Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1984 v. Brave New World

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#171

Post by arethuza »

chiaro wrote: post #136
exelius wrote: post #44

Interesting. The "final revolution" that Huxley describes could also be called "the singularity" from transhumanism. In the end, we all become subservient to "the system" through our own choice. The system need not be run by humans. The thing is, the indoctrination of children and coordinated use of psychotropic drugs as a means of control would be morally repugnant to a human. But for a non-human ruling class, moral…

It's very interesting to consider what kind of social structures could eventuate in a post-scarcity society.

The obvious example of an extreme post-scarcity society is, of course, the Culture from the novels of Iain M. Banks.

Interesting to note the emphasis in both BNW and the Culture on drug taking. In the case of the culture their bodies are engineered to produce a wide variety of drugs on demand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture

You could argue that the humans in the Culture are effectively kept as pets by the god-like AIs that run that civilization. However, this is probably less threatening than it sounds as the Culture seems to be quite open to people (or AIs) leaving for whatever reason and seems to be slightly reticent about encouraging immigration as they are aware that it looks like a form of disguised colonialism.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#172

Post by Tiksi »

vegedor wrote: post #154
vec wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fast forward to that child as an adult; they have spent their whole life on behavioral modifying drugs and start to feel uncomfortable or dissatisfied with their lot in life. What are these "strange feelings", so off to the doctor they go where they can be diagnosed with depression and get put on some Paxil/Prozac/Zoloft so they can be content going back to that same hum drum existence they were starting to questio…

> objectively So, what's the entity without agency (agenda?) that would be objective . There is no objectivity. I don't know how well documented it is, but I doubt I really want to know. If it is well known, why isn't it prevented regularly or is it? > Why is it about mental illness that causes otherwise smart, empathetic, and scientifically literate people to start clutching their pearls? It's treating the symptom,…

>It's treating the symptom, not the problem. Just a hunch.

So then why isn't taking an ibuprofen for a headache, or cold medicine to help with cold symptoms the same?

Plenty of medicine treats the just symptoms, and there don't seem to be people proclaiming the downfall of society because of cold medicine. It helps alleviate the symptoms and allows the sufferer to work towards curing the cause. I would imagine that this is especially true for something like depression where the symptoms are a direct obstacle to curing the cause. I've read that exercise and a healthy diet have been shown to help with depression, which in my opinion is probably better than just taking medication. However I'd be willing to bet that someone who is currently experiencing the symptoms of depression (such as fatigue, apathy, and a reduced motivation and task salience), is going to have quite a bit a of difficulty in doing that, and sticking with it. On the other hand, if the medication gets rid of the symptoms, the individual would probably have far more success eating healthy and exercising, or addressing any other issue that may be the cause of their depression. We don't tell people to get over a heart attack or chastise those who take medicine to help with cardiac problems, we deal with the symptoms as best we can, and then we deal with the cause once we get the symptoms in check.

Now to make some wild and likely inaccurate generalizations. I frequently get the feeling that people who rally against mental health medication have the mindset of "It's their fault, and it's just because they're weak, they should just stop being lazy, buck up and get over it like I would instead of cheating and taking pills for it." or even think that they deserve it due to some unknown choice they made and should have to deal with the consequences.

Honestly, even if it was "cheating" to take a pill, and people could just get over depression if they tried hard enough, why the hell is that a problem? I'd have no qualms "cheating" and taking a medication that improved my cognition, abilities, health, or anything else even if there was no issue with it in the first place. I know I'm just knocking down my own strawman here, but isn't that the whole point of technology? We create new things so that we longer have to waste our time and effort doing things "the hard way". Why is it any different when that optimization benefits our body or mind instead of our computer? Pshh, smart phones, get over your laziness and hand deliver letters to whoever you wanna talk to, don't cheat and take the easy way out. You got hit by a drunk driver? Well that's your fault for driving, you should've just walked 30 miles through the woods instead. And now you want to go to the hospital too? Why don't you just buck up and walk on your broken leg, no one else has a problem walking. And don't give me that paralyzed crap, everyone else seems to be able to walk just fine, you just want attention. Getting surgery is the easy way out.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#173

Post by nickik »

netcan wrote: post #22

These are two giants in science fiction, in political philosophy and in pop culture. I'm a big fan of both. Great to read a discussion between them. First, there's the artistic stele of the books. 1984 has got this graphic novel, Noir feel to it, like Walking Dead or Sin City. Brave New World has this brightly colored surreal feel to it. It's hard to compare books that are different in this way. Overall, Orwell's wor…

> In particular, it describes how the system must allow some non hereditary class movement. If the class system is too rigid, pressure builds up as talented individual press against the ceiling.

Thats basiclly lenins great innovation. If you look at the leaders of the USSR, you will see people from all around the empire, while in the older system you would have the older familly based fudalism.

The soviet dream, get into the low levels of the party, work yourself up. That was not possible befor.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#174

Post by nickik »

phaus wrote: post #107
Loughla wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, I'm just the opposite. With as hedonistic as human nature seems to be, it makes perfect sense that the pursuit of happiness leads to nothing but; in other words, A Brave New World. 1984 felt just too dystopian. It just tasted wrong; like someone would have stood up and said, "No thank you" well before the point the book stepped into. A Brave New World? That's simply distraction taken to the nth degree. Perfectly…

>It just tasted wrong; like someone would have stood up and said, "No thank you" well before the point the book stepped into. The current state of North Korea indicates that this statement is wrong. When the odds are so overwhelmingly stacked against you, its hard to start a rebellion. Granted, things weren't looking very good for the U.S. when the revolutionary war began, but we had astronomically good odds when com…

The US revolution was not a revolution for independence of a oppressive regim. I mean common, in many ways the americans or rather english americans where better or just as well of as the english themselfs.

I have been listening to lecture about the english empire and comparing americans with the lower class in North Korea is quite a strech.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#175

Post by lmm »

mindslight wrote: post #122
tikhonj wrote: post #98

I actually agree with some of the other commenters in this thread: Huxley's dystopia is, well, far less dystopian than Orwell's. Or, in a more nuanced look, Huxley's book suffers an unfortunate dichotomy: the things that are bad are not realistic and the things that are realistic are not bad. The legitimately dystopian part of Brave New World are often technical in nature—effectively mind control through drugs and a…

> departure from ... our obsession with certain abstractions (the poorly defined "real vs superficial", "honor", "the dignity of work"¹...etc) That's easy to say in California, but not New England. Mental models give one the ability to plan ahead , and are necessarily based on heuristics. Winter is coming. Some specific heuristics, and the ways they are interpreted, are a bit outdated. But it sounds like you're advoc…

> it sounds like you're advocating for letting go of independent moralistic thought, and going along with the flow of what feels good.

What has moralistic thought ever done for us? No, seriously. Moral titans don't normally do good things because they've thought about it, they do it because they feel like it. Ethics professors IIRC behave less ethically in real life than their peers. Human moral instincts are pretty sound. While I'm usually all for a careful analysis, in this particular field it doesn't seem to have paid off.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#176

Post by lmm »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #88
krapp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even then, you're aware of the contacts or the implant, unless you're living in the Matrix and were genetically engineered with a AV jack in your spinal column.

Their overall point stands, though. If people can get this addicted and consumed to World of Warcraft or Facebook games, imagine what will happen when that's literally at eye-level.

I think the mind makes it real, even when it's words on a page or dots on a tiny screen. So I honestly don't think it's going to make a lot of difference.

The first time I saw a 3D movie it was incredibly immersive. But after a few, the brain reconfigures its expectations, and the same inputs are interpreted as "just a movie".

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#177

Post by lmm »

I'd recommend the BBC television play The Year of the Sex Olympics. Brave New World but tuned down to something more realistic, and astonishingly prophetic: in the 1960s, it predicts a society kept passive by media full of empty sex, and the invention of reality TV (semi-scripted, of course) to improve the process. I watched it in a group and at the end we just said "wow, it's all come true".

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#178

Post by lmm »

Loughla wrote: post #33
roel_v wrote: post #13

I never quite understood was was 'dystopian' about Brave New World. A world in which everybody is happy and content with who they are and the circumstances they live in, how is that dystopian? He threw in some bad things (the people in the reserves, the people who didn't take their meds, the 'conditioning' of the children) but never really justified why they'd be necessary. All of them (and the 'orgy-porgies') were,…

Most cattle are relatively happy, have their medicine, their wild versions, conditioning of their young and forced sex (orgy-porgies without the orgy. . . ). Do the social structure and outlook of cattle appeal to you? Edit: because that's what the dystopia presented in A Brave New World is similar to.

Visceral reaction is not an argument. If you ask me to imagine undergoing surgery I'll think "eew". But I still think a world in which people can undergo surgery is better than one in which it doesn't exist.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#179

Post by barrkel »

tikhonj wrote: post #98

I actually agree with some of the other commenters in this thread: Huxley's dystopia is, well, far less dystopian than Orwell's. Or, in a more nuanced look, Huxley's book suffers an unfortunate dichotomy: the things that are bad are not realistic and the things that are realistic are not bad. The legitimately dystopian part of Brave New World are often technical in nature—effectively mind control through drugs and a…

You've bought in to Brave New World. You love your servility, and have abandoned aspirations of freedom.

Re: 1984 v. Brave New World

#180

Post by barrkel »

epidemian wrote: post #152
jonnathanson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If not for the eugenics, genetics and soma, it sounds like a nice place to live! Freer sex, freer entertainment, more automation, more leisure... It's radical, certainly, but not in a bad way" Well, it's all fun and games if you happen to win the genetic dice roll and end up as an Alpha. I imagine it's considerably less fun if you're a Gamma. More to the point, the world in Brave New World isn't dystopian on account…

As the grand parent, i also see the society of Brave New World as much less dystopian than usually portrayed. > Well, it's all fun and games if you happen to win the genetic dice roll and end up as an Alpha. I imagine it's considerably less fun if you're a Gamma. Yes, from the external point of view of a book reader, i would prefer to "win the genetic dice roll". But if i were decanted as a Gamma, i wouldn't mind, i…

We already have a caste system, in the form of unearned wealth, and that divide is increasing rapidly.

I think that media, public discourse, entertainment and most especially industrial schooling are already tuned to condition people to accept servility to capital. There's a whole economic religion set up to perpetuate the superiority of the top 1% of the capitalist caste.

There's more to it, but it's not a conspiracy, it's not a conscious thing, but it is an emergent properly of the system we've set up, and individual incentives exist that perpetuate the system.

I think it's unstable - the trends observed by Piketty cannot continue for more than a few more decades without significant risk of social upheaval. But for now, the system is fairly unassailable, and it is very like BNW already.

Post reply on HN