Aldous Huxley's most terrifyingly accurate prediction about our society (from 1948)

WhiteAlice
reply to post by doesntmakesense

 

I used to admire Aldous Huxley but that admiration became a bit tarnished not that long ago. We have this tendency to hold up his "Brave New World" as a social critique to inordinate amounts of control but his personal opinions really can make one question just what his beliefs actually were such as the following quote.

"About 99.5% of the entire population of the planet are as stupid and philistine ('tho in different ways) as the great masses of the English. The important thing, it seems to me, is not to attack the 99.5%...but to try to see that the 0.5% survives, keeps its quality up to the highest possible level, and, if possible, dominates the rest. The imbecility of the 99.5% is appalling--but after all, what else can you expect?" Aldous Huxley

From The Meaning of Race: Race, History and Culture in Western Society

Eugenics was very popular in the first half of the 20th century, it doesn't get much press but it was a craze worldwide, even the US took part in it.

Anyways I suppose I have a more modern view of his ideas here. I see most people as between average and below average, mathematically there's no surprise to this statement but I find it means I have to accept that whenever someone is doing a job which I believe to be rather important whether that's a politician, a police officer, or a banker I have this little warning going off in the back of my mind that this person, in this important job likely isn't exceptional, and is likely making a lot of mistakes that bring society down. This has actually lead to me developing a problem with authority lately as I routinely find people to be undeserving of their authority as they're no better than anyone else in most situations.

Given how high individual productivity is today, I'm really starting to lean in the direction that the top 1/3 or so in each of their fields are the only ones that should be doing the work. This requires a substantially different economic system that goes outside the scope here but I get very upset when for example a teacher of a subject knows significantly less than their students, or a police officer whose job is to investigate is only hired if their IQ is in the bottom 50% of society. These things should not happen.

I don't really know of a solution though other than general theory. It's certainly not right to take the eugenics route of killing all the unworthy or give them substandard living conditions.

My one prophesy that I have regarding the whole global/nuclear war is this:

IF fuKAshIMa does continue to spew radiation out into the environment, then I will speculate that the environment will become so radioactive that ANY foodstuffs produced, will be radioactive themselves.

THUS

In this scenario, we WILL find ourselves, in a mass migration of peoples by force--AKA global war. Simply for the fact that stronger nations will look to seize those areas which are still habitable.

as a personal note:
the most terrifying thing to happen to all you star and flaggers will never happen! if it did most of us would not be talking about it on the net, that is certain

reply to post by Aazadan


Well, is it possible that the lower 70% of people who, according to you, should not be doing their job, could be elevated to the levels of the deserving qualified 30%? Is it possible they were dumbed down on purpose to begin with? The fewer people able to "figure things out", the easier they may be to control. Is it possible, without sterilization or any reductions of population to get people to think more logically and behave more responsibly, and increase their intelligence?

I always hear people that say "well the elites are gonna cull the human race down over 50% because most of them are just useless eaters having 9 kids on welfare". And I say, the elites are the ones who made it this way! Withholding knowledge, promoting consumerism, controlling the school curriculum, hypnotizing the masses... why not "hypnotize" us into a more positive future? Apparently they do not WANT a more positive future... they don't even seem to care about their own descendants. Don't they think their great great grandchildren would like to know what a forest looks like? A clean ocean? These experiences can be replicated with technology but it's not real. They can even find another planet, but that doesn't change the fact they will have to deal with knowing their great great...grandfather destroyed our original home. And sure, the new planets sun may APPEAR to be stable....but are they really willing to take that risk?

Interesting find, are there any other scarily accurate letters/predictions such as this one? Talking about the 'bad' news ones.

jrod
reply to post by jaws1975

 

I think they were on anti-depressions or anti-psychotics. Narcotics by definition are derived from opium and generally used as pain killers.

You are absolutely correct.

However, just to be clear: Some people who are not educated in regards to pharmacology tend to use the term "narcotic" as synonymous with "psychoactive" or "mind altering." The issue is further confused for such people, because many journalists and Law Enforcement officers / agencies, being typically highly ignorant when it comes to drugs, tend to throw out the term "narcotic(s)" quite casually and incorrectly.

Read enough news stories about drugs (especially the illegal kind) and you will see countless journalists and LEOs abuse this word.

Also, the further you go back in time, the worse this phenomenon seems to become.

jaws1975
The narco-hypnosis part stuck out to me, haven't most all of the recent mass murderers been on prescription narcotics? The Aurora movie theatre shooter told his cellmate that his psychiatrist brain washed him into doing it, sirhan sirhan made a similar claim. The navy yard shooter claimed the government was using technology to put voices in his head. No proof of any of these claims, however I believe tptb have the ability and motive to do so.

Incorrect usage of the term "narcotics" aside, you raise an excellent point.

I have also long suspected the government has some pretty advanced mind-control tech.

Trying to speculate exactly what this tech is, as well as if / when / how much they may have used it, is an interesting, albeit scary and somewhat maddening endeavor.

ketsuko
Because we're still more or less living like the sheep in learned's paddock. They use the "scares" to justify putting their power structures in place. They never scare us enough to truly panic us or cause a stampede, but when the collapse comes, they will have all the mechanisms in place to clamp down on us brutally, and the rosy veneer of peace and plenty will come off.

They? They do not exist. But it is convenient, isn't it, to have a group of invisible folks that one can blame for everything not right in the world..

reply to post by 3n19m470


It's because they have theirs, and they don't like competition. If just anyone could rise up from the bottom to challenge them in a true meritocracy, then they would quickly lose their privileged spot. If you pay attention, the elites really aren't that elite. So, they have to make sure that the rest of us aren't equipped to figure that out.

Eryiedes
Evening,

I don't see it as a prediction at all.
It was/is the plan being adhered to by those who follow in the footsteps of the Grandpa of Eugenics himself.
It's no more a prediction of man's future than a recipe is a prediction of food.
At least this is how I see it.

-Peace-

edit on 2-1-2014 by Eryiedes because: Typo

I was thinking of that possibility! Though I believe that these idea's were used by TPTB even before
these books were published! We have been manipulated through many different aspects of the
Psychological world! Division, patriotism, fear, pharmaceuticals, lies, disinformation, etc!

Orwell and Huxley wrote from inside knowledge of the plans that have been in place for a very long time. History shows the steady march to a planned future. Bernays gave us the female smoker who gave us women's libbers. Now we have twice the consumers and twice the tax base.
Somma might as well be crystal meth and tv. A mere 5% of meth users can quit once they start using it and it's filling the prisons that were built in advance for them. Those not in jail are rendered useless. Tell me that drug wasn't planned and currently controlled by tptb.
TV hypnotises the rest.
We are the frog thats slowly being boiled. The people who crave control have it now. The next phase is on it's way soon. That is the cashless society and the mark, could get mighty hungry without it.

reply to post by doesntmakesense


I'm curious as to why Aldous Huxley should be treated as some sort of prophet. He's just one person who wrote an interesting and worthwhile book about what he feared could happen in our society. In this sense, it's an important contribution to our cultural consciousness.

At a purely logical level, you can't extend who Aldous Huxley was beyond that. There is not an immutable "oligarchy" who controls the world. It is a plastic and changing thing. In the last decade or two we've seen Microsoft, Google, Apple and other major companies, started by men unrelated to any "oligarchy", come into the picture and contribute to what they think should happen in our world.

I'm personally in education. I study child development at a neurobiological and psychological level. The science of how to create a self sufficient and emotionally balanced adult will eventually guide us to introduce mindfulness practices into our elementary and highschools; the point of this is to help create socially conscious adults.

Am I merely acting out Huxley's nightmare? Or, rather, am I being guided by hard science, life experience, and the pursuit of the common good?

My point is, some of Huxleys concerns are legitimate, but they aren't categorical. Scientific interventions aren't inherently "evil" - my research and personal effort to increase awareness in our world is a good thing. Huxleys warning is good so as to warn us of potential abuses of science. But science itself is morally neutral. If we are properly guided and act with a sense of compassion, we can develop all sorts of intelligent interventions to help foster and grow the number of people who feel good about themselves, about others. By doing so, we create the psychological conditions for peace between individuals, nations, etc.

People who maintain a wary paranoia about this - who can't help but see something "nefarious' should look INTO THEMSELVES to figure out why that is.

As the Talmud says: We do not see the world as it is, but as we are

reply to post by doesntmakesense


Does anybody know what other book Aldous Huxley wrote?

The Perennial Philsophy

Although, I don't believe the Wiki quite does the book justice.

reply to post by 3n19m470


I'm actually going to reply to both you and Azadan at the same time for efficiency's sake.

3n19m470, I do suspect that the rift/divide is very much deliberate. Marketing is a form of psychological manipulation that is played out on the masses, appealing most strongly to the weak minded. Our educational system in at least the last 50 years (starting, presumably, in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act) has had a duality to it in that there are virtually two educational systems--one for the creative intellectual and one for "everybody else". The curriculum differences between these two systems are staggering. The former is taught analytical methods, critical thinking, systems thinking and persuasion identification. The latter is taught by rote/memorization without any real additional thought provoking exercise because all they need is to learn to be content in the positions that they will have in life.

The problem with such a rift is absolutely evident in Azadan's post. It creates a scenario where someone who has gone through this additional and broadened educational process begins to perceive that the majority of people are mentally deficient. IQ (and for the record, I do have problems with measures of IQ) tends to fall, like most things, on a bell curve.

Here's what it looks like:
expressiveepicurean.files.wordpress.com...

So Azadan is somewhat right in the perception that most people would not fall under the category of exceptional. However, the number of those who would be exceptional isn't even remotely 30% of the population. It's a mere 2% of the population and that 2% of the population is, through mandate, required to be identified by the educational system and put into one of those programs with all the additional learning. What happens is that the remaining 98% are not being provided with the tools that would improve their decision making. It makes the rift deeper, sharper and more palpable.

What Azadan is suggesting is that the exceptional do all the work. However, even with productivity being what it is today, it would not be sufficient of a population to do so. 2% of the current population in the US, irrespective of age, would be around 6 million people--some of whom would be at retirement age and some who would be mere children. That's simply not enough people to satisfy the suggestion that only the exceptional do the work in their fields and ergo, is not a solution.

The solution would be to reign in marketing to avoid heavy handed persuasive elements from being played out onto our existing population and immediately start making that "exceptional kid" educational program be applicable to ALL children. It wouldn't help us now but it would help the future. We must destroy and rebuild the entire educational system of our country if we really want to save it. There is no reason why a significant majority of the population would be incapable of comprehending critical thinking, identifying persuasive techniques or even thinking on a more interrelated basis as in systems thinking. The only reason why it doesn't happen that I can see is control. That's not good enough, especially for a country that claims to have some form of democracy.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Veritas, I'm aware of Huxley's views on the metaphysical side. Much of Huxley's thoughts on this subject may have worked its way into the educational system over time. I saw a few scholarly publications by some well lettered individuals basically espousing the same ideas and quoting both Julian and Aldous Huxley in the process. Unfortunately, I cannot even provide a glimpse of some of those quotes as the original pdf was on my recently deceased computer but this link should provide an inkling of context of one of them where the Huxley's were both heavily used in the argument. Providing a link to the paper itself is insufficient as it requires paid access:

Snapshots from "Hypnosis and Creativity" by Stanley Krippner as published in the Gifted Child Quarterly: i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...

Dr. Stanley Krippner was involved in other curious things, including traveling to Moscow in the early 70's to introduce the subject of parapsychology to them. A year or so later, the Department of Defense requested that RAND do an analysis on the Soviet Union's studies in parapsychology and its potential military uses/threats. Krippner, likewise, authored a paper on the subject as well and from these things, Project Stargate was born.

I find this to be one of the most troubling parts of our quiet portion of US history and it fills me with a whole lot of questions. First off, why was this particular man suggesting those particular things for use in children in 1966 that were being rampantly toyed around with in yet another umbrella program of an rather infamous nature? Were they used (some evidence that hypnosis was) and to what effect? Reading the various papers written by some of these men who were involved in that children's program at a national level, you see the Huxley's being quoted over and over again along with claims of metaphysical possibilities. How much of that actually was within the program and for what purpose? Maybe I'm cynical but I just have a hard time thinking it was all sunshine and roses.

For the record, this is not MY craziness. This was someone else's craziness that I happened to stumble upon. Huge distinction there but I humbly request you give it some thought, Veritas.

His grandfather wrote this essay: www.jstor.org...

"The coming population problem"

Thomas Huxley was called "Darwins pittbull"

WhiteAlice
The problem with such a rift is absolutely evident in Azadan's post. It creates a scenario where someone who has gone through this additional and broadened educational process begins to perceive that the majority of people are mentally deficient. IQ (and for the record, I do have problems with measures of IQ) tends to fall, like most things, on a bell curve.

To be fair here, IQ is virtually worthless (one of the reasons that I hate they use it to limit police). There are plenty of people with high IQ's that aren't geniuses because the tests aren't perfect. I have a 170 IQ myself however I put no faith in it, I just happen to be an INTP which among other things means I think like the test creators so I naturally score better. No real intelligence there, I'm actually pretty dumb when it comes to most day to day tasks. I'm referring mainly to the quality of work done. I work in a college and most of the teachers I come across are the least competent people I've ever seen in their professions.

So Azadan is somewhat right in the perception that most people would not fall under the category of exceptional. However, the number of those who would be exceptional isn't even remotely 30% of the population. It's a mere 2% of the population and that 2% of the population is, through mandate, required to be identified by the educational system and put into one of those programs with all the additional learning. What happens is that the remaining 98% are not being provided with the tools that would improve their decision making. It makes the rift deeper, sharper and more palpable.

If I said exceptional it was without knowing there was a definition on the word of x%. What I was getting at was the idea that if you divide everyone up by quality of their work, the bottom 1/3 are by definition below average, the middle third are again by definition average, and the top 1/3 are above average. Even among the above average there's going to be a group of people that are better than the rest and a group of people that are worse than the rest but the entire group as a whole is better than everyone else. Where this idea really falls apart is in the economics. Those who aren't working must still be provided for, and they must have decent lives on par with those who do work.

The solution would be to reign in marketing to avoid heavy handed persuasive elements from being played out onto our existing population and immediately start making that "exceptional kid" educational program be applicable to ALL children. It wouldn't help us now but it would help the future. We must destroy and rebuild the entire educational system of our country if we really want to save it. There is no reason why a significant majority of the population would be incapable of comprehending critical thinking, identifying persuasive techniques or even thinking on a more interrelated basis as in systems thinking. The only reason why it doesn't happen that I can see is control. That's not good enough, especially for a country that claims to have some form of democracy.

Better education is always a worthwhile goal, but I think we need to do more than just teach better at this point. I could write several posts worth of critique on the education system in the US. At this point though I don't know how it could be fixed short of revolution. Many people are to wrapped up in ideas like our global ranking in reading/writing/math and think school should focus 100% on those three subjects. Others get involved in distractions like should the school teach creationism or have time for prayer. I have a different approach, I don't think we should be too worked up in teaching general facts but rather in teaching students how to think and learn and then give them the opportunity to learn about what interests them.

I'm just not sure that there's a place in society for everyone, even if they're all well educated in whatever field they want to be in. We've hit a point where all of the needs and wants of society are provided for by some amount less than the whole of society. That leads to very high unemployment among other issues.

mrphilosophias

His grandfather wrote this essay: www.jstor.org...

"The coming population problem"

Thomas Huxley was called "Darwins pittbull"

lol the videeo (that worked only a couple hours ago) is called "The ultimate revolution." It is a lecture given by Professor Huxley at Cambridge if I recall. Very dry, but profoundly insightful into the mind set of ivory white tower academic elite, and least the subset comprised of "naturalists".

3n19m470
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Well, is it possible that the lower 70% of people who, according to you, should not be doing their job, could be elevated to the levels of the deserving qualified 30%? Is it possible they were dumbed down on purpose to begin with? The fewer people able to "figure things out", the easier they may be to control. Is it possible, without sterilization or any reductions of population to get people to think more logically and behave more responsibly, and increase their intelligence?

I'm not in favor of sterilization or anything like that, everyone deserves to live a fulfilling life which includes having children. It's not even that I would call the top third deserving either, they would have tougher lives as they would be working to support everyone, I don't think such a system could work unless those that don't work could have lives that are equally as fulfilling and comfortable as those who do work. Regardless of if you teach people or not, there's still going to be a segment that's better and a segment that's worse and productivity is going to improve to where fewer and fewer people are needed to provide for everyone.

I always hear people that say "well the elites are gonna cull the human race down over 50% because most of them are just useless eaters having 9 kids on welfare".

Here's the flaw in that line of thinking. Lets say there's a plan to cull the bottom 50% of the population because they're no longer providing useful services. Those people are still consuming. Once they disappear, some portion of that remaining 50% will find themselves out of work and in the exact same situation as those they just got rid of because their goods are no longer being consumed. This sort of plan is ultimately flawed.

And I say, the elites are the ones who made it this way! Withholding knowledge, promoting consumerism, controlling the school curriculum, hypnotizing the masses... why not "hypnotize" us into a more positive future? Apparently they do not WANT a more positive future... they don't even seem to care about their own descendants. Don't they think their great great grandchildren would like to know what a forest looks like? A clean ocean? These experiences can be replicated with technology but it's not real. They can even find another planet, but that doesn't change the fact they will have to deal with knowing their great great...grandfather destroyed our original home. And sure, the new planets sun may APPEAR to be stable....but are they really willing to take that risk?

This is essentially the failure of Capitalism. We need to shift to an economic system where there's a quantifiable value in buying quality goods that don't break, and in repairing rather than replacing those goods. We use disposable goods these days (and the entire concept of planned obsolence), basically as a method to keep people employed. Imagine if you only had to buy a TV once every 20 years, or a refrigerator once per 40 years, or if your incandescent lightbulbs lasted over 100 years (yes there are working incandescent lightbulbs from 1901 still in use today). Sales from these companies would plummet and a bunch of people would find themselves without work. Our society would produce far less trash, which is one of the greatest gifts we can give our descendants but we would have mass unemployment and under employment. Of course, at the same time the amount of things we would have to produce would drastically shrink as well.

Thomas More's Utopia ties into this as well. BNW is just the updated scientific version but essentially the idea is that they can not build the universal gated community they call a utopia and allow us to live in it without tarnishing it. This is the reason for the 1984 totalitarian culling.

A utopia will not work unless you build it first then create utopians to live there. This is the BNW aspect where once the science is there they will build "domed" agenda 21 style cities and there will be no need for surveillance or Orwellian tactics because the people will have been birthed to be docile cogs. Nothing will be created without purpose and with technology space will be limited. The rulers view themselves as above or separate from us and so they will exist in a trans-humanist wet dream of life extension while the slaves deemed necessary to exist wont even know they are slaves or that any other way of life existed. There will be nothing to question, they will be chained to the wall of the cave forever.

The culling has to come first though. If we survive to exist in the planned Utopia we bring with it our ideas of freedom and individuality, ambition, and a host of nastier ideas and emotions. Drugs , sex,entertainment and such work for some but not everyone. There are too many Winston Smiths out there still and that is what has to be eradicated before the great work is complete.

Thanks for the post, doesntmakesense. It’s one of the more interesting one’s I’ve read lately, and does raise a number of issues.

The accelerating rate of technological development is something that has kinda concerned me a little for a long time now. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-technology at all. To the contrary, I’m very much an advocate for the advancement of the sciences and technology. Back in the Stone Age I earned my B.S. in mathematics, and have since made a fairly decent living working in a variety of different disciplines within the computer industry. My entire career has been intimately tied to advancements in technology. It’s not technology itself, though, that concerns me so much as it is whether humanity will evolve quickly enough and have the wisdom to control the virtually limitless power it may soon possess. Many years ago I recognized pretty much 3 areas of research and development that kinda raised a few red flags in my mind: robotics, genetics and information systems technology. It always seemed to me that future joint ventures involving contributions from any combination of those 3 could potentially result in some pretty scary outcomes. I can clearly envision a time in the not so distant future when mankind will no longer have the ability to control the power within it’s grasp, and to a great extent, with the exception of a handful of wireheads and quantum theorists, won’t even remotely understand it. The potential for sinister exploitation and downright evil intent will be far too much for our greedy, self-serving species to resist. It’ll be like an overpowering aphrodisiac for every deranged, psychotic political leader we’ve elected to serve us. Anyway, one thing you can probably take to the bank is that technological growth will not be slowing down anytime soon, waiting for us to catch up with it, but rather will continue to accelerate for the forseeable future. IMO if mankind makes it for even another century or 2 without annihilating ourselves it will most certainly be out of sheer dumb luck. I apologize for being so negative and long-winded, everyone, but it just seems to me the writing is on the wall. I truly hope I’m wrong.

On a different note, IMO most folks are quite gullible and easily manipulated. They’re complacent and don’t want to have to think or make decisions, and from what I can tell it’s only getting worse over time. These days it’s become fashionable to be an idiot as long as long as you have a bad attitude to go along with it. Politicians have always exploited this mental deficiency of ours to satisfy their self-servings agendas. It absolutely floors me how the most outrageous, ludicrous, totally absurd lie, if repeated enough times, will become the gospel truth in the minds of most people. Just pretend you’re sincere and they’ll foolishly eat it up. It’s like people have become programmed to be followers and to leave the decision making to their “leaders”, even if their leaders are obviously vile and despicable people with the morals and ethics of Al Capone. I guess it’s just easier that way. Leadership doesn’t demand intelligence; just a smidgeon of acting ability is about all it takes. I mean really, how smart do you have to be to get a herd of cattle to follow you? I have an uncomfortable feeling that even a small, but well organized and properly sinister force, could easily turn a nation around. Just convince the population that they deserve to live in abject poverty because they’re simply too lazy and stupid to make any contribution to society. Label them as takers, and parasites and nothing more than dead weight impeding the nation’s progress. Then provide them with an inadequate diet to keep them too weak in mind and body to summon up any drive or ambition; this, then, will actually serve to reinforce the notion in their minds that they are indeed too lazy and stupid to deserve any better. I’m sorry, I know I’ve gotten a little carried away here, but I do still think that manipulating the gullible and uneducated masses is not such a far-fetched idea.

So, maybe it will be some mixture of Huxley's and Orwell’s worst nightmares that we have to look forward to. We’ve certainly developed about all the tools we need to implement it. I wouldn’t know, though. I realize my vision is a bit on the dark side, and maybe even pissed a few of you off. I could be totally offbase, though - wouldn’t be the first time - I just can’t help, though, but interpret the signs as all pointing in a very clear and certain direction, and it ain’t toward Disney World. In the end, it will be up to Humanity which road we take. I just wish I had a little more faith in our collective judgement. What a shame it would be if we choose to turn our world into a living hell, when we could just as easily have created a world of magic. What a dirty, rotten shame...

Anyway, great post. Thanks again, doesntmakesense.