earwax Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/200...s-to-Death.html Found this link interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicko0301 Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/200...s-to-Death.html Found this link interesting. Although I haven't read either of these books (they are on my "to read" list), from that delightful cartoon I would say that Huxley was the more perspicacious of the two. People usually are consumed by their own indulgences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyhawk Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 Its from Neil Postman, a self styled neo-Luddite. He has a lot of interesting things to say about technology and society. He is of course anti-life and anti-man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted January 5, 2010 Report Share Posted January 5, 2010 I think the propper response is "Bah! Humbug!" For one thing, Huxley foresaw government relentlessly brain-washing all citizens to amke them conform. There were, for instance, subliminal messages played constantly during the night, propaganda of all sorts and daily rituals in praise of Ford (read the book). Not to mention the Soma drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandonk2009 Posted January 6, 2010 Report Share Posted January 6, 2010 The section talking about book censorship reminded me of a Ray Bradbury quote: You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them. Which brings up another thing I thought about. Though Huxley and Orwell have both accurately predicted the way our world has evolved, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 has been the most accurate representation of the way pop culture and visual media have evolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 (edited) Yes, indeed. It is not either-or, but both and others as well, included. Unintentionally contradictory of Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction," writing in The Economy of Cities, Jane Jacobs pointed out that old technologies are not replaced, but only transformed. Her example was that the makers of brass fittings for horse tack went into other lines of work as the industrial revolution grew out. So, too, here. We still have religion... and fascism... and brave new world entertainments... and more besides... It is not a matter of either-or. That would be too easy. Besides, what difference does it make? If Brave New World distracts the distractable, that is also free will, is it not... assuming that such creatures actually have will in the first place. Julian Jaynes theorized that not all featherless bipeds are rational animals. Some people -- apparently many -- truly have no self. Edited June 6, 2010 by Hermes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 6, 2010 Report Share Posted June 6, 2010 They have self, they are just not aware of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 They have self, they are just not aware of it. Or they have rejected it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Besides, what difference does it make? If Brave New World distracts the distractable, that is also free will, is it not... assuming that such creatures actually have will in the first place. I would say that most people inhabiting the "Brave New World" had limited free will at best, and depending on social class almost none. If you recall they were genetically manipulated in the fetal stage often to detriment. I think it was the epsilons that they introduced high doses of alcohol into their feeding in the fetal stage to induce mental retardation. After being genetically altered they were then broken into segregated groups and brainwashed throughout their childhoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axiomatic Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 The section talking about book censorship reminded me of a Ray Bradbury quote: You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them. Which brings up another thing I thought about. Though Huxley and Orwell have both accurately predicted the way our world has evolved, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 has been the most accurate representation of the way pop culture and visual media have evolved. I completely agree Fahrenheit was much more poignant than 1984 or BNW. While 1984 and BNW both focused on the malevolent aspect and methods of state control, Fahrenheit 451 was set in such a future but focused more on the cultural vacuum left over from citizens outright rejection of the intellect, with malevolent state control portrayed accurately as the end result fitting of such a vacuum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.