A Comparison of the Current World to Huxley's Brave New World

Is the Modern World in Danger of Becoming the Brave New World?

In his 1932 dystopian novel, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley describes a future “World State” government that models its civilization on the principles of community, identity, and stability. The inhabitants of this world are grown in laboratories, assigned to a social status before birth, and shielded from any hints of unpleasantness in order to uphold these values. Through his manufactured world, Huxley analyzes not how far science could progress, but how scientific progress could affect individuals. The characters in the novel, in losing all of the worst feelings and failures of life, have also lost all of the best feelings and triumphs, as well the emotional attachments, art, and passions that make human life meaningful. For this reason, certain scientific advancements today have been delayed after evoking cries of being too close to similar advancements seen in Brave New World. However, while evidence can be found in both technological advances and mindset changes that the world has progressed towards Huxley’s predicted “brave new” one, or is at least heading in that direction, these changes should not automatically be condemned for that reason.

Huxley’s Brave New World does predict modern technology that did not exist at the time of writing, especially in the field of biotechnology. For example, the invention most crucial to the World State was that of artificial reproduction. The book even opens with an explanation of the process: “‘the operation undergone voluntarily for the good of Society’ … continued with some account of the technique for preserving the excised ovary alive and actively developing; passed on to a consideration of optimum temperature, salinity, viscosity … this receptacle was immersed in a warm bouillon containing free-swimming spermatozoa” (Huxley 4). This procedure bears similarities to well-established reproductive technologies used today, such as in vitro fertilization, wherein eggs are surgically removed from the ovaries to be mixed with sperm in a laboratory. Although it is regarded as normal nowadays, this introduction of so-called test-tube babies shocked people at first. Causing even more debate was the regulation of human cloning, vehemently argued over in the early 2000s, but not actually invented until 2013 (Smith 51). Human cloning at its extreme, although used only experimentally at the moment, has its own term in Brave New World: “Bokanovsky’s Process.” In this dystopian future, cloning (already a feasible technology in the modern world) is used to produce batches upon batches of identical twins who can perform the most monotonous factory work. This development in particular gave rise to passionate arguments against any inventions that resemble those used to oppress in Brave New World. While bioethicist Leon Kass asserts that “there is little immediate worry of mass-scale production of multicopies,” he still believes there are problems with any scale of human cloning at all, claiming that it “constitutes unethical experimentation; that it threatens identity and individuality; that it turns procreation into manufacture (especially when understood as the harbinger of manipulations to come); and that it means despotism over children and perversion of parenthood” (21; 22). Kass seems to think that allowing experimentation with human cloning will inevitably lead to genetic manipulation reminiscent of eugenics. Creating a better population through eugenics consequently means creating a worse population to clean up after them, and at that point they may as well be labelled Gammas or Epsilons. The discovery of CRISPR, a “gene-editing technique” allowing for the bioengineering of humans, has made this fear in particular even more tangible (Smith 55). Along with the prevalence of helicopters, the accessibility and rampancy of porn, overpopulation, and antidepressants, it can be worrisome to wonder what other predictions of Huxley’s will come true in the future.

Although the technology of the modern world is beginning to resemble that of Brave New World, it does not need to be a cause for concern that the all-controlling, history-erasing, civilian-sedating World State will soon be taking over. Often, when new technology arises, it has the tendency to shock people and make them recoil in fear of progress. However, this fear quickly diminishes as it becomes obvious that many of these advancements are benefitting humanity, not taking it away. For example, In vitro fertilization has allowed many women to have children who otherwise may have not been able to, although the pregnancies were condemned as science experiments at first. Although antidepressants may have become too depended-upon, they have allowed many people to live the normal lives that they previously could not. In addition, as Kass opponent Russell Blackford observes, some similarities to Brave New World are not inherently bad, and may even indicate positive progress, as the whole intention of that society was to make everything as agreeable as possible (12). Although it can be agreed that assigned social castes and the loss of familial connections are undesirable aspects of the novel, that does not necessarily correlate to whether scientific achievement relating to reproduction should also be frowned upon. Also, similarities between modern technologies and Huxley’s inventions do not mean that the developments of the World State are inevitable. Kass, one of the most passionate opponents to Brave New World technology, admits, “Prozac is not yet Huxley’s ‘soma’; cloning by nuclear transfer or splitting embryos is not exactly ‘Bokanovskification’; MTV and virtual-reality parlors are not quite the ‘feelies’” (15). Just because the world is closer to these developments than it was before does not mean that it is on the path straight to Brave New World. On the debate on human cloning, Russell reminds Kass that the allowance of human cloning for reproduction would actually be taking society away from a Brave New World, as it would imply that the government is upholding its commitment to its citizens’ freedom and individuality by not limiting their personal choices (14). In addition, it would not imply that human cloning would inevitably be allowed to the extent of “Bokanovskification,” as “there can be various stopping points before we are committed to allowing completely unbridled use of reproductive technology” (Blackford 15). The arguments about many scientific advancements seem to be that opening one door will open every other door until the world is suddenly run by a “World State.” However, that is underestimating humanity and the power of restraint. Generally, people do not want to live in a “brave new world,” and while people keep actively avoiding this dystopia, it will not happen- no matter what new technologies may develop.

More terrifying than the technological advances in the novel are the methods that the government uses to control the population. These methods in particular are what really make the civilians of the World State so docile and manageable. While modern society seems to be growing less docile and more rebellious, the government is actually growing increasingly similar to the World State. The first similar method is that of distraction. Philip Ball describes the World State as using “non-stop, trivial, sensual distractions to prevent people from paying too much attention to social and political realities” (339). Beginning in their childhood, children of Brave New World are first distracted by games like “Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.” There are very evident parallels between “Centrifugal Bumble-puppy” and today’s social media, television, and other forms of modern entertainment. They are both used to distract the population, keeping people preoccupied with mindless activity while they are not working. When people are distracted with their own lives, they are less likely to pay attention to the problems of society: the intention of the games by the World State, but an accidental side-effect of modern entertainment in reality. In the novel, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning indirectly remarks on another purpose of such games: “Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption” (Huxley 24). Playing on smartphones today has definitely aided the consumption obsession of modern society: although initially used to play simple, free games, phones now flood people’s screens with personalized advertisements, apps that must be paid for, and entertainment subscriptions. Smartphones now serve as a voluntary distraction while providing society with online shopping and purchases of other mindless forms of entertainment- a World State dream far more effective than “Riemann-Surface Tennis.”

A more directly political method was one that intensified through Donald Trump’s campaign and subsequent presidency. A central theme of his presidency has been the attack on so-called “fake news.” He has been heard “calling journalists ‘among the most dishonest human beings on earth,’ going so far as to claim that critical media are ‘the enemy of the American people’” (Giroux 30). This is not the first time that media has been an enemy of politicians, as they have always served as watchdogs of the government, reporting wrongdoings and demanding action. However, this hatred has spread to a large portion of Americans. More than ever, it seems, Americans are boycotting journalists and calling news stations with whom they disagree “fake news,” refusing to listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. Trump has even denied opposing journalists the governmental access they would need to report truth simply because he did not like what they were saying (Giroux 30). This refusal of information sets society on a dangerous path to the ignorant masses in Brave New World. If the only news source remaining is the one approved by the president, the government itself may as well be the only purveyor of information, just like the World State. This, along with increasing political indifference and the distractions previously mentioned, are a recipe for an uninformed, submissive population not unlike the inhabitants of the World State.

The mindset of the population of the World State, indoctrinated through government-administered hypnopædia, or sleep-teaching, serves as another method of control and distraction. While their society almost seems like a completely different race, there are similarities between their drug-induced, sex-obsessed, godless world and the modern one. First, drug culture has increasingly pervaded mainstream society in recent years. Marijuana has been made legal in many American states, demonstrating the growing prevalence and normalcy of drugs. It is only a matter of time before consequence-less drugs, with “all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects,” like Huxley’s soma, will be developed, upon which people will become dependent (Huxley 44). Christian economist John Attarian believes one of the worst modern social developments is “our national tendency to flinch from anything unpleasant, from petty inconveniences to suffering for principles” (332). This phobia of pain and difficulty is one of the major culprits for not only the mass use of drugs, but also for the prevalence of mindless distraction and the shying away from demanding religious beliefs. In addition, views on sexual freedom since Brave New World’s inception have grown infinitely more liberal, with sexual promiscuity among young people becoming the norm. The birth control pill, a staple for the fertile women in the World State, is a reality in modern society and used by millions of women to prevent pregnancy. In Brave New World, there is also no religion. References to God are replaced with Ford, and church services are replaced with soma and “Orgy-porgys.” This correlates to modern society’s increasing secularity. Attarian notes that even in 1931, Christianity was “only lukewarmly believed in or even rejected outright” (332). He believes that the combination of secularization, scientific advancements, and mass of distractions all culminate in the normalization of social activities that were previously thought of as taboo (2). So, although some activities deemed normal or almost mandatory in Brave New World seem out-of-question in the modern world, the mindset of modernity would be shocking to people living a couple generations ago. With the increasing liberalization of social rules, it seems like anything could be possible, especially by the year 2540: the setting for Brave New World.

Although the modern mentality has changed almost unrecognizably since Brave New World was written, this may be for the better. Just as with technology, societal improvements that remotely resemble Brave New World are immediately decried as being too different from what people are used to. However, with time, people begin to tolerate this progress as it proves its benefits to humanity. For example, although smartphones can act as distractions, they also create a level of communication never seen before, which allows for ideas and information to spread much faster and farther. The trend of consumption stimulates the economy, creating a higher standard of living. Although the government is encouraging the opposition of journalists, social media is often used today for the sharing of news stories, circulating information to people who would not have previously sought it out. Some drugs, like marijuana, were seen for decades as menaces to society and assumed to be permanently illegal. However, though shocking at first, the decriminalization of these drugs has given relief to those suffering with chronic pain or cancer treatments who had not found any other remedy. The sexual revolution has included not just a greater sexual freedom, but a greater tolerance to other sexual orientations, leading eventually to the legalization of same-sex marriage in many countries. Russell Blackford notes, “Only a narrow-minded commitment to particular traditions and ideals, to the exclusion of other possibilities, could support the view that a somewhat limited revolution in sexuality, such as we have seen in the past few decades, is taking us in the direction of a Brave New World” (13). This revolution’s tolerance of homosexuality has allowed for even more relationships to form, not less. Sexual freedom does not imply the inevitability of a sex-driven, loveless, relationship-less society; love and strong emotion are still ever-present in modernity and do not seem as if they are going anywhere. That alone is the most unrealistic aspect of Huxley’s novel. As Blackford argues: “friendship, love, and sexual passion can all take many forms, and they are likely to be expressed in strong ways in any imaginable society” (13). No matter what new reproductive technologies arise, the bonds of family could never foreseeably be compromised enough to eliminate the need for mothers and fathers completely. The basic human need for intimacy means romantic relationships will also never cease to exist. On the secularization of the world, Christianity does not seem to be dying out: America is still highly religious and continues to only elect Christian leaders. John Attarian criticizes modern churches for being too “easy,” avoiding passing judgements, and asking congregations only for “compassion” (332). However, these modifications of Christianity are not new: religion continues to be shaped and changed by the culture and era it finds itself in. From Attarian’s criticisms, it seems that churches today are finally practicing what God asks: to not pass judgement upon others and to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” These developments should be celebrated, not condemned for being less demanding than stricter forms of Christianity. Churches are not in danger of being substituted by soma; they are changing their approach in order to reach a larger, more diverse, modern group of people that either may never have had experience with Christianity or had been burned by a church more to Attarian’s liking. In conclusion, social progress usually molds better mindsets that are more tolerant to beneficial change, even if it is often seen at first simply as the enabler of a careless, promiscuous, Brave New World-like society.

Although many people today have warned that we are heading down a dangerous path toward the political, religious, and emotional indifference of Brave New World, the progress of the world seems to be creating more and more opportunities for people to connect, learn, and form relationships- seemingly heading in the opposite direction of the dystopia. Although there are exceptions- some countries are controlled by communist governments or are restricted from enjoying many religious, sexual, or political freedoms- the general trend of the world is toward a focus on a more tolerant, compassionate, and independent population. There are no scientific advancements that will make Brave New World inevitable as long as society does not change so dramatically that even the basic needs of humanity are no longer necessary. Although the civilians of the World State are satisfied in their physiological and safety needs, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates that humans will go from there to their need for relationships- it is how humans are wired. So, unless humanity loses its innate desires for freedom, love, companionship, and independence, technology will continue to help the world progress and improve, while Brave New World will continue to be a fictional impossibility.