/lit/ - Literature

Interesting ideas but shit novel

At least 1984 had a moderately entertaining plot, BNW doesn't even try

I found myself actually liking the society Huxley created, and wondering whether it was really a dystopia. I know Huxley thought so, but people were well taken care of and happy, which is more than you can say for most systems.

>>11682972
>testtube babies made into retards with fetal alcohol syndrome
>wondering whether it was really a dystopia

>>11682972
It's a paradise for the Nietzschian Last Man. Are you that much of a bugman that a society in which all the challenges and ills of reality are medicated away from you sounds appealing?

>>11683036
This is literally the ideal society Americans crave.

>>11682981
>>11683036
Dignity and a sack is worth the sack.
Same for the Aristotelian concept of Freedom-- as a capacity.

>"I don't have any food, it's raining on me, and I'm riddled with parasites... But at least I'm Free©™"

>>11683054
This is why America is a dying empire in a period of decadence. Americans now are living in a society in which they fundamentally do not understand their predecessors, and having no past, have even less of a future.
>>11683058
Is this the famous Real Marxism™ I keep hearing about? Sure, a society does have the responsibility of protecting their citizenry from dangers and ill-fated decisions to a certain extent, but only a fool would think that such a society could be sustainable enough long term to justify the risk posed by a soft and incapable populace.

>>11682955
Not even close. It's literally entry-level, which isn't a mark against it as a piece of literature, but it absolutely is a mark against it being "one of the best" pieces of literature "in the world".

>>11683088
which bumblefuck in particular do you live in?

>>11683123
>books on the world
>on
>on = about

>It's literally entry-level,
so is your reading comprehension

>>11683140
>I'm on hawaii

Explain that shit, dawg.
You fucking can't because we're literally perched on the surface of the planet.

>>11683172
This is my dissertation on the subject of...

This is my dissertation about the world

This is my dissertation on the world

>>11683172
Hawaii is a place that has surface. One can stand on surface. How is it impossible to be correct to say, I am standing on Hawaii(s ground)? I am standing on the earth. But as I already initially pointed out, on can be used to be mean about.

>>11683088
It's not Marxist to recognize that having a label "freedom" is worthless without material needs met.

That's just Maslow's Hierarchy.

You gotta be pretty fucking dumb if an abstract concept is more important to you than a functional society with a place for everyone.
How in fact could it BE Marxist at all since there's class and hierarchy?

Brave New World describes a scientism-derived Traditionalism.

Whether you like it or not, it's a fully Traditional Society founded on Henry Ford instead of The Vedas or The Bible.

>>11683132
A metropolitan area with a couple universities.
>>11683203
Brave New World does describe a kind of dystopic techno-fuedalism of sorts. I do take issue with the idea of "freedom" being solely an abstract concept. Sure, you could go down all sorts of autistic AnCap rabbit holes if you consider the maximization of freedom to be the sole purpose of social organization, but to deny that there is a need for basic freedoms (in the sense of the freedom to succeed or fail in the pursuit of individual endeavors) or to use tactical nihilism to dismiss the entire concept is just as autistic. Some populations are significantly orderly to the point where BNW would not be a significant change from their current social structure in principle, but the society posed in BNW would sacrifice the instinctual drive towards freedom most people of European descent (the people who BNW was directed towards, which is actually an important consideration) find necessary for a healthy life. What it poses is a sort of utilitarianism ad-absurdum where it recognizes that the vast majority of the population will be conformists under most circumstances, and then uses that to deny fundamental aspects of human nature and living a healthy human life.

Btw, the real Marxism thing was a joke. I was making fun of how so many left wingers find themselves wearing the clothes of revolutionaries while actually defending advancements of the status quo as it is towards a sort of techno-fuedalism.

>>11683233
If BNW was actualized in America, what sort of freedoms do you think the Americans you are talking about who who not like to lose freedoms, would lose? Dont say, all of them! Name some examples, soda, burgers, movies, motorcycles?

And dont be like: Yeah! Motorcycles likely I think would not be allowed! so therefore the totality of the spirit of BNW society, is absolutely wrong and bad and could not be placed in america!

Because my easy response is, ok, BNW is actualized in america, but they allow you motorcycles! So, some examples of freedoms you think would be lost?

>>11683660
>>11683233
And a prelude question: What about America now is not absolutely close to being BNW? Class systems satisfied in their ways, numbed by substance/media, planned parenthood/birth control

>>11683660
I think that many 21st century urbanite (and metro-suburban as an extension) Americans would find themselves completely at home in an analogous world find themselves completely at home in a sort of BNW actualization, and many elites are literally working towards this kind of thing with automation and UBI nonsense.

If you go to rural areas however I think you would find significant opposition. If you are talking about freedom towards consumption of goods, I think you fundamentally misunderstand motivates the kind of non-materialists often found in rural small town America. They would object to the loss of discretion in the management of their self-sustained communities. They would object to the loss of the ability to own firearms as a means of projecting their local sovereignty (whether they understand/can articulate those actions as such or not). They would object to the ability to form tightly knit exclusive intergenerational cultures, as opposed to the rapidly growing global mono-culture. They would (and often do) object to the forfeiture of the duty of establishing curriculum of education to non-locals who do not understand their localized culture. They would object to the rootlessness and nihilism of living in a world with no struggle to actualize oneself through (again whether they can express this directly or not is of no real consequence to the reality of this being the case). There are many intuitions/instincts that while when expressed appear as merely abstractions, are so fundamentally important to the development of sustainable intergenerational communities that they are even more important for long term health of the community than removal of conditions of strife. In fact it very easily could be argued that a certain amount of material strife is absolutely necessary for the long term maintenance of a healthy social order.

>>11683702
*Loss of the ability

>>11683677
I do think in metropolitan areas and their surrounding suburbs, many people are very close to the kind of culturally homogenous top down situation in which BNW could be possible. This however is being actively challenged by one of the most serious reactionary movements that America has ever faced. The heavy re-assertion of the status quo (via forceful censorship on the effective public square of the internet, both via direct monopolistic platforms like Twitter/Facebook, and with revocation of payment processing/banking faced on independent sites) towards the sort of BNW technofuedalism and against traditional "localized Americanism" has caused such a cultural divide in this country that it may very well provoke a civil war in the coming years. There may well be many (and perhaps even a bare majority) people who would find themselves contented with this sort of BNW, but the kinds of people with the agency required to cause cultural change would most certainly be revolted by the lack of personal and localized sovereignty, and total alienation/individualization inherent in such a system.

>>11683702
>>11683745
good posts

>>11682955
One of the best dystopia books. Maybe the best. But why are all dystopia books fixated on sex and sexual themes?
>Brave New World
>1984
>We
>Handmaid's Tale
>Clockwork Orange
Does fantasizing about global totalitarian dictatorships get writers horny or something?

>>11682972
this is you

>>11683914
>But why are all dystopia books fixated on sex and sexual themes?
Contraception is one of the most socially disruptive inventions in history and we still don't really know how it affects society. Compare human reproduction for 99% of history vs human reproduction in the last century or so.

>>11683702
I'm literally in Nebraska right now and a lot of people here are fans of Bernie Sanders.

The idea that struggle is the only way to achieve meaning is laughable.

>>11683952
people practiced forms of contraception for a while, and if no contraception, most people would try to pull out, and abort.. but considering all that, if there was no contraception in the past 100 years, how much larger do you think the population might be right now ? not much larger, because people would be really good and careful with pulling out?

>>11683962
>I'm literally in Nebraska right now and a lot of people here
quantity and qualify: a lot of people
20 students you know?
15 bumper stickers spotted around town?

>>11683123
It could be argued that being entry-level is a mark of the greatest literature, e.g. Shakespeare, Homer, the Bible, the Quran, other religious texts

>>11684006
37,000 registered voters in the primary, 17,000 in the caucus all for Bernie, and that is as of early 2016, and only primary voters, not what is actually there in unregistered and otherwise disenfranchised people (people w convictions et c who aren't allowed to vote for example).
Primary voters is also a special set, most people don't vote in those but rather in the general.

One of the big cross party trends was mutual Trump-Bernie support especially on the basis of Healthcare and NAFTA.

Right now there's a huge anti-Ricketts (our governor) movement as well as Medicaid expansion getting on the ballot which has been repeatedly undemocratically taken off by the mostly-republican (gerrymandered) unicameral.

And so on.

Anti KXL is a big popular farm movement here, as well as opposition to trade fuckery.

Nebraskans are pissed about losing their bumper basedbean crop profits to Trump's trade wars

>>11684001
It's not about population growth. It's about sexual "liberation" as a means of control. Contraception paved the way for women's suffrage, women in the workforce, gay marriage, and now this tranny shit we're seeing everywhere.

>>11683036
Taking away the ills of reality in one way or another is one of my goals, sure.

I'm more in the camp of turning everyone into ubermensches though, rather than fully adjusting society to our current state. Well, to be more accurate, I'm in the radical mind-uploading, intelligence-increasing, experience-augmenting let's make reality really weird and wonderful and unrecognizable camp.

I wouldn't support the fetal alcohol syndrome plan for example because that would almost certainly devalue their lives and their capacity for happiness. In the story, it's made out to make them happier and better off than they otherwise would have been, which I think wouldn't work for real.

In fact I think BNW mixes in lots of things that can potentially be put to good use once perfected, like genetic engineering or drugs, and makes them scary by putting them into a system of passive control.

I worry about the effect BNW might have on human efforts to actually alleviate human suffering on the large scale, which is something I very much care about. Like how euthanasia gets a bad rap because it was forced on people during fascism, so now it's hard to introduce a voluntary euthanasia-for-the-old-and-suffering program since it's no longer politically correct.

Remember how in clockwork orange they made the behavioral modification also take away his ability to enjoy beethoven, just so that you knew it was a bad thing. Because otherwise, you might come away thinking that the benefits outweighed the detriments. Similar thing happens in The Giver, where society takes away pain, and ends all war, both good things, but then it takes away color just to kick you.

>>11684038
>>11684006
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2018/07/05/nebraska-medicaid-expansion-reaches-goal-for-ballot-initiative/#4a17d64e720f

>133,000 verified signatures, initiative requirement only 85,000

It's real man. Rural America likes social democracy

I haven’t read anything by Huxley and I’ve encountered his name in many novels where they mention him among writers such as Faulkner, Eliot, Woolf, etc. Big names you see; yet in /lit/ everyone says he is basic bitch tier. Which one is it?

>>11684058
CRISPR means we can make Designer People and can finally become Eusocial Animals.

No fetal alcohol required.
No needing to dumb people down and educate them into drones, we can now breed job-specific genotypes.

Imagine being born happy to work at McDonald's, or innately suited to Physics

>>11684084
The end of genetic disease both physical and mental, give everyone a boost to IQ, etc. is what I'm thinking.

I'm not sure menial jobs should be made interesting, boredom is an important to keep if we want to keep improving and making new experiences to experience. But, say, controlling the number of people who will be artists vs. engineers wouldn't be so bad. Our genes already control us. They just control us stupidly because they're selected at random and so many people live unhappy lives. Why is being born with genes that make you an artist and happy to be an artist, because society decided you would be, more bothersome than being born loving art but having no talent because random physics processes decided you would be?

>>11684121
>give everyone a boost to IQ
Nothing more stable than a society of 180 IQ people fighting over who gets stuck digging ditches

>>11683962
t college student in Omaha or Lincoln

>>11684130
Have the machines dig the ditches.

>>11684130
You could, with everyone a genius, invent weather control, or even just effective automated ditchdigger bots

>>11684133
I thought this would be your response and it is a fair point, but I'll ask you to consider then the next tier up from digging ditches

>>11684132
I'm 34, worked instead of college, and provided two posts with detailed sources. Dumbass.
>>11684074
>>11684038

>>11684139
You're trying to speak for rural Nebraska from corporate HQ land in Omaha. I hear actual farmers every day, and they aren't talking about beans or loving Bernie

>>11684135
It's machines all the way up! But seriously, true AI would likely change everything at all levels, and I doubt we'll get to the point of breeding people for specific jobs before AI happens, even if we obtain the technology to do so.

We might get to the point of increasing IQ and eliminating diseases though. So we may indeed have to deal with a society of smart people.

I'm actually not sure I accept without question the idea that a smart person digging a ditch is truly unhappier than a stupid person digging a ditch. It seems like something we could find out empirically. Maybe the being smart makes the experience better because you can think on other things while you do it. It could go either way.

>>11684153
I live in a town of 1,500 hours from Omaha you idiot

>>11684158
Shit.
1,500 people.
Hours from Omaha.

>>11684074
>lots of Nebraskans like Bernie better than other candidates
>this means they are of the opinion that all suffering/displeasure should be eliminated

>>11684172
What do you think Social Democracy is supposed to do?

>>11684158
Post your address punk!!! Say that to my face not online!!!

>>11684155
The BNW model of alpha-gamma stratification is correct because the point is that even with automation there will always be a natural hierarchy, and the top of that hierarchy will try to suppress competition like it has done across all of history. Perfected DNA won't be shared, trade secrets are viciously protected.

>Maybe the being smart makes the experience better because you can think on other things while you do it.
Has this been your experience, as a laborer?

>>11684179
I'd need two points to make a comparison, anon. While I certainly dislike menial work, and enjoy more engaging work, my impression so far is that very dumb people also dislike menial work.

You know, even in a world of nanotech food and simulated reality, we'd probably create our own social hierarchies because of the tribal psychology built into us. Unless, of course, we also change our brains, in which case we could change that psychology. I think that would lead to even more diversity, because, for example, some people may want to downgrade to the status of animals (think furries), some would want to upgrade to super-intelligence, and some would want to stay the way they are and resist change, like the Amish. And that doesn't even touch upon people who would want to change in weird ways, like making hiveminds or just being weird and different. I think we'll see fractal stratification at all levels, in the long term, if we don't kill ourselves.

>>11684206
Of course, people could also choose to go with a standardization.
We could truly have a totally equal manufactured posthumanity that is focused on roundedness and general ability-- as Heinlein said: specialization is for insects.

Imagine if every person was as smart and strong and brave as every other.

Suited to whatever work needed doing, as opposed to whatever they can be given from an ever shrinking pool of possibilities

>>11684179
In fact, the part about BNW that I hated the most (not as a book, but as a society) is probably how stable and unchanging it all is.

There doesn't seem to be room for new ideas, radical life-improving technology, that sort of thing.

This is true of a lot of planned utopias. Who wants to live in a "perfect" unchanging society? It's like giving up. There's always a place higher and better to go, I think there is no ceiling and our potential is unbounded, so it would be terrible to arrive at a stable "perfect" society.

>>11684206
>my impression so far is that very dumb people also dislike menial work.
Very true, although wouldn't those dumb people also have no intellectual recourse and so be socially immobile, leading to an (even if sad) island of social stability? I think that stability wouldn't be present with a bunch of extremely intelligent activist laborers who could see the same routes of attack their leaders, equals, do. Here's hoping we live long enough to be able to fully integrate and dissolve into the god AI, though.

>>11684232
>>11684234
Insatiability can be bred out.
Boredom can be edited out.

I actually enjoy manual labor because it frees my mind to wander, and it is by virtue of predictability, safe.

I like stability. Maybe it's an appreciation that comes from being older than most of you.
I lived an exciting life, boring is nice. Gives me time to think and read and paint

>>11684244
If you edit out boredom, you'll find whatever you like best (maybe a single poem, say), and just read that over and over, all day long, for your entire life. Or the same video game, or the same movie. If we're doing that, why not just wirehead and experience maximum pleasure all the time while robots take care of us?

>>11684254
Because you'd only care about satisfying desire if you have desire.
I can't get bored. Why would I want escapism?
Insatiability is gone.
I don't feel this horrible drive. I can just do what I actually need or want to do.

Lack of boredom doesn't mean lack of creativity.

>>11684266
If you take away desire, you'll end up with other problems. These sorts of edits can't be taken too lightly. I'm sure some people will consent to removing them, though. Reminds me of the planet NowWhat from one of the Hitchhiker books, where people just sort of go about life habitually and don't really care about anything.

>>11682958
more or less this

>>11684254
>>11684266

Further, what is the main complaint of persons when they talk about productive work in the arts and sciences?
I can't get into it, it's boring.
I tried to learn to program or write a book or learn to paint or how to do higher math, but it's all so boring I lose interest, my mind wanders, I end up fucking off playing games and smoking weed (as an example)

Boredom is why more people aren't chemical engineers

>>11684287
Granted, but after increasing IQ things like higher math get much more fun, and fucking off gets less interesting. Another solution to that may be an adjustment to boredom's targets, rather than getting rid of it totally. I don't want to end up contentedly making table legs for 50 years, even if THAT me would prefer it.

>>11684303
The empowering part is that with automation you wouldn't be making tables, and if you had to or wanted to, you wouldn't mind and would probably invent a high technological advancement in table engineering

>>11684311
SUPERTABLES

>>11684314
Mock the supertable if you wish, but you're only denying yourself the joy of superior planar technology

>>11684321

>>11682972
redditpill
Huxley= interventionism
burgerland = laissez-faire
negative freedom sucks
everyone should have equal chances, lets use genetics to do that

>>11684656
Equality is less important than things simply being better. It wouldn't be good for people to have equal chances if they all had equally poor chances, for example. Granted, a certain amount of unhappiness comes from inequality itself, but that's mostly a psychology thing, from people comparing themselves to each other.

Everyone should be healthier and better off. Let's use genetics to do that.

>>11683914
>One of the best dystopia books. Maybe the best
lol no

>>11684050
lol just another polfag scared of modernity.

BNW is 1984 for women.

>>11683923
god i would love for a civil war to plunge this country into mayhem just to see this family suffer without all their creature comforts

>>11684821
hey man maybe if you stayed in school you'd have a decent job with income

>>11684821
Antifa detected.

>>11683923
They look happy, desu. Its easy to point fingers, but ultimately they're happier than you so they get the last laugh

>>11684821
You deserve your pain

>>11684058
>fetal alcohol syndrome plan
is that a metaphor for getting people hooked on alcohol to be happy and submissive through life?

>>11682972

>>11682955
lol you must be an Aquarius to think that

>>11684178
It's certainly is not some hyper-opioid designed to remove all pain and all strife. If advocates of it make it become that, they will find their people pacified to the point of being impotent, and brittle to the point of being incapable of enduring any external strife beyond the control of the social democracy.

>>11684058
The real truth is that people are actually in need of strife/struggle to become well formed individuals. While you could theoretically modify someone in a way to eliminate war or violence, you would be effectively making them incapable of survival during a violent time. The main issue with this sort of pacification is it assumes some sort of universal control which can never be fully realized. There will always be external constraints and problems which will enter into the picture when it comes to running a society. Even if you were to eliminate all known diseases pathogenic to humans, new mutations always will occur. It is the false assumption of permanence and potentially maladaptive quality that makes these kinds of things so dangerous, not the missing out on Beethoven. You obviously didn't understand what the deprivation of Beethoven meant. It wasn't some side effect of the procedure, it was the removal of his humanity and displayed an inability to react in a complex and human fashion to the world around him.

>>11684076
Huxley is pretty good, just kind of a hippie faggot and nobody really reads beyond BNW (which is a shame because his other books are pretty good too).

>>11684244
There is no stability long term, only the appearance of it. BNW assumes a world which can artificially be kept stable in a way beyond human control. There are tides the world that we as humans don't even recognize that deeply influence the way people and animals behave. There will always be externalities of our actions which effect things beyond our control, and there will always be impacts from external factors beyond our control on the things we do control, and any false impression of permanence is both maladaptive long-term and fraudulent.

While it may temporarily reduce suffering, you are throwing out the long term viability of the species by creating a necessarily pacified uncurious and incapable populace, required for survival in such a hyper-opioid world.

>>11684777
You didn't at all address what he was saying you dumb faggot. This clown world we live in where people don't understand the basic constraints of reality around them was a direct result of breaking with the dymorphic roles which got us to modernity. We could have had a modernity with beauty and romance but instead we have demon trannies teaching children about being a degenerate, gays getting giardia on the subway from licking stranger's assholes, and an entire wasteful industry of make work jobs to keep up the appearance that women and minorities are useful in the workplace.

>>11682981
They are happy with their life. Why is that bad?

>>11682972
>>11683914
>>11684121
>>11684232
>>11684656
>>11685059
>>11685125
Read Huxley's Island

>>11685219
Island is pretty alright except for muh Noble savage and muh peyote.

>>11685360
I don't really understand what you mean by muh Noble Savage in Island, I'd say Brave New World plays that trope far more heavily.

Also, you do not understanding tripping unless you have done it. Just look at how derogatory Huxley is about mescaline in Brave New World. Once he actually tries it (Doors of the Perception) his opinion of it completely changes, as seen in Island. Not to say that it's a cure-all, but don't be a Hitchens-level idiot about it.

>>11685570
In Island the whole premise is that these island people without access to modern medicine and the capitalist world have it all figured out, and have walled themselves off from the rest of the world. I understand and appreciate the respect paid towards traditionalism, but the idea was that it was to be a riff off of the Pacific Islanders. The Pacific Islanders however, instead of responding to the modern world with wisdom and recognizing it's ills and choosing to abstain anf protect themselves, rather went and began the sensation known as a cargo cult.

About the mescaline thing, I actually do agree that hallucinogens can cause some interesting existential crisis/ego death that in people with unhealthy/pathological world views can potentially be conducive towards a psychological reorientation of sorts. I actually tried mescaline when I was 20 after reading doors of perception and island, and found it to be both a pleasurable experience and helpful with reorienting my life away from consumption as virtue. Huxley overall is very wise on perceiving the problems with the modern world, but where he is incredibly weak is understanding the underlying reasons why these problems arise (e.g. technofuedalism as the result of individualistic capitalism, without recognizing that it is the direct result of a succeeding liberalism that he supports).

>>11686069
I'd like you to go deeper into why you think Classical Liberalism leads to Feudalism, when Liberalism was a reaction to Feudalism, and why you think Individualism is leading to Traditionalism and why again you think that's bad

It's a little confusing to me how antifeudalism leads to feudalism and how individualism leads to collectivism

>>11686069
>In Island the whole premise is that these island people without access to modern medicine and the capitalist world have it all figured out
This really sounds like you didn't read Island. Island is all about the syncretism of Western science and Eastern spiritual practices to foster health and wellbeing. They do have access to modern medicine, and they do engage in trade. Are you just riffing off of wikipedia or what?
>I understand and appreciate the respect paid towards traditionalism, but the idea was that it was to be a riff off of the Pacific Islanders.
It's much more about public health and Buddhism than about Pacific Islander culture.
>where he is incredibly weak is understanding the underlying reasons why these problems arise (e.g. technofuedalism as the result of individualistic capitalism, without recognizing that it is the direct result of a succeeding liberalism that he supports).
You should read Brave New World Revisited.

>>11686231
>BNW Revisited

I actually read that first because my library had it and not BNW in the 1990s so I had to get it from the store

>>11683088
Come on. The book is a portrayal of utilitarianist Liberalism (Not the US bugbear), it's nothing to do with Marxism. A Marxist society is militant, not pacified by Happiness™.

>>11686378
I must suggest it is in fact a totally traditionalist conservative society that was founded on a utilitarian Liberalism but has none of the values of that original Liberalism.

>>11686405
Obviously it's Conservative. Conservatism is a joke, it is the nostalgia of peasants for the utopian past, which takes on whatever ever-changing form their betters present to them.

The society in BNW is a satire on actual Liberalism.

And the 'original' Liberal is the country gentleman, telling the peasants what to think while protecting his own privilege, and pretending to be humane so as not to scandalize his wife's dinner guests. All for the higher good of course.

>>11686446
That's certainly, like, an opinion

>>11686446
>And the 'original' Liberal is the country gentleman, telling the peasants
gentlemen are better than peasants though, the grandest freedom the peasants have however, is the freedom to not be a gentleman, as it is hard to be a refined intellectual gentleman and a ruffian toiler

>>11686446
Just curious, what exactly has been conserved by this model "conservatism" you think BNW represents? I'd say it is definitely utilitarian liberalism, but conservatism prioritizes the exact kinds of intergenerational traditionalism that BNW sought to destroy. I don't think you actually understand conservatism beyond the Jewish simulacrum presented in post-Reagan neoconservatism.

>>11686797
Conservatism in the sense of Traditionalism is a preservation of Bronze Age Culture, as opposed to Nomadic Tribalism, which had no developed class structure or economies as such.

Conservatism as defined by Burke et c means to proceed only cautiously with changes in social order and technological advancement, in order to preserve what is known to work.

How does that not apply to BNW world order? They are preserving the society that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.

The entire civilization of BNW is antiprogressive.

>>11686931
Not him, but kek, the mental gymnastics on this geeza here. Doesn't even fit the anti-revolutionary, slow reformation definition. You're delusional.

>>11682955
>It's the future
>Everyone is having sex all the time
>Babies are not made by sex
>Somehow no one has sex with a same-sex partner
uhhhh

>>11686977
>Extremely advanced and precise genetic engineering exists.
>People don't choose to create homosexuals.
Literally no need to, that or the alpha's just don't hang around with them.

>>11686948
How is the BNW society revolutionary or progressive? They've been doing it the same way for a very very long time, only changing anything incrementally.
The entire reason the elites hide books and try to stop the protagonists is that if successful the protagonists would cause a revolution

>>11686405
What was traditionalist about BNW? They literally destroyed the intergenerational traditions of the previous society to substitute in a thin veneer of consumption over it.


>>11686931
Guy, you need to take a second to think about what you are saying before you say it. You are saying that a world in which nearly everyone is born in a test tube, born for specific tasks, and completely pacified in consumption of drugs and promiscuity to alleviate all potential pains is conservative. What has been conserved exactly? It is anti-progress in the sense that there is next to nowhere for the society to progress to, but it isn't in any way "conservative" and would require the complete destruction of all intergenerational localized traditions and complete erasure of pre-revolutionary history in order to work.

>>11687009
Literally conservative because it is highly resistant to change.

>>11687019
>deletes all recorded tradition/history and completely revolutionises human social order and genetics in what seems to be the shortest time span
>it's conservative!

>>11687019
The current globo-gayplex complete with state enforced homosexuality and taxpayer money used to subsidize Africans being imported into white countries is highly resistant to change. Are you really going to pretend that is the only aspect to traditionalism/conservatism? Are you that much of a pedantic retard?

>>11687009
Dude, you're really confused about where our current traditionalism comes from.

All those sources of Traditionalism were in their own origins revolutionary.
Agricultural Revolution (opposed to hunter-gatherer nomads) , Monotheist Revolution (against various Pantheism like Egypt and Arab and Roman) , even Dualistic Revolution (Zarathustra against Vedism) and Messianic (Christians against Judaism and Roman Pantheism)

BNW's origin is our current Classical Liberal Industrialism.
Despite that origin it is as resistant to radical reform as medieval catholic Europe.

>>11687047
It's not even pedantic. It's clinically retarded. He's essentially stating that any society that's reached an ideal in its final form is conservative, but ignores the deeply revolutionary action by which it has been implemented. To him conservatism is "I'm only going starting to preserve values, traditions etc once I've obliterated all recorded history and implemented my vision of an ideal world".

>>11687074
That's what as an example, Christianity and Islam have done.
Convert and then erase anything from the past.
That's why ancient Roman and Egyptian art was defaced.

Basically, once you have erased the old ways you institutionalize and formalize your ideology and tell anyone who will listen that it was always like that.

Why do you think pagan European knowledge had to be reconstructed? Why do you think the Spanish burnt hills of Mesoamerican codices?

Why does Taliban blow up ancient buddhist statuary?

>>11686931
>How does that not apply to BNW world order? They are preserving the society that resulted from the Industrial Revolution.
I think the word to describe what you are doing may be conflation.

Because according to you: a purely liberal order, or anarchic, as long as it maintains it self, is conserving its ways... and therefore is conservative.

>>11687099
Okay, I'll extend some good will since you've gracefully ignored my insults.

I see your point, but I still feel you're playing tricks upon yourself, to the point where you end up equating revolution with conservatism.

I agree with all your examples, but I would say that they were all revolutionaries at the time they enacted those changes. At the time of militant Christian proselytism (its beginnings), a conservative would have always chosen caution and preservation of the values and traditions which had proved to work and bring on stability. If said conservative would have taken a liking to Christianity, he would have always chosen reform over revolution.

I 'd sum up your point as "In the face of success, yesterday's radical revolutionaries are tomorrow's conservatives". And I get it, but I disagree. A conservative will prefer slow reform over revolution even in the face of what he himself perceives as progress - especially when imbalances with present order are to occur upon its implementation. I would instead say that "In the face of success, the ideological descendants of radical revolutionaries may become tomorrow's conservatives".

ie: the Christians who "converted and erased the past" and "defaced Roman and Egyptian art" were not conservatives. Their descendants were.

>>11682972
>Worldly "happiness" is what matters in life
>Drugged up orgies and a state that "takes care" of you like you're a child is "happiness"

>>11687210
That's my point exactly.
BNW happens in a future, and the Industrial Revolution and Classical Liberalism are actually ancient as such in that future.
Nothing that happens in BNW is about empowering the individual or changing the structures and institutions. Those have already been changed and what we see in BNW is an ages old way of life handed down from Ford, TRADITIONALLY.
They are trying so hard to preserve the industrial form of "family" and "class"

That those forms are radically different to you and I right now and our ideas right now, does not mean that they are still radical after being handed down to our descendants for a thousand years in the same relative standard

my diary's better

>>11687232
>That those forms are radically different to you and I right now and our ideas right now, does not mean that they are still radical after being handed down to our descendants for a thousand years in the same relative standard
I never pretended not to understand this, I guess it's been a while since I've read it and assumed that the action took place in the not-so-distant-future of the revolution that transformed humanity. But yes, now that you mention Ford, I do remember him being an ancient god figure. So yes, I suppose that enough time would have passed for the unpredictable revolutionary ideals of the past to have been cemented into values and traditions.

But then, are revolution or dissent even possible given the technocratic maintenance of a predetermined society with a relatively short historical memory? Also, would it be fair to call it conservative when change, nevermind progress, can't arise on the horizon? Conservatism doesn't necessarily imply absolute stagnation. Isn't it more of a closed-circuit machinery where these labels are pretty useless? I guess I need to reread it.

>>11682955
yes but no, but yes.

>>11682972
That's because you're a consumerist already living the dystopia.
>talkies
>soma
People who live on their phones and consume cheap Hollywood drivel and go home after a days work to smoke weed and "relax" are forever wallowing in a partial nightmare depicted in BNW.

>>11687221
>>Drugged up orgies and a state that "takes care" of you like you're a child is "happiness"
any other ideas?

>>11687232
>>11687290
might it be said that Huxley portrays in BNW not exactly or nearly political economic system/idealogo x or y, but possible negative thematic extensions of a couple of systems?

>>11684121
>>11684058
This is the most bright-eyed, misguided drivel I've seen in a long time, and it's believed in such a poor way that I almost feel bad for laughing. The idea that literally everything will be perfect, or better, if everyone is "equal" like this is nothing but a fucking hoax. It's a fallacy. It's an "easy" answer for the hard questions of why people can be hateful or selfish or violent or disgusting. Making everything "equal" is a quick way to turn from the struggles and conflicts (inner, against others, against nature, against life, against disease and inequality etc.) that makes us - and humanity - what we are into a corpse-still cesspool of stagnancy and, ultimately, destruction.

>>11687232
So is a Marxist state that exists for 300 years conservative on the 300th year?

This is all a semantic segue, Conservative as is used has a certain political economic ideaolgy cultural connotation

Yes, there is such a thing called, ecological conservation, or dont eat all your chocolate now you should conserve it for later, but those words are not entirely being discussed when using the word conservative to describe political-socio-economic systems, as you have done

>>11687349
Possibly. Our discussion wasn't even covering ideology, or its value contents to be more precise. We were just debating the extent to which that society is conservative as a function of the way in which change is implemented and enacted.

If the guy actually meant that it is conservative by way of the ethical and philosophical contents that belong our actual conservative traditions, then I absolutely disagree.

But yeah, as far as I can remember it is a cautionary tale of a mixture of both Capitalist and Socialist/Communist utopian wet-dreams that were fashionable at the time.

>>11687290
>conservatism isn't stagnation

Or even regression in my opinion.

Which is fair enough.

But if you want to label BNW ideologically, it's a liberal progressive appeal to the relative traditions of the Enlightenment as embodied by Shakespeare as an example in the book.

That's why it's such an interesting book to consider.

Something else interesting to me is that Huxley self-labeled as a Perennial Philosophy guy.
Doesn't that just fuck with the idea that Huxley was some kind of radical leftist!


To me, that's the real power of true Conservatism: it's supposed to be pragmatic but cautious: we don't change just to change like the progressives, and we don't just follow tradition stupidly, but because it is known to WORK.

Which is really to me the central issue with contemporary politics: the conservative has been memed into blind trust of tradition which gives all possibilities for change strictly to the radical left.

That's why Accelerationism is so dominant now: conservatives have become totally frozen and the only possible avenue for change is through crisis!

>>11687294
I think talkies were actual regular films with dialogue, the things in BNW were called ‚feelies‘, weren‘t they?

>>11687370
Humorously, the reason USSR was a game changer up to the 1950s and then tanked totally was that it continued the same policies that made it work in 1920.

When Capitalism moved to consumerism, the conservative old men running the USSR were still doing a program of industrialization based on large metalwork, infrastructure and commodities like lumber.

We beat them because we were progressive enough to sell people cheap plastic bullshit and disposable cutlery!

>>11687370
The way in which we discussed was intelligible and more than adequate (ie:conservatism vs revolution as measures of enacting change). I don't think BNW can be viewed in such terms though and even if it can, it's not a very useful continuum in that case.

>So is a Marxist state that exists for 300 years conservative on the 300th year?
If in 300 years Marxist ideals have been cemented into a stable culture that doesn't enthusiastically reach for every single seduction of apparent progress, then yes, it would be conservative by that definition.

>>11684821
I feel the same way

>>11687439
Let's think about it this way too: Aristotlelian ideas in conservative ideology like "some people are born stupid and weak and thus are natural slaves and we can't educate them otherwise" is perfectly exemplified by the Deltas and Epsilons

>>11687397
>wank off motion

There’s absolute fucktons of radical leftists that despised modern culture and offered similar critiques.

>>11687397
Agreed. We've amazingly managed to stay focused and gracefully manage a disagreement on 4chan. And I share your laments on contemporary politics and mourn the bastardisation of conservatism, but you're probably overestimating the reach of Accelerationism. Outside of edgy radical left/right autists in dark corners of basket weaving forums and even less disillusioned boomers frozen by arrested development, very few embrace it.

>>11687349
>>11687391
>>11687434

it might even be the rightest way of the attaching 'conservative' to it is from 'authoritarian' touches that have been linked to eras of conservatism, the other anon claimed it is more a reflection of the spirit and extension and conclusion of liberalism, perhaps it is authoritarian liberalism

>>11687460
Sure. Is an anarchoprimitive a left radical or just extremely far right?

Why are nazis considered right wing when they were all about sweeping changes based on at the time cutting edge science?

Why are Democrats considered progressive when their leadership and platform is centered on a continuation of JFKs Great Society to the point of actively fighting popular candidates like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez?

>>11687416
Yes, you're correct. Been a while. But there's little distinction in my mind between modern "talkies" and feelies. In fact, Huxley was alive to witness the transition from silent film to so-called talkies, and his initial impressions were not positive. This undoubtedly influenced him in writing Brave New World.
Back then, film wasn't viewed so much as an artform as it were entertainment, and so the addition of sound was viewed as a grotesque spectacle to many. But nowadays, the most consumed media is just that, a spectacle of epic proportionals, marked to consumers first and foremost with profits in mind.

>>11687456
Your premise about that being "conservative ideology" is shoddy at best, but I'll entertain it. Even if it were part of a conservative's set of beliefs (I have a feeling you have a 19yearold Berniebro perception of what conservatives believe), a conservative approach to such a belief wouldn't be to suddenly mould human nature so that it accommodates it.

But I get what you mean, even though I find your labels and definitions really messy. It is a jab at being certain about biological determinism and how it unfolds in any social iteration. Although you'll be surprised that conservatives claim certainty with much more humility than anyone else, which is why they're the naturally cautious ones.

>>11687439
huh, you may be right(ish)
"Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more extreme elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[3][4]"

"There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.["

""According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959: Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".[7] In contrast to the tradition-based definition of conservatism, some political theorists such as Corey Robin define conservatism primarily in terms of a general defense of social and economic inequality. From this perspective, conservatism is less an attempt to uphold traditional institutions as a valuing of competition itself, "a meditation on — and theoretical rendition of — the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back".[8][9]"

>>11687294
But I don't do any of those things. Although I am on 4chan /lit/ so I'm not perfect.

>>11687483
partly because right is considered Masculine and left Feminine, and this is the most important aspect of labeling, thus the Nazis are right wing

>>11687365
You're misreading my utilitarianism as egalitarianism. I'm not concerned with making people equal, but making people better off in general.

>>11687483
>>11687565
but also, people say degeneracy, though who how big of a slice of the pie this takes up, the whole weimar republic thing, trannys and young prostitutes, the left seems more loose with such thing, the left is more free and easy and breezy, and fun

>>11687365
You're misreading my utilitarianism as egalitarianism. I'm not concerned with making people equal, but making people better off in general.
As I said in another post, this would actually create even more diversity, because people would be able to modify their brain. Some people would even want to downgrade to states halfway between animal and human. We'd end up with an explosion of differences.

>>11687533
>a conservative approach to such a belief wouldn't be to suddenly mould human nature so that it accommodates it.
is fascism not conservative, do conservatives not believe in hierarchy, and military force and pressure and authority?

>>11687533
>>11687511
>>11687483
Its kind of extremely silly to have a conversation about "was this possible futuristic system he was portraying in this book exactly this or near this ideal system or this ideal system?" its conservative! no its liberal! no its conservative liberal! as if these words and sloppy nuanced detail filled each containing different types boxes are more important or mean anything compared to just the actual legit raw facts of the actual system portrayed. Do you get what I am saying, who cares if its conservative or liberal or banana, it is exactly what it is, elements of it can crop up in our society, our society contains a million elements of a million systems, thats whats important

>>11682981
At least when you become self-aware they just ship you off to Greenland to talk to other actual individuals instead of torturing you.

>>11687594
Much like conservatism, fascism can also be viewed as an attitude towards the enactment of (what is perceived as positive) change and by its definition, it is at odds with conservatism. Conservatism is weary of what might work, but knows what does and wishes to preserve it and bring about change through slow reform. Fascism is certain of what will work, how things should look like and that suppression of opposing forces is necessary. So no. fascism is revolutionary by definition.

>>11687613
enforced conservatism is fascism to everyone who does not believe in conservatism or want to be ruled by its beliefs

>>11687662
Welp, I don't think we can move forward with this now as I'm almost certain you're clinically retarded.

>>11687670
if you are not retarded you could have simply explained why instead of making a, to all viewers, baseless claim

>>11687533
I mainly go by Russell Kirk's Conservative Mind, and being a lifelong Nebraska conservative, so fair enough

>>11687662
fascism is a distinct thing, it has actual tenets that Mussolini wrote down in his doctrine of Fascism

enforced conservatism barely means anything since conservatism keeps shifting as things change. it is just 'preserve the old ways'. Fascism was a revolutionary ideology

thye are both right wing but they are very different

>>11688061
I think one thing to consider re:fascism is that most fascism was not achieved through violence the way that Mao or USSR did it.
Hitler was elected.
Even Ataturk was not a revolutionary, he fought in the Ottoman army and led the resistance after Ottoman Empire was repartitioned and occupied by Allies

>>11687586
>As I said in another post, this would actually create even more diversity, because people would be able to modify their brain. Some people would even want to downgrade to states halfway between animal and human. We'd end up with an explosion of differences.

>implying extreme diversity is a definite good in a utilitarian sense
>letting everyone do what they want, unchecked, with their genes is "good"
>"creativity" is the same as change or difference

Giving everyone the power to fuck with themselves on a genetic scale to a point where you can justify furries is degenerate to its most extreme.

>>11688084
because fascism is more organic than communism, which is just hopelessly disconnected from how things work

that being said both Mussolini and Hitler's crew did commit quite a bit of violence when coming to power. you can argue that it was a reaction to Communist street gangs, but i see that as a fimsy defense

Fascists were basically thugs imo. Thugs are the people who really dictate history, because violence supersedes all other considerations in the end. I will add a caveat for people who are immensely influential in religion or technology.

>>11688098
Yes, people should have the freedom to be what they want to be, as long as they've given due consideration (we wouldn't want people to dive into things they'll regret). Diversity is just a consequence of that freedom.

>>11682955
are we back in 10th grade again?

>>11688162
I wish. I miss high school life. But we read 1984, not BNW.

>>11688061
again, I already tried to make a disclaimer to steer away the arguing unimportant semantics >>11687610 in relation to important actual substance

facsist does mean this, no it doesnt, from this time to this time, if x amount of guns are used, if 5 pounds of force are used on a wednesday it qualifies for fascism, if 5 people are slapped in a day it is fascism, if the guns used in question are the color pink it cannot be fascism,... force, power, authority, lack of consent, bruteness

>>11688366
>>11688061
in short, fascism is fuzzy, and it was used as a symbolic metaphor pointing in the direction of that fuzzy concept

>>11688366
>>11688415
>>11688061
I guess I should have said authoritarian instead of fascism

>>11688418
Fascism by definition is Authoritarian.

Don't let people tell you it's not okay to discuss literature.

They're just /pol/ tourists.

>>11682958

this as well.

huxley writing is terrible. I hear people saying 1984 is too dense and tiring, but I remember loving everything about it when I read it as a teenager. I almost forgot it was actually meant to be a serious, evocative novel.

>>11688438
ya but not all moments of authoritarianess is fascist.. it still was a pedantic dissection of an attempted metaphorically used semantic, alas

>>11682955
I stopped about half way in.