Put Your Shades Away...The Future Isn't Looking Too Bright!

A.C. Ward is one of many scholars who have taken an interest in the similarities and differences in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984 in his essay, "Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984". These dystopian novels have been referred to as "the same" to the untrained thinker and evaluator. ( I can’t tell you how many other students will ask me “why do we have to read these two books, they are exactly the same?”) Ward attempts to validate these people's assumption as well as provide logical information to show that each book reflects a different future based in the same warnings and principle. It is obvious that each book was written with a message in mind, a warning to the future when the present was in disarray with the world at war and the threat of relentless dictators coming to power. The message was, in simplest terms: make changes, avoid corruption and do not let this become your future, detect the warning signs and save yourselves from this tragic fate (whether it is Big Brother or World State). Although the warning is the same, the context in which each future is prophesied is quite different as Ward compares and contrasts the two eye-opening novels in his essay.

A crucial difference presented in the governments of each unfortunate future is the controlling and oppressing power of Big Brother in comparison to the very structured caste system of World State. In Brave New World the people are so well conditioned that no violent force is needed, the government simply overlooks the people who instinctively know what to do from birth, they are not stripped of power and oppressed because they never knew such opportunities. Huxley refers to Orwell's future as "simply not efficient and, all other things being equal, efficiency leads to stability as inefficiency leads away from it" (119) (Of course, Huxley himself states that he did not have the aid of writing his novel after seeing the power a dictator could gain such as that of Hitler). Clearly we can see from history, as well as current day governments, that dictatorships can survive and gain a frightening amount of power. However Huxley did not argue their power, but their efficiency and stability. The well structure future presented in Brave New World ran like clock work, there was not a person out of place and everyone did their job, supported their caste, and ultimately this balance created a state of extreme stability. There was no real progress, except in the increase of the number of people decanted, but everyone served their predestined purpose, nothing was out of line (until the Savage came and briefly through their world out of balance, but ultimately it did not last). Then one looks at the future provided in 1984 and basically the whole world ran on fear: fear that your children are spying on you, fear of committing thought crime even in your dreams, and the fear of the unknown secrecy of the government. All of these concerns and worries must be buried deep inside the individual until they soon become mindless workers who train themselves to believe everything they hear, no matter how many times the truth changes. Doublespeak in itself produced inefficiency and instability as the meanings are not literal often not clear. The government in 1984 works, this comes as no surprise as we currently see that China, North Korea, and Cuba all exist under a dictator. These countries are not as extreme as Big Brother, but they show the possibility for such a future to occur. The threat of oppression is powerful, but it does not produce the stability that World State has created removing the instinct to rebel, they are conditioned from birth and know nothing else outside of what they are taught. On the other hand, in an Orwellian future, by removing freedom and crushing the people it provokes the rebellious free thinker (who clings to the past they refuse to forget) to fight for the freedom they know can once again exist.

Huxley then goes on to argue the point that pleasure leads to stability, which he find to be key in the realistic possibility of his depiction of the future, rather than a future control solely by terror as Orwell has depicted. "...the lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing" (120). In the simplest terms, people naturally are more responsive to something they feel is enjoyable rather than something that hurts them, but both can be manipulated as powerful tools. The people of World State believe they are happy because they know nothing outside of the world set up for them. They feel as though they have free will because "everyone belongs to everyone", they can take a soma holiday, and play numerous leisure sports such as obstacle golf. They are conditioned to feel this way and believe that they are doing as they please. In Orwell's portrayal of the future there is torture, the threat of being monitored at all times, and the constant state of "war" to unite the people and make them dependent on their government and Big Brother. There is no escape from Big Brother, if one commits a crime they will be re-educated and eventually vaporized, there is no acceptance of the free thinker’s beliefs, no island where they can be an individual and work peacefully with colleagues. There is no exception to Big Brother; the government seeks corruption of every individual, body and mind. This is clearly a much more difficult task than simply conditioning the individual from birth and thus seems impossible to accomplish. There will always be someone to catch, because there will always be that one individual, if not numerous individuals, who will not take kindly to a restriction of their freedom and try to change world order.

On the other hand, as Ward points out, it is ironic that any remote similarities between the two books are reversed parallels of each other. World State has removed the past entirely, annihilating its very existence and conditioning the people to ignore this matter and stay away from any reading material that may otherwise provoke thought and questions. In Orwell's world, books are available to anyone who wishes to read them, however they are all published under the control of the government and change everyday so that Big Brother is always right. Both worlds are similar because they remove any trace of the actual past from the world and they both succeed because of their certain degrees of conditioning, one from birth and one by force. While Huxley's world seems more organized, both futures seem to progress in the same direction and eventually Big Brother would achieve the same level of conditioning as Brave New World if O'Brien's plan came to fruition "...to produce ...a 'new man', a man almost as new as the genetically engineered and scientifically conditioned new man in Huxley's novel" (124). The comparison between Mond and O'Brien is also chilling as both seem to be reasonable down-to-earth individuals with a curious interest in the rebel at hand. However, the worlds that separates these characters shows their ultimate difference as Mond recites Shakespeare with John, O'Brien shocks and beats Winston. The pleasure and peacefulness of one corrupt world over the violent terror and fear of another are what divide the two character's similarities. Both conduct experiments, Mond uses John to see how he can adapt and survive in a world unlike his own and O'Brien breaks Winston's spirit by physical torture rather than the emotional destruction that leads John to suicide. In a way both men are responsible for death, although Winston survived, his life is useless and pointless, when his spirit and his lust for rebellion died the Winston Smith we followed through the novel died as well.

It is more than evident that Ward finds Huxley's prediction more realistic than Orwell's and uses Huxley's own words to support his argument. However, on a much larger scale, it does not matter which book seems more realistic, or which one evokes the most fear in the reader. Both authors strived to show society what the world was slowly becoming. They did not pull this idea out of thin air; they were motivated by the state of the world and were compelled to warn everyone of the future that would become reality without change. Today we can see that these warnings are not to far off the mark as each day technology improves, the state of war keeps the country united in fear toward foreigners, and privacy is becoming less and less existent because the government feels it has the rights to intervene for our safety. We can now see the warning signs all around us, Huxley and Orwell have done their job, it is up to us to listen. Both scenarios are different yet possible, there is something to be said when none of the potential heroes "save the day" as we expect (these are clearly not written by the Disney Corporation). This is no simple matter; if the strongest willed individuals cannot make a difference then action must be taken now to avoid either dystopian fate.

Works Cited:

Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984

Fund the Arts...or Fear my Wrath!

It is no secret that I am a passionate supporter of the Arts, especially music. Unfortunately, we live in a world that does not always agree with my belief that art, theater, and music are crucial to a have a well rounded and cultural school which embraces the passions of all the students. With a school's pressure to raise test scores and being forced to meet that standards enforced by the No Child Left Behind Act the Arts programs are slowly diminishing, if not being wiped out completely, in some severe cases. The belief supporting the funding of the arts is one which I am deeply committed, not simply because of my past and present, as I am currently involved in many of the arts programs, but on another level, the idea of keeping the arts in flourish is one that affects my future as well. I would fight relentlessly to keep music and art alive in schools as a student and later as a teacher.

If test scores are down, punishing the children is not going to motivate them to learn their academic subjects because there is no longer that rewarding class that makes school worth getting up for each morning. I say lets teach to the student's passion and interest, not just to the test that teachers are forced to build their curriculum around, trapping their expression and the desires of the students. How can one put a price on someone's passion? Just because there is no state test for the subjects can we simply push them under the rug? As a student, my family and I are members of VH1's Save the Music Foundation where we donate money so that hopefully this threat will never become an unchangeable and permanent reality. Even more so, if for any reason the funding was cut for our arts programs I would take drastic measures of protest and rallying to make my voice heard. I would put my reputation on the line and give my all to the cause, because without music, I have no future.

Hopefully, one day I will be a music teacher, giving private lessons or directing a band on a high school or college level. I need to make sure that when my time comes to go into the real world and pass on my knowledge of music, there is a job out there waiting for me. Luckily there are so many programs owned by commercial companies and even government funding that is stepping up to keep such programs in motion. The arts are not simply facts to memorize and equations to solve; they are an interpretation of emotion driven by our culture. The belief that music and art are essential to all school systems is one of strength and action. I know far too many talented people who have blossomed through the support and encouragement of the arts department. In our graduating class alone there are talented artists, fashion designers, musicians, photographers, dancers, actors, and vocalists who would never have known the talent they possessed without taking classes in school that supplied them with the opportunities to explore all their potential to uncover a hidden talent. Now, in a school where such opportunities never exist, children are deprived of exploring all possible careers paths and for those that have them taken away, those who were considering such a career path can no longer compete with the rest of the world that has continued to grow around them.

The arts are not only crucial to be pursued as a profession for students, but also consider the emotional outlet and how important that can in a student's life, regardless of their talents. Very few students rush into math class and breathe a sigh of relief because solving the equation calms them and they can unleash all their pent up emotions (well not everyone, though I can think of a few sad individuals who shall remain nameless). However, think of a time when you perhaps played an instrument for fun or drew some doodles after a test, it can be a very relaxing or emotional experience that is enjoyable and a change from the high stress competitive atmosphere of the academic portion of school. Art class is a place to unleash one's creativity, not to make everything precise, although some do. The teachers are not there to criticize your technique, but guide and encourage your inspiration. Of course every class has some form of structure, to play music one must know the fundamentals of scales, but it’s what one does with those fundamentals that allows for the creativity to be unleashed. Whether an individual is a musical virtuoso or a prodigy painter, that is not always the importance of such programs, the emotional aspect of the arts can relieve the anxiety of the day and perhaps even improve test scores as student feel more comfortable in a school setting.

The merits of keeping the arts alive in school go well beyond the idea of simply being fair and looking as if the school is diverse and embraces culture. Those elements are crucial, but the benefits that it can have on the students are even more important. In my life there is no cause more worthy of my attention than that of keeping the arts alive so that when my time comes I can take my place among the elite to pass on my passion and knowledge to a new generation that can go to school each day not only to learn, but to feel and grow on another level beyond information but emotion. The smooth stroke of the paintbrush and the flow of a simple melody can go along way and reach the youth of each generation on a personal level and gives them an outlet to express who they are whether they pursue this professionally of simply just for enjoyment, the important thing is they option is available to all students so they can make that decision with a well rounded background of all the world has to offer.

Designer shoes, purses....babies????

As the years progress, technology becomes more and more advanced and now scientists are on the brink of some very controversial discoveries and advancements. Genetic engineering has become a very real possibility as scientists state that embryos will not simply be examined for disorders and illness, but soon they will also be able to alter the physical appearance and even the abilities of the individual. If society allows this technology, people will not simply be having children, but designing them by selecting preferable features as if they were purchasing a car. Although the elimination of disease and the creation of the ideal person seem flawless in theory, the consequences will over power the short-term logic and will lead the world to an unnatural fate. Many issues arise from the proposal of such technology, not only morally but also logically when considering how this severe change would impact the world, not simply for a day or even a year, but for the entire existence of humanity.

The idea of preventing serious diseases from ever existing sounds very impressive and beneficial in today's society. However, what's convenient for today can upset the balance of the world years later. If technology creates a world where illness is wiped out, then people will live longer. This sounds wonderful, but along with this longevity comes the idea that it will completely throw off the population. The world would become overcrowded and jobs would be difficult to find with an overflow of people who are all equally qualified because of their "design" and the way they were engineered. If scientists become capable of going beyond just curing disease, then they will proceed to create the ultimate human. Parent's will start by desiring a healthy baby, but soon they will want a baby with blue eyes, with athletic ability, and a high IQ. Is this what we truly want, deciding an individual's fate? Free will is one of the greatest gifts and individual can possess. It is truly a beautiful idea that a person can come from any background and with effort and a strive for success they can overcome their obstacles and achieve anything in life because there is no fate, only a winding path that the individual chooses for themselves. If everyone's perfect and the same and their future is decided for them, it eliminates competition and ultimately it will destroy progress as we know it. Without progress there is no drive to accomplish a goal or do the impossible. Ignorance becomes bliss because no one is aware of what they are missing, they only live and act as they were designed to act and ultimately destroy both the family identity and the personal identity.

Morally, one must consider the question of, how can we give another human being the power to change the genetic make up of an embryo to produce a race of "perfect' individuals? Just because we may have the technology to alter life as we know it, doesn't mean it is automatically the best solution. As Nancy Gibbs stated in Time magazine "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries." Who gives a scientist the right to play God, whether one is religious or not there is a certain level of natural balance in the world that would be upset significantly by this uncommon grant of power. On top of the morality of the situation, financially the whole execution of designing a baby could divide the classes even further. The cost of such technology cannot be cheap, if only the wealthy can afford to design the perfect child, then it creates an even more difficult environment for the poor to struggle to survive in. Any naturally created person would not be able to succeed in life when others around them have not only the money, but the design for success because the possibility for failure was eliminated from their genetics at birth. On the other hand, if the government stepped in to provide funding so that everyone could create the ideal baby, well, isn't it obvious. That possibility is no better than the division of classes because it will lead to a Brave New World where an individual's whole life is regulated and personal freedom is non-existent because they are conditioned and designed for only one purpose that they do not question.

Any individual who is unsure of the weight between the benefits and the consequences of genetic engineering need only to skim Brave New World to get a glimpse of what they can look forward to if the decide they want their baby to be modeled in perfection. A fiction novel, yes, but we live in a world that all ready heavily depends on image and success that this future does not seem too outrageous if parents are willing to remove the individual personality of their baby so that they will be more satisfied with their child's undecided future. It doesn't matter if a they baby is created by the government as in the novel or if the parents choose the baby's fate, it still has the same conclusion, a frightening world that never progresses, it only works to exist and stay they consistent. However, the most frightening part of all is that the individuals think they are happy becuase they did not do this to themselves, they no nothing else and think this horribly pointless cycles of existence is bliss.

Most everyone has experienced the pain and suffering that come from disease, to see a loved one stricken ill and helpless and one can't help but impulsively support the idea to eliminate such pain for future generations. However, we must take a step back from the emotional attachment and think of the chain reaction this will lead to which is ultimately the destruction of free will. Humankind cannot be trusted with this kind of power, no human has the right to play God. It is far too dangerous for science to interfere with the balance of nature as there are too many long term risks that negate the few immediate benefits that could come from genetic engineering.

Works Cited

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

Gibbs, Nancy. "Wanted: Someone to Play God." TIME 3 Mar. 2008: 68.

The "perfect" person, oh what a world!