Brave New World have ya read it?

[tribdog]

I'm just saying, what's the difference between being happy and thinking you are happy?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

'

Morals? This has nothing to do with morals. Russ Waters was questioning the intelligence of a person who allows others to trick him into thinking he is happy. He is certainly not trying to push his "morals" on you- he is simply expressing his shock that anyone would be stupid.

Happiness is the effect of certain neurochemical reactions. If they occur you are happy. If they do not occur you are not happy. I am not sure how one is tricked into thinking they are happy.

 

[tchitt]

Drugs "trick" you into "thinking" you are happy. I mean, I suppose by definition you ARE happy... but at the same time you realize that you're happy for no reason other than the drugs. It leaves you open to all kinds of abuse so I guess that's the difference.

 

[Ghost803]

Is there an aspect to happiness, such as self respect, that is not affected by drugs that cause euphoria?

 

[gravenewworld]

I reckon I have.

 

[tribdog]

'

Morals? This has nothing to do with morals. Russ Waters was questioning the intelligence of a person who allows others to trick him into thinking he is happy. He is certainly not trying to push his "morals" on you- he is simply expressing his shock that anyone would be stupid.

How can you believe that drug-induced, mind-controlled slavery is a good thing and that happiness achieved by such methods could be real or moral?

It was his word, not mine. that's why I picked up on it. I wasn't, however, accusing him of pushing his morals on me. I was speaking in general, as if I was one of the people being forced into happiness.

I'm sure you'll agree that different people have different views on what is moral and what isn't. If you take that to the extreme then you have to see that it is possible that someone might see mind control and slavery as being morally fine. And just like I have no right to force my morals on you (not you specifically), you should have no right to force your morals on me. Just because you would not be happy in a life of forced happyiness you cannot assume someone else wouldn't be. By definition, they are happy, so the morally bad thing to do would be to take away their happiness.

 

[tchitt]

An aspect to happiness that's not affected by drugs?

Do you mean to ask "Is it possible to have self respect and not take drugs in order to achieve happiness?"

If so, of course... that type of happiness would obviously be preferable to drug induced happiness. The argument is about whether "fake" happiness is really just as "real" as "real" happiness.

By definition, they are happy, so the morally bad thing to do would be to take away their happiness.

Is it morally wrong to choose NOT to be forced into happiness? Basically what you're saying is that it would be wrong to stop someone from forcing something on you if it means stopping them from forcing it upon someone else as well.

 

[tribdog]

Drugs "trick" you into "thinking" you are happy. I mean, I suppose by definition you ARE happy... but at the same time you realize that you're happy for no reason other than the drugs. It leaves you open to all kinds of abuse so I guess that's the difference.

you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the facts of this hypothetical situation. Sure, we all know that drugs do bad things in the real world and people abuse them, but we are talking about (at least I'm talking about) a different, fictional world. Unless we are told that the drugs have these detrimental effects we can't assume that they do. I could write a story about a world where everyone ate poop sandwiches and they love them. You could try to argue that poop sandwiches are gross and in your world you'd be correct, but in the story world I wrote poop sandwiches are delicious. that's the way it is.

As far as realizing that you're happy for no reason other than the drugs. So? I'm breathing for no reason other than the oxygen. I'm seeing for no reason other than the light.

 

[tribdog]

Is it morally wrong to choose NOT to be forced into happiness? Basically what you're saying is that it would be wrong to stop someone from forcing something on you if it means stopping them from forcing it upon someone else as well.

No. I'm saying if someone forces me to be happy AND I don't have a problem with being forced to be happy. Then you have no right to make that person stop forcing me to be happy and making me unhappy.

For the record, I wouldn't want to live in a world like the brave, new world. I'm just not arrogant enough to think that my way of thinking is the "right" way to think and try to make other people follow it.

 

[tchitt]

I'm not taking into account at all the negative impact of drugs on people's lives... but you'd have to be as dumb as a rock to actually be "tricked" into thinking you're happy.

 

[tribdog]

anyone ever told you a joke that made you laugh? The joke probably never happened in real life, it was a fabrication, a lie, a trick. Are you as dumb as a rock?

Here's a better one: I enslave my dog. I force him to eat what I want him to eat. to go where I want him to go. I control every part of his life.But I have him completely tricked into thinking he is happy. Should my dog be rescued from his enslavement?

 

[tchitt]

I often thought that about my own dog. How his life must be better than mine because he has no responsibilities or worries... but then I started wondering if that was really any way to live. I give him happiness when I allow him in the yard without a chain tied around his neck and he's grateful for it.

I don't exactly feel like a "good person" when I realize these things.

 

[tribdog]

If you let your dog leave would he come back? If he would then he is choosing his happy life of enslavement.

 

[tchitt]

For one thing, human beings aren't dogs. Dogs are naturally loyal and obedient which is why they're so easily domesticated. I was making that point as if my dog were a human being himself... I could make him completely dependent to ensure that he couldn't function were he free, meaning his only recourse for finding happiness is a life of slavery. Prisoners often find they can't function in the outside world and PURPOSELY get themselves incarcerated all over again. Happiness is relative... prison, happy... outside world, unhappy.

Either way this discussion is getting extremely off topic so if you want to keep debating this then just PM me or something.

 

[tribdog]

You are right, a human being isn't a dog. We are stronger and smarter so it is okay to enslave the weak and dumb. You only have a problem when equals enslave equals right? Would you have a problem with a stronger and smarter race of aliens enslaving you like a dog? I'm just trying to see where you draw the line.
Do you really think the first dogs were easily domesticated? They were wolves. they regularly ate humans, but humans got the upper hand and tamed them and bred them to be loyal and obedient. I'm sure we could do the same thing with humans.
I'm sure we can stop our discussion now anyway. There's no need for PMs to be brought into the equation.

PS. I've never read the Huxley book.

 

[avant-garde]

For one thing, human beings aren't dogs. Dogs are naturally loyal and obedient which is why they're so easily domesticated.

I've noticed you've been making a lot of unsupported jumps in your arguments. What does it mean for dogs to be "naturally loyal and obedient"? Is that a scientific fact or just an unsupported generalization?

 

[tchitt]

Domestication
Human hunter-gatherers and wolves experienced several overlaps as both are social species, they shared habitat and hunted the same prey. There are several theories to explain possible routes for domestication of the dog:
Orphaned wolf-cubs: Studies have shown that some wolf pups taken at an early age and reared by humans are easily tamed and socialized.[2] Once these early adoptees started breeding amongst themselves, a new generation of tame "wolf-like" domestic animals would result which would over generations of time, become more dog-like.

The Promise of Food/Self Domestication: Early wolves would, as scavengers, be attracted to the bones and refuse dumps of human campsites. Dr. Raymond Coppinger of Hampshire College, Massachusetts, argues that those wolves that were more successful at interacting with humans would pass these traits onto their offspring, eventually creating wolves with a greater propensity to be domesticated. Coppinger believes that a behavioral characteristic called "flight distance" was crucial to the transformation from wild wolf to the ancestors of the modern dog. It represents how close an animal will allow humans (or anything else it perceives as dangerous) to get before it runs away. Animals with shorter flight distances will linger, and feed, when humans are close by; this behavioral trait would have been passed on to successive generations, and amplified, creating animals that are increasingly more comfortable around humans. "My argument is that what domesticated—or tame—means is to be able to eat in the presence of human beings. That is the thing that wild wolves can't do."[3] Furthermore, selection for domesticity had the side effect of selecting genetically related physical characteristics, and behavior such as barking. Hypothetically, wolves separated into two populations – the village-oriented scavengers and the packs of hunters. The next steps have not been defined, but selective pressure must have been present to sustain the divergence of these populations.

I'm talking about DOGS. Not wolves. So yes, it's a fact that as a species they are easier to domesticate.

They also have a "pack mentality"... which means it's not good for a dog to be alone. They stay with the pack, and when you domesticate a dog you are essentially it's pack. Hence where the word loyalty comes in. Do I really need to cite this "jump in my argument" too, or are you ready to employ some common sense?

Edit:

The loyalty and devotion that dogs demonstrate as part of their natural instincts as pack animals closely mimics the human idea of love and friendship, leading many dog owners to view their pets as full-fledged family members. Conversely, dogs seem to view their human companions as members of their pack, and make few, if any, distinctions between their owners and fellow dogs. Dogs fill a variety of roles in human society and are often trained as working dogs. For dogs that do not have traditional jobs, a wide range of dog sports provide the opportunity to exhibit their natural skills. In many countries, the most common and perhaps most important role of dogs is as companions.

Just in case you aren't capable.

 

[Ghost803]

So we use the social biology of the dogs to enslave them. Whats wrong with using drugs to enslave humans? They both just abuse different mechanisms of the brain.

 

[tchitt]

I think most human beings find human slavery to be universally immoral. You can make the argument that morality is subjective, but I don't think you truly advocate "using drugs to enslave humans".

We enslave all kinds of animals to meet our own needs but this doesn't mean that it's okay to do it to humans too! I stated before that I do feel some small (read almost non-existent) level of guilt when I think about my own dog and the way that he is in essence a slave to me... the reason I feel this way is because he's my dog and also my "friend". I won't claim to feel the same about anyone else's dog, or the endless herds of cattle that are raised to be slaughtered because I have no emotional connection to them.

I do, however, have some small level of emotional connection to virtually every other human being on the planet (we are of the same species... I don't practice cannibalism for the same reason and neither do most animals.) and the idea of enslaving any of them is completely morally reprehensible to me... whether they're aware of their enslavement or not. In fact, I might go so far as to say it's worse to "secretly" enslave someone than it is to do it openly.

 

[avant-garde]

Again, being enslaved sucks. Well, everyone in Brave New World is happy; life doesn't suck. Therefore, you can argue that they are technically not being "enslaved". They like their ways. Slaves in our history never liked their ways and that is the difference.

 

[tchitt]

I'm still interested to hear what you have to say in regards to my "happiness can not exist without unhappiness" theory.

I'm horrified by these questions! How can you believe that drug-induced, mind-controlled slavery is a good thing and that happiness achieved by such methods could be real or moral? If you read in a book that being hung upside-down by your toenails is a good thing, will you believe it? The purpose of such books is to provoke thought - to get you to consider whether the world described actually is good or even possible. It's supposed to convince you that that world is flawed. Then again...

He said it best ^

These questions/comments are directly related to the topic (certainly more so than slavery, I sort of got off on a tangent there) and I want to know how you'd respond to them.

You said "sustainability + happiness sounds like utopia". Would you mind elaborating on what your own definition of "happiness" is? To simply say "they were all happy so life should be that way" isn't all that profound... We'd all prefer complete happiness all the time.

 

[Proton Soup]

In any case I believe both books are still quite popular in literary circles and are still widely read, mostly for their satire on current society. BNW is the far more challenged book as well, appearing at #37 on the ALA's list of frequently challenged books, probably because Orwell's work can be seen to be criticizing "official" enemies.

i think the reason it's challenged probably has nothing to do with any of the social commentary mentioned in your first post, it's got to be the open sexuality portrayed in the book. it's a been a while, but best i remember the book mentioned teachers guiding pre-pubescent children in sex play games like "find the zipper". that sort of thing freaks parents out.

overall, though, i think your synopsis is right. now we even have our own somas in SSRIs, and (unless the practice has changed) the government (public school teachers) pushing parents to put their children on methylphenidate.

 

[Proton Soup]

Again, being enslaved sucks. Well, everyone in Brave New World is happy; life doesn't suck. Therefore, you can argue that they are technically not being "enslaved". They like their ways. Slaves in our history never liked their ways and that is the difference.

they're not happy at all. that's why they're all on drugs.

 

[mheslep]

...I'm sure you'll agree that different people have different views on what is moral and what isn't. If you take that to the extreme then you have to see that it is possible that someone might see mind control and slavery as being morally fine. And just like I have no right to force my morals on you (not you specifically), you should have no right to force your morals on me. ...

This is a nihilist argument for moral relativism. There are some moral absolutes in our society, and yes I have not only the right to interfere, but the obligation to help see that some of them do not go unheeded. So do you. If I see someone doing severe physical harm to a child, I'm going to attempt to stop them and their arguments about moral relativism will not deter me.

 

[Zantra]

Couple of points:

Is forced happiness slavery? If you force a child to educate themselves by going to school, you know it is in their best interests, and makes them a better person, but they feel they are "prisoners" of injustice, at least until they mature enough to realize that it is in their own best interests. Would not someone in BNW be like a child, guided to a higher existence, even if they didn't realize it? Would any human purposely choose misery? Otherwise, it's not slavery, it's the guidance to a better existence.

That leads to my other point, that human being's very nature precludes any type of utopia. This relates back to the Matrix where ignorance is bliss. But what if everyone in the matrix was told the reality, and given a choice to stay in utopia or leave? Many would leave because they percieve that they are missing something, that they are loosing freedoms or "giving up" something by staying in the Matrix. People's natures will not allow them to remain eternally blissful. Happiness is a biochemical release of seretonin and other chemicals that induce an "altered state". Therefore, happiness by it's own definition is a temporary phase, that cannot persist indefinitely. Even if there was a "happy pill" where neverending seretonin was injected into a human, eventually your body becomes adjusted to the new levels, and no amount of seretonin can make you happy. I believe that even if a method to infinitely sustain those levels where found, the human physiology couldn't handle it, and would shut down.

Altered states require contrast. How can you know happiness if you've never known sadness? Ultimately humans in this state would boil down to emotional drones which flat affect and no range of emotions. What is callled a utopia would only become our own prisons, willing or not.

 

[Proton Soup]

um, yes, persistent happiness is abnormal. and about children, the normal course of growth is that we afford them progressively more freedoms as they mature. the point of education is not to keep them enslaved, but to provide them with the tools for living free.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Presumably they do have bouts with unhappiness as well "A gramme is better than a damn."

When you send a child to get an education generally you want them to have more chances and opportunities in their life, and more of an ability to control certain situations that inevitably come up. In BNW, dysgenics is practiced for the purpose of stability; you do not get to participate in any kind of decision making in regards to society, you do not have many choices, and thus do not have much control of your life except in the sense that you will always have a job since population control is implemented to prevent too many people from sitting around. You do not have control of your destiniation, only a lucky elite get to have the freedom to participate in power.

If you define freedom as the ability to have a lot of control in your life and the freedom to participate in power (Cicero) then the people in BNW do not much have freedom, if you define freedom to mean that people are contented with their servitude and the amount of political and economic manipulation that is enforced on them, then the people in BNW are free.

I think the former is much more "common sense" but apparently this question has been asked before:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=68724

I had no idea so many people thought BNW was about a utopia rather than a dystopia.

At least we don't have to debate what huxley's intentions were as much as with 1984 as Huxley wrote BNW: Revisted to let us know what he was thinking when he wrote.

A better example of a true utopia is perhaps "Island" also by Huxley but unfortunately this society isn't large enough to be considered viable.

 

[Zantra]

um, yes, persistent happiness is abnormal. and about children, the normal course of growth is that we afford them progressively more freedoms as they mature. the point of education is not to keep them enslaved, but to provide them with the tools for living free.

I was using the childhood comparison to make a point about perspective. Kids rebel against the perceived injustice while in actuality the intentions are just. It's about getting the "big picture."

People percieve a world without choice (even if all the prederminates are "in their best interests") as a prison. That is because they are used to having those freedoms, but someone born into that society would know no other life, and thus accept it. perception is the reality. And while their perceived reality may seem like a prison to us, to them it might be bliss. If someone lives in a different state than ours, and they percieve it to be a happy one, I don't see that as a prison, because prison is a concept that those people wouldn't concieve of. Now, having never read the book, I don't know if it's similar to 1984, where there is rebellion, but you can't coerce the willing.

As far as happiness beingr "abnormal", it's a biochemical reaction not intended by the body to be sustained indefinitely, so it's hard to predict how the body would react to an indefinitely altered state.