There is something that feels a little dystopian about this article. Not in the George Orwell sense but more the Aldous Huxley sense. In Huxley's "Brave New World" the masses are brought under control, not by force or direct intimidation, but by reducing them to decadence and self-indulgence.
To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the authorities maintain their totalitarian rule;
"Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process, is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships, lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."
People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction".
Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing, but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had meaningful sex.
The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's writings.
I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is fitting in this instance:
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."
This is probably one of my absolute favorite comments I've read on Hacker News.
I think the scary part is that we have some mild but very real examples of these two dystopian visions in the world today. There are many Orwellian-ish regimes (e.g. North Korea, or to a very small extent the UK and its constant surveillance). But as can be seen, oftentimes this leads to a revolution and the regime falls.
But on the other hand, much of the western world today is more akin to Huxley's dystopia. American culture and society today is a fantastic example of being drowned in indulgence and stupidity, and being controlled by it. Just watch the constant pointless bickering on cable news for an example of this.
This kind of dystopia is much much harder to escape. There's nothing really to revolt against, because our stupidity & indulgence is our own captor.
Now, of course, both of these dystopian visions are extremes, and the real world is much more nuanced. But that's the purpose of literature; to make a caricature that we can use to more clearly see patterns in the real world.
I would say it's not necessarily our stupidity that is our captor, but our self indulgence. Personally, my waistline seems to be expanding - this is not (necessarily) because I'm stupid, but more likely to do with the fact that I like bacon so darn much that I refuse to give it up.
You're right, I agree. It's a combination of indulgence, narcissism, and stupidity; different people may fall more into some of these than others. And luckily for us, we have a lot of smart people who think different, so I don't think we're doomed either.
If my experience (which includes shedding thirty pounds in the last month and a half) is any guide, the trick is not to swear off bacon entirely; indeed, try to do that and you're just setting yourself up for a discipline-vitiating failure, as I'm sure you have discovered.
Quick fixes don't work. What works is making smaller changes pervasively, in an incremental fashion. Trying to fix everything all at once, by dint of flailing, unsustainable effort, guarantees that you will fail, and end up feeling worse about yourself. Identifying one practicable improvement at a time, and making a solid habit of it before you go on to the next, is the way to a sustainably healthier life.
For example: Weight loss depends on burning more calories than you take in. I started by investing in a Basis band, and spent a week both building the habit of wearing it and getting baseline data on how many calories I burn in a day.
Then I started changing my relationship with food; where before I would eat to repletion at every meal, I instead now eat only enough to quell the pangs of hunger somewhat, and a
healthier diet besides.
Once I had that pretty well in hand, I started logging everything I eat and counting calories, which has two benefits: since I'm writing everything down, there's a
permanent record when I cheat, and the calorie log quantifies the daily difference between calories in and calories out. (Lately I'm running at a deficit of ca. 1500/day, which probably sounds agonizing -- but, having built the habits I describe, it's actually quite sustainable.)
Then I started logging my daily weight, too. That helps quantify the improvement I'm making, and also makes
it easier to identify particularly effective or ineffective behaviors -- for example, I'm planning to add a weekly fasting day to my routine, and without the weight data, I'd have no way to tell whether doing so is worthwhile. (And it is powerfully motivating to chart weight over date and see that line sloping down!)
Then I bought a bike and added it to my daily routine. Time
was, when I needed a pack of smokes or a couple cans of cat food, I'd get in my car and burn gas to go get them. Now I get on my bike and burn calories instead -- and it's not just cardio, either; every hill I go up strengthens my thigh muscles, and Baltimore is a hilly town. The Basis band logs my rides for me, but I'd do so by hand if I needed to.
Then I started doing a few sit-ups in the morning and a few more in the evening, and a few push-ups as well, so as not to neglect my arm or abdominal muscles. I log these, too, in order to keep track of what I've done or haven't; I haven't done much with that data yet, but it'll be handy when the time comes, fifty pounds or so hence, to change focus from losing weight per se, to maintaining fitness while building lean muscle.
Looking over all I've just written, I probably come
off slightly nutty on the subject, I think. But the point is precisely that I'm not, nor need I be; by focusing on one thing at a time, and establishing it as a habit before going on to the next, I've been able to make my life healthier in a durable and effective way, without at any point inflicting on myself the need for superhuman reserves of self-discipline.
It's not that I don't indulge, either! I eat bacon and barbecue and everything else I love. But I don't do that every day, or even most days, but rather maybe once in a couple of weeks -- and that way, not only do I lose weight at a steady clip, but when I do indulge, it's a real treat, more enjoyable by its very rarity than if I ate more sumptuously every day.
If you're inclined to improve your own waistline, I hope my experience is of use to you. Good luck!
One of my favorites too, even though I disagree with seeing both Orwell's and Huxley's visions of future as some kind of dead end.
It's hard for me to imagine something like that lasting for more than 2 generations. Quite contrary, I'm seeing it as a possible catalyst for radical change to something quite positive.
Agreed; O'Brien's boot metaphor was purest hubris. I don't know if I'd call civilizational collapse "positive", though. Surely things will get better afterward! Things always do, eventually. But, judging by history, we'll be in for a rather ugly interregnum in the meantime, one marked by the sway of Hobbes's dictum ("...nasty, brutish, and short"), by constant insufficiency in all the material necessities of life, and by all manner of short-lived but violent popular enthusiasms; in general, a world fit only for those young enough to love chaos, and one harsh even for them.
I don't fear for the species; we're tough bastards and can survive anything short of heat death. But I would like to think that some day we'll work out the trick of anakyklosis and finally have done with dark ages.
Interesting point. Huxley's vision of the future would become a dead end when another entity sees our pleasure-induced ineptitude as their opportunity to pounce
very well written and in my opinion a very fair comment to make. This is what brings me to HN, quality of the discussion is much better than any other place.
I think it's clear that the author of the techcrunch article intended to sound provocative and most likely the article doesn't reflect his own views (and neither mine for that matter). However in your criticism you are simply moralizing, presuming that everyone should share your own ideal of sexuality and relationships. If you want your criticism to be taken seriously, you should probably refrain from subjective ideals and list more substantial threats (which there certainly are), rather than simply drawing the image of a (in your eyes) dystopian future.
Arguably the article is the one that's moralizing, with its comment about "as nature intended." As to your other point, devaluation of procreation and family is as substantial a threat as it gets.
Anecdote: having a kid has made me a little crazy. Every now and then, someone will do something like ignore the "yield to pedestrians" sign on a crosswalk, and come a little too close to clipping my daughter's stroller. When that happens, I literally, not figuratively, want to drag the person out of their car and beat them with the stroller. I can't help it, it's a brain-stem level parental instinct: first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later.
Familial bonds are a primitive and powerful force with little comparison in the human experience. Huxley was incredibly insightful in realizing that if you really wanted to control a society, make it docile, you have to break down these bonds and mitigate the threat they represent.
Yep. We live on a quiet, somewhat-narrow street. There are always quite a few young families living on the block. Occasionally, a car will go speeding through the block to avoid a nearby stoplight. When our kids were little, every now and then we'd be in the front yard, chatting with neighbors, with various kids playing here and there. When a speeder came roaring our way, I would sometimes literally step into the street, stop the speeder, and "counsel" him (it always was a him) about safe driving with little kids around. Twenty years later, with our kids grown and gone, I don't have nearly so intense a reaction.
We had a neighbor that did that; he'd hang out on the porch with a bullhorn and chase after cars. It always scared the crap out of me, because some of the people speeding down our street are probably not smart to mess with.
> first eliminate threats to your kids, ask questions later
I just remembered another story on point from a few years back: A mother charged with her fists into a 700-pound polar bear that was stalking her 7-year old son. [1]
When someone speeds down the street, then screeches to a halt because I'm already in the crosswalk, I just settle for taking extra long to cross and glaring at them the whole time.
While my brief comment history will confirm that I completely agree with your analysis of Orwellian vs. Huxleyan dystopias, and agree completely about the greater relevance of Huxley's vision to our cultures, I'd nevertheless be reluctant to equate sexual liberation with Huxley's fears. You're absolutely right about his having written about sexual indulgence in that way, and about pleasure-seeking being the opiate that destroys his population's ability to reflect meaningfully on life; but there's something to be said for finding the best expression of human nature and removing its impediments too. Pleasure corrupts, but so does frustration and repression.
What's to be desired is a culture that educates its individuals about how to safely and virtuously find their own happiness with a minimum of self-indulgent excess or Victorian hand-wringing. A more sexually liberated culture isn't necessarily a step in the wrong direction, though the pendulum could certainly swing too far.
Bottom line, is that both societies depicted would be vulnerable to some sort of threat. Both societies seem heavily stagnant. Such societies can easily be disrupted by their relations with friendly and hostile neighbors degrading or just being wiped by an gradual or extreme environmental change (for example meteor).
The only way forward is by having diverse societies spread around multiple planets in various parts of galaxy.
That would be one option; my preferred, immediate option (prior to Elon Musk establishing civilization on Mars), would be to not elevate things (like sex) to the point where they own us, or can be used to own us.
Am I incorrect to make this truncation? Because it kind of blows my mind.
"a world without [..] pregnancy [..] will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended"
Not too mention that "the first time in thousands of years" implies this situation existed previously, but then didn't for thousands of years... the writer got kind of carried away, that's for sure.
yeah that line sure seems pretty bizarre. The article assumes self determinism for the human race but oh wait, there is this benevolent 'nature' who wants you to have unrestricted sex without all those frustrating side effects.....like pregnancy.
Even though, when people have sex - pregnancy happens... naturally.
To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the authorities maintain their totalitarian rule; "Recreational sex is an integral part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity, rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process, is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation. Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships, lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."
People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without restriction".
Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing, but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had meaningful sex.
The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's writings.
I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is fitting in this instance:
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us."