Recently, for the first time in about ten or so years, I reread _Brave New World_, the 1946 version ch has a rather interesting, and surprisingly poignant introduction by Huxley himself, 15 years afe he original printing of the book.  The introduction encompassed some self-criticism on the artisryofthe story, as well as some reflections on the themes he meant to carry in the work.

As I read a certain part of the introduction, it occurred to me that Huxley had an insight that was ut 50 years ahead of its time.  Of course, I might be ignorant of just how long things have been porssing to the point at which they now are, or I might be ignorant of how little things really hav caned in the last century or five.

Anyway, I'll let whomever reads this decide for him or herself, and shut up for now.

_________________________________________________________________________
QUOTED FROM _BRAVE NEW WORLD_ (c) 1932, 1946 Aldous Huxley, without permission.
_________________________________________________________________________

"  One vast and obvious failure of foresight is immediately apparent.  _Brave New World_ contains noference to nuclear fission.  That it does not is actually rather odd, for the possibilities of atoi nergy had been a popular topic of conversation for years before the book was written.  My old fren, obert Nichols, had even written a successful play about the subject, and I recall that I mysel ha caually mentioned it in a novel published in the late twenties.  So it seems, as I say, very od tht th rockets and helicopters of the seventh century of Our Ford should not have been powered b the isintgrating nuclei.  The oversight may not be excusable; but at least it can be easily explaned.  he thee of _Brave New World_ is not the advancement of science as such; it is the advancemen of scince as t affects human individuals.  The triumphs of physics, chemistry and engineering aretacitly aken forgranted.  The only scientific advances to be specifically described are those invoving the pplicatio to human beings of the results of future research in biology, physiology and pschology.  t is only y means of the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically chaned.  The scence of mater can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the livig of it imposibly comple and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and sychologists,they can do nthing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself.  The rlease of atomi energy marks  great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves o bits and so pt an end to hisory) the final and most searching revolution.

   This really revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in the souand flesh of human beings.  Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de Sade very ntrlly made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar brand of insanit. Roespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution, the political.  Going a little eepr, abeuf had attempted the economic revolution.  Sade regarded himself as the apostle of the trly rvoluionary revolution, beyond mere politics and economics--the revolution in individual men, wmen ad chidren, whose bodies were henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whoe mind were o be purged of all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of raditioal civiization.  Between sadism and the really revolution there is, of course, no necessaryor ineviable conection.  Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of his revolution as univeral chaos nd destruction.  The people who govern the Brave New World may not be sane (in wat may be alled the bsolute sense of the word); but they are not madmen, and their aim is not anarhy but stablity.  It i in order to achieve stability that they carry out, by scientific means, theultimate, pesonal, reall revolutionary revolution. 
  
   But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate revolution.  Its next se may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with prophecies about the future. u it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to stop fighting altogether, at least t bhae as rationally as did our eighteenth-century ancestors.  The unimaginable horrors of the Thiry YarsWar actually taught men a lesson, and for more than a hundred years the politicians and geneals f Euope consciously resisted the temptation to use their military resources to the limits of dstrucivenes or (in the majority of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihiated. They wre aggressors, of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservative, deterined atall costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern.  For the last thirty yearsthere hae been n conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and natioalistic rdicals ofthe left.  The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne; nd when hewrote a leter to the _Times_, suggesting that the First World War should be concluded wih a compromse, as mostof the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor of that once consrvative joural refused t print it.  The nationalistic radicals had their way, with the consequence that we all now--Bolshevim, Fascism, inflation, depression, Hitler, the Second World War, the rui of Europe, an all but univesal famine.

   Assuming, then, that we are capable of learning as much from Hiroshima as our forefathers learnedom Magdeburg, we may look forward to a period, not indeed of peace, but of limited and only partial uinous warfare.  During that period it may be assumed that nuclear energy will be harnessed to idutral uses.  The result, pretty obviously, will be a series of economic and social changes unprecdened n rapidity and completeness.  All the existing patterns of human life will be disrupted and ew ptters will have to be improvised to conform with the nonhuman fact of atomic power.  Procruste in mdern ress, the nuclear scientist will prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and if mankid does't fit-well, that will be just too bad for mankind.  There will have to be some stretching ad a bitof ampuation--the same sort of stretching and amputations as have been going on ever since pplied sience relly got into its stride, only this time they will be a good deal more drastic thanin the pat.  Thesefar from painless operations will be directed by highly centralized totalitariangovernment.  Inevitaly so; for the immediate future is likely to resemble the immediate past, and n the immedate past raid technological changes, taking place in a mass-producing economy and amonga populationpredominantl propertyless, have always tended to produce economic and social confusion  To deal wit confusion, pwer has been centralized and government control increased.  It is probabe that all theworld's governents will be more or less completely totalitarian even before the harnssing of atomicenergy; that thy will be totalitarian during and after the harnessing seems almost ertain.  Only a arge-scale populr movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the prsent tendency towrd statism.  At pesent there is no sign that such a movement will take place.

   There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.  Government clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not mereyihumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of dvncd technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.  A really efficient totalitarianstae wuld be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of manager conrol  population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.  T makethem ove it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propagnda, nwspape editors and schoolteachers.  But their methods are still crude and unscientific.  Theold Jesit's bost that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the ma's religous opinons, was a product of wishful thinking.  And the modern pedagogue is probably rathr less eficient atconditioning his pupils' reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated Votaire.  Th greatest riumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by rfraining frm doing.  Geat is truth, but greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about ruth.  By siply not mentoning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an "iron curtin" between te masses an sch facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirabl, totalitarianpropagandists ave influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have doneby the most elouent denunciatins, the most compelling logical rebuttals.  But silence is not enoug.  If persecutio, liquidation an the other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the posiive sides of propganda must be mad as effective as the negative.  The most important Manhattan Proects of the futurewill be vast goverment-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and particiating scientists wil call "the problemof happiness"--in other words, the problem of making people ove their servitude. Without economic seurity, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into exitence; for the sake o brevity, I assume tht the all-powerful executive and its managers will succed in solving the problm of permanent securit.  But security tends very quickly to be taken for grated.  Its achievement i merely a superficial, xternal revolution.  The love of servitude cannot beestablished except as th result of a deep, persoal revolution in human minds and bodies.  To bringabout that revolution we equire, among others, thefollowing discoveries and inventions.  First, a reatly improved technique f suggestion-- through infnt conditioning and, later, with the aid of drgs, such as scopolamine.  Scond, a fully developed scince of human differences, enabling governmen managers to assign any give individual to his or her prper place in the social and economic hierachy.  (Round pegs in square hles tend to have dangerous thughts about the social system and to infct others with their discontens.)  Third (since reality, howver utopian, is something from which pople feel the need of taking prtty frequent holidays), a substtute for alcohol and other narcotics something at once less harmful nd more pleasure-giving than ginor heroin.  And fourth (but this wuld be a long-term project, whichwould take generations of totalitrian control to bring to a succesful conclusion) a foolproof syste of eugenics, designed to standardze the human product and so tofacilitate the task of the managers  In _Brave New World_ this standarization of the human producthas been pushed to fantastic, thoughnot perhaps impossible, extremes.  Tchnically and ideologicall we are still a long way from bottledbabies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-orons.  But by A.F. 600,who knows what may not be happening?  eanwhile the other characteristic featres of that happier an more stable world--the equivalents of oma and hypnopaedia and the scientific aste system--are proably not more than three or four generatons away.  Nor does the sexual promiscuiy of _Brave New Wold_ seem so very distant.  There are alredy certain American cities in which the nmber of divorcesis equal to the number of marriages.  In afew years, no doubt, marriage licenses wil be sold like og licenses, good for a period of twelve moths, with no law against changing dogs or keping more tan one animal at a time.  As political and eonomic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom teds compenstingly to increase.  And the dictator (unlesshe needs cannon fodder and families with whic to coloize empty or unconquered territories) will do ell to encourage that freedom.  In conjunctionwith te freedom to daydream under the influence of doe and movies and the radio, it will help to recncil his subjects to the servitude which is their fae.

   All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only fifteen ys ago, could have imagined.  Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future.  Today it seesqite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century.  That is, if we refrain fro bowng ourselves to smithereens in the interval.  Indeed, unless we choose to decentralize and to se ppled science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made the means, but as the means o prducig a race of free individuals, we have only two alternatives to choose from:  either a numbr of ationl, militarized totalitarianisms, having as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and s thei conseuence the destruction of civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuationof miliarism);or else one supra-national totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chao resultig from rpid technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, anddevelopin, under te need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia.  You pas your mony and you akes your choice."

__________________________________________________________________________

While I'm tempted to show off my dashing wit and quick intuitive stride, I think I'll let you ponderl the connections that can be made between your present day life, and the musings of a prescient mno fifty years past.  I would, though, like to share some things that stuck out to me.  Hopefully,soe f you will decide to e-mail me, and we can toss the stuff around.

*"To make them love it [servitude] is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to miniies of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."  Had our lovable Mr. Huxley been alive tdy and heard even the faintest of shadows of what the Information Superhighway is planned to be, Im ur it would have been his most central concern with regard to "ministries of propaganda."  

  Video-on-demand?  PUUUULEEASE!  All those millions or billions of dollars so I can work myself int more complete stupidity is not my vision of a prosperous Digital Age.

*"The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government sponsored enquiries inwhat the politicians and participating scientists will call 'the problem of happiness'--in other wrs the problem of making people love their servitude."  
 "And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which would take generations of totalitarian cool to bring to a successful conclusion) a foolproof system of eugenics, designed to standardize th uan product and so to facilitate the task of the managers."

  I trust I am not the only one to have heard of the Genome Project?  Granted, it is rather paranoid think that this megastudy is primarily guided by a need to control us to a definitive degree; but ut as well, paranoia might be the modern miracle drug, clearing our thoughts from the propaganda,oratleast allowing us another point of view from which to consider what is going on.

*"...a greatly improved technique of suggestion-- through infant conditioning and, later, with the aof drugs, such as scopolamine."
 "Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of taking pretfrequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and other narcotics, something at once less harmful admre pleasure-giving than gin or heroin."

  In the United States of America, the pharmaceutical industry is gargantuan, a mafia unto itself.   of the specific frontrunners among the many offerings that might fall in with Aldous's speculatio sProzac. _Listen to Prozac_--is it just me, or does that sound rather blatantly inspired by the wshngof the cerebellum?
 On the other hand, it's rather conspicuous to me that America is the most illicit drug-riddled coun on the planet.  What better way to control the body politic than to convince them that it is thei w free will that they choose to smoke cannabis, thus making them delighted in their servitude andsaisying (rather harmlessly) their penchant for rebellion?  A War on Drugs?  I think not.

*"(Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect ers with their discontents.)"

  Indeed.  This is where the Clipper Chip, the FBI's digital telephony gambit, and/or whatever otherhemes our "public servants" choose to conjure come in.  You say you think it's your right to "infetohers with" your "discontents?"  Why, I don't think so, which is why I'm going to make sure that,inths burgeoning electronic village, I can clearly hear the whispers of the thatch and reed, echoig te pans and heresies that you express.  


Odd, but I consider the 1946 eight-page introduction to _Brave New World_ a better work of writing t the 177 pages of the story itself.  

"Aldous Leonard Huxley
 (1894-1963)

 A member of a family which distinguished itself in many fields of intellectual endeavor, Aldous Hux was unquestionably the most brilliant social satirist of his time.  A critic, a poet, and an essait he wrote with wit and authority on architecture, science, music, philosophy, history and religin. I was, however, in his novels that he made his most deeply felt statements about the nature of an nd he world in which he lived."



With love and a little peanut butter--


Muraii


muraii%changez@csrnet-bbs.com