<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 26, 2010, Stefano Vaj wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">Both 1984 and Huxley's book describe worlds fundamentally stagnating.<br>But I find ultimately more anti-transhumanist the second,</span></blockquote><br></div><div>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. It may be the reason we can't find ET.</div><div><br></div><div>But Orwell's book was more enjoyable, in a horrible sort of way.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>