/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2825744

If you read the book, you would see that the wants of love and freedom were NOT killed in that society. Thus the entire storyline. One could easily assume that there is a sizable portion of the outer circle that feels just as the protagonist does. But, yeah, look at North Korea. They are just about as 1984 as you are going to get.

No.

Sort of, no, yes.

how is this different from right now?

There is definitely the ability to restrict thought through limited vocabulary.

>>2825765
kinda like text messages or exactly like text messages?

>>2825777
While reading Brave New World, I couldn't help but question if a pure pleasure based society would be such a bad thing. Yes, intelligence would diminish, but what's so wrong about that if everyone was genuinely happy? Wouldn't that be like heaven on earth?

>>2825751
>>2825751
>>2825751
>>2825751
>If you read the book, you would see that the wants of love and freedom were NOT killed in that society.

Goddamn it OP, read the fucken book.

I raged, I lost.

>>2825777
Whenever I see this, I get the feeling that people think the world has become only as Huxley envisioned things.

But I disagree. We're a mix of BOTH. We've got censors censoring things AND we're mired in entertainment so much that half the population doesn't give a shit about science or 'opening a book'.

We're controlled by goons with guns AND by media. So on with the rest of the points made.

Both stories came true. We're living in 1984: A Brave New World.

>>2825825
I am of the opinion that people need some strife and conflict in their life.

>>2825858
but we are heading into the 1984 direction

>>2825825

No, because when we're controlled by constant pleasure, we're not REALLY happy, just perpetually intent. The way I see it, most happiness comes from meaningful and tender relationships with others. We are social animals after all, and I believe you almost surely have to have relationships to be happy.

When we are overloaded with pleasure like food, music, movies, computer etc. we don't feel such a need to be in these relationships, but at the same time we're depressed because we don't have them.

>>2825870
For what end?

>>2825903
Truth.

>>2825903
>we are social animals

says you

what do you think the Cold War was....yeah..U.S. military lobbyists and kremlin insiders making bank on the fear of getting nuked...they laughed their asses off..especially since a lot of people took the cold war seriously

>>2825744
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

In short, no, available language does color thought processes, but it does not completely inhibit certain kinds of thoughts.

>>2825744
It's already here.

In the "modernized" world: privacy is gone, people are told what/who to like/hate, the media invents history and skews facts to change public opinion, the government creates faceless enemies to instill fear and plant patriotism. People generally live very shallow lives.
The majority knows/doesn't care/decides its better not to care, the minority notices and it disturbs them.

The similarities were there in the 40's when the book was written and they are even more evident today.

Sources: Ive read the book twice.

Truthfully, not only would that be better for humankind, it would be better for the world as a whole, because we would no longer have selfish tendencies, and would put forth the effort necessary to change our ways and save the Earth.

>>2827837
Mindlessly putting forth effort has no value, therefore the economy would have no value. Along with innovation grinding to a sluggish pace.

Also implying our insignificant species is doing anything to the planet.

nope, it'll have more of a "brave new world" feel.

We are in a brave new world type.

But in the future we will become much more 1984 but still keep the brave new world.

a mix of both is what we will have in the future.