this post was submitted on
582 points (70% like it)
985 up votes 403 down votes

philosophy

unsubscribe95,582 readers

~67 users here now

New to philosophy? Click here.

Need book suggestions? Check out our recommended reading list.

Posting guidelines:

This is not a forum for idle musings. If you are posing a question, make sure to weigh in on your own question first.

Submit quotations or pictures within the body of a self-post; links to picture submissions will be automatically removed.

If you need help with homework, please ask at /r/askphilosophy first.

Other, more specialized, philosophy sub-reddits:

Check out #reddit-philosophy on Freenode!

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 169 comments

[–]handybynature 167 points168 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is this person saying that Huxley was correct?

Honestly, it looks like both of them are correct.

[–]almostdvs 59 points60 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel "A Brave New World" is more reflective of today's society but both tactics are being used effectively.

[–]tennis87 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is this upon reading "A Brave New World" or upon reading the linked cartoon?

[–]Nition 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The cartoon doesn't really reflect the actual world of Brave New World that well. I mean it's got the general idea but it's twisted a bit to show how "similar" it is to our society.

[–]questionthis 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well it's biased. In reference to 1984, it uses direct references and images from the book and movie, whereas from Huxley it applies the message to more familiar contexts and images to prove the point that "Huxley is right". But both are to be feared.

[–]colebluefearn 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it's more of a dichotomy between the first and third world.

[–]BZenMojo 49 points50 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel like the guy who wrote this comic never read 1984. No one cares about controlling the desires of the proles, and in fact, the proles are allowed to fuck, smoke, and drink themselves into oblivion while no one gives a second glance. They're kept in check through random rocket attacks by "terrorists" and the two minutes of hate.

It's only the educated who are kept a close eye upon and forced into unemotional, paranoid existences of doublespeak and doublethink.

[–]Jackyapplejones 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absolutely true.

[–]Redcard911 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was going to say Huxley's view definatly seems to be more applicable. I'm glad the distinction was made though.

[–]AliveInTheFuture 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

*definitely

[–]Redcard911 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry. Swipe seems to be failing me today.

[–]pingu 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

*Swype

[–]AliveInTheFuture 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Swype's dictionary doesn't have misspellings in it, though...

[–]Redcard911 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I misspelled it previously and it must have saved that spelling along with the correct one. Also, Really guy? How does this add to content at all?

[–]Tman158 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

more on what quantitative measurement?

[–]tehz 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So the world is being destroyed twice as fast?

[–]xoctor 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not destroyed, controlled.

[–]tehz 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which will destroy it in the long run.

[–]MyDoppelganger 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think if anyone here likes both Orwell and Huxley, Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace would be right up your alley. Thematically, it is a nice mash-up of both Orwell's and Huxley's speculations and fears.

[–]ReallyLongLake 4 points5 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've often heard of that book in passing but I never really knew what it was about. I'm going to read it thanks to you.

[–]mjnIII 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Make sure to clear your calendar for a few months

[–]mprice25 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I've heard of that book, I'm going to read it" *looks at book......."eh, maybe later"

[–]ReallyLongLake 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah.

[–]Chec69 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Once you start and get into the novel you wont stop. (Well depending on what are your tastes)

[–]trybaj 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I suggest the kindle version, since the endnotes can get unwieldy with such a big book (and there are lots of endnotes).

[–]wrong_again 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

or two bookmarks

[–]executivemonkey 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The 1% Huxley us first; then, if that fails, they bring out the Orwell.

[–]xoctor 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it is more like the 99% Huxley ourselves due to our hunger for distraction and sensual pleasure, and at the same time the 1% Orwell us due to their hunger for power and control.

The amazing thing is how long these two can co-exist before they conflict and there are protests. If the 1% just wised up and let the 99% live with the bare necessities, they could continue having tacit approval to Orwell us indefinitely. Maybe it's a good thing their greed knows no bounds.

[–]questionthis 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed, and Huxley appears more correct because Orwell was correct; that is, "big brother" in 1984 secured loyalty through unseen and discreet influence. If Orwell was/is correct, we wouldn't know it!

[–]Drwray 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Although I agree with this, I believe Orwell was more correct in being able to establish "the other" with tremendous passivity. Huxley was able to create a world of moral decline due to consumerism and Orwell was able to create a world that functioned on high levels of aggressive nationalism. Though Huxley seems to be "more right", I think both ideas together have formed an interesting realization of the paradigmatic shifts we have gone through to create our world as it exists today.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Clicked on comments link to say this. Upvote for you. I would also note that there is no way in which either book conforms to the simplistic depictions in this cartoon. In fact, I would almost say that his description of Brave New World actually more closely describes the themes in Farenheit 451.

[–]shodanx 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

they are warnings, not reports

[–]wtf_is_taken 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yup I came here to say that. It is definitely a mixture of both.

[–]idontknowmuch123 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Noam Chomsky said something about that.
Something about "democratic countries" employing different tactics to achieve the same effect of oppression as other countries.

[–]Positronix -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually it looks like both of them are wrong - the world population is skyrocketing, human beings seem to be more successful today than at any other point in history.

[–]emptyhunter 6 points7 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not necessarily. Population growth isn't a good indicator of success. We still have totalitarian dictatorships in place in most of the third world, the most populous country in the world has very little in the way of civil liberties, and thousands are being massacred in the streets in places like Syria.

We may have more stuff here in the west, but are we really successful? Poverty in the US is at 15%, millions are unemployed, and billions in other parts of the world don't have enough food or water to eat, the basic necessities of human life. Industrialized countries have a completely unsustainable way of life built on exploitation and finite resources that slowly poison the planet.

We have lots more shiny things, but success is definitely subjective. We still have a long way to go.

EDIT: That first sentence I wrote was terrible and made no sense, fixed it.

[–]inyouraeroplane 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They're both in some ways correct, but Huxley is more right. We're going to eliminate any possible meaning of life, whether through constant happiness or the death of religion, pretty soon here.

[–]NoahFect 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

WTF. To the extent the meaning of life comes from religion, we're better off without such "meaning."

Religion, almost by definition, is someone else's idea of what your life should mean.

[–]btguinn 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would the death of religion destroy the meaning of life? Or constant happiness, for that matter? All religions are contrived to eke happiness and morality out of suffering or existential dread. They're simply systems we came up with to derive meaning and happiness; they can easily be replaced.

[–][deleted] 129 points130 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For those interested, you can find more information at any of these 13 previous posts of this image:

source: karmadecay

[–]banjaloupe 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One day every subreddit will contain this comic.

[–]NoahFect 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So Borges is the one who was right. I figured as much.

[–]banjaloupe 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reddit is the Library. The subreddits are the books, and are infinite in number. Each subreddit has one post, and each post is made up of fourteen panels. No two comics are alike.

[–]coperez 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which Borges story are you talking about?

[–]6daycreation 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"The Library of Babel."

[–]NoahFect 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

TLoB would be the one that comes to mind, but the idea of narrative as an exhaustible resource is a pretty common subtext in his works. He anticipated a time when all possible events have occurred and all possible stories have been written, at which point the remaining problem will be one of indexing them.

Borges did for literature what Turing did for computing, but as with Turing, nobody really noticed or cared at the time.

[–]coperez 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just read the story, amazing to say the least. I've always been fascinated by Borges if you want I will recommend El aleph, if I had to explain it, the story in itself is an experience.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I imagine that there are substantially more posts of this comic, but Karma Decay only found this many. If anyone knows of more, I would be interested in seeing them.

[–]Pontdepierre 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for your work. I'd just like to drive the point home:

I'm sure I could go on, but I'll stop there. Over 4,200 karma among them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your list is way better than mine.

[–]Pontdepierre 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks! I just wanted to create a long list between the two of us that could be used on future reposts so that maybe we can nip this in the bud.

[–]DiogenesTheSincere 18 points19 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They both were/are/will be right to different degrees in all kinds of different contexts/countries/whatever. To say that one is right and the other is wrong displays some degree of ignorance, to be honest.

Edit: even if the above wasn't true, it's still impossible to label either as "wrong". Orwell was writing about certain systems, perhaps communism or socialism, and how they might develop. Furthermore, Nineteen Eighty-Four may even have been a kind of reverse self-fulfilling prophecy where thanks to his awareness and that of others, the developments that made the 1984verse possible in the book's history were hindered and discouraged in our own. That's speculation, however, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point that calling either one of them wrong in favour of the other is ridiculous, and I'm sick of this comic being posted all the fucking time.

Edit#2: also, I remember reading somewhere that Orwell said he was writing parts of it to be deliberately and obviously fictional. It was a cautionary tale, not a prediction. Thankfully.

[–]ReallyLongLake 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They both were/are right. Lets actively make sure that they will not be right.

[–]quixotes 46 points47 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a pretty first world way to look at these novels.

I'd be interested in what the people of Afghanistan have to say about being destroyed by what they love.

[–]QChasan13 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well. Each is true in its own society, but the more a society advances, the more Huxley is right IMO.

[–]ReallyLongLake 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

'Advances' may not be the right word.

[–]Locoman7 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The right word is "energy usage per capita".

[–]xoctor 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is interesting that Islam has a lot of built-in protections against a Huxleyian society developing.

It's a pity it doesn't have more protections against an Orwellian society.

[–]Forbichoff 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

foreign aid?

ouch.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those people are just as capable of being us as us being them (biologically speaking). It's pretty "first world" to assume that everyone not in the first world is too impoverished to be decadent, and so "behind" that agency is simply not an issue.

[–]quixotes 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're nitpicking me pretty hard there. I just found the artists' interpretation of the books to be a little on the narrow side, but maybe my choice of analogy wasn't so hot.

[–]RedCoatsForever 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Brave New World = middle-class and upper-class society in the West.

1984 = Everywhere else.

[–]seolfor 6 points7 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

1984 = Everywhere else.

I disagree. 1984-like scenario implies conscious control structures. There are very few places with effective totalitarian regimes (think North Korea). Mostly there are poor countries, especially new ones that don't have it under control yet. Their governments don't understand what they are doing about the issues they are supposed to be dealing with, let alone attempt thought control. They are also called "developing", because they are trying to achieve what the West has. Once they do, Brave New World it is.
This is exactly why we need the occasional revolution: any system extended to perfection becomes dystopia. Extremes are to be avoided at all costs.
EDIT: clarification

[–]jellyfish101 40 points41 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think Huxley was a visionary, most people just don't like to read time-consuming philosophical books, was it any different in Huxley's generation? People don't want to wander around thinking deep thoughts all the time. That's not the natural state of man. We are just animals, after our needs are fulfilled, we seek amusement, this is a trend that would have been the same throughout human history.

This comic is arguing that humans are too much a product of a culture that has been imposed on them. I would argue that our modern culture is more a creation of what humans wanted.

And they want entertainment and stimulation and that's nothing to feel guilty about.

On the other hand, humanity and our culture in general is always evolving and always getting better. I would argue that there are more people, thinking about important things now, than any other time in human history. Just look at the amount of people going into university. Yes, there is also a lot of white noise and lot of crap...but things have never been better for humanity. The internet...and even this sub-reddit is a really good example of that.

[–]PlanetUrasshole 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, free-will is coming to a bitter tragic end and you're too brainwashed to see it!

Kidding, thanks for being rational in this discussion.

[–]theagonyofthefeet 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think Postman is suggesting we should all walk around pondering the ineffable all the time. The point is, in the late capitalist West, feeding us what we want all the time is a better way of controlling the masses than Orwell's "boot stamping on a human face for all eternity."

Secondly, your statement that "things have never been better for humanity" is staggeringly naive and, quite frankly, infuriating. In case you missed it, the entire globe is currently embroiled in an unprecedented ecological, economic and political crisis.

I'm sorry but that fact that such a white washing of the current turmoil of the world could be entertained by someone in a philosophy forum is a painfully ironic example that Huxley was right.

[–]katzpijamas 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Jellyfish's point is that we aren't "being fed", we're feeding ourselves. The government isn't providing times and facilities for rampant sexual gratification or endless consumption, we've done that ourselves, because that's what we want.

Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is beside the point, Jellyfish is saying that this was where Huxley's idea about society strayed from the current reality.

[–]theagonyofthefeet 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If by "we" you mean the masses of consumers, then by definition we are being fed. Consumers don't feed themselves. And why should it matter if it's the government that's feeding us our soma or the Big Six media mega-corporations that do it for them?

I don't disagree with the statement that distractions are what we want. In fact, that what makes it so insidious. We are conditioned to choose them by an advertising industry steeped in a profound understanding of the irrational desires and drives of human beings for beauty, affluence, power, and our fears of ugliness, anonymity and weakness. Maybe you should read Huxley himself from Brave New World Revisited:

"Irrational propaganda depends for its effectiveness on a general failure to understand the nature of symbols. Simple-minded people tend to equate the symbol with what it stands for, to attribute to things and events some of the qualities expressed by the words in terms of which the propagandist has chosen, for his own purposes, to talk about them. Consider a simple example. Most cos­metics are made of lanolin, which is a mixture of purified wool fat and water beaten up into an emulsion. This emulsion has many valuable properties: it penetrates the skin, it does not become rancid, it is mildly antiseptic and so forth. But the commercial prop­agandists do not speak about the genuine virtues of the emulsion. They give it some picturesquely volup­tuous name, talk ecstatically and misleadingly about feminine beauty and show pictures of gorgeous blondes nourishing their tissues with skin food. "The cosmetic manufacturers," one of their number has written, "are not selling lanolin, they are selling hope." For this hope, this fraudulent implication of a promise that they will be transfigured, women will pay ten or twenty times the value of the emulsion which the propagandists have so skilfully related, by means of misleading symbols, to a deep-seated and almost universal feminine wish -- the wish to be more attrac­tive to members of the opposite sex. The principles underlying this kind of propaganda are extremely sim­ple. Find some common desire, some widespread uncon­scious fear or anxiety; think out some way to relate this wish or fear to the product you have to sell; then build a bridge of verbal or pictorial symbols over which your customer can pass from fact to compensa­tory dream, and from the dream to the illusion that your product, when purchased, will make the dream come true."

[–]will42 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here's an incredibly relevant documentary on the subject.

Adam Curtis - The Century of the Self

"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." - Adam Curtis

[–]tacogordito 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In case you missed it, the entire globe is currently embroiled in an unprecedented ecological, economic and political crisis.

Name a period in time when the world wasn't going through some form of this.

[–]theagonyofthefeet 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you suggesting that since history has always has its problems that what we are facing now isn't particularly harrowing?

I never said there was a Golden Age of human history. I merely pointed out that if you are even minimally informed of what's happening today ( e. g. the unprecedented and ultimately ineffectual measures taken by governments to stabilize world markets, widespread social unrest throughout the Middle East, Northern Africa, Europe and in the US as well as the industrial devastation of our ecosystem just to name a few,) it's ridiculous to suggest that "things have never been better for humanity."

[–]Factual_Pterodactyl 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Great response, strange how people seem to focus on the negatives, without also factoring in the advancements we have made as a culture as well. It's nostalgia and pessimism combined.

[–]phronesis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Huxley's philosophical outlook on things is so much more complex than Brave New World. BNW isn't even partially representative of his ideas, critiques of the modern world, or his insight into what ought to be. Only problem is, the majority of people familiar with his work are only familiar with BNW, or The Doors of Perception. If anything, Point Counter Point and Island, coupled with his Perennial Philosophy, are much more influential reads and indicative of his position on reality.

[–]BleakCoffee 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the suggestions. Reading this thread got me thinking about picking up BNW, but maybe I'll pick up one of the ones you listed instead.

[–]xoctor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

On the other hand, humanity and our culture in general is always evolving and always getting better.

Always getting better? It is hard to see WWII as a sign of progress. Or the life expectancy of US children falling below their parents'. Or the rapidly growing wealth disparity and ever shrinking middle-class?

I don't argue that there is no progress, but all progress happens because someone focussed on what could be better rather than being satisfied with the status quo.

Huxley was visionary because he was he could see human frailty and was absolutely prescient in extrapolating how this would influence the development of society. The course of history is obvious with hindsight, but predicting such key elements of culture is an incredible achievement.

And they want entertainment and stimulation and that's nothing to feel guilty about.

Given that Huxley wrote BNW as a novel, I don't think he thought entertainment and stimulation were shameful. As you say, they are natural drives, but like other desires, we are not well served by letting them run amok. Huxley saw how easily we fall into the temptation of giving distraction and sensory pleasure too much influence over our lives, and his vision of the consequences of this has turned out to be amazingly prescient.

[–]yagsuomynona 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And this is why I have a poor understanding of the average human. Why drown yourself in information about other people - friends, celebrities, politicians - when you can drown yourself in more general and useful information - math, science, and philosophy? Topology is way more interesting than what experts have to say about a book written by a TV pundit, or anything to do with Justin Bieber.

[–]incaseyoucare 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This comic is arguing that humans are too much a product of a culture that has been imposed on them.

I think a part of the attraction to this idea is that many people do not want to take responsibility for their damn apathy. Beleiving that being "forced" to watch every episode of sex in the city is just as much a limitation as a living under a repressive dictatorship may give people less guilt; as if they would be out doing great and heroic things if not for all these modern distractions.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Should we feel guilty? I don't know. Personally, I am kind of tired of people just walking around talking on their smart phones and not appreciating how amazing our world is. And those people are also willing to say things like "humanity and our culture in general is always evolving and getting better".

[–]toastedtobacco 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Given Orwell's time spent in developing nations as a soldier and a civilian, I wouldn't call him wrong, even if Huxley was right.

[–]Glucksberg 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Huxley's society is masking us from Orwell's tyranny. We (and I say "we" in a general way) are complacent and ignorant of the terror and oppression that goes on around the world and indeed in our own backyards.

[–]sjmdiablo 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly. It's dangerous to assume that these systems are dispositive. The truly insidious nature of our current culture is that they work in conjunction, amplifying and masking the other.

[–]NoahFect -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This. Just as "rationalists and civil libertarians" ignore the possibility that Huxley was right, this cartoonist ignores the reality that both were right.

[–]thepodgod 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Facebook is evidence that Huxley and Orwell were both right.

[–]infininme 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reddit is evidence that only Orwell was right.

[–]Kellerloechler 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Elaborate.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I suspect he's getting at the notion that Reddit represents a place where people take things more seriously than the befuddled masses do. It attracts ever more people, a sign, perhaps, that the struggle for greater awareness trumps the search for greater distraction.

[–]Kellerloechler 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If that's the case, he will be disappointed. I see just as much stupid people on reddit as everywhere else. Maybe not on /r/philosophy, but definitely on the more mainstream boards.

[–]dirk_b 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I definitely see more stupid elsewhere than on reddit to be honest.
I'd say Reddit demonstrates that the urge to learn about this world and try to improve it, is also a strong urge within people. We like distractions, we like safety and we like to learn.

[–]infininme 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I actually wrote it for a memewar.

[–]thedesolateone 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well-drawn comic

[–]infininme 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But with distraction and pleasure, we have the freedom to not partake. Pain in Orwell's example is not a choice.

[–]inyouraeroplane 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Brave New World didn't have much of that. Thanks to centuries of being taught that aloneness isn't desirable, and with the power of soma, the people bought into it willingly.

[–]infininme 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

True. In a world of consistent stimulation, loneliness is the worst pain to bear.

[–]MilkyMoo 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's strange to see how Science Fiction has gone away from criticizing and reflecting society to a purer form of entertainment.

[–]CSG22 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here, yes. Different story in North Korea.

[–]motorbird88 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Look at North Korea and say Orwell was wrong.

[–]xoctor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Look at the TSA, the DHS, the War on Drugs (including children dobbing in their own parents), warrantless GPS units and all manner of other surveillance. Also look at the endless wars (fighting for peace), and virtual monoculture of political parties and discourse.

The USA isn't 1984, but it isn't as far away from it as it should be.

[–]draxus99 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't you get a warm fuzzy feeling when you realize we live with the worst of both worlds? Yay!

[–]beyondthunderdome 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty cool. It's interesting that even though the path to ruin in each scenario is so different, the end result (ignorance, spiritual/creative stagnation, loss of personal autonomy) for each is so similar. Both works scare the bejeezus out of me. I can't even decided which is more horrifying - losing ourselves to the tyranny of an oppressive government, or losing ourselves to the tyranny of our own ignorance.

[–]inyouraeroplane 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Both end up with the death of the self. In 1984, it's because the Government has told people not to think for themselves. In Brave New World, it's hypnopedia and the need to be around other people. They both lead to hiveminds.

[–]MasterOfStupey 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amusing Ourselves to Death is a fantastic book. Glad to see it getting some love on Reddit.

[–]rubes6 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just finished it, since I was teaching a class about the effects of digital media on the way work is done. I feel that this book could have been 100x more fascinating had it been written 20 years later (rather than right after we eclipsed 1984), but in the 20th anniversary addition, we get a little of that from his son.

I thought it was funny that Postman considered the computer a "vastly overrated technology"! But he was visionary in noting that this is the type of technology that we'll need to evaluate in the future.

A book called "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains", kind of takes up where Postman left off. It's a good read, but like the title, says that the Internet is leading us to sacrifice depth of information processing for breadth, and this does very impactful things to our attention and our ability to think deeply and critically. It's a good one, though, I think.

[–]Huluriasquias 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We have both possibilities happening at the same time.

These kind of comparisons is only the "1984 Gang" trying to blow smoke to blame the "Brave new Wold Gang" for current state of affairs.

[–]PlanetUrasshole 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So were being pitted against each-other from the inside?

[–]JFoss117 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

TL;DR: get the fuck off reddit

[–]HigHIdrA 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you so much OP! 1984 and Brave New World are my two favorite books and it was great to see this illustration. A few interesting things to note about Huxley is one that he saw the great potential pharmaceuticals had to control a population what he called Soma in his book has become anti-depressants, painkillers and opiates in reality. The other great visionary example of Huxley was the he greatly feared the concentration and centralization of power and influence. He thought Democracy required as many people giving input as receiving input but knew television would skew that ration so that one person giving input (Bill O' Reilly) could have millions of receivers. With the ever increasing consolidation of corporate power in all sectors I believe Huxley hit the nail on the head.

[–]unknownantipatriot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How do anti-depressants and painkillers control a population? Opiates I can still see the connection, but anti-depressants are only really meant to be used on people with a severe depressive disorder, with constant and irrational depression and fears. This doesnt necessarily have something to do with people being depressed at the state of society and making the idea go away by anti depressants, but rather taking away the persons irrational-based depression. Anti-depressants dont make the persons world-views change all of a sudden. It can save people from the brink of suicide. It could be like soma if misused though, that I can give you.

As for painkillers, I dont see much of a connection at all.

[–]rounder421 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

for someone who's curiosity has been piqued but has never read Huxley, is Brave New World were one should start?

[–]rubes6 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you're an avid reader, to get the full spectrum of these ideas, I might read We first (by Yevgeny Zamyatin), then read 1984, then Brave New World, and then Island, also by Huxley. Island is his counterpoint to BNW, in which he imagines an ill-fated but ideal society (as opposed to a functioning but dystopian society). Island was Huxley's last novel, and was also his last chance to real portray his ideal of how society should function. But, be forewarned that Island is pretty short on plot like the other books, and more focuses on the philosophical dialogue (great for this subreddit then!)

[–]chubs66 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Neil Postman. (Technopoly introduction)

[–]sjmdiablo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Came here to post on Postman (pun not intended). I've been trying to get people to read his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, for years.

[–]chubs66 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know. His work is so brilliant/important/interesting. I also wish more people considered his perspective.

[–]TGPZarquon 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They're tied.

What Orwell never imagined is that privacy would become a price for luxury items - and that we would gladly pay it and then some before realizing it's too late.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The point of 1984 was to talk about Stalinism at a time when the real Left was defending it, thinking of it as a fellow traveler. Any critique of Stalinism amongst socialists was seen as in-fighting (and Soviet-backed press supported this idea). My point is: 1984 was intended partially to be prophetic but was meant to give an accurate anchor to use when thinking about Stalinism. His point was partially to entertain, partially to give people something that can serve as a cautionary tale, and partially to talk about Stalin without actually talking about Stalin. Acting like it was just one of those things misses out on the full picture of what you're reading.

More information related to his opinion of the Soviet Union can be found in Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Both are very critical of Stalinism and have it as a pretty central focus (with it being the premise for the latter).

[–]orchestra 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Orwell was a pie-eyed optimist, because he assumed there would be a resistance and human faces."

[–]questionthis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice try, Big Brother

[–]theagonyofthefeet 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Huxley was absolutely right, but Orwell still wrote a better book.

BTW Neil Postman was right too.

[–]aude5apere 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

but I think the internet changed how much people read.

[–]theagonyofthefeet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're right. However, although people certainly read more than in the 80s because of the web, how they read and what they read are quite different from traditional print. For example, a book has no ads, no hyperlinks, and no access to a billion other potential sources of content competing for your attention. Because we could always be lured away by some other content, the average status update, comment, tweet, blog post or news article is usually designed to be quickly digested.

Otherwise, you know: TL/DR.

[–]aude5apere 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

agreed. But it didn't go the way he predicted.

[–]plausibleD 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At some point people will fight for their distractions, just look at the Occupy protests. When the powers that be attempt to take away what separates a modern society from a subsistence one, people will rise up.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I found this comic very entertaining. O.O

[–]Misanthropologist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The internet is proof that Yevgeny Zamyatin was right.

[–]rubes6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice. We is an awesome book. It's more like 1984 sure, but it was written first, and even Orwell said that it partly inspired his writing of 1984. We, along with 1984 and BNW, make the sweet, scary trilogy of classical dystopian literature.

[–]NoahFect 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He wrote a book and called it We? He obviously wasn't prescient enough to anticipate people using automated means to search for his book.

[–]Sin2K 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The major difference being that Orwell wrote 1984 as his final work, whereas the author's introduction to Brave New World reads like a long apology.

[–]Forbichoff 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

has anyone read the book? is it worth checking out?

[–]seolfor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes.

[–]Ulingalibalela 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That eye in the web picture instantly reminded me of this music video by blockhead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhheiPTdZCw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[–]Rotten_in_Denmark 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

they're both right.

[–]composer77 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One has to work hard not to notice police in riot gear at the OWS protests. It's not just a nice carrot that is keeping people in line. Pay attention, as there is a very heavy stick that is being used as well. This is what keeps people inside, just as much (if not more so) as the enticement of mindless entertainment, in my opinion.

[–]silverpaw1786 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fantastic post. I will move A Brave New World to the top of my "to be read" list - it's long overdue.

[–]Glasenator 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The description of "Brave New World" sounds a lot like Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451," albeit with out all the sex.

[–]infinitenothing 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Source: http://www.recombinantrecords.net/2009/05/

It's a really cool site

[–]Platz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I haven't read all the comments so forgive me if this is a repeat, but the idea of pleasure and unmitigated abundance was also explored in David Foster Wallace's 'Infinite Jest', (along with other topics). Just wanted to point it out.

[–]ModularToil 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Most of Brave New World is contained in the subtext of Nineteen Eighty-Four anyway. Most of the population (the proles) are not under surveillance, don't care about the news, and are happy with their pubs, state pop-music and porn.

Just saying.

[–]theaceoface 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In general, modernity has made society - considered as a whole - more informed/ sophisticated and not less. The internet, and modern technology, is probably the most important tool for social progress.

So the trust of this comic seems to be bullshit

[–]roland333 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How do you measure social progress?

[–]Critcho 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The comic took a cheap shot at Twitter, but that site played a role in the arab spring uprisings and in general is a prime example of how modern technology makes it harder and harder for authorities to control free speech and the flow of information.

[–]NoahFect 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The comic took a cheap shot at Twitter, but that site played a role in the arab spring uprisings

So Twitter is useful for the creation and installation of new Sharia regimes. Got it.

[–]lolo555 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Cheap shot?" Please.

Yes, twitter has been used for good on a few occasions, but let's get real, the vast, vast majority of twitter is totally worthless shit. TV sometimes actually informs people about facts, would you say the comic took a cheap shot against TV?

The comic isn't saying that all communication technology is bad, it's suggesting that worthless distractions like the average tweet is bad.

And the comic's overall point, which you seem to be missing, is that authorities don't need to control speech in an Orwellian sense anymore because any truly threatening ideas are drowned out amongst all the bullshit. You don't need to censer the 1 in 1,000,000 threatening tweets, because the people will be too busy being distracted by the other 999,999.

[–]Critcho 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It was absolutely a cheap shot. The fact that the 'average tweet' isn't important doesn't matter - everyday life isn't, and never has been, a constant barrage of crucially important serious stuff.

The existence of distractions and trivial things isn't proof that no one cares about bigger issues, or reason to believe that the people who truly don't care would suddenly become super informed social and political activists if those particular distractions were removed.

The ratio of important to trivial tweets doesn't matter so long as the really important stuff gets singled out and given the spotlight, which in my experience is exactly what tends to happen. Just this year I've seen it used to coordinate protests, keep people connected and informed after the tsunami in Japan, and organize community cleanup operations after the London Riots.

But oh shit I forgot, it's just a a mindless toy to keep the sheeple distracted.

[–]lolo555 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it's just a a mindless toy to keep the sheeple distracted

I nor the comic ever said these things were necessarily designed to keep people distracted, but rather that they do in reality function to keep people distracted.

TV wasn't designed to be the opium of the masses, but are you really going to say it doesn't function like that to a significant degree? Where people are atomized, sitting and passivly watching a screen.

Sports weren't designed to be a distraction from important matters, but are you going to say "bread and circus" theories are all bullshit?

I'm glad you supposedly use twitter in a constructive way, but for every person like you who follows "important" people/groups on twitter, there are thousands who use twitter for nothing more than following sports figures, celebrities, and other fun but meaningless crap.

The Arab spring would have happened with or without twitter. Twitter may have been a useful tool, but come on, what do you work for twitter?

[–]Critcho 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All the technologies we're talking about are multi-faceted and are used by different people for different reasons. The comic is implying that the qualities Huxley describes are getting worse now because of them, and I don't think it's as simple as that.

Again, I don't buy this idea that because people distract themselves with trivial shit, they must be ill informed, malleable idiots. Who among us doesn't spend a significant amount of their time 'distracting' themselves with things that are trivial in the bigger political picture?

I get the point the comic is making and don't necessarily disagree with it, but ultimately it's simplistic fingerpointing at 'people today' for perpetuating a problem that isn't very clearly defined except in the most broadly rhetorical terms.

[–]rubes6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, it was really just a shot at TV, since Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves To Death" was written in 1985. Postman basically said that TV is ALL entertainment and no education or critical thought or discussion, and thus we just don't care to think deeply anymore, but would rather be entertained (politicians, newscasts are just show business, not serious discussion). But surely it is equally applicable to Facebook/Twitter/(and Reddit), and some eery foreshadowing of the effects of the internet.

[–]NoahFect 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Postman was a bit unfair. It's true that mass media discourages deep thinking, but at the same time, it can encourage lateral thinking, by exposing people to ideas and possibilities they would never have considered at all.

E.g., how many people reading this thread had never even heard of Neil Postman before? (It may not be a useful question to ask in this particular subreddit, but it would be in others.)

It's a mistake to set one modality of thought above another; we need both.

[–]fmoralesc 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Always the optimistic (not that I disagree that modern technology is the most important tool for social progress, though, but people must be educated/prepared to handle it, and that is still lacking).

[–]rubes6 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with both of you. Seems like there are counterbalancing pathways here: on the one hand, digital media is great because we have unprecedented access to information, and at unprecedented speeds! But on the other hand, we have this desire for novelty and to seek out new and interesting information, and what Huxley said is that we're inevitably being forced to attend to as much as we can--to drink in more and more and more information, which ultimately forces us to sacrifice depth of analysis for breadth of content. Thus, Postman (who's book this info graphic is based on) thinks we're just passive TV watchers, and such media allows for no discussion or in-depth thought (since it's not entertaining as flashy images and music and now...this). As such, our real knowledge isn't knowledge at all, and we don't really learn anything at all through TV since before we've had time to consider one argument, the TV anchor sends us somewhere else (and now...this), to some other story leaving us no time to think.

[–]schnuffs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Modern technology is simply a tool. That tool can be used to good (instrumental in mobilizing social movements like in Egypt) or bad (escapism and complacency). Which one of these two is entirely dependent on the society and culture in which you reside.

[–]theaceoface 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But I literally said

...most important tool for social progress.

[–]schnuffs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes you did, and I was pointing out that like any tool it can be used positively or negatively. You were calling the comic bullshit without considering the negative aspects that come with modern technology (or you just didn't allude to them)

[–]theaceoface 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just as an addendum: The reason that mass media, and especially the internet is so important to social progress/ social justice is its role in discourse. If you believe that justice has a procedural component, then the things that facilitate those procedure (like fair and equal deliberation) are going to be thought as positive tools for justice. People need to have a realistic picture of modern society before age of mass media. People were not highly informed, sophisticated, aware of social justice, and not prone to frivolity. In general people were far less educated, far more likely to trust authority. The entire decision making process was far more controlled in the hands of a few. Moreover, what deliberation did take place weren’t exactly free and equal. No one is saying society is perfect now... but its a step up

[–]mcgoogz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i don't really agree with the image....huxley's future society was much more totilarian and dictatorial than it suggests.

SPOILER (can you make spoiler tags here? sry if so)

they controlled human genetics and behavior with eugenics and forced social conditioning, being too different gets you exiled, government sponsored caste system, etc. (i think having children was against the law?)

this makes it seem like the people in brave new world had freedom to do as they pleased but were just uninterested.