NationStates Jolt Archive

The Savage nodded, frowning. "You got rid of them. Yes, that's just like you. Getting rid of everything unpleasant instead of learning to put up with it. Whether 'tis better in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them … But you don't do either. Neither suffer nor oppose. You just abolish the slings and arrows. It's too easy."

Having just finished re-reading Brave New World (amazing book, as always), I was struck by a comparison by the general consensus amongst Americans regarding the MCA and Warrantless Wiretapping, and the thinking of the Society of Brave New World.

Those who support actions like the MCA forgoe the great works of humanity, freedom, liberty, and, in no small part, knowledge, in the name of greater security. The Savage has it right when he compares them to "Mewling, Puking Infants" who are unaware of their status.

The people of BNW have embraced tyranny and dubbed it happiness. They have embraced communitarianism, and they have dubbed it brotherhood. So too, have Americans embraced tyranny, and called it safety. They have embraced authority, forgoing their cultural history of individualism, and have dubbed it to be "Coming together."

This is a sad era, indeed, where "safety" comes before moral values, like a refusal to torture, or the essential human liberty of Habeas Corpus.

The Savage later has the most important line in the whole book, and one that American's should think on strongly.

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."


"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."


"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.


"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

Indeed, it is long past time that we claim our unhappiness. It is long past time that we understand that there will always be a threat, and that our liberties are more important than a Soma-Holiday state where the Government closes our eyes to what it is doing and to the world outside, and opresses us, oh so gently. It is long past time that we stood as adults, and not merely infants, and embraced the dangers of liberty, because without doing so we are not, and cannot be truly free.

Worse yet, the thought that we could banish all dissent, banish all ill will, and condemn it to a different part of the world. "If you don't like it, why don't you leave," seems to be the question thrown out most. Indeed, the welcome island that Heimholtz and Bernard Marx are condemned to appears to have been adopted by Americans as well. If it makes them uncomfortable, threatens their infantile "Happiness", it must be sent away and ignored.
What happened to the brave part of "Land of the Free, home of the Brave"? We've become so terrified that we accept shackles, and dub them to be a safety blanket. Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury may now lie at rest, knowing that their nightmare-states were not founded on false pretenses, but that even the freest people could easily fall into that trap.

So I claim them all. Terrorism, dissent, fear, danger, and knowledge, dangerous fruit that it is.

Sorry for the long read, but I was making dinner, while considering some of the rhetoric used in debate, and this is what stuck with me.

Seconded,

A world that is completely safe is not worth living in.

Well said.

Brave New World is a must-read.

Let's all have a hearty "amen."

Seconded,

A world that is completely safe is not worth living in.

I disagree completely. A world that is completely safe is most assuredly worth living in. It just depends on how we achieve that safety. If we do it via Star Trek's lofty goal of making everyone really really nice, then it's great, eh?

I disagree completely. A world that is completely safe is most assuredly worth living in. It just depends on how we achieve that safety. If we do it via Star Trek's lofty goal of making everyone really really nice, then it's great, eh?

I agree.

The safety that we argue against (and the kind being pushed on us) is the safety that comes from being locked in a room where the outside world can't touch us, and that we can't leave.

I disagree completely. A world that is completely safe is most assuredly worth living in. It just depends on how we achieve that safety. If we do it via Star Trek's lofty goal of making everyone really really nice, then it's great, eh?

I'm not so sure. I think that in a state of absolute safety, man will stagnate and lose his greatness. It is because we are afraid, and because we must struggle, that we are able to become great.

I'm not so sure. I think that in a state of absolute safety, man will stagnate and lose his greatness. It is because we are afraid, and because we must struggle, that we are able to become great.

There is that, of course. But then, how do we know that for certain? We can't truly say, because we've never actually been in that kind of situation.

Let's all have a hearty "amen."

Seconded.

Hear hear!

I keep meaning to read BNW but never get around to it...

I disagree completely. A world that is completely safe is most assuredly worth living in. It just depends on how we achieve that safety. If we do it via Star Trek's lofty goal of making everyone really really nice, then it's great, eh?

Because no one ever dies on Star Trek?

Or are we assured complete safety as long as we don't wear the color red. Like hearsay tells us about living in South Central.

We've become so terrified that we accept shackles, and dub them to be a safety blanket.

When you say that we accepted "shackles" that implies that some of our freedom was taken away and that we are unable to do what we have done previously. So, how have Bush's measures affected you in any way? What would you like to do that you can no longer do because of the "shackles" binding you? I don't know about you, but I still have all my freedoms.

When you say that we accepted "shackles" that implies that some of our freedom was taken away and that we are unable to do what we have done previously. So, how have Bush's measures affected you in any way? What would you like to do that you can no longer do because of the "shackles" binding you? I don't know about you, but I still have all my freedoms.

No you don't. You have lost the right to unquestionable habeas corpus, and the right to a fair trial. You have lost the right not to be tortured. You have lost the right not to be spied on without an approved warrant.

Those are real rights, and even if you weren't using them, their loss undermines your other liberties.

When you say that we accepted "shackles" that implies that some of our freedom was taken away and that we are unable to do what we have done previously. So, how have Bush's measures affected you in any way? What would you like to do that you can no longer do because of the "shackles" binding you? I don't know about you, but I still have all my freedoms.

That's only because you think your shackles make you free. But hey, you've got pretty much everything else bass-ackwards. Why should this be any different?

There is that, of course. But then, how do we know that for certain? We can't truly say, because we've never actually been in that kind of situation.

Think of all the "heroic" values we celebrate. All of them come in doing something during a time of strife. If there is never trial, there can never be victory.

It certainly is becoming pretty bad, but I dont think Americas got as bad a case of it as several other first world countries. We could certainly do with shaking some stuff up though.

Think of all the "heroic" values we celebrate. All of them come in doing something during a time of strife. If there is never trial, there can never be victory.
In many ways, we are the sum of our struggles. Personally, I think that's part of the problem with a lot of my students--my generation was told that we needed to protect our kids from the ugliness of the world, that they were innocents. It was well-meaning, but wrong-headed. Now kids come into my college classroom with no concept of what the world's like, and it's my job to disabuse them of the notion that they'll get a good grade just for showing up.

They learn that real quickly.

It certainly is becoming pretty bad, but I dont think Americas got as bad a case of it as several other first world countries. We could certainly do with shaking some stuff up though.

Which countries have it worse than us in this regard? I can't think of any first world countries which do.

What happened to the brave part of "Land of the Free, home of the Brave"?

Well said.

Pleas4e dont mention BNW or Huxley. Or Blade runner and ridley Scott 4 that matter. Im a nsw aust HSC student who has just spent the last year studyin the shit

Pleas4e dont mention BNW or Huxley. Or Blade runner and ridley Scott 4 that matter. Im a nsw aust HSC student who has just spent the last year studyin the shit

O.o

I'm not sure what offends me more... Your spelling or the insult to one of the greatest books of all times.

I think it's your spelling, though, since it makes your post next to incomprehensible.

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."


"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."


"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.


"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.



Best passage ever.

Next best:


A man riding a bicycle stopped to ask what was the idea of all the green uniforms; some kind of club? Harding popped right up and answered him.

"No, my friend. We are lunatics from the hospital up the highway, psycho-ceramics, the cracked pots of mankind. Would you like me to decipher a Rorschach for you? No? You must hurry on? Ah, he's gone. Pity." He turned to McMurphy, "Never before did I realize that mental illness could have the aspect of power, power. Think of it: perhaps the more insane a man is, the more powerful he could become. Hitler an example. Fair makes the old brain reel, doesn't it? Food for thought there."



Well said.

Brave New World is a must-read.


As are Island and Point Counter Point.

Well said.

Brave New World is a must-read.

The ideas are worth reading. The book itself is poorly-written and puerile at times. Parts of it made me wince.

Aye, well said. I was going to say that a common theme of the scifi genre is to examine what it is to be human. But I'm not too sure about that, just all the books I read tend to examine humanity.

Most books that examine humanity tend to do so in a dualist approach ie. akin to the Yin and Yang philosophy. The setting of such stories being a world in which humans have escaped the Yin part of the nature, and the theme of the book being the question 'Are we still human if we in such a circumstance'. The answer from the authors is always an emphatic no.

What I'm looking for in a book is theme that uses a different form of philosophy to examine human nature. Maybe as human nature being a made up of three parts: a trinity. I think friend told me that the aborigines of Australia hold such a belief.

The ideas are worth reading. The book itself is poorly-written and puerile at times. Parts of it made me wince.


I don't know about poorly written, per se. He certainly does have some comma-usage issues, especially when it comes to interuptions, or to longer, multiple-word lists, but I wouldn't characterize it as bad writing.

I need me some soma bad

I don't know about poorly written, per se. He certainly does have some comma-usage issues, especially when it comes to interuptions, or to longer, multiple-word lists, but I wouldn't characterize it as bad writing.

Hmm. Actually, he rewrote part of it when he was twenty or so, didn't he? I remember that the one I read was a word-for-word duplicate of the first edition.

Hmm. Actually, he rewrote part of it when he was twenty or so, didn't he? I remember that the one I read was a word-for-word duplicate of the first edition.

I know that my copy is a later edition, since it has his introduction that talks about how he would have written it differently after the dropping of the atom bomb, so I guess it could have changd significantly.