I say, if being unhappier will make you happy, go for it! But Huxley's argument in this case I cannot take seriously. I do not believe the Savage when he says ""But I like the inconveniences". I think that people can tolerate many inconveniences, but when the inconvenience grows to a certain magnitude, no amount of telling yourself that everything is fine will improve you situation or reduce your suffering. This is not the best of all possible worlds. To you Candids out there, it's great to have a positive outlook, but you're not fooling anyone, you just haven't suffered enough yet.
I think Huxley is setting up a giant strawman if he is blaming science for this dystopia. To me it is obvious that any problems in his Brave New World stem not from science but from the impositions of a secret hierarchical government of "benevolent" dictators that use technological advances to control the people. Science is an attempt to know the universe. Politicians, leaders, and all people can use its most famous product, technology, to hurt or help, persuade or disuade, etc... . Any politics that surround true science are imposed from the outside upon it, not from within.
Now, off to manifest myself as an absence for a few hours. har-har.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mark --
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, Huxley isn't blaming science for the distopia, but for the powers that use it. I am, however, interested to know what you mean by 'true science'. I'm just hung up on your last line.
From how much money the government throws into finding cures for this or that, or all of the technology that ends up as consumer products -- there is clearly a lot of politics invested in that. It seems that the biggest steps taken in science are very nicely funded. Energy efficient cars, for example, have huge financial backing by the government. Can you explain how science as a discipline, this attempt to know the universe, can be truly unpolitical at any point?
By 'true science', I mean the continuing process of discovering the fundamental ways in which the universe works. Or at least trying to via the scientific method and building (ever-realistic) conceptual models that we can understand. I do not mean building a more efficient toaster or a holographic wristwatch or even improving medicine. All of those things are byproducts of science, technology. These are impressive things, but in the end the real value is the understanding itself.
ReplyDeletePolitics, I believe, has to do with power and control over others. In this capitalistic world it may be difficult for scientists to refrain from being bought and sold by politicians, and which science gets done can definitely be influenced, but the science itself, the progress towards understanding remains. Politicians will probably always try to control science, but if that succeeds it ceases to be science. Because in science, you go where reality leads you, not where you necessarily want to go. Its essence is apolitical.