Brave New World

[EquALLity]

Hey guys,

Have any of you read Brave New World?

For those of you who haven't (SPOILER), it's a dystopian novel about a society in which stability is valued over everything. There is no art or religion, and science is also stifled if it contradicts the teachings and ideas of the society. Strong emotions are also prevented from happening.

To keep stability, society is divided into classes (from highest to lowest): alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and epsilon. People are 'decanted' in bottles instead of born (there are no families, because there can be no strong emotions) and treated a certain way to make them grow up to be of their designated class. Lower classes are dumbed down with alcohol to make them WANT to do the work they are assigned. The society intends to make everyone happy, so all the classes are designed and 'conditioned' to ENJOY the work they are predesignated to do.
The first example we see of 'conditioning' is when delta babies are electro-shocked into not liking flowers and books. This prevents them from reading, because education might decondition them and make them not want to do the work they are assigned and question society. Another form of conditioning is sleep-teaching, in which children are played certain "morals" while sleeping, such as "I'm so glad I'm a beta, gammas are so stupid...". This makes them want to be of their role.

The entire point of the society, in its creepy way, is to make people happy and for society to be stable.
Additionally, whenever people are slightly unhappy, they have a drug called soma that makes them happy. It cuts off years of their lives, but people are conditioned to be ok with death.

People are always having fun. Promiscuity is actually encouraged, and it's considered deviant and immoral to stick with one partner. Movies involve sexual aspects that the people watching literally FEEL.

Everyone in the society is happy. It's great from their perspective. There're no starvation, wars, etc.; everyone has everything they will ever need, and everyone is designed from 'decantation' to enjoy their roles in society. The police don't even shoot or tazer people, they just spray them with soma.

It seems so terrible to an outsider (ie John the 'Savage'), because there is no art, religion (this part isn't so bad IMO, except for the restriction on religious freedom, which is absolutely horrible, but the lacking of religion itself is IMO a good thing), and science is limited to studies that confirm society's values. There's no freedom of expression in that sense, though nobody in the society seems to feel like this is the case.

So I wonder... Is this type of society actually bad? If you think so, why?
I mean, I wouldn't want to be in this society. But theoretically, if I were born decanted into it, I would probably like it. There are some moral qualms, like the essential torture of babies, and the fact that people only live until sixty... But overall, the good seems to outweigh the bad to me.

What do you guys think?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I only read the beginning of the book.

I wouldn't say that the society of Brave New World seems evil based on your summary. If everyone is conditioned such that they're interests are fulfilled by their predetermined life, I cannot say that is immoral, but I do think that it diminishes the society's ability to be more moral. I don't know if this is the case, but perhaps an expansion of personal liberties would lead to more interests fulfilled than violated. Potential for more good would be shut off by a system like the one described.

this part isn't so bad IMO, except for the restriction on religious freedom, which is absolutely horrible, but the lacking of religion itself is IMO a good thing

If religion is dead in this society why should there be rights to religious freedom? Creating such a right might make the public more aware of religion and lead to unnecessary conflicts and violations of interest. It would be like bemoaning a ban on apples when apples are extinct.

This seems like an ideological issue, not a moral one.

[brimstoneSalad]

Potential for more good would be shut off by a system like the one described.

Right, maybe they've eliminated suffering, but they've also stifled interests in general to do so. The good of increased freedom, art, and a little conflict can potentially outweigh the harms involved.

Consider a video game: nobody wants a game in which you can not fail/be frustrated at all. It's achievement against odds that yields the greatest satisfaction; it makes you want it more, and fulfills your sense of purpose and meaning to do something difficult. Of course, video games are a pseudosatisfier, but they create a good case study that's easy to observe. People going to a store to buy games don't necessarily buy the easiest ones where they will never face challenges, but they also avoid the extremely hard. There's a happy medium of difficulty in there somewhere.

[PsYcHo]

Ah, one of my all time favorite reads.

I suppose it would be a "nice" society to live in, but the question is "Is it better for the majority to be happy, or is the individual more important?"

For most of the citizens, it is Utopian. John the savage is an anomaly, despite being a main character, but the real question for me is how many "Bernards" are there in this Brave New World? The book leads you to believe that everyone is happy and content, but how many have seen behind the veil as Bernard has, and are thus truly unhappy, yet playing along?

Is a society that is "perfect" truly a place that people could be happy? Surely some, if not most people would be, but what about those who question everything? Such as the types who frequent internet forums in the search for knowledge. Isn't having a struggle, yet overcoming it, truly a powerful life affirming act?

Mustapha seemed to understand that for the majority, keeping them placated and happy is fine, but for the others..... (Of course for him, the happiness of the majority was his struggle.)

I suppose to be raised in such a society would likely ensure that most people know no real "lows". Only those in charge in some capacity would understand the balancing act in play, but the rest would be as cattle grazing in the field. Hmmm. Reminds me of the scene in the "Matrix", where the agent tells Neo "The first Matrix was a Utopia, but no one believed it" (badly paraphrased)

I think humans need conflict. Maybe not all humans, but a significant portion. (Like say, those who enjoy arguing on the internet or in person?) Maybe that's why they needed to decant the majority; I'd be a miserable Alpha in such a society but enough alcohol in the decanter would make me a decent delta I suppose.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Of course, video games are a pseudosatisfier, but they create a good case study that's easy to observe.

What is a pseudosatisfier? Do you mean they don't have real capacity to satiate interests?

[brimstoneSalad]

Of course, video games are a pseudosatisfier, but they create a good case study that's easy to observe.

What is a pseudosatisfier? Do you mean they don't have real capacity to satiate interests?

Basically. They make you feel like you're being fulfilled while you're doing them, then at the end of the day you realize you did nothing but played video games and kind of feel like crap. So you play more video games to feel that rush of accomplishment and it never quite sticks. At least in most cases it doesn't. If you're a professional gamer or something your mileage may vary.

There are of course worse ways to waste time/money. And games aren't always bad, some are even educational.

[EquALLity]

Thanks for your thoughts,

I only read the beginning of the book.

Did you stop because you thought it was kind of boring? The beginning was slow for me too, but it gets really good beyond the first fifty pages or so. It's a great book.

I wouldn't say that the society of Brave New World seems evil based on your summary. If everyone is conditioned such that they're interests are fulfilled by their predetermined life, I cannot say that is immoral, but I do think that it diminishes the society's ability to be more moral. I don't know if this is the case, but perhaps an expansion of personal liberties would lead to more interests fulfilled than violated. Potential for more good would be shut off by a system like the one described.

Yeah... It doesn't seem evil to me either, which I really don't like. They fricking torture BABIES. But... agh. Overall, I mean, it's much better than any society currently in the world. No wars. No violence. Everybody is happy.

If religion is dead in this society why should there be rights to religious freedom? Creating such a right might make the public more aware of religion and lead to unnecessary conflicts and violations of interest. It would be like bemoaning a ban on apples when apples are extinct.

This seems like an ideological issue, not a moral one.

Well... Religion isn't completely dead, it's just not something that's really widespread at all. There are still some people in the novel who believe in a god, and religion definitely still exists among the 'savages' (the people who live in a reservation that hasn't been altered by this society).

Also, all that it means to have religious freedom is to not restrict religious expression. You don't have to have laws that explicitly call for religious freedom, just like we don't have laws to prevent the government from restricting the flavor of jolly ranchers we eat. The problem is that a belief in religion, because it contradicts society, will probably get you sent off to Iceland or something.

[EquALLity]

Potential for more good would be shut off by a system like the one described.

Right, maybe they've eliminated suffering, but they've also stifled interests in general to do so. The good of increased freedom, art, and a little conflict can potentially outweigh the harms involved.

Consider a video game: nobody wants a game in which you can not fail/be frustrated at all. It's achievement against odds that yields the greatest satisfaction; it makes you want it more, and fulfills your sense of purpose and meaning to do something difficult. Of course, video games are a pseudosatisfier, but they create a good case study that's easy to observe. People going to a store to buy games don't necessarily buy the easiest ones where they will never face challenges, but they also avoid the extremely hard. There's a happy medium of difficulty in there somewhere.

Have you read the book?
I think you're looking at it through your perspective, but the people in the novel don't share that perspective. In fact, the fact that people in the novel don't desire that sense of fulfilling is one of the biggest conflicts between John and the 'civilized people'. They value hedonistic happiness over literally everything else. They think it's wrong to force yourself to suffer like that through difficulty.

Similarly, does it really matter that they are stifling the arts etc. if people don't know about the arts? If people wanted it and were restricted, that would be obviously bad, but in this society people mostly don't even know what art is. Do you think the potential of them to enjoy art/freedom/whatever matters when they don't actually desire it?

[EquALLity]

Ah, one of my all time favorite reads.

I suppose it would be a "nice" society to live in, but the question is "Is it better for the majority to be happy, or is the individual more important?"

For most of the citizens, it is Utopian. John the savage is an anomaly, despite being a main character, but the real question for me is how many "Bernards" are there in this Brave New World? The book leads you to believe that everyone is happy and content, but how many have seen behind the veil as Bernard has, and are thus truly unhappy, yet playing along?

Is a society that is "perfect" truly a place that people could be happy? Surely some, if not most people would be, but what about those who question everything? Such as the types who frequent internet forums in the search for knowledge. Isn't having a struggle, yet overcoming it, truly a powerful life affirming act?

Mustapha seemed to understand that for the majority, keeping them placated and happy is fine, but for the others..... (Of course for him, the happiness of the majority was his struggle.)

I suppose to be raised in such a society would likely ensure that most people know no real "lows". Only those in charge in some capacity would understand the balancing act in play, but the rest would be as cattle grazing in the field. Hmmm. Reminds me of the scene in the "Matrix", where the agent tells Neo "The first Matrix was a Utopia, but no one believed it" (badly paraphrased)

I think humans need conflict. Maybe not all humans, but a significant portion. (Like say, those who enjoy arguing on the internet or in person?) Maybe that's why they needed to decant the majority; I'd be a miserable Alpha in such a society but enough alcohol in the decanter would make me a decent delta I suppose.

Very few Bernards are in the society judging by the novel. Most of the society is dumbed down while as a bottled baby so that they don't have the intellectual capacity to question the society, and they are conditioned to hate books so they don't learn about conditioning and undo their brainwashing. You could only really be a Bernard if you're a high member of society, and based on that itself, more people enjoy the society than who don't. And very few alphas seem to be like Bernard.

Also, like I said before, there are no wars. How many hundreds of millions of lives does that save alone? That ONE thing makes this society better than any current society in the entire world, in my opinion.

[PsYcHo]

Also, like I said before, there are no wars. How many hundreds of millions of lives does that save alone? That ONE thing makes this society better than any current society in the entire world, in my opinion.

So if during the cold war, America and Russia had both released their nukes, society would have been obliterated. No chance for war after that.

Is that better than current society?