside from deliberately creating idiots to do boring jobs. But that's one thing Huxley missed: in our future, we're going to automate away all or most of those jobs, so we won't need a bunch of idiot Deltas to do them. The main problem is that we won't have much to struggle for, since that's when humans seem to do well, but along with that struggle always comes a lot of horrors, so is it really worth it?
- pjc50 8y ago
  As presented in the novel by the "savage" outsider, the problems are essentially ones of meaninglessness. It's comfortable, but not free, and has no real room for individuality, creativity, or higher purpose. The novel also claims that they tried an Alpha-only society, but it was inherently unstable. The most important job of the Deltas is to be there for the Alphas to look down on.
  - magduf 8y ago
    One thing to remember here is that BNW was a book written by one guy; it's not a reliable look into a possible future timeline, it's just one person's idea of it. I'm pretty sure there have been primitive societies (small villages, etc.) in the past that lived collectively and didn't require having a whole class of citizens to "look down on" to stay stable, so I don't accept this as a necessary component of a stable society. It does seem that some people feel better this way when they're in a bad position, which is why we have a lot of racism (e.g. poor white people want to be able to look down on black people) but it's a non-sequitur that a society requires this. As for a "higher purpose", what kind of higher purpose do we have in our current society? Perhaps trying to make it better somehow (by various measures of "better"), with better technology, medical science, etc.? I'm not sure why a BNW society wouldn't have these as well. There's always room for improvement. BNW's society did seem overly stifling as far as creativity and such, but I don't really see why that's necessary in that society either.
- bloomer 8y ago
  Neil Postman covers this in amusing ourselves to death, which is a gomreat book and heavily refers to BNW, but the idea that there is even a thing as a “professional” child-raising “expert” is what is wrong. There are many people who show up in the media as “experts” where there is no possibility of expertise.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Oh please. Child psychology is a real field, and the idea that someone who has a low IQ, no education, and doesn't understand child psychology at all would somehow raise children better than someone with such educational background and training is laughable.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      I think there's some of both. Teaching is not the same as doing, or coaches would be players. A person doesn't need to be well-educated or have a high IQ to be level-headed, patient, tolerant, and loving. But child psychology is absolutely a real field, and even the best parents can learn something from it. I wouldn't dismiss either one.
      - magduf 8y ago
        >Teaching is not the same as doing, or coaches would be players. I think that's a terrible example that doesn't support your point as well. Coaches aren't players because they physically don't have the aptitude for it. I was in high school: the coaches can't be players there for the simple reason that they're not teenagers and students any more, they're too old. Same goes for college. In pro sports, the coaches are generally older, and never have the physical traits the pro players have. The coaches get into it because they love the sport and are good at the coaching part, not because they don't want to play. >A person doesn't need to be well-educated or have a high IQ to be level-headed, patient, tolerant, and loving. You don't need a high IQ to be well-educated in a particular field. Most college-educated people have average intelligence. And being patient, tolerant, and loving aren't sufficient for being a good parent, though they help a lot. Conversely, lots of parents these days are definitely NOT patient, tolerant, or loving. So why do we allow them to be parents? They're scarring their children, and the effects of that traumatic experience continue for generations.

magduf 8y ago

I honestly don't see how the world of BNW is really a bad place at all. There's huge advantages to it: as you said, no one is homeless or jobless or denied medical care, there's no violence, etc. Even better, kids are raised better: instead of having children raised by complete amateurs as we do today, which causes all kinds of horrible problems (abuse, neglect, teaching poor values or insane belief systems), children in BNW are raised by trained and experienced professionals. Really, I don't see what the real problem with BNW's world is, aside from deliberately creating idiots to do boring jobs. But that's one thing Huxley missed: in our future, we're going to automate away all or most of those jobs, so we won't need a bunch of idiot Deltas to do them. The main problem is that we won't have much to struggle for, since that's when humans seem to do well, but along with that struggle always comes a lot of horrors, so is it really worth it?

pjc50 8y ago
As presented in the novel by the "savage" outsider, the problems are essentially ones of meaninglessness. It's comfortable, but not free, and has no real room for individuality, creativity, or higher purpose. The novel also claims that they tried an Alpha-only society, but it was inherently unstable. The most important job of the Deltas is to be there for the Alphas to look down on.
- magduf 8y ago
  One thing to remember here is that BNW was a book written by one guy; it's not a reliable look into a possible future timeline, it's just one person's idea of it. I'm pretty sure there have been primitive societies (small villages, etc.) in the past that lived collectively and didn't require having a whole class of citizens to "look down on" to stay stable, so I don't accept this as a necessary component of a stable society. It does seem that some people feel better this way when they're in a bad position, which is why we have a lot of racism (e.g. poor white people want to be able to look down on black people) but it's a non-sequitur that a society requires this. As for a "higher purpose", what kind of higher purpose do we have in our current society? Perhaps trying to make it better somehow (by various measures of "better"), with better technology, medical science, etc.? I'm not sure why a BNW society wouldn't have these as well. There's always room for improvement. BNW's society did seem overly stifling as far as creativity and such, but I don't really see why that's necessary in that society either.
bloomer 8y ago
Neil Postman covers this in amusing ourselves to death, which is a gomreat book and heavily refers to BNW, but the idea that there is even a thing as a “professional” child-raising “expert” is what is wrong. There are many people who show up in the media as “experts” where there is no possibility of expertise.
- magduf 8y ago
  Oh please. Child psychology is a real field, and the idea that someone who has a low IQ, no education, and doesn't understand child psychology at all would somehow raise children better than someone with such educational background and training is laughable.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    I think there's some of both. Teaching is not the same as doing, or coaches would be players. A person doesn't need to be well-educated or have a high IQ to be level-headed, patient, tolerant, and loving. But child psychology is absolutely a real field, and even the best parents can learn something from it. I wouldn't dismiss either one.
    - magduf 8y ago
      >Teaching is not the same as doing, or coaches would be players. I think that's a terrible example that doesn't support your point as well. Coaches aren't players because they physically don't have the aptitude for it. I was in high school: the coaches can't be players there for the simple reason that they're not teenagers and students any more, they're too old. Same goes for college. In pro sports, the coaches are generally older, and never have the physical traits the pro players have. The coaches get into it because they love the sport and are good at the coaching part, not because they don't want to play. >A person doesn't need to be well-educated or have a high IQ to be level-headed, patient, tolerant, and loving. You don't need a high IQ to be well-educated in a particular field. Most college-educated people have average intelligence. And being patient, tolerant, and loving aren't sufficient for being a good parent, though they help a lot. Conversely, lots of parents these days are definitely NOT patient, tolerant, or loving. So why do we allow them to be parents? They're scarring their children, and the effects of that traumatic experience continue for generations.