🔥🔥🔥 Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World
As Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World see the Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World of Brave New Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World as missing out on emotions, they see us, relatable to Mean Girls Vs Clueless Essay savages, as missing out on cooperation, productivity, and physical well-being. I agree that our right to liberty is an unalienable right that Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World removed by the dystopian community. C'mon Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World seen it in movies. December 16, at PM. However, Huxley only allows for a very limited view of Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World opportunities that accompany genetic engineering; Huxley fails to realize how much mankind can be elevated by the simple manipulation of Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World. It is actually deteriorating, as what causes unemployment like Bernardo is discovering this lack.
Aldous Huxley interviewed by Mike Wallace : 1958 (Full)
Examined in Brave New World Huxley observes in his work, Brave New World that the modern world revolves around technological development. The aspirations and morals of modern society do not entirely rely on social issues such as love, family, and success but rather on industrial progress and social development. According to Huxley, technological improvement and growth are critical factors that shape the operation and activities in modern society. So far, community members need to observe the world as technologically. All of the characters focus on enjoying things 'in the moment' rather than allow themselves to experience unpleasant truths regarding the past or future.
The society even denies death and encourages children to laugh and play around dying people to desensitize the next generation. However, as awful as Huxley's vision may be, some of the warped thinking. The book follows set of characters and their struggle with the dystopian society he created. There is focus on a problem of society and the extension to which society has free will and to which Ford — human replacement of God, controls people. In his novel, Huxley used his satiric skills to create world that is a reflection of real world, yet dystopian, a prediction of how the society can go wrong.
Bernard and John give Lenina the opportunity to embrace the truth of their mental enslavement, breaking free and becoming. Every drop of history was fueled by control, and how it was sought after blended with the time. However, if these people do find out what the other parts of the world are like, it cold lead to a possible downfall of the community. The question then still stands whether the inhabitants of this Brave New World can experience joy. I believe that they can. While the joy they experience may not be the same level of that of people who do suffer and understand the feelings of pain, joy exists nonetheless. This joy may be state instilled, but it still produces a feeling of happiness.
For example, their perceived happiness for this new world when compared to Linda from the savage reservation makes them joyful that they no longer have to live like her. Also, Bernard, who is a minority, finds individual joy in intellectual pursuits. Even though the people of Brave New World did not suffer themselves, they can understand the suffering that used to occur or the way things used to be.
We do not understand completely what going through such a tragedy would be like, but we can understand the idea of it and therefore have some level of joy. The inhabitants of Brave New World are in no way better off emotionally due to their new society, but collectively they can still experience joy by relating their circumstances to those of the past. Your view point would all depend on the context in which you live. As we see the people of Brave New World as missing out on emotions, they see us, relatable to the savages, as missing out on cooperation, productivity, and physical well-being. I believe Huxley shows two extreme ends of the spectrum to advocate a middle ground which cannot be advocated by presenting it on its own.
He shows us a savage world with emotions and pain and a Brave New World without emotions or pain. It is up to us to reconcile the two and find a middle ground where morals of emotional expression, cooperation, productivity and the limiting of physical pain, that are separately present in one of the two worlds, can co-exist and work together in a better society for all. In Brave New World, the society takes the extreme view of taking all possible action on genes.
They remove any variables in the genetic pool. Because of this, they cannot truly comprehend happiness or joy. Though they think they can, they are unable to see the full spectrum. The only ones who may be able to are those on the reservation, as they have witnessed pain and suffering. This whole topic is a give and take. Is the pain worth the joy? That is the main question you need to answer. Eugenics is a messy topic. While the ideas may be noble, it has been perverted by many throughout history. Adolf Hitler anyone? ANd while it may not be right to condemn something that has the potential for good based on the actions of a few, I am afraid in this case it is necessary, if only because Eugenics goes against everything we as Americans' hold dear.
Chief among these is the right to liberty. And this is a topic that BNW deals with head on. Because the people in that dystopia are conditioned to know what to like and what to feel and what to think, they have really lost what we as Americans' claim is an "Unalienable right. It seems to me that this issue is really dependent on what evils you are seeking to eliminate. Some evils seem to be undeniably bad for a society. For example, genocide. Its rather difficult to argue that genocide is a good thing for society.
As a species we have certain expectations for how we are supposed to behave. Thus, there is no gratitude or appreciation for not committing these acts, we see it as people simply doing what is expected of them. That said, there are those evils that can benefit society and do not violate our basic expectations. Look at laziness, Christianity considers it a sin and yet it is responsible for many of our finest inventions.
Evils like these cannot be eliminated from society without loosing benefits. I think that these evils must be tolerated if we are to advance as a species. Towards the end of Brave New World, Mustapha Mond describes the society's ability to create more food much more quickly. He extends this to talk about all the emerging technologies and the minimized place of invention. His argument is that any sort of change, even for the "better" will eliminate stability. In this way, Brave New World gives us an example of utopias actually eliminating the good.
Not allowing for more advancements will obviously get rid of the bad of instability, but also the good of new discovery and creative thought. Many of the world's greatest ideas, from democracy to consumer technologies, have come from social and political revolution. By opting for stability, as most utopias do, we eliminate revolution and thus the catalyst for change is gone. In response to Sarah K. It is fine for the average people to experience the happiness they experience, but such a society does not allow its greatest minds to be fulfilled to the greatest possible extent, which raises the question of whether it is acceptable to sacrifice the happiness of the few for the sake of the many.
When creative minds don't see the fruits of their labor put to use, they have no incentive to create anymore, which will lead to their unhappiness. The lack of use of these progressions also decreases the potential happiness of the many. Thus, I would say that the suppression of technological invention in Brave New World is not actually good, even if the masses don't know what they are missing. Having thought about this topic many times throughout my life, I know now that even when removing all things that are bad and evil, the results will still not be better than could have been.
At first when trying to justify if we should or should not remove evils, most of us think that this could result in a better world that makes every person happy and equal. After reading through Brave New World, I can safely say that this is not always the case. Going back to what I mentioned earlier, this has achieved one goal; everyone is now equal. But when you are not capable of feeling pain, is happiness something that we can experience? Even though removing the evils from a society has created equality in some sort, can we agree that this is only true in their own perspective?
They are now ignorant to what could have been a different, more prosperous life. But to them, they only know what they have experienced. Huxley has created an interesting dilemma here in which if everything evil should be removed. I do not believe that we can understand this dilemma since there are two different perspectives of viewing this issue, both with positives and negatives. Connor B. I think what Huxley is trying to say about removing evils is that you disrupt the balance in the world.
Without pain there is no happiness; without failure there is no success. When one extreme is suppressed, there seems to be bad consequences. For example, when Linda came to the utopia, it was hard for its citizens to see someone who was not like them at all, not being physically and aesthetically perfect, calling her a "monster". Also, Linda was the mother of the D. This goes to show that in order to live a fulfilling life, one has to face the extremes of human existence.
In the end, it leads to a better society that can live with choices. Scott K. I agree with Jeff M. One aspect of human nature that Huxley is advocating here is that humans are not perfect. As I said in a earlier post, humans are emotional beings and with being emotional, we also make mistakes. By not allowing people to have their imperfections, the World State is dehumanizing its citizens to brainwashed robots. In a sense, Huxley wants us to see that it is our different strengths, as well as our weaknesses, that make society strong and functioning.
In the Brave New World, God has been completely eliminated. Man has assumed the position of God and taken on his role and position. This is what makes the BNW completely different form every other society as every society that has ever existed has had some sort of god outside of themselves. The BNW obviously thinks that God is not a necessary aspect to include in their society as they aspire to gain complete happiness. The BNW believes old things are bad, and God is classified as an old thing. But some people believe God is the only way to true happiness. If this is true, the BNW sacrificed true happiness for new, and superficial happiness.
In cutting out all the old, they cut out what they were looking to gain from cutting out the old. This is an example of when new may not always be the best option. Luke M. In response to Connor B. I like you comments about the differing perspectives. But is ignorance bliss? They feel that they are living in a perfect world and are happy constantly and don't want change. So why change it? We see that changes are necessary but would changes make it better? Why change what is "perfect"? This is a very interesting question indeed. It causes me to think, are we ignorant of changes that need to take place in our society? How can we gain access to that second perspective?
What is limiting us from viewing our society from that second perspective? Or should we even bother looking for that second perspective on how to change our society for the better if we like the way it is now, even if it is not absolutely perfect? In BNW, they gave up unhappiness, but they also gave up higher levels of unhappiness such as watching feelies instead of Othello.
Happiness is never grand. I believe that we do need to have the low times in order to rise up and grow from them. As Emerson said, "when it is darkest, men see the stars". I think this quote applies here since if there were no problems or defects, as presented through BNW there would be no need to look ahead to prosper. Without trials society is stagnant in what they only believe to be a perfect society. If one extreme were to be eliminated ie despair or ecstasy there is no way to compare the feelings you have to completely understand the emotion.
As we see in the book, with the appearance of Linda, you can only isolate yourself from change for so long. Farah S. In response to Natasha: I agree with what you are saying. When trying to create stability, change is almost always feared because it creates instability. Yet some of the greatest changes have gotten us to where we are today. Sure, not all change is for the better, but how can we know if the change will improve or detriment society when it is forbidden in the first place?
In response to Julia and Natasha I agree with the idea that change brings about the positive aspects of human existence. In my opinion, a place in which humans are not allowed to change, adapt, or invent is not a utopia at all but a dystopia. Think of all of the positive things that modern technology has brought that they have missed out on. If we eliminate everything that is undesirable we also remove the chance for the species to evolve. For instance if we could "design" our children we will lose the most beautiful people because most of the current beautiful people were considered odd looking when we first saw them.
No one thought that fat lips were pretty until Angelina Joile started pouting. Most things are great because they are rare and genetic engineering would make everything the same so nothing would be horrible or great. I would miss the diversity. In response to Julia's points about change: Obviously, the people in BNW chose to eliminate the known evils risking the unkown benefits. I believe that by only creating people that think just like you might seem nice, but it will keep the world in the same place forever. I hope they like their lives in BNW because I think that they have removed any chance for them to change overall. When we remove the known evils and anything that is different we take away the chance for change.
If we remove the option of change we also lose a lot of hope for the future. The society created in Brave New World prohibits any thinking or practice that does not conform to the set norm. This type of radical change will undoubtedly come with many consequences. Take for example the idea of family, something that Huxley has clearly established as something that was removed completely from society. Essentially, this makes people more independent because they have no parents to support them. However, this also means that children are not taught any values that are learned in the home. Thus, it is a give and take situation.
And the fundamental question becomes which is better: child dependency or moral-less character? Uniform thinking also comes with an inability to progress. A static society cannot last. On top of all this, it is when temporarily prevails that allow a society to grow the most. In response to Obaida: I agree with what Obaida has indicated that it is not only impractical, but also impossible to remove all evils from a society.
New troubles and issues will always emerge. If as a society we choose to turn away from our problems and ignore them, eventually these problems will build and society will become so catastrophically bad that we will have much more difficulty remedying the broken community. When all along, if we just faced the problems head on, an easy solution could have been found and the society would have grown and progressed. This idea is especially evident when Bernard brings the Savage back to his society. Well, not really at all. In response to Tom, I also found Linda's character as an example of how at first getting rid of imperfections was a good idea, but eventually could turn sour.
The BNW was in isolation from so many things that once Linda came back they were unsure how to respond. The lack of diversity, as Becca pointed out, I would miss as well. In responds to Farah, I totally agree that there needs to be a base of comparison to fully appreciate an emotion. The ignorance that the whole society has completely blinds them from the possibilties that they could have pertained if they were not in the situation that they are in. With the idea of removing one common feature that we humans pertain has disrupted the natural way humans are and react to certain things.
As many have mentioned, with Lindas appearance, we view a change in the perspective of the total society. Seeing something different for the first time is an eye opener and completely changes how one thinks and functions. We cannot remove something as important as emotions and believe to live in bliss for the rest of our existence. We need these common things to help identify how we truly feel. Without them, we are truly not human. Sometimes the evils are necessary to understand what the true good is in our world.
Even though it would be understandable to want to remove them, I do not believe we can make such a decision. Connor b. As most other aspects within this society, the desire to genetically create a forcibly stratified social structure although homogeneous within classes is just another way to ease control over the population. The removal of diseases is admirable, but the line is not drawn there. People are deliberately retarded to create a working class that has no opportunity to better themselves.
Genetic modification is used to an extent where humans are pre determined to play a specific part in the workings of this society. BNW works under the assumption that all diseases have been eliminated. In the real world, however, excessive genetic modification would lead to unintended consequences, such as susceptibility to a disease that has not yet been encountered, which could pose a threat to the entire race if everyone has a nearly identical genetic make up. It seems to me that this kind of dilemma invites a cost-benefit analysis, which appears to be the way most people are considering the question. Let's take a bit simpler dilemma, in fact, let's make it even easier: get rid of the dilemma.
For the sake of analogy, I'll quickly demonstrate a cost-benefit analysis of drunk driving. However, the same reasoning could lead us to the belief that there are "Unknown Costs" as well. How do our "Unknown Costs" and "Unknown Benefits" compare? Simply put, it is impossible to account for unknowns of any kind in this form of analysis. So what should we then do? Perhaps we should do nothing, since we can't decide which side the analysis favors. This kind of paralysis is a bit unreasonable when another alternative is available. It might be a pretty safe assumption that your unknowns will cancel out, as I think we'd all agree would occur in our hypothetical "dilemma". We can account for the consequences we don't understand or know by being careful when regarding the ones we do understand.
If we can "eliminate known evils" through human conditioning, we should do so. We must do so carefully and thoughtfully, because in some cases a cost-benefit analysis will yield different results. However, inviting "Unknown Costs" and "Unknown Benefits" into the equation makes little sense, at least in terms of rational thinking. BNW approaches the challenges of society rather ineffectively. Undesirable traits and behaviors are either eliminated through genetic engineering or strongly discouraged, as is the case with monogamous relationships. Overall the society is designed so that the people in it are less human. They have lost a capacity to feel deep emotions, like love.
Where, hypothetically, a lack of emotion would create more stability it takes away the fundamental qualities that make humans what they are. Through the continual use of drugs, like soma, artificial feelings are created as substitutes for real ones. By trying to eliminate the things in society that could potentially cause turmoil, the humans become more artificial. Lauren S. In response to everyone that said that BNW is bad: I completely agree with you when you say that the suppression of creativity and advancement created in BNW is horrible. Although it eliminates the extremely bad things, it also eliminates the extremely good things.
However, none of us grew up in a society that was anywhere close to the one depicted in BNW. We can not say that those people are really missing out on anything if they never knew that anything outside their world existed. To us, they are missing out, but to them they are happy. Yes, there are exceptions to this happiness, but I don't think its possible to satisfy everyone completely in any society, especially those who have more intellectual capability than others. In response to Mel I think that Mel presents a good point in stating that if everyone is conditioned to think alike then there will be no progress. Progress emanates from a need for change. Change will occur either when people are unhappy with their current situations or when they are trying to better themselves.
However everyone in BNW is conditioned to be happy with their situations. As a result the society presented in BNW lacks any real progress because everyone believes that there is no reason to be unhappy. In this case, eliminating the evils of society also meant that any form of progress was halted. In response to Nathan: I agree with Nathan. I dont think that we are mature enough as a species to think about fundamentally altering the natural trends of evolution. However, eugenics is a very attractive proposition in some regards. Notable minds such as James Watson and William Shockley advocated eugenics to promote the intelligence of the human race although Shockley advocated weaning the black race out of the human population. This is a perfect example of why eugenics is too touchy of a subject for us to consider using it.
For every benefit, there is a very substantial negative. Sanders' blog. First of all, maybe eliminating all the suffering in the world would lead to empty lives - Huxley certainly seems to believe so - but then again it might not. At the very least, I see as much evidence for as against Even so, that goal is ultimately impossible. Even in the BNW, there is still unhappiness Perhaps an attempt to eliminate every perceived evil would result in a meaningless existence, but at least to a certain extent regardless of what extent you believe that to be eliminating human suffering would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Certain uses of conditioning, like social predestination, are obviously condemnable see Rajiv's post above , others, like the elimination of disease, would be desirable. Ultimately the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Farah posted above, "at first getting rid of imperfections was a good idea, but eventually [it] could turn sour. At some point, eliminating suffering may be wrong because without suffering one can't experience happiness, but are we there yet? As I brought up in class, can you know longer know true happiness because of the invention of Advil? As we can see in BNW, eliminating the bad isn't necessarily good. Everyone in the book is supposed to be happy at all times.
Aldous Huxley openly mocks it because it clearly cannot work. I agree with him. If we start changing people genetically, everybody will be the same. There will be no individualism anymore. That would make the world really boring. Also, this would make everyone perfect and there would be no one higher on the social scale than anyone else. It may sound bad, but I wouldn't want this to happen. We must allow natural selection to be in effect. I agree with his statement, "People are deliberately retarded to create a working class that has no opportunity to better themselves.
Everyone would be stuck on the same social scale and no one would have the chance to better their lives. This shouldn't be right. As a man Huxley is remote and unresponsive. Humphrey Ward. Diana Trilling, who writes on literary, social and political subjects, is working on a book about the education of a woman. By birth Huxley was in the line of that unparalleled group of upper middle class Britishers—the Trevelyans, Macaulays, Arnolds, Wedgwoods, Darwins—who, more than the political leaders of 19thcentury England and far more than its aristocrats, had the intellect and imagination and, above all, the confidence to guide their nation into a new century.
But Aldous Huxley was, of course, the new century and although he might have the intellectual energy and courage of his forebears and even their confidence of social place, he was without their confidence of ends and means. All our significant fiction of this century reports the confusion and anxiety which have been a consequence cf the discontinuities in Western culture. But one can think of no other writer who was as personally implicated as Huxley in the break in traditional thought between the 19th and 20th centuries; in important part it had been the work of his own grandfather. Under the general burden of social uncertainty and the peculiar burden of being a Huxley, he turned to satire as his instrument of social and personal renovation and, during the years in which he made the contribution for which he is best remembered, wrote the brightest, most mercurial books of his generation.
But if satiric novels were the form in Continued on next page which his genius found its truest expression, they were only a small part of Huxley's literary output. With slight variations in the deployment of his talents, this was the schedule he would follow for the rest of his life, always in the most modest and amiable relation to his publishers. By the time he moved to America on the initiative of Gerald Heard in at the age of 43, he was engaged on his 30th volume; when he died in he had 47 books to his credit, even more than his friend D. Never did a writer who worked in so many different fields, from poetry to playwriting, from travel reporting to sociology to politics to spiritualism, impress himself so particularly in but one field, satire, and even in that one field produce really only a single completely satisfactory book.
And certainly never did a satirist flash so coruscating wit over so vast a field of learning: not alone the range of his study—history, ancient and modern literatures, philosophy, the social sciences, all the physical sciences, music, art—but his competence at whatever he undertook. Although finally It was the fate of modern man under the industrial no less than the scientific dispensation that made his concern, it was the scientific view of the universe with which Huxley had perhaps closest affinity—had his eyesight permitted he had intended to study medicine and he always stayed in affectionate connection with his oldest brother Julian, who had followed their grandfather into biological investigation and speculaticn.
But what Miss Bedford tells us now of his youthful history, if it makes plain why Aldous had of course to give up his scientific studies, also firmly suggests why throughout his life he applied such a consistency of scientific crder to whatever aspects of human behavior he put under inspection, preserving his own cool detachment. The biographer reports these terrible events with a due sense of their meaning in Aldous's young life. No Huxley was untouched by emotional illness: depression had been severe in the grandfather, and Julian had a series of breakdowns in young manhood. His sweet temper, we are told, was an outstanding personal trait; it is affirmed in his. Fifty years ago in his early satiric fiction the issues which today press upon us so relentlessly—pollution, the uncontrolled growth of populations, the destruction of cities, our insane waste of the world's natural resources, social and racial inequity, national ambitions and prides —were already given first sharp statement.
An advantage which Huxley shared with his literary ccntemporaries Lawrence and Joyce—it made his despairing view of the universe also an enlivening one—was the possibility of shocking his readers. Looking back on Huxley from our present circumstances it is difficult to suppcse that it required much daring to write about sex. For Lawrence sex was a metaphor for burgeoning life. For Huxley it was among the plainer manifestations of the, tyranny of selfhood. The erotic sphere might be only one area in which to observe the infinite gradations of human gracelessness, but for someone of Huxley's disposition it was an inescapable.The Progesterone Persuasive Speech Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World The Bound Of Reason Short Story life is Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World it Essay On Stonehenge a risk. It may sound bad, but I wouldn't want this to happen. This is so as to eliminate any known evils in BNW those aspects of Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World real society that do not promote happiness and productivity Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World it is Ben Carson Tragic Premature Death by the ruling class in the BNW society. In this case, eliminating the Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World of society also meant Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World any form jane austen heroine progress was halted. If you take two species, and have them change ever so much over time separately that if you were to put them back into the same habitat, and they Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World not mate Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World each other, you could claim that they are now Genetic Ignorance In Aldous Huxleys Brave New World Socioeconomic Status And Heart Disease Essay. To set an example. Is the pain worth the joy?