Consider this: Dystopian Literature, such as Brave New World, has two sides to the story, like anything else.
One side believes that Huxely is writing a satirical piece of fiction, not a scientific prophecy. They believe that Brave New World is a heartless, soulless society, and that we are not. After all, we "care about our planet." - But if we care so much, how come our world is at the brink of environmental collapse? People who believe in this suggest that to achieve "universal happiness, we will be forced to give up what is dear to us. (Our planet?) People who believe that Huxely was not predicting the future say that as a society, we are in a pretty good place right now. I disagree. I think that as a society=, we have reached a new low. People are being killed because of their orientations, our economy is in a huge crisis, the conflict in the middle east still has not been resolved, our environment is slowly turning into a garbage dump, and on top of all that, we are beginning to turn to technology and drugs, rather then face the problems of our society.
The other side of this controversy are the people who believe that Aldous Huxely is a prophet. They believe that Huxely is trying to warn us of scientific utopianism. They argue that our world is driven by our fears and needs, much like BNW's. Technology in our world is advancing at a faster rate then humans are capable of adapting to, and therefore the technology of BNW could possibly achieved soon. As for the medicine in BNW, at the rate that improvements are being made, medicine will be a panacea faster then you could say "What?!?!" And, as it is evident, our world is just one, biro corporation, like Brave New Worlds.
Thoughts?
What's interesting is that as you bemoan the degradation of our society and how we are turning to technology and drugs (techno-drugs?) you are analyzing and using technology to attempt to identify the problem and find a solution.
ReplyDeleteThere is evidence that being alive now is in fact better than any other time. Less people die today (as a percentage) than at any other time of year (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html). However, what we do have is better access to the news; news that has an annoying habit of sharing only the worst acts of our species. This, coupled with our innate bias towards anecdotal evidence leads us to believe that the world is slowly dying.
However, we definitely are not the 'stewards' of our environment that we like to believe we are. As the late Christopher Hitchens so beautifully extolled, "Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder." We did not evolve to be able to handle the immense power we have taken for our species.
However, we may not need be constrained by our evolved brains. We have cured diseases that 100 years ago were devastating. We have put people on the surface of the moon. We have deduced how we can to even be here on this planet. We are using our brains to understand our brains and how they work. We have glimpsed the early beginnings of our own universe and have begun to generate ideas as to how our universe came to be. All of these are thoughts our cave dwelling ancestors (using brains almost identical in structure to ours) wouldn't even be able to grasp the first iota of.
So while we may be constrained by our evolved brains, we don’t necessarily have to remain content with that constraint. It is this desire to better ourselves, to learn more, to understand everything that gives me hope for tomorrow.
I agree with you completely; however, I hink that it is exactly this hunger for knowldege that will break us. Like you said, we have not evolved enough to be able to properly handle the amount of power we have "stolen," or so to say, for ourselves. This immense power will eventually grow and overcome us, like an untamed bramble bush. We will suffocate with all of this knowledge. The technology too will overcome us. It is the inevvitable end that has been prophesied by those such as Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxely, and even George Orwell.
DeleteAs for your comment that says it is our desire that gives you hope for a better tomorrow, this same desire is what fills me with dread. I think that this desire is what will be our demise.
I think it has always been a make or break situation. We have had numerous fascist regimes that have attempted to create what Orwell created in 1984 (I don't know of one that has worked towards Huxley's Brave New World). In all cases this has failed. Perhaps because the people who are being controlled get pushed too far. Perhaps because the people running it are mammals as well and can not keep the charade going.
DeleteIn all cases of dystopian literature (that I have had the pleasure of consuming) the authors fear (and rightly so) the silencing of the rational; the quelling of free speech; and the stifling of open debate. Without free speech democracy is impotent. In all cases of dystopian literature (and real-world examples of fascism) the right to free speech is removed first. Much of our progress as a species has been on the back of technologies that permit the rapid transfer of ideas and knowledge. If we can maintain a free and open dialogue we stand a fighting chance.
Regarding prophecies, the end of the world has been predicted for as long as (I imagine) people knew a world existed. So far they have all been wrong. One day (and only once) someone will get it right. With a bit of luck that won't be a very long time. The other issue with prophecies is the desire to see them enacted and hence to affect change to ensure the prophecy is realized.
Scientists estimate that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. We are not immune to that. We are however the first species (to our knowledge) that would be aware of our own extinction as it was happening. We must always remain vigilant to ensure our society stays free and strong, but we must always ensure that we are aware what we are defending and why.
Thank you for your reply and your posts, they got me thinking and provided a much needed (although perhaps unearned) break from marking.
In terms of dystopian literature, you may be interested in Margret Atwood's Oryx and Crake (just to get a bit of Canadian perspective on our "inevitable end").