I think that some version of the book's world is not present in today's world. Anyways, here's today's post.
There would be many good parts of everyone being the same. One is that everyone will understand each other and there will be no disputes about anything. It would be a peaceful world with no one killing other people, and no hate. Also, everything you make can be the same, because whatever you like, everyone else likes, so you don't have to make so many different kinds sell only sell a few. Another great part about this is that everyone will be as smart as one another and everyone will earn the same salary, therefore no country will have economical problems and everyone will treat each other as equals.
There will obviously be many problems with this too. One of the most prominent problems of everyone being the same is that it is extremely difficult to identify people from one another. People will be looking at people and identifying them by their name tags. It will be pretty chaotic. Also, since they all have the same interests, they will all be arguing about who should be what. For example, everyone would want to be the CEO of a certain company, but no one will want to be part of any other company. Everyone would be arguing using the same logic, then the world will get nowhere. It would also really get boring because you already know what everyone's reply is going to be, and there is no variety in anything.
In the end, it probably won't be a good idea to make everyone in the world the same.
What about individuality for its own sake? What about creativity, expression, the free-form display of idiosyncrasies that put color in the sky and flavor in our conversation? Look at it from more than a logical point of view, from more than the logistics of how society would work. What would art be like if everyone was the same? Would we have our Van Gogh's, our Don Quijotes and Great Gatsbys?
ReplyDeleteIs not the basis of democracy the freedom and existence of debate, discourse, disagreement, and finally, compromise? Do not the textures in our world come from the differences between us all?
Huxley asks us to examine a world in which there is peace, in which everyone is "happy." But at what cost? At what point does the price become too high?
Is happiness really the end pursuit of humanity?
Consider a classic philosophy question. Let us say that there exists a Happy Box. When you step inside, you will be completely and perfectly happy, ecstatic, contented. The effect would be as if you were on a perpetual feed of meth/cocaine/heroin/soma, with no sideeffects and with no loss in potency over time. All your needs are taken care of. However, once you step inside, you cannot step out - you will spend the rest of your life in the Happy Box. You will never again see your friends, family, or life in the outside world. Of course, you wouldn't miss them or feel any negative feelings about leaving them, because the Happy Box makes you feel absolute contentedness.
Prompt for next time: If I came up to you and offered you the choice to step inside the Happy Box, would you do it? Why? Is not the point of life to be happy? Are some things more important than being happy? What is the rational basis for choosing or not choosing to step inside the Happy Box?