Orwell or Huxley, who's distopian pov was more accurate

[CptStern]

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html

 

[Dinkleberry]

We've got the best of both worlds

 

[kupocake]

Sounds about right. Orwell is just more effective in our conciousness because it's far more obviously oppressive.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

We've got the best of both worlds

Sounds about right. Orwell is just more effective in our conciousness because it's far more obviously oppressive.

These.

 

[Moto]

Plus, there actually is a drug called Soma.

 

[Sulkdodds]

To be fair, Orwell also proposed a dystopia where people were placated with endless, enjoyable irrelevance. It's just that in his work that irrelevance was restricted to the Proles. Who here hasn't at times considered certain kinds of 'entertainment' to be beneath them, fit only for lesser people?

 

[VirusType2]

That is the greatest [comic] ever.

By the way, I was going to say 'both' before I found out everyone already said that.

 

[Warped]

Me too Virus, I would have to say both methods are used today. But the Internet is probably one of the last true refugee camps for the mind these days. Thats why I feel safer here

 

[MJ12]

I was certain it would be Huxley tbh.

*goes back to playing video games*

 

[VirusType2]

It's quite a bit of Orwell, but mostly Huxley. Yes. Also, Huxley is used to hide, cover up and distract from the Orwell.

Anyway, it's easy to say Huxley because all that stuff is out in the open for all to see. The Orwell stuff is secret and hard to uncover.

 

[mastag]

People's behavior is becoming more and more similar to Brave New World, but the government is becoming, somewhat slower, like Big Brother in 1984.

 

[jverne]

when's the "pretend you're somebody from the future/past" day?

i'd so love to play the man who came from a distopian future screaming in horror at some statue or something.




oh...lol...i'm doing exactly what i shouldn't be doing, ain't i?

 

[staticprimer]

"Whoever wins, we lose."

I vote for Huxley though.

 

[Kadayi]

Orwell was a student of Huxleys you know. Personally I'd say Huxley was more on the money.

 

[VirusType2]

Orwell was a student of Huxleys you know.

what really? That actually makes more sense since the point of view they had shown was exactly opposite.

 

[Ennui]

Man, what an awesome comic. I was going to say Huxley after I saw the thread title anyway, but that might be because I think he's way more awesome than the already awesome Orwell.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Who here hasn't at times considered certain kinds of 'entertainment' to be beneath them, fit only for lesser people?

I definitely do. Especially reality tv and tabloid gossip fall under this category.

Awesome comic, by the way. I should read some of those science fiction books.

 

[UnbredCylinder7]

I agree with Dinkleberry, as of current we seem to have a little bit of both going on. Prehaps the truth lies somewhere inbetween these opposing viewpoints?

 

[L3N!N]

Huxley sounds more realistic with his "The things that we love will destroy us" saying.

 

[nipples]

It's quite a bit of Orwell, but mostly Huxley. Yes. Also, Huxley is used to hide, cover up and distract from the Orwell.

Anyway, it's easy to say Huxley because all that stuff is out in the open for all to see. The Orwell stuff is secret and hard to uncover.

I mostly agree with this, although I think its equally both. The Orwell stuff happens quite often, just only paranoid people think so.

But the Internet is probably one of the last true refugee camps for the mind these days. Thats why I feel safer here

lolwut

 

[Wanted Bob]

I think its more Huxely, but there are for sure some aspects of Orwellian society that are present today as well.

 

[dfc05]

I also say Huxley wins.

(I liked 1984 better as a book than Brave New World though).

 

[15357]

I've read both, and both did have a striking effect on me and the way I think.










Now, instead of using fear as a device to initiate absolute hegemonic domination, I believe that we should deprive people of information while at the same time completely saturating them with irrevelancies, making sure the people do not care about politics except at the same time hating whatever enemy there was, and et cetera.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

oh numbers

 

[nurizeko]

*snip*

Some people just want to watch the world squirm.




Seriously though, conspiracy yawn.

Some people are so obsessed with the notion of freedom and all that crap they could see society collapse and every other person around them for miles dead and completely left to their own free devices and they'd see someone trying to control them.


At some point you've just got to accept that in a human society, you have to accept a certain level of "control" for lack of a better word.

That means that if you must accept that speeding ticket for speeding, tough shit, shouldn't have been speeding, risking the lives of others on the road isn't your free choice.

Also, HL2.net nmembers: conspiracy theorists all?.

You learn something new every day.

To be fair, Orwell also proposed a dystopia where people were placated with endless, enjoyable irrelevance. It's just that in his work that irrelevance was restricted to the Proles. Who here hasn't at times considered certain kinds of 'entertainment' to be beneath them, fit only for lesser people?

China is a good case of this, but mostly it seems to be the other way round, like North Korea, where the wealthier "higher class" is controlled with carrots and the proles controlled with fear and pain.



Overall like allot of notions I think this dystopian control conspiracy one is flawed.

We aren't living a certain way because some secret all knowing all powerful person or persons are puppeteering us so, we watch shitty TV programmes because that's human nature. Some people just are so dumb they cant cope with a book.

If having freedom of speech, freedom from oppression and torture, freedom to enjoy the fruits of a modern developed economy and society, freedom to live my life as I wish as long as it isn't harming others, freedom just live is a dirty good for nothing secret control mechanism then hey, I'm all for it, seems pretty bloody ineffective to me.

I enjoyed 1984, it was a good read, but I didn't think it was so much a warning about creeping of conspiracy theoretic control (or at least it didn't come across as such) and more an exploration of a single man's sense of imprisonment and general hopelessness and desire to break free and rebel.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Both BNW and 1984 examines influences that exist in our society, and present the world as it would look if these influences would be allowed to come to their full, logical conclusions. If we allow people with power to get more power, eventually that will lead to 1984. If we allow ourselves to become completely passive and apathetic, that will eventually lead to Brave New World. So yeah, we got a little bit of both going on, which is fine (okay, not fine, in a perfect world we would have neither influence), so long as we not allow either to dominate us.

 

[MJ12]

In my opinion, the Huxley Society has been a little more terrifying than the Orwell Society.

I just think it's so much easier to point out the Orwell aspects, because it often points the finger at the government. But the Huxley aspect involves pointing a finger at the people, and no individual ever wants to hear that, no one wants to take responsibility for creating the problem.

 

[nurizeko]

1894 society for me.


A regime that can control people so completely without trying to pull the wool over their eyes seems much more powerful then one that simply throws a shiny thing your way to make you not notice them.

Technically a good government is one that provides for its people and then some, so providing entertainment and food and what-not is hardly as heeby-geeby inducing as a state that bitchslaps its people and is so good at it that people accept that shithole existence as good.

 

[MJ12]

1894 society for me.

Damn the 1890's!

A regime that can control people so completely without trying to pull the wool over their eyes seems much more powerful then one that simply throws a shiny thing your way to make you not notice them.

Technically a good government is one that provides for its people and then some, so providing entertainment and food and what-not is hardly as heeby-geeby inducing as a state that bitchslaps its people and is so good at it that people accept that shithole existence as good.

I just believe that the characteristics of an Orwellian Society are much easier to spot, even at an early stage, however a Huxley Society seems much more subtle, because you're to content to notice it.

 

[jondy]

You're really comparing apples and oranges there; Orwell's book was built as a response to totalitarianism. We don't have such obvious examples of dictatorships these days, what with the Reich and the USSR being out of business. One of the most striking things about his book, however, was the response from people living in Poland and Hungary in the Sixties and Seventies when they got hold of his (banned) book - they were so astonished at the detail Orwell provided they assumed the book was written by a fellow citizen.

If you want to see 1984 in the flesh, you need to consider totalitarian states, not states with the profit-motive still intact - and you don't need to look much further than North Korea.

 

[theotherguy]

Neither.

Certain elements of both dystopias are present in our society of course, but the world is not quite as terrible as either of them predicted, and probably never will be.

The science fiction of dystpoia has always been about social commentary. It has always been about extrapolating and exaggerating current trends to get people to realize what is going on. The science fiction of utopia was also about social commentary, by providing us with a vision of what we lack as a society, and exaggerating on positive trends. Dystopia and Utopia have never attempted to be accurate representations of the future, and that's not what they're meant to be. They're meant to be extrapolations rooted firmly in the present.

The internet isn't going to kill us. We aren't going to be placated by too much technology. We won't lose our soul as a race. We'll take the things we have now for granted in 50 years time, and dystopians and authors like the one listed in the comic will complain about new technologies and trends. Our future won't be anything like 1984 either (or at least we can pray that it won't be). Our future will be much like the present. People will still be the same. There will still be evil, hateful people, and there will still be decent, good people. There will be the ignorant and uninformed, and there will be the elite and educated.

Only the scenery will change, humanity will not. Our governments might become more radical, or more conservative-- our society might become more sedentary, or more active. It could become more peaceful, or more warlike.. But I can garuntee you we will not go off into the deep end.

People who write science fiction often extrapolate only in one dimension. They think of only the worst or best extremes in a certain field. Orwell wrote about extreme fascism. Huxley wrote about extreme consumerism. Asimov wrote about robots. Clarke wrote about space travel. No science fiction writer has taken a broad enough spectrum in his writing to accurately predict the future. There are too many unseen trends, too many variables, and too many unforeseen disasters and events.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Only the scenery will change, humanity will not. Our governments might become more radical, or more conservative-- our society might become more sedentary, or more active. It could become more peaceful, or more warlike.. But I can garuntee you we will not go off into the deep end.

Now, this is an interesting point. We do not know how far into cybernetic and genetic engineering we'll go, and potentially we could edit the core basics of humanity and "what a human is". Within the next 250 years, we will have engineered ourselves so much, we'll become an entire new race. Maybe even earlier. The technology for this will be here in about 50 years, but it'll take far longer time to convince the general public that it is worth it.

 

[theotherguy]

Now, this is an interesting point. We do not know how far into cybernetic and genetic engineering we'll go, and potentially we could edit the core basics of humanity and "what a human is". Within the next 250 years, we will have engineered ourselves so much, we'll become an entire new race. Maybe even earlier. The technology for this will be here in about 50 years, but it'll take far longer time to convince the general public that it is worth it.

That really is an interesting point.

Things really could change once we start altering our physiology and psychology with machines and genetics.

However, we must remember that incremental changes in our physiology and psychology will be rather slow, at first. We will spend decades testing the waters, finding out what works and what doesn't. Gradually people will come to accept this technology, and our governments and societies will develop legal machinery to deal with it.

I'm not sure about Kurzweil's Singularity idea. I think its a pretty unfair extrapolation.