Brave New World written by Aldous Huxley in 1931 warned of the dangers of giving the state control over new and powerful technologies. I would wager that in our times (less modern but nevertheless somehow more advanced) there are indeed many more sources of power that want to control us. How about that use or rather meaning of a single word, let along a whole row of pronouns, and then the meaning of yet another in comparision to what there was in a distant, better time when we were all free instead of bounded like now? One illustration of this said theme in the book is the exact rigid control of reproduction through technological and medical intervention, including the surgical removal of ovaries, the Bokanovsky Process (involving human cloning and social engineering), and hypnopaedic conditioning. In his novel Aldous Huxley depicts how people would sacrifice their relationships, specifically family, in order to having the feeling of happiness. Wider society or the people out there only have a temporary, self-centered, kind of happiness instead of true joy or strong emotions. In short, it shows us that true human happiness depends on true human connections. Without individuality and opinions, there can be no meaningful connections between people. Without those there's nothing at all. No rights at all when individual rights are so denied. Yes, the people in Brave New World are indeed social, but they have been deprived of the humanity necessary to form any real relationships. The main theme of the novel is thus the incompatibility of happiness and truth. Throughout the story, the main character John has argued that it's much better to seek out truth, even if it involves suffering, than to accept an easy life of pleasure and happiness. That's both a warning and a guide for these weird but shifting times that we're in again
@SomeMichGuy If you can't see his point of the pointlessness of a person being either a director or even a revoluntionary because it all ends up staying the same anyhow, well, that's a shame but it's my own reading of the novel. Many read it as a mere commentary on an innate failure in human nature, an inability to do the right thing—a fatal flaw similar to original sin. They argue that human nature, not socio-economic forces, causes the workers to abandon their revolution. My view is that it's not that bad a world and it could be even worse because there some really good people out there. Perhaps it was also a clear sign onto the heaven sky that one had better to negociate with Ho Chi Minh directly because in 1952 there was still opportunity to do that
Really? Geez. I thought it was about an Idiocracy. My bad. It's not against stupidity, it's against government per se. Well,! People were totally fooled.
@revenant Oh yes, less former students of sociology actually representing the people. Economics (38) is the third-most-popular field of study reported by national politicians, behind political science (135) and history (58) in Congress now
