In class we saw a
BBC news report about a family escaping Syria who had to decide between suffocating their baby to silence her, or risking the death and mutilation of 500 refugees.
This man and his family are not alone. Across the globe, hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of families struggle to continue with their daily routine.
Huxley was familiar with suffering on a global scale. He wrote
Brave New World in the aftermath of the 1st World War and the Spanish flu. His novel looks for a 'solution' to this kind of suffering and to the pain of such difficult decisions: between a baby and a community of 500.
Huxley looked for security and safety in a common identity and, above all, stability. He wanted to reduce the pain of emotion by minimising friendships and making family unnecessary.
In class you appear to think this was wrong. You appear to prefer greater individuality and more opportunity, even if this means greater uncertainty.
But:
- What about the father who had to decide between his child and the rest of his family and friends?
- Wouldn't he and the other hundreds of thousands who suffer war and repression prefer Brave New World to our own?
For me, the most interesting and worrying moment in the video we saw in class is when Kevin Warwick starts to explain his work. Kevin's goal is nothing less than to be the one who ushers in a new age of cyborg humans. He states:
What makes Kevin special is his degree of personal commitment. In 1998 he started experimenting with a transponder chip (inserted in his forearm) connected to his nervous system. This chip provided a link between his nervous system and other electronic devices. It allowed him to operate doors, lights, heaters and other computers without lifting a finger. He was able to use his hand movements to operate a cyborg hand or (as if he were disabled) a motorised wheelchair.
