stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 18:30:44 UTC 2010
2010/1/26 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>:
> On Jan 26, 2010, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>> Both 1984 and Huxley's book describe worlds fundamentally stagnating.
>> But I find ultimately more anti-transhumanist the second,
> Well, despite its very serious flaws, I'd certainly rather live in Huxley's
> world than Orwell's. I agree that the society depicted in Brave New World
> is anti-transhumanist (but not more so than 1984!) but that doesn't mean the
> book is; pointing out valid potential dangers is not anti-transhumanist, and
> I think Huxley will prove to be a better prophet than Orwell.
In fact, for "the second" I meant "the second world", not "the second book".
But I suspect that it would be fair to consider *this* Huxley and his
book as anti-transhumanist themselves, since in the Brave New World
there is no real alternative to the world "as it is", the primitives
being even more brute than the ordinary citizens, and the author
substantially agreeing that "rocking the boat" would be too dangerous
and ultimately pointless.
> But Orwell's book was more enjoyable, in a horrible sort of way.
Sure, because in it if you are a member of the internal party are at
least under the illusion of that you are doing something meaningful...
The lack of any sense whatsoever is what makes the Brave New World
especially frustrating, including for its reader... :-)
More information about the extropy-chat