Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmlnr | Hacker News Reader

1984. "Brave New World" doesn't need things like that, it's a much more terrifying future, when everyone is happy in their little golden cage.

View on HN

Is it though? My reading of Brave New World was that it was at least consensual. I’m after reading Seveneves and I see some parrallels between these societies. In context it really doesnt seem so much sinister as a way for humanity to survive. 1984 was despotic.

Today you are one of the lucky 10000: https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/huxley-vs-orwell-the-webc...

> Today you are one of the lucky 10000

For those who might not get the reference: https://www.xkcd.com/1053/

Yes indeed, but I am not actually “wrong”. Cute cartoon though!

I don't think there was much of a difference. Effectively BNW=1984+drugs, but because there are no such drugs, 1984 is the only implementable option, pseudo-BNW is unsustainable, doesn't solve their problems and so is just a detour, because they couldn't go 1984 directly due to technical problems.

> because there are no such drugs

ISTM the advertising, entertainment and social-media industries are aiming to fulfil much of the role of BNW's drugs, and the pharmaceutical companies can probably cover most of the gaps.

I don’t belive 1984 is sustainable either. Its too rigid to withstand external events. BNW on the other hand, has tacot consent of all involved and is self reinforcing.

Both are similar in premise: the proletariat is distracted and kept down by something. Think of the sort of content that is produced in 1984; in Brave New World it is simply drugs instead. It makes you wonder about the spread of video games, instantly accessible entertainment, increased drug use, etc.

It was consensual because the populace was bred and genetically altered to conform to their roles in society. I think that is an important distinction.

Drugged into consent :)

Haha - gimme soma dat

"Engineered consent" perhaps

Yes engineered but under what pretext. The assumption is always that its totalitarian but this is never stated. Could just as easily be steady state.

BNW is set 400 A.F, so we're into ~110 years now. I believe 1/4th of the book is hard reality. Give it 300 more years.

It doesn't need totalitarian gov. at all.

Well, manufactured consent at least.

The mandatory BNW bracelet serves that purpose and more. And IIRC they had a big data center that oversaw well-being of citizens.

That would be more close to The Matrix.

Have you read "Brave New World"? Genetically engineered people, sorted into categories of capabilities, with all their needs for happiness provided, including recreational drugs.

I haven't, and it's not the 1st time someone names that book to me, so I have to read it one day. The big problem though will be getting back to narrative; there has been a moment in my life when I got immersed into technical manuals, whether for work or personal projects, and from that moment I stopped completely to read novels: I still have that half read book by Gregory Benford with the bookmark set where I stopped; after that I didn't read a single novel in almost two decades although I was an avid (mostly sci-fi) reader. I don't have an answer for this, it just happened. I hope time will change this.

> sorted into categories of capabilities

Artificially and massively genetically engineered and bred into categories, not sorted. It's an important distinction.

So today, even if we haven't gone far down the genetic engineering path yet, we do have the tools for massive-scale social engineering. I wonder which will prove the more critical enabling factor for our very own dystopia?

The breeding and sorting is largely redundant given that Humans follow a capability bell curve naturally. Singapore, China try their best to tease apart that curve as accurately as possible. So does Israel (everyone takes an Intelligence test at 18 and this factors into which University classes you can attend, the Army unit you get assigned to and if you receive unsolicited Job offers by Intelligence Agencies (Mossad, Shabak))

I'd probably not want the results to be put into a central database, but I think this testing may a be a good idea in general if the only person that knows is the test taker.

A lot of people have no idea what to do as a career, so both an IQ and a Big Five test may allow people to know more about themselves. I know Myers-Briggs is unscientific, but something like it could also help in determining good career paths.

Have one test towards the end of elementary school and another at the end of secondary. (People can of course take them more often if they wish.)

This is a better description indeed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com