Writes a story about a highly efficient society where everyone is fulfilled, crime and pain are solved...

that's literally been the case since the Icelandic sagas, and even further to the ancient greeks.

People can't handle the truth, every successful society is necessarily built on fiction, be it a fiction of religion, or of nation, or of Destiny

There are good reasons to speculate Huxley originally didn't consider it to be a dystopia.

Just read the famous "Aldous et Julien" chapter from Houellebecq's "Les particules elementaires".

Pardon me, it's called "Julian et Aldous".

Attached: Houellebecq.jpg (682x1024, 268K)

The fact that you think that way is a remarkable illustration of how human values have changed since the book was written.

The message was that technology would provide everything it could, but that man would be without any freedom, autonomy, or most importantly, dignity. And that a life of endless pleasure pursuits would be an empty and meaningless life not worth living.

Because technology has progressed so much since then, and pro-technology education and propaganda has become so totally engrossing, you can't even conceive that there would be alternative life-ways that would be better for man.

So, in a nutshell, your opinion proves the nightmare world that Huxley warned about is possible and likely...unless the technological system collapses or is destroyed.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution_3b.jpg (1000x1500, 1.51M)

Huxley was well aware that the goals his envisioned society mirrored those pursued by our own society. The reason the book is worth what it is is that it looks at all the surface level values and pursuits of our society and suggests that fufillment of these things would be catastrophe. But to call this a catastrophe is rather difficult, precisely as you point out. What Huxley hopes is that his audience shares with him and understanding of a deeper moral conviction than "are we safe from danger and not short of pleasure?" He doesn't force this conviction upon us, of course, only presents a story for us to judge the meaning of

I'm rambling

Huxleys citizens are terrifying to many readers because they are children: they cannot begin to address any sort of responsibility, not their responsibility to one another, not to mankind, not to anything at all. And why would they? There's no need in their society for such a thing. This is the argument that runs it's course at the end of the book, and the two characters in discussion reach the troubling conclusion Huxley did: that a worldview that values responsibility for it's own sake and one that rejects it in a technological society are each internally consistent. There's no basis to demand someone to face the pain and darkness of the world. Simply put, we are alone in this world with nothing more than the decision between God and pain or voluntary oblivion

Huxely said he wanted to create a happier ending for John, but I honestly think the original ending was the better choice. There is coming a point where all hope for freedom and free thought is diminished and there will be nothing left but distractions. There isn't an escape. There won't be an escape, and the ending illustrates that.

>There's no basis to demand someone to face the pain and darkness of the world.
except if the pain and darkness of the world that you demand someone face is minor and temporary compared to a massive and permanent pain and darkness. Then there not only is a basis, but an imperative.

I honestly see where he was coming from, but I can't call it a dystopia when there are alternatives. the main characters are allowed to go to meaningful settlements without NPC's. the savages are allowed to live in okay-ish conditions without forced assimilation or oppression. if it were only NPC-land, I would understand, but there is a sanctioned exit, so your participation is by your consent alone

>hurr durr the only dignified life is one spent covered in shit and scraping for a living on the tilling fields

Attached: ncttt.png (558x614, 24K)

Can you define the word "meaningful" in that context? And where do you get the idea that the settlements are "meaningful"?

Because it's built upon the lie that its ok to remain in Plato's cave

aren't they the places where books are allowed and people are semi-free? I think I see where you're going with this, that calling a culture meaningful just because they read is dumb, or that nothing is inherently meaningful so this is all based on delusion, but the other settlements at least pretend to be meaningful. the mainland, where everyone is put in castes and drugged into euphoria, assigns no meaning to day to day life, nor does it have an illusion of meaning, unlike the other settlements that have at least one of those two if not both

no! i'm definitely not saying that nothing is inherently meaningful! Also, if that were the case, than there would be no tragedy to the story and it would lose its profound meaning.

I think you're missing the subtle allegory: The settlements were to the mainland the way that the colonies (primitive, tribal parts of the globe of the 1930s (when the book was written) were to the advanced nations and their cities.

Huxley was showing that the trajectory of the technological world was inevitably horrific, and bent toward life without meaning and freedom and dignity. But in the future the global situation, due to technological progress, had made a situation where everything was "up-shifted." Instead of native/primitive peoples on the fringes and industrial nations at the core, you have industrial nations on the fringes and hyper-industrial nations at the core. The "book" places may be more free relative to the hyper-industrial cities, but (1) relative to the native places of old they were not free and (2) they would eventually become as empty and slavish as the hyper-industrial core, as this is the trajectory of technological progress sweeping the globe through history.

>OP actually posted an uncle Ted thread

>OP actually posted an uncle Ted thread
evidence?

Why is oblivion painful? Unless you're a christfag?

>getting people to mentioned the technological system collapsing
just read the thread user holy shit

Attached: 1556655499374.jpg (433x427, 86K)

no no no. I'm saying I reject the premise as stated in the last sentence of your last post.

>being this this-worldly

mate

Attached: Cioran.jpg (540x304, 28K)

Actually if you read the introduction on many of the versions of the novel, it will usually tell you that Huxley was, at the time of writing, very into the idea of eugenics and that inertia from the Victorian-era optimism for logical positivism being the key to life in an algorithmic form.
Usually then there's a preface by Huxley written after WW2, when eugenics was a no-no about how he doesn't wish to change the book but he certainly wouldn't have written it in retrospect.

>Doesn't know about Nietzsches last man

Attached: noose.jpg (825x523, 56K)