Subject:
|
Re: A Brave New World
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:53:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
150 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> I wonder how many people here have read Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World*.
Nope, not me. American, was he?
> If Brave New World is to be taken as a model of utopia, and this is your
> goal, then simply ensure that the above does indeed transpire. If you are
> pursuing a lifestyle of liesure in society where the government does
> everything for you, than the utopia is the way to go.
>
> In a world where the populaton is regulated so that only a necessary
> workforce makes up the entirety of the population; where all individual
> rights have been handed over to the governing body; where every negative
> emotion can be escaped by the use of pills; the only niche available for a
> stray individual is at the end of a noose.
>
> One of the first steps to achieving this utopia seems to be the
> relinquishing of arms, thereby allowing the governing body to have free
> reign without fear of armed uprising from its citizens.
>
> The next step is to ensure that the phrase "live free or die" loses its
> meaning by arming the militia or police force with stun/incapcitaion
> weapons, so that there are no martyrs of individual rights.
Personally, I think this one does some good. There's serious discussion
about this in the UK now, to replace the firearms of our armed police units.
So long as this is still the exception rather than standard issue to all
officers, I can't see a problem. Martyrdom has only ever made a point when
someone is executed by the state. Violent deaths, on the other hand, just
breed more violence.
> At some point, education must be dumbed down, so that noone is "too smart"
> for their "own good".
I gather the US has this one well underway.
> It seems clear to me that the European nations are attempting to ensure a
> utopia. The fact that the UK has willingly relinquished its weapons and is
> in the process of unarming its own police force is horribly frightening.
We're not disarming the population or the police force. Only a minority of
the population had any handguns to hand in, and the police never were armed.
We have a few special armed units on standby. The rest of Europe have more
armed police, but the people have never seen the need to try to outpace them
in a civil arms race. We're not trying to ensure a utopia. We're pretty
happy as we are, even if it's not perfect.
What we're trying to avoid is the descent into armed mob rule, illiteracy,
legal and political corruption (okay, maybe not all of Europe), dumbed-down
commercially saturated media and global ignorance. I think we're doing
quite well thank you.
Did you see our poll tax riots? Point made, no firearms required.
> It is my opinion that the citizens of the UK deserves everything that is
> coming its way.
I know you intend that in a bad way, but I have no idea what you're
implying. I feel compelled to thank you for the sentiment. So you think
the UK is suddenly going to turn into a war zone, where everyone wants a
bigger gun than everyone else? Do you think the US is setting an example
the rest of the world is falling over itself to follow?
> I believe it is no accident that the european nations are pursuing the
> science of cloning while speaking out against procreation. The only sane
> reason for this is to ensure a future population that has been manufactured.
What utter rubbish. European science has persued cloning because they can
get some degree of funding for long-term research from Government sources,
rather than relying entirely on commercial enterprises dictating the fields
for a quick return. The perceived benefits are for agcriculture, but a long
way off. As soon as any of this is discovered, moral issues and guidelines
are discussed, whilst the US is usually first to exploit the more disturbing
commercial aspects.
Gender selection of children and cloned pets have all been offered in the
US, based on technology which has been banned for such purposes in the
countries that developed the processes. A woman who was prevented by law
from inseminating herself with her dead husband's sperm was able to get the
procedure in the US.
And you're trying to say that our standards are slipping?
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| (...) 45 seconds of Googling gave: (URL) in the UK, went to Eton and Oxford. Wrote BNW in 1931. Moved to the US in 1937. So, no, sorry, not American. BNW is no longer required reading in English schools? It's still a fresh and interesting read (and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A Brave New World
|
| Cool. While utterly disagreeing with me, you inadvertantly proved a point that I really had no idea how to make... ...foreigners ought to stay out of other nation's buisness unless they happen to be experts. I whole-heartedly agree that I have no (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A Brave New World
|
| I wonder how many people here have read Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World*. Many of the recent debates echo of things within this book: population control, sexual experimentation by young children, individual rights, ...and so on. While I am not (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
