A Thinking Reed

Is Brave New World Inevitable?

Written by

Lee M.

in

Love ‘im or hate ‘im, John Derbyshire remains the most elegant and interesting writer at National Review (though I would also give props to Jay Nordlinger). Anyway, here’s his rather gloomy piece on the legacy of John Paul II:

So far as it makes any sense to predict the future, it seems to me highly probable that the world of 50 or 100 years from now will bear a close resemblance to Huxley’s dystopia — a world without pain, grief, sickness or war, but also without family, religion, sacrifice, or nobility of spirit. It’s not what I want, personally, and it’s not what Huxley wanted either (he was a religious man, though of a singular type). It’s what most people want, though; so if this darn democracy stuff keeps spreading, it’s what we shall get, for sure. If we don’t bring it upon ourselves, we shall import it from less ethically fastidious nations.

In that context, the late pope will be seen — assuming anyone bothers to study history any more — as a rearguard fighter, a man who stood up for human values before they were swept away by the posthuman tsunami. There is great nobility in that, but it is a tragic nobility, the stiff-necked nobility of the hopeless reactionary. You might say that John Paul II (who, you do not need to tell me, would have pounced gleefully on that word “hopeless”) stood athwart History crying “Stop!” Alas, what is coming down History Turnpike is a convoy of 18-wheel rigs moving fast, and loaded up full with the stuff that got Doctor Faustus in trouble — knowledge, pleasure, power. They ain’t going to stop for anyone. Homo fuge!

Comments

One response to “Is Brave New World Inevitable?”

  1. Maurice Frontz

    Lee,

    A gramme is better than a damn.
    Everyone belongs to everyone else.
    Ending is better than mending.

    Dammit,
    where’s my soma? I mean…
    my Lexapro?

    Seriously,
    Huxley’s vision was of a “command and control” social utopianism. He did not predict its dissemination through democratic capitalism.

    This is good and bad. Bad in that democracy’s version of “Brave New World” is just as pervasive and probably more so as Huxley’s version. What did his “sleep-teaching” have over PBS Kids, The Disney Channel, Nickeledeon and MTV?

    Moreover, I find Derbyshire’s analysis of today’s religious lapses compelling: We live in a garden of delights. Who needs a heavenly paradise when we have an earthly one? When I was at the bank the other day, I looked at an advertisement for retirement planning. The picture was of a tanned and rested guy on the deck of a boat with his feet up over the water. The picture of the good life is compelling, and you sure as hell don’t get there by tithing.

    But the good news is that, at least up to now, there is room for dissent and living against the norm without going to a Savage Reservation. The Internet, as well, while it does change the message, allows for a diversity of living out one’s utopia that Huxley could not have dreamed of.

    There will be room for our minority in the Brave New World. Even if we have to go to Savage Reservations. There always has been room for our minority.

    BTW, “O Brave New World that has such bloggers in it!”

    Pax, Chip

    Reply

Leave a reply to Maurice Frontz Cancel reply

More posts