Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

A perfect life can be dystopian. Stability, convenience, distraction, and safety seem like the pillars of Huxley’s dystopia. I feel like we don’t talk enough about the last bit, safety. In today’s modern world some notions of safety - like crash testing cars - are very sensible. When focus on safety and elimination of risks is taken to an extreme however, it can lead to unbearable limits on people. Suddenly free expression, personal choice, experimentation, and adopting a different calculation of risks than others might be not allowed. The notion of safetyism was popularized by The Coddling of the American Mind (https://quillette.com/2018/09/02/is-safetyism-destroying-a-g...), and I see the concept creep mentioned in that book continuing today. It’s always with the best of intentions, in pursuit of a perfect world, but I worry that we are veering towards Huxley’s nightmare.

View on HN

In Huxley's dystopia, all friction is eliminated. Friction is what makes people wake up. These "unbearable limits," i.e., friction, would not exist in Brave New World.

It sounds a lot like the Netherlands. It’s so damn nice and functional here — more freedom than the US, even — but there is a gnawing sense that it will lead to a very dulltopian world, where needs are fully satisfied and life becomes rather unimportant.

> dulltopain

Huxley ultimately believes, as all artists believe, that a creative life is the only life worth living. Suffering and conflict is the fuel of all higher pursuits. In Brave New World, people are drained of this fuel. Life is easy. People just go along with the flow. But this means they create nothing. This is a horrifying prospect to Huxley.

"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."

-- Nietzsche

"Suffering and conflict is the fuel of all higher pursuits"

I disagree. I mean, the combinations of education, travel, and hallucinogens has pushed me further in my art and intellectual curiosity than suffering ever has. For so many people, suffering simply stagnates them because it eats up so much mental and physical energy.

The lives are certainly not without conflict, however. Meeting social norms still creates some conflict (what, you want to be with only one person!?!). Most folks are, however, missing things that pushes them just a little outside of their comfort zone - but you certainly don't need conflict for that, but rather, just things that are different enough.

> It sounds a lot like the Netherlands

It's almost a relief to see I'm not the only one having this view. I've been living in NL for the better part of a decade now and to most of the people back home (one of those terrible 'former Eastern Bloc' countries) I sound like a complete lunatic when I bring up similar impressions.

I guess an ideal place would have to be as functional as the Netherlands and yet far less soulless. Is this possible I wonder? Is there some intrinsic trade-off between the two aspects?

Ironically, this stance (that lack of conflict equates to lack of soul) may only be possible after one has become accustomed to a peaceful and stable life.

> that lack of conflict equates to lack of soul

Yeah, I realize the attitude is a bit simplistic. It's certainly true that serious conflict is way worse than boring mild-dystopia.

I'm thinking however of someplace like the 'second-tier' rich European countries - the Northern Meditteranean, perhaps even a few former 'Eastern Bloc' places. Those might have a better balance.

The best social safety net in the world can only protect you so much from the needs of your own children, absent some sort of young ladies illustrated primer taking over. So in that since parenting becomes more important to parents human thriving when other struggles die.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com