The future is hard to predict. In fact, the weather channel rarely gets it right. When a believable prediction is made, it is hard to come to a different conclusion, especially without reasonable evidence. So the statement made on the comparison between Huxley and Orwell’s novels makes perfect sense.
Although they are tow completely different extremes, as a comparison article had stated, there are endless connections. Whether it be though characters, slogans, or even basic plot, "it conducts a kind of dialogue between the lines with Huxley’s novel" (121). This quote is in reference to Orwell’s 1984. Many people believe that after reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Orwell was inspired to right his own prediction of the future. However, while I think that there are hundreds of connections between the two, Orwell saw past Huxley’s world, into a world far past A.F. 632.
When Huxley wrote Brave New World in the 1930s, he could not have been more accurate of the times to come. In the 70s, his prediction of soma resembled greatly the hippie generation and their slogan of "do what feels good." However, this generation has now quieted and has moved into a new generation. The generation of today is much more resembled to Orwell’s 1984. Today, parents can track their children by their coats, online companies can track previous purchases, and emails can even display ads related to your email topic. It seems as if our world has shifted between the minds of Huxley and Orwell. As Huxley stated in regards to this, "Mr. Orwell’s forecast in Nineteen Eighty-Four was made from a vantage point considerably farther down the descending spiral of modern history than mine, and is nearly correct" (119). In this line from Huxley himself, he acknowledges that while both him and Orwell were on different paths to the future, it as if Orwell has seen past him.
I found it very interesting that as both of these mens’ careers continued, they seemed to continue justifying their works in regards to each other’s opinions. While reading this article it caught my eye that in 1959 Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited. This new novel "is so shot through with references to Orwell’s novel that it might almost be called a justification of Brave New World in terms of Nineteen Eighty-Four" (120). It seems as though although Orwell was partially influenced by Huxley’s work, Huxley felt that Orwell made good enough points that he changed some of his own opinions. In my opinion, this marks both Huxley and Orwell as two of the most intelligent authors of their time.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Stand Up For Rights, Even If Not Your Own
Every person has something that to them, they feel is so important that they would do anything. For me, this matter is actually gay rights. While I myself am not, I know and spend time with many who are, including close friends. I feel that no matter what, two consenting adults in love should have the right to marry.
This idea is opposed for several reasons, a main reason being religion. Those greatly influenced by the church feel that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman, and should remain that way. In my opinion this makes the church hypocritical. A major foundation of a church is that everyone is welcome. So how can they then say this and turn homosexuals away?
Also, many would say that it is a moral issue. If the couple were to adopt a child, how would it affect this child growing up? Growing up, this child would know of no other life. I have read countless articles in magazines of children growing up with either two mothers or two fathers who would not ask for anything more.
Personally, I question those who look down upon this. Fifty years ago, the same feelings were held about divorce. It was looked down upon by churches and the affects on children were feared. Today, however, it is incredibly common. In fact, almost half of marriages end in a divorce. That is today’s normalcy. I think people should start accepting things such as gay marriage as the normalcy of the next generation. Love is a beautiful thing no matter who it is between. I have been with my boyfriend for two years and experienced this feeling. There is no reason that others should not have the rights to have the same feelings and equality. So although this issue does not affect me directly, it is a cause I do feel strongly for.
In a way, the same goes for the character Winston, of Orwell’s 1984. When he joins a group opposing Big Brother, he has no connection to it other than that he knows in his heart that things should be different. And just like the path Winston is now in, all paths will have ups and downs, but what is right always manages to come through.
This idea is opposed for several reasons, a main reason being religion. Those greatly influenced by the church feel that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman, and should remain that way. In my opinion this makes the church hypocritical. A major foundation of a church is that everyone is welcome. So how can they then say this and turn homosexuals away?
Also, many would say that it is a moral issue. If the couple were to adopt a child, how would it affect this child growing up? Growing up, this child would know of no other life. I have read countless articles in magazines of children growing up with either two mothers or two fathers who would not ask for anything more.
Personally, I question those who look down upon this. Fifty years ago, the same feelings were held about divorce. It was looked down upon by churches and the affects on children were feared. Today, however, it is incredibly common. In fact, almost half of marriages end in a divorce. That is today’s normalcy. I think people should start accepting things such as gay marriage as the normalcy of the next generation. Love is a beautiful thing no matter who it is between. I have been with my boyfriend for two years and experienced this feeling. There is no reason that others should not have the rights to have the same feelings and equality. So although this issue does not affect me directly, it is a cause I do feel strongly for.
In a way, the same goes for the character Winston, of Orwell’s 1984. When he joins a group opposing Big Brother, he has no connection to it other than that he knows in his heart that things should be different. And just like the path Winston is now in, all paths will have ups and downs, but what is right always manages to come through.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Genetic Altering and Its Infinite Possibilities
Although genetic altering could help to cure many of the world’s diseases, it would ultimately cause more problems than it would solve. In Brave New World, the seemingly perfect society is full of people who have been genetically altered to work and live in conditioned areas of the world. They live without diseases, attachment, or basically any feelings. So, what could go wrong?
Genetic altering could rid the world of fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS, and could give people longer lives and more opportunities. People would not have to face every day knowing they only have a ceratin amount of time to live, or have to see a loved one slowly lose their life. Genetic altering people to rid them of disease could change the world we live in as we know it. But would it ultimately be for the good? At the start, ridding people of disease will give everyone longer lives. Slowly, however, as the lives of people grow longer and the people of our planet continue to repopulate, our world will grow smaller. Overpopulation, starvation, and poverty will become more of a problem than it already is today. With more people on the planet, and longer lives than ever, those who are unable to keep up with the changing world will be dragged under the new civilization. They will be left on the streets, without diseases yes, but starving and poor.
This would also lead to a record-breaking growth between the social classes. With Darwinism coming into effect, those who cannot keep up with society will fall behind and be lost. The population of the world’s homeless will sky rocket while the rich grow richer. Cities will drown in poverty, leading to out breaks and riots in the streets. The genetic altering of people would do a lot more to this world than cure diseases or let parents chose the eye color of their child. There is also the issue of the cost. Who would pay for it, the government or the family? If it is the government, a limit on the spending would have to be created in order to keep a balance. And also, who would chose which families would receive the chance to alter their children? If the family were to pay, than only the rich and well-off would be able to. This would again create a growth in the distance of the social classes. If only the rich can alter their children, than their children will ultimately be better, leaving the children of the poor behind in the world.
I understand that this does give many parents the opportunity they did not previously have to conceive a child. It opens up a new world of possibilities for those who are unable to start a family. "No politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers" (Gibbs). In an article found in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs brought up the argument of where the line should be drawn in the new found world on genetic altering. "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries."
Many aspects come into the process of creating these boundaries. Religion is huge. It is believed that a child who is genetically altered loses their soul, and therefor, is hardly human. It is messing with nature and what God has intended and stepping in the balance of the world. Many would argue that it’s not right to create a child through science because it is not natural. Children should be born through parents, two humans, not scientists and their test tubes. There are so many different aspects coming into the decision of the boundaries, that it would be next to impossible to create them.
Another positive aspect of genetic altering, however, is that if parents can chose the physical appearance of their child, they would also be able to chose their race, leaving no one in the minority. This would eliminate racism. A world without racism would contain less conflicts between its citizens, and everyone would be the best. At least everyone would consider themselves the best. In the novel Brave New World, each social group considers themselves the best, based solely on childhood conditioning. However, none of these citizens know anything of the other groups of people. This creates great ignorance. In a world where everyone is superior, great pride lives along side its citizens. There is no superiority if there is no one, or no group, under who or what is the best. If everyone is the best, who does everyone consider the worst? Eliminating race from the factors of the minority, what new factors will emerge as the cause for racism? These new factors could be worse than the ones we are living with today; a new racism.
So we as a world society must decide what is better: a world rid of disease, or overpopulation, poverty, and new forms of racism. What would you chose?
Genetic altering could rid the world of fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS, and could give people longer lives and more opportunities. People would not have to face every day knowing they only have a ceratin amount of time to live, or have to see a loved one slowly lose their life. Genetic altering people to rid them of disease could change the world we live in as we know it. But would it ultimately be for the good? At the start, ridding people of disease will give everyone longer lives. Slowly, however, as the lives of people grow longer and the people of our planet continue to repopulate, our world will grow smaller. Overpopulation, starvation, and poverty will become more of a problem than it already is today. With more people on the planet, and longer lives than ever, those who are unable to keep up with the changing world will be dragged under the new civilization. They will be left on the streets, without diseases yes, but starving and poor.
This would also lead to a record-breaking growth between the social classes. With Darwinism coming into effect, those who cannot keep up with society will fall behind and be lost. The population of the world’s homeless will sky rocket while the rich grow richer. Cities will drown in poverty, leading to out breaks and riots in the streets. The genetic altering of people would do a lot more to this world than cure diseases or let parents chose the eye color of their child. There is also the issue of the cost. Who would pay for it, the government or the family? If it is the government, a limit on the spending would have to be created in order to keep a balance. And also, who would chose which families would receive the chance to alter their children? If the family were to pay, than only the rich and well-off would be able to. This would again create a growth in the distance of the social classes. If only the rich can alter their children, than their children will ultimately be better, leaving the children of the poor behind in the world.
I understand that this does give many parents the opportunity they did not previously have to conceive a child. It opens up a new world of possibilities for those who are unable to start a family. "No politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers" (Gibbs). In an article found in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs brought up the argument of where the line should be drawn in the new found world on genetic altering. "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries."
Many aspects come into the process of creating these boundaries. Religion is huge. It is believed that a child who is genetically altered loses their soul, and therefor, is hardly human. It is messing with nature and what God has intended and stepping in the balance of the world. Many would argue that it’s not right to create a child through science because it is not natural. Children should be born through parents, two humans, not scientists and their test tubes. There are so many different aspects coming into the decision of the boundaries, that it would be next to impossible to create them.
Another positive aspect of genetic altering, however, is that if parents can chose the physical appearance of their child, they would also be able to chose their race, leaving no one in the minority. This would eliminate racism. A world without racism would contain less conflicts between its citizens, and everyone would be the best. At least everyone would consider themselves the best. In the novel Brave New World, each social group considers themselves the best, based solely on childhood conditioning. However, none of these citizens know anything of the other groups of people. This creates great ignorance. In a world where everyone is superior, great pride lives along side its citizens. There is no superiority if there is no one, or no group, under who or what is the best. If everyone is the best, who does everyone consider the worst? Eliminating race from the factors of the minority, what new factors will emerge as the cause for racism? These new factors could be worse than the ones we are living with today; a new racism.
So we as a world society must decide what is better: a world rid of disease, or overpopulation, poverty, and new forms of racism. What would you chose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)