8 ms·
There is something that feels a little dystopian about this article. Not in the George Orwell sense but more the Aldous Huxley sense. In Huxley's "Brave New Wor
by cconcepts 12y ago
There is something that feels a little dystopian about this article. Not in the George Orwell sense but more the Aldous Huxley sense. In Huxley's "Brave New World" the masses are brought under control, not by force or direct intimidation, but by reducing them to decadence and self-indulgence.
To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the authorities maintain their totalitarian rule;
"Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process, is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships, lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."
People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction".
Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing, but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had meaningful sex.
The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's writings.
I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is fitting in this instance:
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."
- SeoxyS 12y agoThis is probably one of my absolute favorite comments I've read on Hacker News. I think the scary part is that we have some mild but very real examples of these two dystopian visions in the world today. There are many Orwellian-ish regimes (e.g. North Korea, or to a very small extent the UK and its constant surveillance). But as can be seen, oftentimes this leads to a revolution and the regime falls. But on the other hand, much of the western world today is more akin to Huxley's dystopia. American culture and society today is a fantastic example of being drowned in indulgence and stupidity, and being controlled by it. Just watch the constant pointless bickering on cable news for an example of this. This kind of dystopia is much much harder to escape. There's nothing really to revolt against, because our stupidity & indulgence is our own captor. Now, of course, both of these dystopian visions are extremes, and the real world is much more nuanced. But that's the purpose of literature; to make a caricature that we can use to more clearly see patterns in the real world.
- dsirijus 12y agoOne of my favorites too, even though I disagree with seeing both Orwell's and Huxley's visions of future as some kind of dead end. It's hard for me to imagine something like that lasting for more than 2 generations. Quite contrary, I'm seeing it as a possible catalyst for radical change to something quite positive.
- cconcepts 12y agoInteresting point. Huxley's vision of the future would become a dead end when another entity sees our pleasure-induced ineptitude as their opportunity to pounce
- aaronem 12y agoAgreed; O'Brien's boot metaphor was purest hubris. I don't know if I'd call civilizational collapse "positive", though. Surely things will get better afterward! Things always do, eventually. But, judging by history, we'll be in for a rather ugly interregnum in the meantime, one marked by the sway of Hobbes's dictum ("...nasty, brutish, and short"), by constant insufficiency in all the material necessities of life, and by all manner of short-lived but violent popular enthusiasms; in general, a world fit only for those young enough to love chaos, and one harsh even for them. I don't fear for the species; we're tough bastards and can survive anything short of heat death. But I would like to think that some day we'll work out the trick of anakyklosis and finally have done with dark ages.