Was the Society in Brave New World Truly Dystopian?


Idk, hope that helped you

I'd honestly have to sample the drugs.

I define dystopia as a society that wastes resources to uphold an image that is considered "ideal". So in that sense, yes, it's a dystopia. Realistically, it would crumble eventually because of all the waste.

>, it would crumble eventually because of all the waste.
This goes for every non-hunter-gatherer society.

I believe that's not necessarily true, and I call this belief "cultural escape velocity".

It was really a Utopian society.

Not necessarily as in not for every hypothetical scenario?

Because for every actual scenario, it is true so far.

Honestly gotta agree.

Until I've had a little time to do all the soma I want and enjoy a new sexual partner for each day of the week, I can't be sure my perspective on the matter isn't skewed.

Don't forget the electromagnetic golf and the feelsies.

>tfw no pneumatic slut gf

>let your dissidents eventually become world controllers
who thought this was a good idea again?

Do your own homework.

I thing also that it was truely a utopia but it was showing that the only to maintain a utopia is to control every aspect of your citizens personalities
from even before birth, to hand out free drugs, and do away with relationships so that its a sexual free for all

I don't know, i would be ok living there, but i'm a shit person.

Waste? They where so sustainable they recycled dead people.

I read about 100 pages of this but it was just pretentious drivel. His prose isn't even particularly good. I take it this is just a meme book?


T. Brainlet.

Depends, what do you mean by meme? That people talk about it a lot? Yes. That is has nothing to offer? No.

Should I actually read Brave New World?

Not at all. I'm well aware of references he makes but he has zero tact as a writer. It seems like he's just trying to show off his "impressive" breadth of knowledge, clumsily shoving each new concept into the readers face.

I still don't understand why the last human being- the savage killed himself?

Couldn't handle becoming an attraction for the brainless masses?

I think he realized that he would never truly have solitude again. I believe he felt even more lonely in the new world, constantly surrounded by people, than he did on the reservation. This, coupled with the fact that he was disgusted with himself for attacking Lenina and felt the need to atone.

My mother read it a few times during her lifespan and she says that everytime she reads it, she feels more like it's coming true but she also hates it less with every read

Further, the savages values were fundamentally incompatible with the world he found himself in.

I imagine it would be hard to maintain these values in a world where literally everyone is living a lifestyle diametrically opposed to the one you hold to be moral and correct, and such a crisis of values is not painless.

He could not continue to live in this world without hating himself.

The answer couldn't be more given, more obvious.

Yes it is a dystopia -- but only to anyone outside of its world.

He realised he was not so different from them and that the only way of keeping the "evil" away was to end it.

puritan hangups

So he was an animal, an attraction before he had himself some smack and some orgy. Then he became a human, the only contemporary human possible. And he was like naaaah, this shit is gay i'm out.

Or was he a human that then became an animal? And committed the most human act - suicide. Since no other animal is capable of conscious suicide.

That's the cool thing about this book: from the outside perspective it's dystopian, but for the people inside its society it was wonderful. Ignorance is bliss.

174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of softhearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

tfw delta at best

No. It had flaws, it wasn't perfect... but no society is. It was simply a society, one a lot more well-adjusted than the one we're living in.

You should never read any book. Books are bad for you.
Besides, the Web is much superior to books.

Absolutely loved this book, and the Iron Maiden album named after it.

Brave new world was the opposite of 1984.
It was how people would be controlled through infinite pleasures.
Our reality is some sort of nightmare mix of brave new world and 1984

No one is controlling shit. The world is a mass of hysterical children. No one knows what to do.

Stop these platudinous fantasies.

After the fall of the soviet union there is one super power left with a monopoly on power fighting a forever war in the part of the world that has yet to be conquered.

I didn't say there are no wars or mass expressions of collective power. I said nobody is in control.

The idea is interesting, but the book itself is not very impressing. Dull prose and plot; the context is what's interesting, especially for the time in which it was written.

A utopia is a society where everything is good.
A dystopia is a society where everything is bad.

Because those two words embrace absolutism where everything is one way or the other, they only exist in theory and in reality it's up to perspective to determine which is which.

By seeking out only desirable things and destroying every negative ones is in actuality limiting how much desirable things exists.
Because everything that is good carries bad side effects.
Something a lot seem to miss is that the epitome of a utopia exists in the worst dystopia and vice versa.

Brave new world is both a utopia and a dystopia.

Agree on most points. This is a logical fallacy though: "Because everything that is good carries bad side effects."