Sunday, July 6, 2008

The more I think

The more I think, sometimes I feel as if it makes more sense, other random time I feel as though it makes actually less sense. But right now I had a thought that is pretty faint in my head (is this because i'm not sure about it?) and I hope I don't lose it.

The entire world of life in Huxley's society is just entirely based on science and industry. I know we aren't supposed to take this society seriously, but let's pretend we are allowed to for this blog. I can almost understand how people in this book could believe this is a fine try at a Utopian society. In chapter two, blood was rushing to the cheeks of those in the "parent" conversation. The method of viviparous birth in their society is just as controversial as stem cell research is in ours. (I'm aware stem cell research is not entirely the same thing as what is happening in the book, but it is going to help bring me to the same point.) The reason of this is because it maintains their "well" functioning caste system, which provides part of a Utopian society.

The problem is with how science works. It is definitely what this society thrives on, but it seems as though what they know of is only one kind of science. I don't know any other way to explain it than there are two kinds of science: technical science, such as how a light bulb works, and natural science, such as how the body works. In Huxley's book, the society relies on technical science, using it to alter the way children grow so they can control basically every aspect of their birth and life. But really, how could they believe technical science can over-rule natural science? Is it just because everyone is born a simpleton and doesn't understand complete science? But to believe you are creating a utopia, which does, in fact, work for a while, wouldn't you have to be smart enough to recognize science?

I don't believe I am rambling. But I may not be getting my point across correctly. Is this unclear, or does someone understand my thoughts?
Posted by at

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Well, the good thing about this blog is that any faint idea you may have could be turned into a great thread.

...I hope. :)

Well, let's see....

For the sake of argument, let us say you were born in a country east of us. And in that country, ever since you were born, you were fed propaganda spawning from the militaristic action of the primary religion, or the governments’ political agenda. You grew up, and from the age of five were carrying around a beanbag shooter [to use against non-conformers], had to pray to the Great Unicorn in the sky at least 10 times a day at specific times, and were told never to question anything. You were never told about an outside world. You never learned about any philosophy contradicting your own. Oh, and If you showed any sign of rebelling, you were beaten and fed no supper [which is not against the law]. This is all you knew. And you know what? According to you, your family, and your government, you have it pretty good. Yeah, life IS good. To you, this very well may be utopia [for the most part, people are good, nice, respectful, they all agree, so violence is not evident... this is all you know].

Here in America, we call that child abuse [whether it is mental or physical is totally up to the observer]. Utopias thrive on people not knowing any other way of life. Any humanist can tell you, this is a sick ordeal.

To move on, I see your point on the controversy of viviparous birth in their society, and stem cell research in ours. But, there is a difference in the type of controversy. You see, a mother giving birth the natural way in BNW is against the agenda of the society and government, it's an act rebelling, it's just not normal. The only potential effect is that people break free from the current norm.
Stem Cell research is controversial on more of an ethical or moral agenda [as Pro-life advocates want us to think]. A possible effect of stem cell research is that it may lead to incredible medical breakthroughs.

I think that what you were trying to touch with your definition of "natural science" were topics of humanism. Yes, Huxley's society thrives on…uhh, "Technical Science". They can believe how technical science can overrule everything else because to them, it "works". Eventually, if you keep feeding your kid only candy, he/she won’t eat their vegetables. And we all know vegetables are better than sweets.


Yes, people may be born simpletons, never to question anything. But, even if a utopia works for a while, people can be smart enough to start asking questions…. maybe even forming different ideas. And they might eventually want to break free. We call this act of breaking free revolution.

July 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Aroutt said...

This has been posted for what, a day? And no one really seems interested. But thats OK. Haha

Lets see here...so basically the population of Huxley's society are being brainwashed? I'm entirely sure we both agree that if they don't know anything outside from their society's methods, then there's nothing to compare it to, or rebel against. But you did last comment that even though a utopia works for a while, people can become forming new ideas. And yeah, of course I agree with you on that too. You believe this because of what i explained was "natural science" right? Because that's really the only way I can think of it. Unless someone has better words for it?

And that is why this utopia doesn't last (it's not like one ever really would). Because once again, like you explained-people will form new ideas and try to break free. It is only human nature. Excellent, my idea is more solid in my head. Thank you :]

July 7, 2008 at 9:25 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)