History Headscratchers / BraveNewWorld

** George Orwell (then Eric Blair) was once Huxley's student and didn't like ''Brave New World'' very much (at least not as much as ''{{We}}'') because he thought a society that revolves around happiness and luxury would not be sustainable. Huxley, alternatively, while he liked ''[[Literature/NineteenEightyFour 1984]]'', thought the BreadAndCircuses approach would actually be a more efficient way to keep citizens in line rather than the BigBrotherIsWatchingY approach. How can fans of either (or both) resist joining in?

** George Orwell (then Eric Blair) was once Huxley's student and didn't like ''Brave New World'' very much (at least not as much as ''{{We}}'') because he thought a society that revolves around happiness and luxury would not be sustainable. Huxley, alternatively, while he liked ''{{1984}}'', thought the BreadAndCircuses approach would actually be a more efficient way to keep citizens in line rather than the BigBrotherIsWatchingYou approach. How can fans of either (or both) resist joining in?

*** Also observe their attitudes toward sex. One form of tyranny (demonstrated in Literature/NineteenEightyFour and TheGiver) attempts to suppress human sexuality entirely, to destroy the concept of a biological family and/or a loving marriage, replacing it with a fidelity only to the collective. The other form of tyranny, demonstrated in Literature/BraveNewWorld, attempts to control the people by rendering sexuality frivolous. People numb their emotions because they are emotionally stunted, and they can never form a real connection with their lovers. Each man and woman is interchangeable in their minds. In both cases, the two most powerful drives, religion and sexuality, are either co-opted into the tyrant's agenda or destroyed. The tyrant doesn't want any motivations competing with serving the tyranny.

*** Yes, just because we may find the society of ''Brave New World'' base does not make it so, just as we cannot (rightfully) admonish foreigners for their culture--however strange it may be. But the society of ''Brave New World'' is not foreign civilization. It is comprised of our progeny. It is the future of us. And it flies in the face of everything we value. We may be happy as adult infants; when we don't have to think, to feel, to grow up, why wouldn't we be happy? But, as a thinking, feeling, contemplating, ''maturing'' human being, do you want this? Do you want this for yourself?, for your fellows? Do you want to be forever an infant? Do you want to be forever a slave to instant gratification?, to conformity?, to your conditioning--to your government? Do ''you'' want to live in this brave new world? ''Brave New World'' does not have all the trappings of a traditional dystopia. Instead, it has the makings of an undesirable society, of a society that represses human nature, of a society incompatible with our notion of humanity, of a society we are already slipping into. ''That'', my friends, is why it is (classified as) a dystopia.

** The idea is that it is horrible because no-one is allowed to be individuals. There is a loss of True Art (and writers hate loss of True Art), and you are unable to feel any trials and thus grow from them. Plus it is kinda implied that those islands are kinda like the 'showers' in those 'camps' if you know what I mean...
** Everyone's life is based around sex. They do that as [[{{Squick}} young children]]. They replaced [[PoliticalCorrectnessGoneMad God with Ford.]] Technology is used to repress. People are injected with [[ScienceMarchesOn alcohol to stunt growth]], and the entire society revolves around [[HappinessInSlavery essentially pre-conditioned slaves.]] And society's [[BreadAndCircuses entertainment]] consists of [[DrugsAreBad Soma]] and [[SexIsEvil sex.]] Finally, people are bred to revolve around materialism, and [[CrapsackWorld it's a dictatorship.]] Basically, it's only great if you are an Alpha or Beta, and [[CompletelyMissingThePoint you're as superficial]] [[DracoInLeatherPants as the people in the story]]. And, need I remind you, everyone was happy in [[TheGiver The Giver]] too, and that is a ''definite'' [[{{Dystopia}} dystopia]].

***** And so did the people in Airstrip One like the society, and Big Brother, in [[NineteenEightyFour 1984]], or else. Just because a society ''likes'' their world doesn't mean it's ''right''. Not to mention, no free will and a caste system.

* In the Island experiment, everyone was an Alpha citzen and all the islanders considered themselves above tasks for the lower classes, and things went downhill … and fast. However, wasn't that experiment ''already'' doomed to fail even before it began? I kept thinking: all Alpha citizens are conditioned since birth to behave like '''exactly like that''', relishing their inteligence while priding themselves as above those of the lower classes, ''even if those jobs needed to be done''.

* Why is this book often compared to [[NineteenEightyFour 1984]]? It's disproportionate: Brave New World is a Utopian wet dream compared to ''that''.
** Because both books are well-known examples of dystopias (or at least, ''Brave New World'' was ''meant'' as a dystopia...read the first question on this page and its answers, they explore that idea more thoroughly than this question warrants). Also, it could be that most people [[SmallReferencePools can't list too many dystopic novels off the top of their head]] (usually getting no further than ''NineteenEightyFour'', ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'', and ''{{Fahrenheit 451}}'', so...yeah.)
** It also makes for a handy alpha and omega with the political themes of ''NineteenEightyFour''. Oceania's ruling party, as represented by O'Brien, is motivated by petty sadism and controls its people through fear. The controllers of ''Literature/BraveNewWorld'', as represented by Mustapha Mond, are motivated by genuinely good intentions and control their people through happiness. Put together, they show how two entirely opposite philosophies and goals can each give rise to its own brand of dystopia.
*** Also observe their attitudes toward sex. One form of tyranny (demonstrated in NineteenEightyFour and TheGiver) attempts to suppress human sexuality entirely, to destroy the concept of a biological family and/or a loving marriage, replacing it with a fidelity only to the collective. The other form of tyranny, demonstrated in Literature/BraveNewWorld, attempts to control the people by rendering sexuality frivolous. People numb their emotions because they are emotionally stunted, and they can never form a real connection with their lovers. Each man and woman is interchangeable in their minds. In both cases, the two most powerful drives, religion and sexuality, are either co-opted into the tyrant's agenda or destroyed. The tyrant doesn't want any motivations competing with serving the tyranny.

** And Epsilons are engineered to take pride in the fact that without them, the society would collapse in very short order.

(Both the {{Pokemon}} fanfic and the Huxley novel of this title point to this JustBugsMe page.)

***** And so did the people in IngSoc like the society, and Big Brother, in [[NineteenEightyFour 1984]], or else. Just because a society ''likes'' their world doesn't mean it's ''right''. Not to mention, no free will and a caste system.

* If the people in Brave New World don't have age related frailty and disease, why do they still die when they're old?
** [[ShapedLikeItself To make way for the next generation]]. They almost certainly have the technology to avert it if the controllers thought that was a good idea, but if they do it goes the same way as labour-saving machines.

** Given individuality is key in pursuign science, philosophy and art... not really. In this utopia, the only kind of science, philosophy and art that can be pursued is the "mass-produced" kind. But it's obvious this sort of philosophy is useless, this kind of art is barely art(more like a craft) and this sort of science(government funded and focused on goals instead of discovery) would make Carl Sagan cry.

** Pretty much. Mond had mentioned that there was a huge archive of labor-saving devices not in use because it would render a good bulk of the population effectively unemployed, right? They should have started with a standard BNW ratio of classes on Cyprus and then experimented with adding those inventions to the society and determining what the new optimum ratio would be, with the eventual goal of applying it to the world at large.

** Full morons are literally too retarded to be of any value- even Epsilons need to be able to understand orders. Moron in this case refers to a mental disorder.

** Basically, anyone above Epsilons can fell better knowing that at least s/he isn't Epsilon and there for has better job and life. Epsilons, on the other hand, are "semi-morons" and do not realize that they are basically genetically engineered ButtMonkeys for everyone else. This helps to keep everyone else happy. Epsilons can be made to do everything nasty nobody else wants and they feel better since ''they'' don't have to do it, there is someone lower that has to do it and since they are too stupid to realize they ''can'' say no (whatever reaction this could cause is different matter) they ''will'' do it. In the book, there's a mention of an experiment on Cyprus about a fully-automated society composed of all-Alphas. It collapsed.
** and Epsilons are engineered to take pride in the fact that without them, the society would collpse in ver short order.

** Basically, anyone above Epsilons can fell better knowing that at least s/he isn't Epsilon and there for has better job and life. Epsilons, on the other hand, are "semi-morons" and do not realize that they are basically genetically engineered ButtMonkeys for everyone else. This helps to keep everyone else happy. Epsilons can be made to do everything nasty nobody else wants and they feel better since ''they'' don't have to do it, there is someone lower that has to do it and since they are too stupid to realize they ''can'' say no (whatever reaction this could cause is different matter) they ''will'' do it.

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopian stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as all CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. A Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals and morals that he holds as absolute.

** Because both books are well-known examples of dystopias (or at least, ''Brave New World'' was ''meant'' as a dystopia...read the first question on this page and its answers, they explore that idea more thoroughly than this question warrants). Also, it could be that most people [[SmallReferencePools can't list too many dystopic novels off the top of their head]] (usually getting no further than ''NineteenEightyFour'', ''BraveNewWorld'', and ''{{Fahrenheit 451}}'', so...yeah.)
** It also makes for a handy alpha and omega with the political themes of ''NineteenEightyFour''. Oceania's ruling party, as represented by O'Brien, is motivated by petty sadism and controls its people through fear. The controllers of ''BraveNewWorld'', as represented by Mustapha Mond, are motivated by genuinely good intentions and control their people through happiness. Put together, they show how two entirely opposite philosophies and goals can each give rise to its own brand of dystopia.
*** Also observe their attitudes toward sex. One form of tyranny (demonstrated in NineteenEightyFour and TheGiver) attempts to suppress human sexuality entirely, to destroy the concept of a biological family and/or a loving marriage, replacing it with a fidelity only to the collective. The other form of tyranny, demonstrated in BraveNewWorld, attempts to control the people by rendering sexuality frivolous. People numb their emotions because they are emotionally stunted, and they can never form a real connection with their lovers. Each man and woman is interchangeable in their minds. In both cases, the two most powerful drives, religion and sexuality, are either co-opted into the tyrant's agenda or destroyed. The tyrant doesn't want any motivations competing with serving the tyranny.

(Both the [[{{Ptitlei015gc004kw4}} Pokémon]] fanfic and the Huxley novel of this title point to this JustBugsMe page.)

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopian stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as all CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. A Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque, and lacking in all the ideals and morals that he holds as absolute.

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopic stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as all CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. A Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque, and lacking in all the ideals and morals that he holds as absolute.

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopic stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as CrystalSpiresAndTogas; Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. Then again, a Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals that he holds as absolute.

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopic stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh assumptions of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as CrystalSpiresAndTogas. Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. Then again, a Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals that he holds as absolute.

** I've always felt like the book's society isn't so much a dystopia as a deconstruction of ''utopia'' as a scientific goal (dystopia is technically a deconstruction, but in most dystopic stories utopia isn't even the goal). It's not describing a world where people are being maliciously crushed or oppressed, but just taking the question "how do you use technology and science to solve society's problems," tempering that question with the harsh realities of sociology and materialism as a philosophy, and then running with it. People up until ''BraveNewWorld'' had been fond of imagining a future scientific utopia as CrystalSpiresAndTogas. Huxley was showing how, if you take what we actually know about science and human nature and apply that to building such a utopia, the result wouldn't be a bunch of neo-philosophers flying around on jetpacks, but a culture we'd find grotesquely alien. But then again, we've been shaped by our society to think of it as normal, so we naturally ''would'' be horrified by a culture that so blithely disregards all our ideals and morals. Then again, a Viking warrior thrown into the present day might find our society similarly grotesque and lacking in the ideals that he holds as absolute.

** It also makes for a handy alpha and omega with ''NineteenEightyFour''. Oceania's ruling party, as represented by O'Brien, is motivated by petty sadism and controls its people through fear. The controllers of ''BraveNewWorld'', as represented by Mustapha Mond, are motivated by genuinely good intentions and control their people through happiness. Put together, they show how two entirely opposite philosophies and goals can each give rise to its own brand of dystopia.

** It also makes for a handy alpha and omega with ''NineteenEightyFour''. Oceania's ruling party, as represented by O'Brien, is motivated by petty sadism and controls its people through fear. The controllers of ''BraveNewWorld'', as represented by Mustapha Mond, are motivated by genuinely good intentions and control their people through happiness. Put together, they show two entirely opposite philosophies and goals can each give rise to its own brand of dystopia.

** More gadgets and devices and dropping out Epsilons might also affect other people in various ways in a socioeconomic chain-reaction. This culture wants consumerism. More mouths wanting more food needing more employed food makers needing more employed advertisers triggering desire for more food, etc. They don't feel the need to stop people from being engaged in labor, so they don't need many labor-saving devices.

* So, the Epsilons are supposedly needed because someone has to do the dirty work and labor-saving gadgets are supposedly not implemented because then the Epsilons get bored. Why wouldn't they just implement the labor-saving gadgets and make fewer Epsilons?