As we get to the end of our experiments in and presentations of utopian thinking, there are two thoughts that are lingering in my mind--genetic engineering and social engineering. There is no doubt that we can achieve some level of success, however you define success, with both of these endeavors. Some undesirable human traits can be diminished, if not eliminated, through human intervention. Many of your presentations assume that we will be able to use medical technology to mitigate physical suffering. Many also assume that we will be able to engineer communities that will foster desirable living conditions for everyone.
The catch for me is this: When we require someone to meet, for example, membership or citizenship requirements, we simultaneously exclude those who do not meet those standards. When we set standards for human behavior, we have to be aware of the fact that the elimination of the extremes extends to the the best as well as the worst. Not so, you say? Consider that when we foster something desirable like cooperation, we eliminate rebellion. The elimination of rebellion is good when rebels want undesirable things, but it's bad when we eliminate those things that appear to be undesirable only in the short run. This principle holds true when we're talking about any form of selection--social or medical.
My question is simple. What light does Brave New World shed on this dilemma? If we take no action, known evils will remain a part of our social and genetic make-up. If we take some action, unknown benefits will be eliminated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The society in BNW is one of rigid control over every aspect of every life. This is so as to eliminate any known evils (in BNW those aspects of the real society that do not promote happiness and productivity as it is defined by the ruling class in the BNW society). Radical thinkers have been sacrificed for the sake of uniformity and regulation. In the event that a radical thinker, like Bernard, emerges, the upper classes of the society can easily arrange for his/her removal. In a case like BNW, where the majority of the society doesn’t know that there are alternative ways to live, are there really any unknown benefits? What I’m trying to get at here is whether or not the society is missing anything if no one recognizes that there is something missing. The people are happy for the most part, and the majority of those who are unhappy don’t care enough to do anything.
ReplyDeleteSarah K.
I think that for the betterment of society, eliminating evils is not the best action to take. It is not better to interfere at the genetic level than to struggle to find cures for diseases. This struggle will help advance society technologically and socially. In BNW, there is no suffering, and thereby, no struggle, neither intellectual nor physical. Although the people do not feel the lack, it is evident that their society is not advancing. It is actually deteriorating, as people like Bernardo is discovering this lack. The administrators try to abolish all such thoughts, but I think eventually the people of BNW will begin to realize the mundaneness of their society. So, by eliminating all the so called "evils" from their society in BNW, the benefits, such as advancement of society, are also being eliminated.
ReplyDeleteSwathi M.
In response to Sarah K...
ReplyDeleteI think there are unknown benefits. What you are saying is that the people in BNW cannot know what is lacking in their society due to their conditioning and whatnot, and I agree with this. But the fact that they don't know makes these benefits unknown. Only a third party, such as the reader, can identify what benefits were lost. Also, I think the unhappy people congregate, as is happening with Bernardo and Helmholtz, and this could grow to become a substantial force against the status quo. I agree that at the moment, it doesn't seem as though any change is evident, but projecting into the future, I think people will begin to notice the issues with the society in BNW.
In order for a society to function and for its inhabitants to thrive, known evils must be present in both social and genetic make-up. You will never know that joys in winning if you have never lost. You do not know true happiness if you have never been deeply saddened. The people of BNW have never known the difference. They believe they have a perfect social society, and never know of the deeply saddened moments. The same can be seen in genetic make-up. As Linda enters to see the Director after so many years, she has become much less appealing compared to when she was part of BNW. The women working in the labs scream because they have never seen such a “monster.” The lack of diversity in BNW will cause the society to function incorrectly. They only know of the perfect genetic make-up, they have never seen someone who is overweight before. Even the Director is disgusted in the ways Linda has changed. The lack of “evils” in the society is fine for the society until these evils present themselves. When these evils are present, it causes a slow collapse of the society.
ReplyDeleteThomas G.
Brave New World most certainly sympathizes with the point that Mr. Sanders makes here. It does so through the character Bernard Marx who longs to experience highs and lows; to be happy, sad, or angry. Unfortunately for him, the World State simply does not allow this kind of thinking. The entire society is set up to guard against any kind of seeming imperfection in the emotional lives of its people. Further, it threatens to expel citizens who don’t submit to these principles. Consequently, it can be inferred that Aldous Huxley is mocking this extreme, and advocating a lifestyle where there is room for error.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sarah K:
ReplyDeleteI agree that people are ignorant of what they are missing. However, it only takes one person like Bernard to notice its faults. A dysfunctional society, no matter how well its faults are masked, is bound to be exposed by someone. In other words, the citizens of BNW don’t know what good they are missing. For all the sorrow they avoid, they are missing out on a lot of genuine joy and happiness. Another fault of the World State’s ignorance is that its people have completely reversed morals, and they are completely unaware. Casual sex, a major moral crime for many people in our world, is an accepted part of life in BNW. In the real world, such behavior could lead to the downfall of a society.
Jeff M.
Every society contains flaws. In BNW those flaws are to be eliminated by various conditioning techniques that attempt to make people, both immune to sadness and eager for happiness. Casual sex, soma, and other various fundamental beliefs that BNW's utopia hold are in an attempt to "remove the evils" of society. The truth of the matter is through the attempt to remove evils, other evils are foreseen by others within the utopia. For example, the Savage became depressed by the ideologies of Bernard's world and found many considerable flaws that prove even if action is taken to remove evils, others will reemerge.
ReplyDeleteObaida D.
In response to Jeff M.:
ReplyDeleteIt is true the people of BNW don't understand what good they are missing. The truth of the matter is that they were trained into that ideology, it wasn't one that was shaped by their own free will. I agree with Jeff's statement that a dysfunctional society flaws are bound to be exposed by someone. Because as I was reading BNW Bernard, Helmholtz, and the Savage were the pioneers in discovering the many imperfections in a, so called, "perfect society." Therefore, I strongly believe that the behavior, as the one demonstrated in BNW, would fundamentally lead to the downfall of any society.
Obaida D.
Although I wish no evils upon society, when looking back through what has ailed society in past years, we can see that from all the events came progress and an all in all stronger society. We have always been told that we learn form our mistakes, and in reality, its true. How can a society learn, and grow if it never knows the necessary steps to do so. How can it advance if it never witnesses what could possibly lead to a downfall? In Brave New World, the largest mistakes we see being made consist of a little too much alcohol in the blood surrogate. If the people of the society never learn what could hurt their society, how can they really say that they are taking steps to help it? If they dont learn what can make the people sad, can they be sure that they are truly making them happy?
ReplyDeleteAmy J
In response to Sarah K and Thomas:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah in the fact that how can the society lose the benefit of something that they don't know. They can't feel as though they are missing out on something if it is something they have never had. But then i ask myself how they can really say they are happy if they have no basis of comparison for it. Either way, sadness or pure elation, if they have never felt anything different, how do they know what they are feeling is "happy?" The same goes with love. How can they say that promiscuity and non-attachment is better than real love if they have never witnessed true love? Tom states how once the evils arise in their society, the citizens have no idea what to do with them. For example, the director had real feelings for Linda. But when he lost her, there was nothing he could do for her because it was strange for him to want to find her so badly. And when she returned, he had no clue what to do besides leave and avoid the situation completely. Everything is always so easy for them, when change occurs, nobody knows what to do or how to handle it.
In Response Sarah K:
ReplyDeleteSarah, you bring up an excellent point. If the majority of the society does not know the alternate ways to live, alternate feelings, alternate experiences, then there are really no unknown benefits to those in the society. Until something like the return of Linda occurs. The whole community does not know what to do when Linda arrives, and is scared to look at her. These people know nothing different than themselves and those other ‘perfect’ people in their society. And a disturbance in this perfection (the arrival of Linda for example) causes great commotion amongst the community. I agree Sarah, these people really aren’t missing out if they don’t know what it is they are missing out on. However, if these people do find out what the other parts of the world are like, it cold lead to a possible downfall of the community.
Thomas G
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn ‘Brave New World’ pain, physically and emotionally, has been eliminated from the society. The question then still stands whether the inhabitants of this Brave New World can experience joy. I believe that they can. While the joy they experience may not be the same level of that of people who do suffer and understand the feelings of pain, joy exists nonetheless. This joy may be state instilled, but it still produces a feeling of happiness. For example, their perceived happiness for this new world when compared to Linda from the savage reservation makes them joyful that they no longer have to live like her. Also, Bernard, who is a minority, finds individual joy in intellectual pursuits. Even though the people of Brave New World did not suffer themselves, they can understand the suffering that used to occur or the way things used to be. It’s similar to the way in which we can be joyful that we are not living in the times of WWII. We do not understand completely what going through such a tragedy would be like, but we can understand the idea of it and therefore have some level of joy. The inhabitants of Brave New World are in no way better off emotionally due to their new society, but collectively they can still experience joy by relating their circumstances to those of the past.
ReplyDelete-Sarah B.
In response to Jeff M.’s response to Sarah K. :
ReplyDeleteWhile personally I do agree that the people in Brave New World are ignorant of what they are missing, I think the people of Brave New World could argue the same point against us. Your view point would all depend on the context in which you live. As we see the people of Brave New World as missing out on emotions, they see us, relatable to the savages, as missing out on cooperation, productivity, and physical well-being. I believe Huxley shows two extreme ends of the spectrum to advocate a middle ground which cannot be advocated by presenting it on its own. He shows us a savage world with emotions and pain and a Brave New World without emotions or pain. It is up to us to reconcile the two and find a middle ground where morals of emotional expression, cooperation, productivity and the limiting of physical pain, that are separately present in one of the two worlds, can co-exist and work together in a better society for all.
-Sarah B.
In Brave New World, the society takes the extreme view of taking all possible action on genes. They remove any variables in the genetic pool. On the other hand, the reservations are similar to today’s society. The “New World” society removes all suffering and genetic deformity. Because of this, they cannot truly comprehend happiness or joy. Though they think they can, they are unable to see the full spectrum. The only ones who may be able to are those on the reservation, as they have witnessed pain and suffering. This whole topic is a give and take. Is the pain worth the joy? That is the main question you need to answer.
ReplyDeleteEugenics is a messy topic. While the ideas may be noble, it has been perverted by many throughout history. Adolf Hitler anyone? ANd while it may not be right to condemn something that has the potential for good based on the actions of a few, I am afraid in this case it is necessary, if only because Eugenics goes against everything we as Americans' hold dear. Chief among these is the right to liberty. And this is a topic that BNW deals with head on. Because the people in that dystopia are conditioned to know what to like and what to feel and what to think, they have really lost what we as Americans' claim is an "Unalienable right." So I believe that Huxley's point in making the idea of liberty or a lack thereof a large part of his novel is that was to show to people that Eugenics is not something to be messed with; even if that means allowing known evils to continue to exist.
ReplyDelete-Nathan F.
It seems to me that this issue is really dependent on what evils you are seeking to eliminate. Some evils seem to be undeniably bad for a society. For example, genocide. Its rather difficult to argue that genocide is a good thing for society. Committing acts like this doesn’t seem to give us a heightened appreciation for times in which it is are absent(when was the last time someone thanked a president for not murdering millions of people?). As a species we have certain expectations for how we are supposed to behave. Thus, there is no gratitude or appreciation for not committing these acts, we see it as people simply doing what is expected of them.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there are those evils that can benefit society and do not violate our basic expectations. Look at laziness, Christianity considers it a sin and yet it is responsible for many of our finest inventions. Evils like these cannot be eliminated from society without loosing benefits. I think that these evils must be tolerated if we are to advance as a species.
Towards the end of Brave New World, Mustapha Mond describes the society's ability to create more food much more quickly. He extends this to talk about all the emerging technologies and the minimized place of invention. His argument is that any sort of change, even for the "better" will eliminate stability. In this way, Brave New World gives us an example of utopias actually eliminating the good. Not allowing for more advancements will obviously get rid of the bad of instability, but also the good of new discovery and creative thought. Many of the world's greatest ideas, from democracy to consumer technologies, have come from social and political revolution. By opting for stability, as most utopias do, we eliminate revolution and thus the catalyst for change is gone.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sarah K.:
ReplyDeleteWhile I see what you are saying, the problem arises with those few people like Bernard and Helmholtz, who are shipped off to the island. It is fine for the average people to experience the happiness they experience, but such a society does not allow its greatest minds to be fulfilled to the greatest possible extent, which raises the question of whether it is acceptable to sacrifice the happiness of the few for the sake of the many. When creative minds don't see the fruits of their labor put to use, they have no incentive to create anymore, which will lead to their unhappiness. The lack of use of these progressions also decreases the potential happiness of the many. Thus, I would say that the suppression of technological invention in Brave New World is not actually good, even if the masses don't know what they are missing.
Having thought about this topic many times throughout my life, I know now that even when removing all things that are bad and evil, the results will still not be better than could have been. At first when trying to justify if we should or should not remove evils, most of us think that this could result in a better world that makes every person happy and equal. After reading through Brave New World, I can safely say that this is not always the case. When everything is removed from the Brave New World’s society, we see that every citizen has no emotion. Going back to what I mentioned earlier, this has achieved one goal; everyone is now equal. But when you are not capable of feeling pain, is happiness something that we can experience? Even though removing the evils from a society has created equality in some sort, can we agree that this is only true in their own perspective? They are now ignorant to what could have been a different, more prosperous life. But to them, they only know what they have experienced. Huxley has created an interesting dilemma here in which if everything evil should be removed. I do not believe that we can understand this dilemma since there are two different perspectives of viewing this issue, both with positives and negatives.
ReplyDeleteConnor B.
I think what Huxley is trying to say about removing evils is that you disrupt the balance in the world. Without pain there is no happiness; without failure there is no success. When one extreme is suppressed, there seems to be bad consequences. For example, when Linda came to the utopia, it was hard for its citizens to see someone who was not like them at all, not being physically and aesthetically perfect, calling her a "monster". Also, Linda was the mother of the D.H.C.'s illegitimate son. This goes to show that in order to live a fulfilling life, one has to face the extremes of human existence. In the end, it leads to a better society that can live with choices.
ReplyDeleteScott K.
I agree with Jeff M. on his point that the World State tries to guard imperfections in people by not allowing them to feel emotions. One aspect of human nature that Huxley is advocating here is that humans are not perfect. As I said in a earlier post, humans are emotional beings and with being emotional, we also make mistakes. By not allowing people to have their imperfections, the World State is dehumanizing its citizens to brainwashed robots. In a sense, Huxley wants us to see that it is our different strengths, as well as our weaknesses, that make society strong and functioning.
ReplyDeleteScott K.
In the Brave New World, God has been completely eliminated. Man has assumed the position of God and taken on his role and position. This is what makes the BNW completely different form every other society as every society that has ever existed has had some sort of god outside of themselves. The BNW obviously thinks that God is not a necessary aspect to include in their society as they aspire to gain complete happiness. The BNW believes old things are bad, and God is classified as an old thing. But some people believe God is the only way to true happiness. If this is true, the BNW sacrificed true happiness for new, and superficial happiness. In cutting out all the old, they cut out what they were looking to gain from cutting out the old. This is an example of when new may not always be the best option.
ReplyDeleteLuke M.
In response to Connor B.
ReplyDeleteI like you comments about the differing perspectives. We can clearly see that the BNW is lacking in some areas but the inhabitants of the BNW cannot. But is ignorance bliss? They feel that they are living in a perfect world and are happy constantly and don't want change. So why change it? We see that changes are necessary but would changes make it better? Why change what is "perfect"? This is a very interesting question indeed. It causes me to think, are we ignorant of changes that need to take place in our society? How can we gain access to that second perspective? What is limiting us from viewing our society from that second perspective? Or should we even bother looking for that second perspective on how to change our society for the better if we like the way it is now, even if it is not absolutely perfect?
Luke M.
The quote from the Controller sums up Huxley’s beliefs in BNW: “Of course [Othello is better]. But that’s the price we have to pay for stability.” It’s impossible to have everything so some ideals must be sacrificed for the betterment of different ideals. In BNW, they gave up unhappiness, but they also gave up higher levels of unhappiness (such as watching feelies instead of Othello). As the Controller says, “being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.” When trying to reach a middle ground such as happiness, the highs and lows are diminished so all that’s left is mundane. It’s clear that Huxley is in favor of having both happiness and unhappiness, even if that means living with pain. When John “the savage” wanted the right to be unhappy, the Controller told him he was also claiming “the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat…” and yet John responded, “I claim them all.” That profound statement shows that the unhappy, painful consequences are much worth the exhilarating happiness that the citizens in BNW were missing.
ReplyDelete- Julia H.
I believe that we do need to have the low times in order to rise up and grow from them. As Emerson said, "when it is darkest, men see the stars". I think this quote applies here since if there were no problems or defects, as presented through BNW there would be no need to look ahead to prosper. Without trials society is stagnant in what they only believe to be a perfect society. If one extreme were to be eliminated ie despair or ecstasy there is no way to compare the feelings you have to completely understand the emotion. As we see in the book, with the appearance of Linda, you can only isolate yourself from change for so long.
ReplyDeleteFarah S.
In response to Natasha:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying. When trying to create stability, change is almost always feared because it creates instability. Yet some of the greatest changes have gotten us to where we are today. Take, for example, the American Revolution and women’s suffrage. Sure, not all change is for the better, but how can we know if the change will improve or detriment society when it is forbidden in the first place? As you said, eliminating change eliminates the bad but also the good in society and I’m not sure how the inability to improve can lead to a successful utopia.
- Julia H.
In response to Julia and Natasha
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that change brings about the positive aspects of human existence. However, I’m not sure that I agree with Julia’s idea that a utopia without change cannot succeed. In my opinion, a place in which humans are not allowed to change, adapt, or invent is not a utopia at all but a dystopia. I think that it is possible to have a dystopia of this nature, but it’s far from preferable; the Amish seem to have managed to remain almost exactly the same for like two hundred years. Think of all of the positive things that modern technology has brought that they have missed out on.
-Andrew G.
If we eliminate everything that is undesirable we also remove the chance for the species to evolve. For instance if we could "design" our children we will lose the most beautiful people because most of the current beautiful people were considered odd looking when we first saw them. No one thought that fat lips were pretty until Angelina Joile started pouting. Most things are great because they are rare and genetic engineering would make everything the same so nothing would be horrible or great. I would miss the diversity.
ReplyDelete-Becca W.
In response to Julia's points about change:
ReplyDeleteObviously, the people in BNW chose to eliminate the known evils risking the unkown benefits. I believe that by only creating people that think just like you might seem nice, but it will keep the world in the same place forever. I hope they like their lives in BNW because I think that they have removed any chance for them to change overall. When we remove the known evils and anything that is different we take away the chance for change. If we remove the option of change we also lose a lot of hope for the future.
-Becca W.
The society created in Brave New World prohibits any thinking or practice that does not conform to the set norm. This type of radical change will undoubtedly come with many consequences. Take for example the idea of family, something that Huxley has clearly established as something that was removed completely from society. Essentially, this makes people more independent because they have no parents to support them. However, this also means that children are not taught any values that are learned in the home. Thus, it is a give and take situation. And the fundamental question becomes which is better: child dependency or moral-less character? Uniform thinking also comes with an inability to progress. A static society cannot last. For this reason, although most evils may be eliminated, the so called “utopian” society will be weaker and more vulnerable. On top of all this, it is when temporarily prevails that allow a society to grow the most. It all comes back to the basic proverb: “You can see the farthest on a cloudy day.” By eliminating the cloudy days, we also eliminate a vital extent of our vision.
ReplyDelete-Mel B.
In response to Obaida:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Obaida has indicated that it is not only impractical, but also impossible to remove all evils from a society. New troubles and issues will always emerge. If as a society we choose to turn away from our problems and ignore them, eventually these problems will build and society will become so catastrophically bad that we will have much more difficulty remedying the broken community. When all along, if we just faced the problems head on, an easy solution could have been found and the society would have grown and progressed. This idea is especially evident when Bernard brings the Savage back to his society. The Savage is viewed as repulsive, but is the Savage really better off in Bernard’s society? Did he really gain a higher quality of life by living in this “ideal society”? Well, not really at all.
- Mel B.
In response to Tom, I also found Linda's character as an example of how at first getting rid of imperfections was a good idea, but eventually could turn sour. The BNW was in isolation from so many things that once Linda came back they were unsure how to respond. They were so uniformed that the appearance of anyone/anything foreign was inconceivable. The lack of diversity, as Becca pointed out, I would miss as well.
ReplyDeleteFarah S.
In responds to Farah,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that there needs to be a base of comparison to fully appreciate an emotion. Our definition of what happiness feels like is completely different than a citizen of Brave New World’s society feels when they “feel” happy. The ignorance that the whole society has completely blinds them from the possibilties that they could have pertained if they were not in the situation that they are in. With the idea of removing one common feature that we humans pertain has disrupted the natural way humans are and react to certain things. As many have mentioned, with Lindas appearance, we view a change in the perspective of the total society. Seeing something different for the first time is an eye opener and completely changes how one thinks and functions. We cannot remove something as important as emotions and believe to live in bliss for the rest of our existence. We need these common things to help identify how we truly feel. Without them, we are truly not human. Sometimes the evils are necessary to understand what the true good is in our world. Even though it would be understandable to want to remove them, I do not believe we can make such a decision.
Connor b.
As most other aspects within this society, the desire to genetically create a forcibly stratified social structure(although homogeneous within classes) is just another way to ease control over the population. The removal of diseases is admirable, but the line is not drawn there. People are deliberately retarded to create a working class that has no opportunity to better themselves. Genetic modification is used to an extent where humans are pre determined to play a specific part in the workings of this society. BNW works under the assumption that all diseases have been eliminated. In the real world, however, excessive genetic modification would lead to unintended consequences, such as susceptibility to a disease that has not yet been encountered, which could pose a threat to the entire race if everyone has a nearly identical genetic make up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Unknown Benefits" certainly seem to be the weak point for me. It seems to me that this kind of dilemma invites a cost-benefit analysis, which appears to be the way most people are considering the question. Let's take a bit simpler dilemma, in fact, let's make it even easier: get rid of the dilemma. For the sake of analogy, I'll quickly demonstrate a cost-benefit analysis of drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteCost:
Possible Death
Likely Ticket/DUI
Possibly killing others
Benefits:
N/A
It seems like a simple decision doesn't it... but let's add a single element. Are there, perhaps, “Unknown Benefits” to drunk driving?! However, the same reasoning could lead us to the belief that there are "Unknown Costs" as well. How do our "Unknown Costs" and "Unknown Benefits" compare? Simply put, it is impossible to account for unknowns of any kind in this form of analysis. So what should we then do? Perhaps we should do nothing, since we can't decide which side the analysis favors. This kind of paralysis is a bit unreasonable when another alternative is available. It might be a pretty safe assumption that your unknowns will cancel out, as I think we'd all agree would occur in our hypothetical "dilemma". We can account for the consequences we don't understand or know by being careful when regarding the ones we do understand. So... If we can "eliminate known evils" through human conditioning, we should do so. We must do so carefully and thoughtfully, because in some cases a cost-benefit analysis will yield different results. However, inviting "Unknown Costs" and "Unknown Benefits" into the equation makes little sense, at least in terms of rational thinking.
BNW approaches the challenges of society rather ineffectively. Undesirable traits and behaviors are either eliminated through genetic engineering or strongly discouraged, as is the case with monogamous relationships. Overall the society is designed so that the people in it are less human. They have lost a capacity to feel deep emotions, like love. Where, hypothetically, a lack of emotion would create more stability it takes away the fundamental qualities that make humans what they are. Through the continual use of drugs, like soma, artificial feelings are created as substitutes for real ones. By trying to eliminate the things in society that could potentially cause turmoil, the humans become more artificial.
ReplyDeleteLauren S.
In response to everyone that said that BNW is bad:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you say that the suppression of creativity and advancement created in BNW is horrible. Although it eliminates the extremely bad things, it also eliminates the extremely good things. However, none of us grew up in a society that was anywhere close to the one depicted in BNW. We can not say that those people are really missing out on anything if they never knew that anything outside their world existed. To us, they are missing out, but to them they are happy. Yes, there are exceptions to this happiness, but I don't think its possible to satisfy everyone completely in any society, especially those who have more intellectual capability than others.
Sarah K.
In response to Mel
ReplyDeleteI think that Mel presents a good point in stating that if everyone is conditioned to think alike then there will be no progress. Progress emanates from a need for change. Change will occur either when people are unhappy with their current situations or when they are trying to better themselves. However everyone in BNW is conditioned to be happy with their situations. As a result the society presented in BNW lacks any real progress because everyone believes that there is no reason to be unhappy. In this case, eliminating the evils of society also meant that any form of progress was halted.
Lauren S.
In response to Nathan:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan. I dont think that we are mature enough as a species to think about fundamentally altering the natural trends of evolution. However, eugenics is a very attractive proposition in some regards. Notable minds such as James Watson and William Shockley advocated eugenics to promote the intelligence of the human race(although Shockley advocated weaning the black race out of the human population). This is a perfect example of why eugenics is too touchy of a subject for us to consider using it. For every benefit, there is a very substantial negative
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many of the comments above, I believe I may have clicked on the link to "Masochists of the World, UNITE!" instead of Mr. Sanders' blog. First of all, maybe eliminating all the suffering in the world would lead to empty lives - Huxley certainly seems to believe so - but then again it might not. At the very least, I see as much evidence for as against... the amount of evidence of course being naught. Even so, that goal is ultimately impossible. Even in the BNW, there is still unhappiness... why else would they need soma? But more to the point, would eliminating SOME DEGREE of unhappiness necessarily lead to a lack of humanity? Perhaps an attempt to eliminate every perceived evil would result in a meaningless existence, but at least to a certain extent (regardless of what extent you believe that to be) eliminating human suffering would be a worthwhile endeavor. Certain uses of conditioning, like social predestination, are obviously condemnable (see Rajiv's post above), others, like the elimination of disease, would be desirable. Ultimately the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Farah posted above, "at first getting rid of imperfections was a good idea, but eventually [it] could turn sour." At some point along the spectrum between eliminating evil and ignoring it you have to draw the line. At some point, eliminating suffering may be wrong because without suffering one can't experience happiness, but are we there yet? As I brought up in class, can you know longer know true happiness because of the invention of Advil?
ReplyDeleteAs we can see in BNW, eliminating the bad isn't necessarily good. Everyone in the book is supposed to be happy at all times. Aldous Huxley openly mocks it because it clearly cannot work. I agree with him. If we start changing people genetically, everybody will be the same. There will be no individualism anymore. That would make the world really boring. Also, this would make everyone perfect and there would be no one higher on the social scale than anyone else. It may sound bad, but I wouldn't want this to happen. We must allow natural selection to be in effect.
ReplyDelete-Mike M.
response to Rajiv R.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his statement, "People are deliberately retarded to create a working class that has no opportunity to better themselves." If all of our genetic makeups were the same, it would be very difficult to distinguish ourselves from everybody else. Everyone would be stuck on the same social scale and no one would have the chance to better their lives. This shouldn't be right. Part of our freedom is the ability to try and make our lives better. This is the idea that America was based on. This genetic alteration would never work.
Mike M.
I think that is why America was created the way it was. "In order to form a more perfect union", not a perfect union. Its not hard to see that by trying to make everything perfect in the eyes of one person or one group of people will always fail. It will create rebellion. This is why we allow things like public protest. It is a form of rebellion, but it is not balls out war rebellion. The key in life is balance. Balance and patience. If we are going to eliminate evils, we can not expect to just nuke them. It will take time. New evils will develop in their place. It is part of life. You just cant win everything at once.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mike M:
ReplyDeleteI like your idea about natural selection. Certain people will be better than others in certain ways. I also agree with what you said about Huxley mocking the idea that everyone in the book is supposed to be happy. It seems to be a theme throughout the whole book. Every one of the extreme ideas in this book is merely being mocked by its author. I find it great. There should be some text on the inside cover that says "Everything in this book is a terrible idea"-Aldous Huxley. I find it extremely amusing.
Zach:
ReplyDeleteThere are unknown benefits to everything. They may seem like stretches, but no matter how bad the experience, there is always something to be learned. For example, you can have a near death experience with drunk driving. It may make that person appreciate life and the people around them more. C'mon you've seen it in movies. The man almost gets hit by a car, and suddenly everything in his life changes. A traumatic experience can always lead to something good. It can strengthen your character, make you more aware of what's around you. While it would not be desirable to have a near death experience, you never know what can come out of it, good or bad. While a drunk driving accident may not relate the most to the good and bad of rebellion, both have unknown benefits. I think it's important to analyze the costs and benefits as you have, because I think one can outweight the other. But everything has a benefit, unknown or otherwise.
Mr. Sanders, I think this is an excellent question, because I have no idea what to think. Our group was one that required a ridiculous application process. While we made it into a parody, we really were trying to target specific human behaviors. There is no advancement in society without diversity in human behavior. I am certainly not advocating conflict, but it has to be present. At the same time, society can take a few steps back (or maybe a giant leap) because of conflict. How do we know what behaviors will create progression? I don't think we can. It's truly a dilemma. But I think that's what Huxley is concluding in Brave New World. It is by showing two extremes, he's telling us to let it be. Neither extreme works. In class, we talked about whether Huxley was advocating the savage reservation or something in the middle. We're going to have to take risks, otherwise society will never progress. We will forever be stationary, and there will be no way to learn. Bernard, Linda, and John bring a lot of potential conflict back to civilization. But the people in charge allow it. Why? Because they see an opportunity for progress! Sure, it may end up horribly (it probably does). But you have to take the chance. I'm sorry to say we need undesirable human behaviors and we need conflict. It has brought us to where we are today. That may be a good or bad thing.
ReplyDeleteOur civilization has developed over thousands of years to become the way it is today. It is ONLY through the rebellion of individuals in society that we are able to better ourselves. Having laws set forth that delineate tolerable behavior from intolerable behavior are okay, as long as there is wiggle room for those who have brilliant ideas to bring them to the eyes of the leaders of the society. Where it gets dicey is when basic human freedoms, such as we have in the USA, like right to freedom of speech are denied. Frankly, we debated heavily about this in our presentation group. We decided that the ultimate utopia therefore, if we are going to allow basic human freedoms, is a utopia in which progress is searched for and on the contrary to Brave New World, those responsible for stagnation and repetitiveness would be cast out of our society. Therefore, I believe that in some cases the radical and the ingenious ideas can coexist, and the real evil is that off stagnation.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tanya:
ReplyDeleteOur project too had a grueling application and interview process. However, we realized that utopias are utopias for a reason: they define a set of social morals and give structure to a specific culture. Again, that is a specific culture. Not everyone can reside or fully express themselves within a Utopia; somewhere there has to be some amount of cooperation in order for anything to be accomplished. I appreciate Tanya's observations about linda and johns return to civilization and the choice of the leaders of the utopia to allow it. Why would they ever want to allow something so against their standards back into their community? To set an example. Everything that John and Linda do become a mockery among the civilized world. They are the outcasts and while John is able to scream all he wants and cause a ruckus in the factory among the Deltas, he really has no ability to change their values that are instilled deeply in their minds and hearts, because i definitely think that they truly believe what they are taught (going back to the idea of peer/social influence). Conflict therefore, can be present in a utopia and not even change it. In fact, there seems to be no reason to limit it, other than for exclusivity.
Basically, the society of BNW is a stagnant, static entity, there will never be any radical idea due to the stringent conditioning process, but neither will there be negative radical ideas like genocide or homicide. Sure these they have eliminated many negative traits like disease and crime, but just as how Tolstoy wrote his masterpiece in the harsh winter, humanity made some of its greatest innovations as a result of these evils. If I desired a world that was stable but boring and oppressed, I would choose to live in London in BNW, but if I wanted to exist in a world that is ever-changing, exciting, and beautiful despite its flaws, I would prefer to live in the present day. Humanity has become this way due to change over the period of thousands of years. This development has had its flaws, class division, poverty, war but by taking away these conflict, a person takes away the motivation for change. It might sound like a terrible thing to say, but a life in which every day is the same is pretty much the same is hardly a life, by allowing for human beings to be the unpredictable creatures they are, you pave the road to future evils, yes, but at the same time you make way for a more promising tomorrow.
ReplyDeletein response to Farah...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that you have to have bad times in order to have good times, but to play the devil's advocate, I must ask the question as to, if you could eliminate the bad times, aren't we still better off without a bad time at all? Sure it's easy to say that our society is perfect the way it is, but we live in a middle/upper middle pre-dominantly white suburb of the most free country in the world, compared to us citizens of third world countries are the unluckiest people in the universe. Our socio-economic classes are so different that there's an inherent injustice on this division. Wouldn't it be better if we could ALL live in a society that never went hungry and usually got what they wanted, instead of a comfortable lifestyle being only affordable for a priviliged few?
In the BNW society, they are sheltered from any radical adjustments. They are born into a society were they were predetermined how to think, what group to socialize with, what jobs to prefrom, and to solve any issue with a few grams of soma if needed. Within their obscure caste system, no one is ever taught to feel any pain or try and reach beyond what they are given. Their mindset is based upon working as a group, and coexisting by belonging to everyone. By creating this false equality, they dont know anything outside of their sheltered world, unable to read "provacative" literature and request permission to do certain activites such as visiting the savage reservations. By eliminating all the unjusts, their conditioned mind doesnt know more than what they are told making them unable to think outside of what they are given. In that utopia that may work, but in a modern society we thrive upon those who speak their mind to make positive change, and build for a greater tomarrow. With all the uncertainties in the world we are able to learn and grow from our mistakes which in the end helps us build upon a greater understanding of the world and people among us. If we eliminate that, there isnt much room left for growth as a whole.
ReplyDeletekaili W.
In response to Zach,
ReplyDeleteI would say that he does have a good point that there still IS unhappiness in BNW. Huxley's utopia strives for stability by conditioning and creating false emotions, by creating a false happiness in the form of soma, they are able to control any uprising behaviors. By conditioning their citizens to take soma even before they start to feel these emotions just proves to show how much it is needed within the society, and that through conditioning they are able to control everyones emotions for the most part, the conditioning, providing a background mentality to support how they would like their citizens to think. Though by eliminating all the negatives, and creating an equal mindset, they are ultimatly creating shallow mindless clones who go through life without every really experiencing what is out there. Yes, being able to go through life without suffering would be fantastic, but you can never fully appreciate somthing until it is taken away.
kaili w.
In response to Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan when he says that eugenics is a messy topic. I agree that our right to liberty is an unalienable right that is removed by the dystopian community. Brave new world destroyed that liberty by tampering with the way you think and what you like and are scared of. I think the saying better the enemy you know comes into effect. I think it is better to keep the known evils than possibly run into larger, unknown problems.
-Nikhil H.
Making mistakes is a fundamental part of life, and learning from those mistakes is a fundamental part of being human. Without error in our endeavors, we will never be able to progress in the appropriate direction. I believe that there is no solution to this dilemma, and that imposing a central authoritative device, be it government or genetic manipulation, will only skew the balance of life in the wrong direction. BNW shows that in both situations, you're going to lose somehow, and it asks you to pick which society you would rather live in. If we think about the opposite of BNW, we see nature choosing order for us. The question evolves into this: By who's hand would you rather live by, nature or another man's?
ReplyDeleteJohn C.
In response to what Zach B. said...
ReplyDeleteI really liked Zach's ponit of view on this topic and its certainly less pesimistic. There always has to be some desire and notion towards eliminating evils in the world and those that are counterproductive to human civilization or disatisfaction would arise on the grand scale. In order for people to be happy with the faults in the world, they have to be able to get themselves out of or evade being thrown into the negative situation (if that makes sense). For example, Malaria is a terror within Africa though not for people in America because they have the means to avoiding it. What I'm trying to get at in relation to Zach's point is that moving beyond errors is necessary for happiness and should still be pursued, but precaution must be taken or we'll end up in the rut that those of the BNW are in.
John C.
In BNW genetic engineering is used to its fullest. Any possibility for deformity is removed. BNW also uses genetic engineering to create certain classes of people. The great thing about life is that it is a risk. Sometimes mistakes are made, but from these mistakes greatness can be born. Therefore, when you eliminate the randomization and start tampering with a human’s genetic code you lose the possibility of what could have happened. Therefore, this situation should be looked at as a balance and when you do something to one side you affect the other side. However, not every action is weighed the same. Some decisions will affect the other side more then others. So in the end we have to decide if what we will gain will be more then what we will lose.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rajiv
ReplyDeleteI really liked what Rajiv was getting at towards the end of his first post. I do agree that as we cure known diseases new ones will pop up. For example, in the nineteenth century cancer was not as big of a problem because people did not live long enough to get it. So even thought we over come one hill a new one will arise. Therefore, I do agree that even with genetic engineering we will not be able to solve all of are problems because as we advance our advancements will bring new problems.
I'm going to cheat by having another response...
ReplyDeleteSo Tanya, I'm not saying there aren't unknown benefits, I just don't think they should play a role in our decision making process. Perhaps by having a near death experience while drunk driving you will become a better person, I completely understand that. But on the same hand... you don't say that drunk driving is OK because you might have a near death experience while drunk driving and may become a better person. There are unknown costs and unknown benefits to everything, but to attempt to base your decisions on unknowns is like trying to build a building without a fixed foundation, your reasoning won't hold up. As soon as you allow unknown benefits into the equation, you must also allow unknown costs. From there, you run into paralysis. It is *by definition* impossible to compare unknown costs and benefits. How would you decide which were greater or how they would compare to the known costs or benefits? There is simply no way to do either. That said, the only way cost-benefit analysis can work is if you make the decision to exclude unknown costs and benefits.
I'll admit that I have yet to read the posts of others but...
ReplyDeleteI think that Brave New World stresses and rejects the notion that the greatest risk is not taking one. The entire novel seems to be a plea for the men who have the power to accelerate the technology and science of any era to have patience and think about the morality and overall impact of their advancements before taking any drastic action.
Furthermore I believe BNW stresses that not all technological advancements are made equal. There are those that may help the common good and do so throughout civilizations development and there are those that may seem moral at first but develop into something ugly as times develops. It is up to the the people who bring the widespread onset of these supposed advancements to be responsible, and in the case of BNW it is up to the masses whether or not they wish to submit their will to that of advancement.
In response to Erik's comment about finding balance between idealism and pessimism of progress:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that in order to avoid becoming like a society depicted in Brave New World (and let's be honest the consensus among us is that we wish to avoid this fate) is to understand the pros and cons of change and progress. To consider only the idealistic nature of progress and advancement would be to ignore thousands years of human development in which we have used our advanced scientific prowess to kill thousands with a single nuclear warhead or come up with disgusting brilliant terrorist plots just to make a point. On the other hand to be purely pessimistic towards societal progress would be a sham and mire the human race in an unnecessary trap where there would be no hope for change and as such much motivation to keep one self going and to progress on an individual level will disappear if progress on a societal level is dropped completely. In order for the one to want to push forward, the group needs to desire to push forward.
Brave New World presents a society where the powers-that-be have thrown caution to the winds and proceeded to stabilize human society, disregarding missing out on any potential benefits, and focusing on the the sole benefit of a society that does not complain, rebel, or otherwise cause trouble. In BNW, the benefits that were eliminated were not unknown-they were tossed aside and buried away. As with so many other aspects of BNW, the pursuit of stability has pushed every part of what would have been good in a moderated amount to the extreme.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Zach,
ReplyDeleteI concur on the fact that there can be no way to to weigh unknown costs and benefits, because as you said, they are by definition unknown. However, we live in a world where definitions are not always absolute. I would argue that as we implement some process or action, the unknown costs and benefits slowly becomes known. For lack of a more serious metaphor while thinking on an empty stomach, imagine an ancient printer that you've found, and you have to use it because it's all you have and you're low on time for printing out your latest assignment. When it first begins, you have no idea if the quality will be fine. As more and more of the printer shows, you can create a better prediction of what the final result will be, and from there you can decide whether to spend this constrained time letting the document finish, or canceling the print and trying to fix it. In a similar vein, we can not be sure of the costs and benefits of President Obama's new healthcare plan, only speculate and predict, but as more and more money is spent, we can begin to understand the previously unknown costs and benefits and make judgements from there. I suppose that my final word would be to proceed with caution, because if you don't carefully watch the printer, you then have absolutely no way of predicting what will be created.
In BNW, everyone in the society is protected from the evils of an unstable society. Everyone thinks and behaves in relatively the same way and is told that if they do come in contact with any problems soma will fix it. They never feel real pain and wouldn’t even understand the concept of emotions. Because their society removed so much from their way of life to protect them and become stable, they cannot progress as a whole. They can’t think for themselves since they all think the same way. Their society is like an endless cycle of the same person, the same thoughts, ideas, and actions. They do not understand the essential parts of life like the mistakes that people learn from to become a better person, therefore, they are never gaining anything from this way of life, besides the obvious of eliminating disease.
ReplyDelete-MacKenzie L.
In response to Daniel…
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Dan said about life and how it is a risk. The way BNW takes genetic engineering to the extremes by handpicking the individuals that will become the intelligent Alphas or the Epsilons that will be stunted and stupefied by oxygen deprivation and chemical treatments is to make a stable and perfect society. However, since they are controlling everything in their society there is no more individuality. With individuality may come greatness, they may be losing a person who could have thought of new unique ways on improving their society but they will never know since the government makes all the decisions. I think they are forgetting that the person they all look up to, Ford, was a unique individual who lived during a time that their society would consider unstable. I think it is better to allow known evils to be accepted as part of what comes with life because without them we may run into even larger unknown problems in the future like Nikhil had said. The people in the BNW cannot really improve if they don’t make mistakes nor will they ever understand how much they may actually be losing.
-MacKenzie L.
I think that this is mainly an issue of balance. The important thing is being able to make good choices about when to take action and when to allow some exploration. If the evils outweigh any possible benefits, then action should be taken. However, if the possible benefits are great and the negative consequences are minimal, then exploration should be allowed. A lot of times we feel like we have to keep moving forward with every new idea in every field, even if after some development that idea proves to be a bad one. It is with complicated and controversial issues that careful consideration needs to be taken and pros and cons weighed.
ReplyDelete- Meg G
I agree with Katelyn that it is through rebellion and change that we are able to make progress. However it is important to keep in mind that our government is set up to attempt to achieve the most good for the most people. Therefore, if there is something fundamentally wrong with the society, and a major portion sees fit to make a change, then perhaps action should be taken. However, if it is an individual looking to make progress for his own benefit or beliefs, then serious consideration should be put into whether or not the benefits will outweigh the possible evils.
ReplyDelete-Meg G
The dystopia portrayed in Brave New World shows us how balance has to be achieved in all aspects of our lives. Without the pain that traditional relationships and working to achieve positions of power bring, we cannot feel emotions like satisfaction, love, ambition, or desire. When social engineering goes so far as to remove all purpose from a persons life, it makes it so that the goals it accomplishes are useless. Aldous Huxley intends for us to discover while reading Brave New World that we cannot have the best and most fulfilling of emotions without experiencing pain and suffering to some degree. Huxley wants us to see that sacrificing ourselves to this pain and suffering is worth the fulfillment we can receive through other emotional outlets.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Norman L.:
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that having some beginning indication of how a project will turn out can assist a person in creating expectations for the rest of the project, I don't believe it is impossible to know if the benefits of a project or idea outweigh its risks before beginning it. Throughout every day of our lives we are instilled with a set of moral codes and values by which we are able to judge the worth of a project or idea. This moral code can help us to see the profits and cost of an idea before executing it.
As I discussed on the board for sexual mores, Huxley's ideal society is one full of uncertainty and ambiguity. On the argument it is clear the he would argue on the side of the unknown, that what we dont know is potential something we could know and could understand and use. It's an interesting perspective, but how can you not be satisfied with it? it ensures a limitless universe, one which is always offering something new. This satisfied Huxley, and it satisfies me. That is why I would argue that in order to allow for progress in a civilization, it must have the unknown factor.
ReplyDeleteNorman, I agree. There is a lot of intentionality in the decisions the world in Brave NEw World has made which extinguished the unknowns. They certainly knew what they were doing and they didn't view it as a loss of any sort. The people in power were comfortable with the way it was, and didn't want to introduce change in anyway. The benefits that they were interested were known and they wanted to embellish those and douse any hint of novelty. Novelty was the perfect spark for rebellion, revolution, and uncertainty. The balance could swing far from order and out of the hands of those in control. for the sake of order, efficiency, and everyone involved, they eliminated the unknowns.
ReplyDeleteTom's mentioning of "You'll never know the joy of winning if you've never lost" definitely summed up my feelings on this topic. As human beings, we go through life hoping for success. On our journey to achieving success, we achieve multiple failures. We learn from our failures and how to change our current ways in order to turn towards the path to success. In BNW, the uniformity of the society is so strong that no one can really achieve the happiness that we as people in the world we live in can achieve. If everyone had the same lifestyle, no one could feel the truth that comes from being an individual. No one in the Bernard's world will come to know the true love that many people have found in our society. Yes, removing flaws is a good thing on paper- but one must also note that, many times, our flaws make us who we are.
ReplyDeleteDavid L.
In BNW, the government controls the majority of people's lives in order to escape the known problems in society, but there is no freedom to change things. Change is healthy, as is radical thinking. Without new ideas, we stop making progress. The society in BNW may be without many conflicts we face in our own society, but positive cannot exist without negative. Because control is used to eliminate problems, the society cannot improve, it can only stay the same or get worse. And as people realize they're living at one level, they cease to be happy.
ReplyDeleteThe controllers in BNW have worked to eliminate all possible known evils from their society. Medical, social, genetic- all types of things that could have possibly hampered the stability of the society have been wiped away. In turn though, they have stifled change and innovation. Societies must be allowed to react to things, to change with the circumstances. It is impossible to destroy all known evils- like in Whack-a-Mole, as soon as you hit one down, another will surely rise up. But, we have the hammer. We can react to whatever evil rises up and hit it down, and the next one and the next one. The trails and struggles that such an effort may bring may eventually be rewarded by an unknown benefit that’ll make it worth all the trouble. In BNW, however, they have no hammer to whack things down. Sure, perhaps fewer things pop up, but once they are up, there is no action that the stagnate society of BNW can take to handle them. We must have the known evils (the moles) in order to have a shot at the unknown benefits (the awesome prize we’re going to get with the tickets we win). And personally, the prizes have always been worth the efforts it took to get them.
ReplyDeleteTim R.
In response to most of Zach's comments:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that in the cost-benefit analysis of drunk driving, the known costs far outweigh the unknown benefits. However, you go on to say that "inviting 'Unknown Costs' and 'Unknown Benefits' into the equation makes little sense, at least in terms of rational thinking." However, drunk driving is a narrow, extreme example. My experience in life has shown me that sometimes the decisions we make and things we do are not always left up to rational thinking. In fact, I would say that very few of the important decisions that we make during our lives are decided upon by rational thinking. We do what we want to do, what pour, no matter if it doesn't follow logic. We willfully turn a blind eye to logic to pursue these "unknown benefits" on the basis of fleeting emotions. That is because the unknown benefits have the potential to be so great. These “gut feelings” are just as important to us as our intelligence and logic. So yes, the unknowns should be ignored in a cost-benefit analysis of drunk driving. But in different circumstances, where the choice is not so clear cut, our rational thinking may fail us by either being in contridiction to our heart or completely unsure. At this point, we must included the unknowns and the “what ifs?”
Tim R.
I think Brave New World is an inaccurate representation of what would happen if all the evils of the world were eliminated. No matter what, there will always be things that can create suffering. For example, if I am taken at birth by the government or a group of people or anyone and put into a situation where the only three things that I go through are being brutally beaten, being put naked into a room with sub zero temeratures, and sitting in a dark room at a normal temperature by myself, I am going to be as happy when I am in that room as I am on Christmas in my actual life. This is because I only know three things in the entire world: pain, cold, and the dark room. Therefore, the dark room is in my opinion the greatest thing in the world. The same idea will work in reverse, if we eliminated all the evils in the world, the worst thing that did not get eliminated would take the place of cancer, AIDS, etc and the people who never knew these diseases and hardships would look at whatever was the worst thing not eliminated as we look at cancer.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Meg G., in my opinion, no matter what actions we take, in the long run the world will be balanced. The world is always in a long term equillibrium, everything has its opposites. Dark has light, cold has heat, and this is no different for human emotions. As I have previously stated, I do not believe it is possible to eliminate unpleasant things from life. The people in Brave New World all claim to be happy, because they are told they are and truely believe that. However, if they actually had today's definition of happy would they be? If you look at their interactions, they are exactly like us. Some situations occur which please them and some situations occur which anger them. However, the situations that anger them are much less dramatic than a situation that would anger us. Despite the elimination of all evils, something can happen which can completly ruin their day. This is why I believe that the world will stay in balance. We will always have highs and lows, even if the gap between the highest high and the lowest low is narrowed, if we dont have previous maladies to compare our lows to, we will not know the difference and life will be the same.
ReplyDeleteMax makes a very good point, that there is always something that will be the worst thing for people. Not everyone will always be happy. In the society of BNW, there are still unhappy people. Humans cannot all agree on everything, and as long as that exists, there will always be conflict. This is why a utopia can never exist, because as soon as you eliminate all the problems that you think need to be eliminated, there will be something else that causes more problems. They may be smaller problems in comparison, but to the people in that society, they will always seem like a bigger deal. And if you never learn to deal with the bigger conflicts, when a real problem on a larger scale arises, you won't know how to deal with it. With conflict comes strength, and if people get used to everything being solved already, they won't have the strength to get through problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that the whole process of engineering and conditioning children to fit certain predetermined roles is a prime example of what Mr. Sanders is talking about. The government has taken over both the innate and the environmental aspects of the childs intelligence. Though this is bad for progress, because origional thought and creativity are born out of unique experiences to the individual, it seems that progress is simply not what the government is aiming for. BNW's society is based on predictability and order, if they have succeeded with the progress made by previous generations, there seems to be no reason for more.
ReplyDelete-Ben P.
I like Max's comment about relative evils. In a society where diseases such as cancer, and problems like hunger are eliminated, a new relative low will be established. This is a key flaw in BNW, because it is somewhat building a house of cards. If the worst thing people expect is some minor quirk in their daily routine, what happens when some disaster occurs? People would not know how to handle it, and blame the government.
ReplyDelete-Ben P.
The World State ultimately sacrifices whatever is necessary to maintain social stability. This is why the majority of its citizens are completely complacent. This is because the people of the world state have been brainwashed and drugged out of many emotions. Since there is nothing to really be happy or upset about, there is no reason for them to question their government or role in society. In terms of genetic engineering, there are definitely some flaws. If we allow ourselves to choose the traits of our children down to the last detail, there are going to be sad consequences. In the World State, children are born into pre-determined castes, which is unsettling to think about.
ReplyDelete-Andy H.
In response to Max…
ReplyDeleteI think that Max brings up an interesting point. Even if we try to eliminate all evil and pain in the world, there will always be something that brings us displeasure. Even if we eliminate the major problems of today, new problems will take their places. And even if the issues are relatively minor from an outside viewpoint, if that is our biggest problem then it will seem equivalent to anything else. Also if we try to eliminate all of these problems, then we will be setting ourselves up for disaster when an unforeseen problem arises because nobody will be able to cope with the trauma.
-Andy H.
I think Albert Huxley answers this question quite well in his introduction. He says that there is an inherent flaw in his argument, that he should have given the Savage three options instead of the two extremes. Huxley says that if he were to rewrite BNW, he would provide a third option, an outsider civilization that lies between the boundaries of BNW and the savages. "between the utopian and primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity...In this community economics would be decentralist...technology would be used as though they had been made for man, not as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them...Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End." BNW is based on two extremes, and Huxley does a good job of pointing out each of their flaws and benefits. I think Huxley is advocating neither existence. He wants some change, but a small enough amount that humans can still be free. Good things come in moderation, and Huxley is advocating that we walk the line, living a careful balance between the utopian and savage life, as neither extreme is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteCaroline F.
In response to Becca:
ReplyDeleteI agree that we shouldn't allow our society to become completely engineered, both genetically and socially. Freedom allows humans to be individuals, which makes for a better and more interesting world. Living in a world of socially diverse people allows for an exchange of ideas that would never occur in BNW, where everyone is brainwashed into contributing specific statements in response to specific circumstances. As one of the few outcasts in BNW, Bernard has managed to avoid being completely brainwashed by society and is able to notice the repetitive and unoriginal nature of his society. No one can improve their character when everyone has the same character.
Caroline F.