Paradise Engineering

ilovenerds

Hey... So basically I’m just after reading “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley. It’s an amazing read in which Huxley implies that by abolishing nastiness and mental pain, the brave new worlders have got rid of the most profound and sublime experiences that life can offer as well. Essentially we must be able to contrast the good parts of life with the bad parts, to feel both joy and despair.

Personally, I’m not totally averse to paradise engineering…it just seems a little pointless to go through life without experiencing a range of emotions and feelings. What do others think?? Also I can’t help but think that if the practice of coercive eugenics were instated there would be an elimination of certain members of the community. For instance, would people honestly choose for their child to have an anxious angst-ridden psyche or the deficits in social interaction, which accompany autism? Would they in fact be morally obligated to select genetic blueprints for children with the greatest chance of leading the best life? And if so would there be an ultimate loss of knowledge for our world since afterall some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, notably Newton and Einstein, fulfill many or all of the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s syndrome. Also artists typically produce their most evocative and thought provoking work during times of hardship and depression. In short would we be depriving ourselves of greatness and diversity by accepting this technology??


Sorry for the extreme length of this….:)

turgon

One of the problems perhaps with adjudicating the merits of living in Huxley's "ideal" society is that we are looking in, and fundamentally we cannot perfectly imagine what it is like for the inhabitants.

One of the repercussions of this, imo, is that we judge the surroundings and doings of Huxleys characters in terms of our own existence. So perhaps you may think it desirable to live a life quite free from negative taught. But consider how the "alphas" in his society look upon the "epsilons":

"I suppose Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons"
"Of course they don't. How can they? They don't know what its like being anything else. We'd mind, of course. But we've been differently conditioned."

Is Huxley here telling us that any desire of ours to live in such a society is foolish? That, unbeknownst to ourselves, we have been "conditioned" by culture to achieve the lifestyle the "alphas" do? Or that adjudications of our own conditions are perverted? Its an interesting thought.


There is also the idea of independence to be considered. Now I am not foolish enough to say that all humans are born independent of themselves - how we develop is determined by our parents and out teachers etc. However in "paradise engineering" this is taken to ridiculous levels. Especially given that it does not appear to be you who decides your fate rather some "better educated" superior.

ilovenerds wrote: »

For instance, would people honestly choose for their child to have an anxious angst-ridden psyche or the deficits in social interaction, which accompany autism?

As far as I know, tests can determine autism in premature babies, and combined with universal provision of abortion, some parents can terminate these pregnancies.

ilovenerds wrote: »

And if so would there be an ultimate loss of knowledge for our world since afterall some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, notably Newton and Einstein, fulfill many or all of the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s syndrome.

Well, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Newtons and Einstiens greatness was attributed to these Asperger’s like symptoms.

But this leads us back to the question of personal independence. Were ilovenerds in control she might possibly alter humans to give them Aspergers in the belief she was producing genii. However her view is nothing more than an opinion and fundamentally the individual should have as much control over his own fate as is permissible.

TedB

The obvious problem with paradise engineering is the blatant moral one - the lack of choice. The fact that outside bodies (Ie, with the family destroyed child rearing looses its unique-ness and individual development) decide the course of our life is the most intolerable aspect of a paradise - which is why utopia is a mere illusion unless based on complete individual consent. This however is impossible, thus making utopia impossible, thus making paradise impossible. Which, I think, is the point Huxley was making.

Cannibal Ox

It's an interesting book, and it gets a lot of varied reactions from people I think.

Anyway, questions, I think in paradise engineering the first thing people are stripped of is freedom. One person's idea of heaven, another's idea of hell, etc., etc.,. there is no actual choice for the vast majority of people in what the paradise consists of. There can't be, because paradise is total. It either is, or isn't, and to reach the consensus for paradise the number involved will be very near 1. So, to engineer a paradise for as many people as Huxley does, you need to strip most/all of them of their freedom and institute a severe authoritarian regime that denies people basic, fundamental rights.

Which is why the society needs eugenics, not to "fix" people but to keep them under control. The process is pretty simillar to the Party in 1984 grinding down human will to ensure that there's no resistance. It's not about doing good for the masses and improving their lives (although that is the party line), so much as ensuring the minority stay comfortible and in power.

Eugenics is pretty interesting in general, i.e, who does the "fixing" and who decides what needs to be "fixed". There's a lot of interpretation involved in being a human, especially if you're trying to esthablish some kind of mean, or perfect, human being.

Keeping it short, I think in the kind of society Huxley creates, it's the ruling class who does the "fixing", and in the process they subordinate other humans, to ensure their continued control. It's not paradise, and paradise isn't possible. People are, in both 1984 and in Brave New World, conditioned to believe they're in a paradise because it's how the dominant class/group keeps them under control, despite paradise not being possible.

I've always thought Huxley was describing a nightmarish authoritarian state as opposed to some kind of paradise, and I always thought that was his point, but I've met people who thought otherwise, and that's why I've always thought it was such an interesting book.

TedB

Does it matter to someone who genuinely believes their life is absolutely perfect - I mean, thinks everything is just fantastic - does it matter to them if the truth is otherwise? Is it not better to think you are living in a perfect world than know the truth?