13 ms·
Huxley vs. Orwell: Infinite Distraction Or Government Oppression
- lucian1900 14y agoAnd they're both happening. Great.
- pdelgallego 14y agoBoth has been happening for a long time. Romans used to say: "Bread and circuses"
- manmal 14y agoYou mean "panem et circenses", which translates to "Bread and games", to be exact :)
- pdelgallego 14y agoYou are the native speaker, so I guess you are right. In my defense, I checked the wikipedia before I posted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- nos4A2 14y agoDon't think the intention of the artist was to make a prediction, or to draw parallels with today (however true those parallels might be), its just comparing two dystopic fictional futures..
- anonymouz 14y agoFalse dichotomies.
- omarchowdhury 14y agoDenial.
- mtgx 14y agoI don't think it's one or the other. I think it's a little bit of both. The less people care about what's going on in politics and about defending their rights, the more oppressive and invasive the Governments become.
- mcphilip 14y agoI would consider myself much more aware of international events than most and still believe that there is realistically no chance of defending my rights in this age of a two party system where both are equally interested in seeing the nightmares of Huxley and Orwell come to pass. Sure there may be a lot of people who aren't educated about the dangers we face, but from my own experience the bigger problem is all those that understand but feel powerless to do anything meaningful about it.
- maxerickson 14y agoBetween women's suffrage, the civil rights act and pretty big reductions in corruption, the story of the U.S. from 1900 to the present is one of massive expansion of personal rights. The last half of the 1800s wasn't so bad either. (I'm not saying the U.S. does not have corruption, I'm claiming that it has mostly gone down over the time mentioned)
- flyinRyan 14y agoYes, but all of these changes didn't just happen because people were posting displeasure on reddit. There were nationwide movements. Where's our movements now? We have some, and what happens to them? I don't dispute for a second that we are better off today than ever before. I just wonder if we've peaked...
- dtwhitney 14y agoasteroid
- criswell 14y agoMy vote is for infinite distraction. Government is taking advantage of this right now. They can already do basically whatever they want without that much blowback.
- mtgx 14y agoAnother problem in US besides a lot of people not being educated on the issues and not caring about them, is the feeding of bad information through the corrupt media. With today's media, it's almost too easy to get most people in the country to think a certain country is the enemy and needs to be destroyed, at whatever cost. Thanks to the same media, it's also pretty easy to pass bad laws, too, either because the media is not covering them, or lies about them.
- lmm 14y agoThe one piece of science fiction that really struck me in this way is the 1960's BBC television play The Year of the Sex Olympics. It manages to predict the onset and results of reality TV with startling accuracy. Highly recommended, if you can find a copy.
- manmal 14y agoIs that where Futurama's references to an "Olympic gold medal in limbo.. and sex" comes from? I always found that quite curious, but could not find out where the jape came from..
- xutopia 14y agoFor the record.. Huxley was Orwell's teacher at some point.
- hluska 14y agoAldous Huxley taught Eric Blair (George Orwell) at Eton. Perhaps most interesting, George Orwell achieved success before Huxley and wrote some rather scathing things about Brave New World!
- omarchowdhury 14y agoLink, good sir!
- typicalrunt 14y agoA quick Wikipedia search on "George Orwell" will provide you with evidence that Huxley was Orwell's teacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/1984-v-brave-new-world.... That wasn't too hard.
- ianstallings 14y agoNeither will destroy us IMHO. Too many emo-burgers being slung lately. It's not the end of the world when things go wrong. In fact, it's business as usual.
- DanI-S 14y agoDoes it even matter that a portion of the time once stolen away by grinding toil in the fields (for the benefit of kings) is now stolen away by inane cable television (for the benefit of CEOs)? Heart disease is a kinder killer than starvation, drought and cold. It's easy to forget that things are better now than they have ever been before. Don't stop believing!
- walru 14y agoI very much enjoyed the book.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
- louhike 14y agoThe Time Machine is quite interesting on the same topic.
- Apreche 14y agoBoth at the same time.
- nos4A2 14y agoLooks like the site is having load issues.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r-Sz2Hqe5GsJ:www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r-Sz2Hq...
- ryth 14y agoNeither, this is a false dilemma. Humanity, as any form of life, always balances the equation when one side gets too prominent.
- rglover 14y agoIt's most definitely both. I've been really intrigued by this topic as of late because it's an easily noticed problem. The general public (that's a fun term, aye) are becoming equally insatiable as they are stupid. There's an excellent film called Idiocracy that came out a few years back. It's meant to be a farce but makes a really great point about where we might end up in the future. Here's a clip of one of my favorite scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-4LU79qbU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-4LU79qbU It's funny, but it's also sad. At this point, I don't see much of a reversal taking place. If you're an intelligent person, be thankful and try to help those around you who are less aware of Spaceship Earth. Edit: I misspoke. I thought about it and "I don't see much of a reversal taking place" isn't true. The one thing that can reverse all of this is parents. If you have children, take the time to educate them and make them aware of their existence. Explain how systems work and the benefits/problems with them. Don't use scare tactics, just talk to them. More likely than not, they'll grow up with a head on their shoulders.
- eckyptang 14y ago+1 for idiocracy. There is so much of society crammed into that film it's unreal. Warning: it's by mike judge of Beavis and butthead fame so you have to look past the fart jokes. "ow my balls" is definitely a reference to wasting time on YouTube...
- oinksoft 14y agoThis film struck me as an educated elitist view of the lumpenproletariat. Once upon a time, an itinerant person was the one who idled by reading, rather than working, or enjoying the more "vigorous" pleasures of the hunt, etc. Reading novels was thought (and by some, still is) to delude the mind with fantasies. New mediums are often derided. I also found the film prudish, implying that having a large family can only be a product of ignorance and animalistic tendencies.
- rglover 14y agoI also found the film prudish, implying that having a large family can only be a product of ignorance and animalistic tendencies. I believe you're referring to the family tree scene where the affluent couple wants to conceive but they cannot. Instead, they parallel their experience against the destitute couple breeding at an infinite rate. I don't believe this should be a slight against having a large family, but rather, doing so under mindless pretenses. To be blunt: just having sex to have sex, not to procreate with a purpose.
- stephengillie 14y agoIt's too Kazinskian a perspective that these are the only choices we have...
- ktizo 14y agoIs somewhat odd and amusing that the copyright holders of the text (not the author, as he died in 2003) requested that this comic be taken down from the site that originally posted it. - http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourse... [edit] I just read that the artist actually contacted the estate of Neil Postman to check if they had any problem with it, just in case they ever sued, and then removed it on their instruction. - http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ourselves-to-death/ http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- thebigshane 14y agoLink to the full comic image: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/Amusing-Ourselves-To-Death.jpg http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/Amusin...
- rayiner 14y agoWhy are techies as a group so apocalyptic? I think the world 100 years from now will be a fairer, more just, more humane place than it is now. 100 years ago, women still couldn't vote in the US and the country was legally segregated instead of just segregated in practice. 100 years ago, child labor was at its peak in the US, food safety was non-existstant, charlatans ran rampant in the practice of medicine, and cities were thick with the pollution of the industrial revolution. We live in a better world today than has ever existed for the greatest number of people. Why should we believe that it will be society, that has improved itself so, that will be its own undoing?
- expralitemonk 14y agoAs technology gets more powerful, the oops factor comes into play. Oops, I dropped a flask in my lab: 1 million people dead. Oops, the SCRAM system for a reactor that's out of control, it had a software bug: 10 million people dead. Technical people understand how fragile modern systems are. As life gets more complicated, innocent mistakes can turn a country into a desert. Malicious intent raises the body count even higher.
- crazypyro 14y agoAlso as technology advances, people in power can use them for their benefit, rather than the benefit of the world as a whole.
- reasonattlm 14y agoBecause they are people, and people as a group are apocalyptic. Four to five decades back, everyone grew up convinced that atomic war was inevitable. That was the zeitgeist, but wrong. Nuclear war is a great stride forward in that it's the only methodology of war yet invented that is both aggressively pursued by leaders and presents those leaders with a dire and immediate threat of death if used. (As opposed to, say, war by assassination, which only satisfies one of those criteria). So the incentives were aligned against what popular sentiment said was inevitable. Then all of that determined, grim sentiment sloshed over into the ready and waiting environmentalist hair-shirt death cult after the collapse of the USSR. As someone who advocates for engineered human longevity, I see a lot of this. Most people, the majority, don't have a positive view of the future. At present that is largely informed by what in a sane world would be extreme environmentalist views, but in this world are middle of the road environmentalist views - most people are convinced that the world is falling apart, that there are too many people, that no-one should be allowed to extend human life, that all resources are running out, and in short that Malthus was right. This view of the end of the world will no more come to pass than nuclear war did. All the incentives are aligned against Malthusian limits of any sort, and always have been. Hopefully one doesn't have to explain why that's the case to the present audience.
- nacker 14y agoBoth. So what can we do? Resisting oppression calls for courage. If you merely complain or protest you may be tracked down and threatened. If you go beyond that to active resistance you definitely run the risk of being labelled a criminal or terrorist and put in a cage. Resisting distraction is a whole lot easier. It just requires self-discipline, and a willingness to say no the the bait. Don't use a bank, credit card, television, or unfree software. Don't buy industrially processed or GMO food. Opt out. Yes, it involves sacrifice, and other people will mock you, but if you are short on bravery, what else can you do? EDIT: Forgot this: Do not vote.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoPlanet Earth is a big place, and its inhabitants managed to reach both of those destinies at the same time. There are places where people live like Orwell predicted, and then there is this so called "First World", which looks exactly like Huxley's vision portrayed by this comic. The real question is: how do we fix both of those states?
- lbarrow 14y agoI had the enormous privilege of having a teacher who assigned both The End of Education and Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman my junior year of high school. I can't recommend them enough; reading them was one of the formative political experiences of my life. We live in dangerous times; civic engagement and an educated, vibrant population is more important than ever. But our political and cultural discourse has fallen to its lowest point in as long as anyone can remember. If I were not already politically engaged, I might become so if I watched Edward Murrow at night -- but watching CNN these days seems to be no different from watching the Jersey Shore.
- gavinlynch 14y ago>>> " But our political and cultural discourse has fallen to its lowest point in as long as anyone can remember." Sure, but what does that really mean? To me, not much, as peoples memories are short.. There are numerous examples in the last few centuries of much, much worse political discourse. Think about the Lincoln-Douglas debates where newspapers that were controlled by political parties would edit the transcripts of the opposing candidate to enhance the standings of their own horse in the race.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tokenadult 14y agoAs several other comments here have pointed out, it's possible for neither bad outcome to happen. Human beings always have frailties and make mistakes, and even take advantage of one another, but the long-term trend line in human society suggests the worries in the submitted article are overblown. By coincidence, the Why Evolution Is True website today has a post that responds to worries like this with actual research by careful scientists who know human nature well. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/things-are-getting-better/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/things-ar... The Hans Rosling video linked to from that post is familiar to some participants on Hacker News; if you haven't seen it yet, it is well worth a look.
- StavrosK 14y agoOkay, am I the only one who saw Brave New World as a utopia? Everyone's completely frigging happy!
- dstorrs 14y agoThey aren't happy. They are drugged. Any time anyone starts to have any questions or qualm of any kind, they have been trained to drug themselves into insensibility rather than think about it. Anyone desiring individuality is a pariah. Furthermore, the siciety is completely static -- it's designed that way. It cannot grow or adapt in the face of new opportunities or needs (eg climate shift, resource depletion). Would you want to live like that?
- StavrosK 14y ago> They aren't happy. They are drugged. I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. > It cannot grow or adapt in the face of new opportunities or needs (eg climate shift, resource depletion). It looks like they solved all their problems through technology, so they don't need to adapt to anything. Just full-time happiness!
- chromaticorb 14y ago1984 is seemingly the only book everyone has read. It is really frustrating to see people simplify all economics, (evidence-based) social psychology and proper appraisal of philosophy applied to historical perspectives only to reduce our future to these bizarre extremes. The only reason people even give 1984 its credibility post Cold-War is that its two chief components, the television and surveillance camera became a reality. This is not to trivialise the presence of surveillance, but honestly, I'm amazed anyone can read it past the hysterical Room 101 bit. BWN is basically just 1984 told from the bourgeoisie perspective, the specifics are different but both themes are two sides of the same coin. tl;dr 1984 is the print version of those crackpot websites that are all made in Frontpage, where every other word is formatted differently and there's a maddening tree of stream of consciousness ramblings, some of which lead to nowhere. The whole hoary debate can be summarised as basically one legible paragraph of that.
- philwelch 14y agoAt the top of the page, there are logos for other blogs that if you mouseover them, they pop down with inane headlines for things that don't matter. There are three pictures linking to inane political cartoons above the article. Above and to the left there is a "recent comments" widget and links to Facebook and StumbleUpon, plus a couple of Flash banner advertisements to round it out. Below the comic there is a row of social networking widgets, plus a block of linkspam along the lines of "The Hilarious College Liberal Meme", "10 Things Much Worse Than Same-Sex Marriage (But Are Totally Legal)", "Nine Hilariously Awkward Facebook Interactions", "50 Ridiculously Athlete Photos", and "Atom Bomb Detonation May Have Alerted Aliens that We're Trouble". After a long block of comments, there's more linkspam, including "19 Celebrity Drunk Pictures (Bet They Regret These!)". At the bottom of the page, even more linkspam, from "We know who’s the boss. (That damn cat)." and "Sheep Poop Bookmark" to "Cats Hate Wallpaper!" and "The Best Of The Overly Attached Girlfriend". At the very bottom, you can sign up for emails from this website, and there's another Twitter and Facebook widget for good measure. Sometimes you have to step back a little before the message really sinks in.
- steauengeglase 14y agoThe comic paints a picture from a very specific viewpoint, as if Huxley's were the rational, correct one and Orwell's came from a delusional fantasy land. Both men lived very different lives and they were responding to what they saw. Huxley came from a family distinguished in science and rational thought, so he had something to live up to. He was intellectually gifted, but was a poor authoritarian who was barred from military service due to poor eyesight. Orwell came from the gentry, was told that he was clever at a young age and when given the chance to see authority and violence he jumped at it. Both noticed just how broken the worlds they had stepped into were. Huxley was never shot in the throat or saw the Soviets pervert his ideals in Spain or endure a slow death by TB. Orwell had little interest in examining the gullible, impatient, "zippy" world of the US that Sinclair Lewis and Co were responding to, so he missed out on a taste of what the future would hold for those with peacetime and plenty.