I heard about this. It annoys me too, because Prometheus was a terrible film and we didn't really need to return to that idea-universe.
Interesting graphics, although the last one is incorrect. Orwell was passionately pro-firearm and by this quote you'll see what I mean by that: "The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
To add a couple things, For humans as hierarchal pack animals, my primary counter is the existence of organizations like cooperatives, and Anarchism as a political ideology. Both discredit the hierarchy part of that, as no, hierarchy as we know it isn't inherent to human nature. Otherwise, we would've never moved beyond certain types of society, and I'd actually argue, this is disproven constantly by various types of tribal societies(such as ones that don't really have authority figures as we think of them, but are instead rather soft power reliant.) I do agree we are animals, to say the least, but hierarchal? No. Pack centric, yes, but not hierarchal. That is dependent on circumstance, among other factors outside of inherent biology, although I'll perhaps grant genetics can contribute. As for the books... its a mix. 1984's problem I think is that, essentially, the level of totalitarianism destroys itself. Before you point out North Korea, 1. A single major natural disaster could destroy that state. That level of control actually makes you very fragile, because anything that shatters your constructed worldview brings down the state with it. You can't hide a hurricane essentially, or for the Soviet Union(which wasn't anywhere near 1984), Cherynobl. The other part of this is that it weakens all the mechanisms the state has for keeping control, eliminating huge portions of it. 2. Needing to compete with other governments eliminates it. North Korea doesn't have to like other states, and I would note, is constantly propped by China. Without the latter, once again, the NK probably would collapse. 1984 is important, but to be frank, I find a lot parts of its world ludicrous because they're too inefficient to work on any long term scale. By gaining that level of control, ironically, the system becomes incredibly fragile, as again, anything that challenges the worldview of the state which it can't hide(i.e. natural disasters), removes its power. Once again, going back to North Korea, its worth noting its level of totalitarianism is relatively recent development, and I don't see any evidence its sustainable for very long. The same goes for a world like 1984, it would collapse before it could ever get that far because something external to the state would interfere, i.e. at times the freaking weather, with its ability to control its own populace. As for Brave New World, once again, I have mixed feelings. While I do agree it is indeed very possible to use say, apathy as a tool to control a populace, I feel like Fahrenheit 451 did that better as a theme. I do agree pleasure could be used to control the populace, to say the least, however in some ways, that's been happening since someone discovered drinking alcohol. If anything, my favorite dystopia is Neuromancer. Runaway capitalism I'd argue has far more to do with any future dystopia than what we know of as the state. As for Net Neutrality, eh, it could last. I say this because SOPA failed, and additionally, encryption essentially smashes the ability for anyone to ever fully control it. You can't control something when the persons on it always have a means by which to deny you access to what they're saying you can't get around. It is worth noting this includes the NSA.
Has anyone every really looked hard at the afterward of Nineteen Eighty-Four? It's very interesting if you want to see the end of the story.
Check it out, the Appendix: Principles on Newspeak. @Christopher Snape rightly points to the very subtle hint to the downfall of The Party.
Ah, interesting. Didn't think there'd be stuff like that I missed, but it would certainly help the story proper.
Our world is a little of each, but I always feared 1984 more. I find that people who espouse BNW are very "THESE DARN KIDS AND THEIR TECHNOLOGIES!" Forgive me, but I'm more terrified of police brutality and government corruption than people tweeting. One actually happens, the other is often hyperbole used to scare us off technology that isn't actually all that damaging. They said the same thing about the rise of radio and TV.
I don't agree our world is 'a little of each', honestly, it seems much more complex than even that would suggest. On the whole, it seems Brave New World might eventually win out, if we don't blow ourselves up in the mean time, with the over saturation of commercial culture and the way things can be 'edited' to be more positive than the truth. However, it would be wrong to point to the NSA spying, and stories about the FBI taking you to prison for poorly-judged comments on Facebook, and say it is analogous to Nineteen Eighty-Four. If you think that it is then I'm willing to say you don't understand the 'feeling' of totalitarianism; that you don't know what it is like to have every action judged as being pro or con 'The Party'. Nineteen Eighty-Four is still a powerful novel, and still a very useful warning, but it's applicability is starting to diminish - has ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That isn't to say Insoc is Communist and Big Brother is Stalin, this is only half true. Outside of North Korea, I suppose, Nineteen Eighty-Four has more became a novel we need to understand more in historical, rather than political context now. Anyone who hasn't read Homage to Catalonia along side Nineteen Eighty-Four now will miss the point the novel was making, and now makes, as opposed to during the Cold War when Animal Farm was more required complementary reading. Animal Farm is a neat little story, but I think in time it'll increasingly be seen as the lesser, to the point where it's seen as secondary, like Coming Up for Air. Only something the specialists will read and people who like to read a favourite author's complete works. However, I don't think Brave New World is really completely applicable either. The thing that always bothered me about Brave New World is just how ineffective the state religion is, Fordism. Yes, I am aware Fordism is just a joke (and a pretty shit joke at that to be frank) but in a poe-faced reading, it just seems like the least effective drug in the society. In Orwell's novel it makes sense, because Big Brother has became the idol, and everything revolves around his cult of personality. What is there in Fordism? Just a vague sort of reference to someone who they thought did something pretty good. It just doesn't have the same solidity as the religion of terror did in Oceania. Oh, and the point of much of Orwell's novel is that the system is ineffectual. And The Party is not watching everyone all the time.
Agreed on both counts and for the same reason. (Sorry this is such a post-factum quote). Science Fiction writers have a terrible and almost universal inability to take economics into account when they paint their worlds and tell their stories. The few stories I have read where this doesn't happen are ones in which economics and resource allocation are central to the stories, such as Frank Herbert's DUNE series and his Void Ship series, Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed, and also Azimov's Foundation series.
That's the trouble with the black and white version of reality. Some things about TV are very bad, in particular the tripe that is the result of the market and 6 monopoly players. The good however is there: PBS, CSPAN and some individual programs have great value. Then there are things which have unique effects. People in the poorest villages in the most rural part of the world have access to TV programs. Is that good or bad? Again, it is some of both.
@Christopher Snape. and @Lemex , you mean this with "was"? That's really subtle, yes. After being a little more attentive, I saw Orwell mostly used could, would in this passage of the Appendix. WOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED, not HAVE BEEN SEVERED if I understand correctly, yes?
