Brave New World appeared in 1932 and was thus partially overtaken by science, but. In a way that is as far as consistent with what Huxley predicted in his vision Cloning here called Bokanovskifikation and is produced in this book by radiation rather than simply divide the embryo, because the author is a little more complicated than necessary. Some things are just plain wrong, as the immunization of the embryo in the bottle, but at that time did you not know that the adaptive immune system is formed only around 9 months of age. Nor can one man do not breed in bottles, but some of the things he describes were actually tried a few decades later, such as learning or conditioning in the bedroom.
General called the novel dystopian, something I could not understand as a teenager and even today, when I read the book again and may. Yes, there's dystopian aspects, ultimately I find the novel (perhaps shockingly) majority utopian. Even this world in 1932 is frightening, humanist and humane than what the reality is today.
For particulars, as every one knows, make for virture and happiness; generalities are intellectually Necessary Evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone of society. Today it is unfortunately at trade idiocy, generalists have a hard time. Nerds are easier to control.
"Stability," Said The Controller, "stability. No civilization without social stability. No social stability without individual stability." Of these, one can only dream of today. Individual stability is a discontinued model and uncertainty the norm.
All conditioning aims at that: making people like unescapable social destiny Their. If you like it and love what you do, it's OK. Let it be the academics academics and the workers working. Why forcing you academics in menial tasks, of which Huxley in Brave New World already says that is not going well. And why is forcing you kids having good craftsmen were in the university?
"Every man, woman and child compelled to consume so much a year. In the interests of industry. The sole result" As Ford said so beautiful cars do not buy cars. Of our politicians could learn. Since everyone has to buy in Brave New World, you can probably expect a fair remuneration. Even Huxley knew better how capitalism works, as today's politicians, sad, sad.
Every one works for every one else. We can not do without any one. Even Epsilon are useful. We could not do without Epsilon. Of this can present major students only dream of, which are made equal on Hartz IV siding.
Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness. Mass production Demanded the shift. Fordlandia. Nice experiment, but it fell through.
Other aspects can be found in fact today in a similar form in our society:
Did not need and did not get it. But though the Epsilon mind which mature at ten, the Epsilon body Does not fit to work till eighteen. Long years of superfluous and wasted immaturity. This is called optimal utilization of the working life: Shortened school (G8), shortened university, later retirement.
now we proceed to rub in the lesson with a mild electric shock. "In summer 2013, a paper, be idem scientists appeared in this way in mice have produced false memories.
Why do I find this vision utopian? What's so bad about that people are satisfied with what corresponds to their skills and not strive for more? In Brave New World, the leaders of this company are themselves conditioned by their standards and thus comply with the rules that apply to all (it may be in our world today hardly speak). Who still offend and is unhappy, which is relocated with like-minded people on islands, where it can pursue its unconventional ideas undisturbed (where can we flee? Where are our Islands of cross thinking gone?)
It makes you think that Aldous Huxley a society, felt as awful in the convenience, youth and prosperity until the end. The reason for this can be found in Brave New World Revisited. He fears a youth that makes itself with games and amusements a comfortable life, is apolitical and leaves the ruling elites make a try. He fears the end of democracy. But here I have to say, as long as possible the majority well, that's OK. Bad is it when it goes bad the majority, despite alleged democracy, what exactly is the case today. Democracy is not a guarantee of a good life of the majority on the contrary.
I remain, even 20 years after I read the book for the first time while it is a utopia and dystopia no. But I have to say also, in terms of action is not happening in this book a lot. It's more about the description of a society and less about an exciting story, the protagonists are colorless and lifeless. Sometimes it takes place with the many descriptions a bit boring. Overall, however, still very fresh for a sci-fi book from the 1930s, and the reason is that the author has dealt with the then-current science. He has read the current paper and created on the basis of the latest findings forecasts. Something like this, as later for Bps. the Basler Prognos Institute. That's what makes good sci-fi: to recognize Sound scientific knowledge and broad education, what consequences these findings will have in other areas of life. This is what distinguishes the timeless sci-fi classics of the botch is often misplaced today. The missing today's authors lack the most basic scientific education, as the books are often so full of errors, although one would it really serve only a textbook that you have no more desire to read on.
