catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think the missing link to the issue is that Huxley's future didn't necessarily require that the people became less intelligent. Quite the opposite (for the most part). It was that with sufficient diversions provided and priorities reinforced, the very intelligent would accept authoritarian rule, and even argue for it strongly and passionately.
Uh, it totally did in
Brave New World. 75% of the population had deliberately induced Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to keep them as Gammas, Deltas, or Epsilon Semi-Morons. Only 25% of the population was allowed to stay "average" (betas) or above average (alphas and alpha plus.)
It didn't "necessarily" require it though. The people who were not artificially made less intelligent were just as conditioned to accept the world around them. I wasn't speaking just of the actual book and the details in it, but the concept of controlling the population via granted pleasures and diversions (and a healthy dose of conditioning) rather than via fear, force, and punishment. We were discussing Orwell vs Huxley, right?
Kavekk wrote:
What I meant was that I don't find it credible as an actual society. I appreciate that could have been clearer.
Exactly as written? Maybe not. But there's pretty strong evidence that the sorts of social techniques used in the book are far more effective at controlling populations in wealthier western nations than the more Orwellian ones. We do use media to influence people's opinions on things. We use advertising to influence their decisions. We use PSA campaigns to influence how they think about certain issues over time. There are a number of examples of social concepts that have shifted pretty radially just in the last few generations which can be traced to these sorts of influences. Opinions towards smoking is just one really obvious example. There are others.