I've just started listening to the book "Brave new world" (no spoilers please!) and this is literally how the book begins (but with humans) - what could possibly go wrong!
No spoilers, but I used to think, along the lines of Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death, that Brave New World wound up being the more accurate picture of future society than 1984, despite being less well-known and referenced in cultural consciousness.
Unfortunately, it seems like the former may be enabling the latter, so we may end up with a “porque no los dos” situation.
I haven't read Brave New World but "We" by Evgeny Zamyatin left a similar impression on me, it's more subtle than 1984. It came out earlier than both books by the Western authors - even though Zamyatin was inspired while working in England in early 20th century.
There was a good theatre adaption of The Machine Stops by a UK group called Pilot Theatre (I saw it at York). They performed it as a live Youtube broadcast during the faf of 2020, though I can't see it listed anywhere now. Worth having a look for if you have better sources than mine. I must have a scan of my media array later, to see if I downloaded a copy I can rewatch.
Thank you, that was new to me. I always felt a connection between those three books — We, Brave New World, 1984 — but this review really is the missing piece. He opens the review by describing the similarities between We and Brave New World, closes the review contrasting them politically. I can almost hear the wheels turning in his head, it feels like this review is an early treatment for 1984.
1984 is a much better book. The writing is beautiful and the story is gripping. For that reason alone, it occupies a larger part of society’s psyche. I agree that many aspects of Brave New World were prescient, but 1984 isn’t entirely inaccurate either.
His brother was Julian Huxley who was a prime mover in creating the UN. Julian had some curious views about the direction of the human race which may have found their way into Aldous' work.
Before making such comments, why don't you read some actual quotations from Julian Huxley? The first Director of UNESCO was also in the British Eugenics Society where he argued for the "The virtual elimination of the few lowest and most degenerate types..."
Erm, yes, that does sound a bit like Aldous' "Brave New World". How about
"long [term] unemployment should be a ground for sterilization..." (From "Man in the Modern World" 1947) i.e. get a job or be sterilised.
"Unless [we] invent and enforce adequate measures for regulating human reproduction, for controlling the quantity of population, and at least preventing the deterioration of quality of racial stock, they are doomed to decay ..." (From "Essays in Popular Science", 1926)
And read this, bearing in mind that Julian Huxley was upper class. That first quotation in context:
"we must plan our eugenic policy along some such lines as the following:... The lowest strata... less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast. Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world; and so on. That is to say, much of our eugenic programme will be curative and remedial merely, instead of preventive and constructive." (From "Man in the Modern World" 1947)
Aldous wasn't much better. Childhood conditioning for the masses:
"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narcohypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." ( "Letters of Aldous Huxley" published in 1969)
>Brave New World wound up being the more accurate picture of future society than 1984, despite being less well-known and referenced in cultural consciousness.
I encounter this exact thought in every comment thread that mentions 1984 without fail.
And usually 3 or so comments later I realise that they poster of this amazing idea hasnt read (or at least doesnt remember) 1984 anyway.
>Unfortunately, it seems like the former may be enabling the latter, so we may end up with a “porque no los dos” situation.
You mean some sort of situation where the masses (or "proles") are kept happy with puerile entertainment while those people with political impulses are kept under heavy surveillance? Kind of like the novel 1984?
Yep, there are the same tropes about 1984 in every discussion. And it's a shame, since 1984 presents something much stranger and more interesting than communism, surveillance dangers or dystopian universe in the abstract.
It shows what a system would evolve into without independent temporal continuity, and how truth can keep changing in a flow-like fashion while central power remains the only stable reference. Here, correspondence with reality is no longer treated as sacred, only useful. The Party does not need or want truth in any moral or objective sense. It only needs enough contact with reality to keep the machine running. Records still have to be managed, wars still have to be administered. Everything beyond that can be made fluid.
It also attacks the usual consolations: hope, love, that there's something human that remains untouchable. It shows how humanity is a fragile construct, and meticulously presents a procedure for how to break it
It shows precisely that no matter who you are or what you think you can do, a well-established system that seeks power for the sake of power will crush you just because it can. And if you're about to be crushed, they already declawed you systematically. Propaganda controls the present, manufactured records dissolved the past, Newspeak narrowed what you were able to think, manufactured dissent absorbed any idea of rebellion. And if the system wants you to love the act of being crushed, it has methods for that too. And why would it do that? Because power is an end in itself. And that's all you need to understand about unchecked power.
It also directly addresses that it's a new system and, unlike the Catholic Church during the Inquisition and unlike the communists, it is honest about its relentless accumulation of power, and doesn't need any kind of external legitimation from God or some placard of equality and prosperity for those who don't know better.
Let it also sink in that the book being ultra class-aware seemingly passes by almost everybody.
> says Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm, who was not involved in the research. “We could better help millions of birds every year by solving the more immediate threats of disappearing habitats, collisions with building windows, and prowling outdoor cats,”
Yes. Even if they stuck it at the end, it shows good journalism to call this out.
Or the South American terrorbirds, the extant species are tiny, seriemas, and they're very interesting. I bet one that weighs 700 pounds would be even more exciting
Yes, first they'll focus on normal dodos. Then, they'll try very large Dodos. After that, very, very ancient dodos. Followed by island dodos. Then they might set up a whole island that people can visit, full of all kinds of dodos. They'll do tours with self driving cars so people can see all the dodos from a safe distance.
It's been a while since high school biology class, and I can't ask my sister right now, but I don't think humans are born in eggs. What does an artificial egg hatching chickens have to do with cloning humans?
Technically speaking, we could engineer it in a way where humans are born from eggs. It would just have to be a very big egg and would also have to continue growing in an incubator after hatching much like chickens rather than the standard womb senario.
Surely the rarity is partially due to the velociraptor skeleton cartel limiting the supply. And really, a velociraptor skeleton wasn't even a traditional engagement gift until they created the demand for it with that advertising campaign back in the day.
It could end the abortion issue if fertilized eggs could be moved early enough. Any woman who didn't want a baby could have it transferred to an artificial womb and sign away all rights to/responsibility for it. Any father who wanted their child when the mother didn't could keep it. It could help premature infants too.
That's very likely to be the future of the human race where governments produce, train and push out artificial humans like a factory. Well if we don't solve aging and robotics by then, then we'll probably just stop having babies altogether or at least not in a quantity that matters.
If they are made, we can re-label them as machines and give them lesser rights. And make ourselves feel better about treating them as lower class by some 'justification', like they don't have souls.
Perhaps some gene editing to give them 'blue' skin, some non-historically-biased-color to identify them.
Really. There are ton of books with these themes already. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, and now a company is doing it, so why am I getting downvoted.
> If they are made, we can re-label them as machines and give them lesser rights. And make ourselves feel better about treating them as lower class by some 'justification', like they don't have souls.
We could but maybe we don’t? Slavery is pretty inefficient. If South Korea could mass produce people, I’m pretty sure the government would be happy with just letting them be normal members of society instead of some kind of Smurf slave caste for a populace vanishing from demographic collapse.
Fiction is nice when you want to speculate on “what if …” but reality is infinitely more complex.
Eggs are simpler than Wombs. Chickens are simpler than Humans. Of course we have to solve the simpler things first. Of course, this is leading along the same path as occurs in Brave New World. We have to be able to grow chickens before we can move on to humans.
We already have cloning. But have lacked being able to do it without implanting the egg into a female. This is just getting us closer.
Baby steps. That the dystopia isn't happening today doesn't mean we aren't working on it.
What is "it", exactly? I have probably read some of the same dystopian science fiction novels as you have. But this is Jurassic Park, not A Brave New World.
In one of the movies, they did clone a human, they just didn't lean into that story line. It was treated as a one-off, but the same science allowed both. (in the fictional story)
The point isn't that we'll have humans tomorrow. Just that this one step. We'll need to solve problems on simpler animals first. An egg is easier than a womb, a chicken is easier than a human. It's the start.
So yes. Brave New World isn't today. But its obvious this technology is on the same path.
Yeah but there's also the book where we make people in a lab and they're great and everyone lives happily ever after forever. Don't cherry-pick your data.
So I'm not providing a good literary survey of books with similar tropes and providing some of the positive ones? There are literally half dozen very famous negative examples, but I didn't do good enough search to find a positive one?
That would be like every comment on AI should include some example from The Culture Series as an example that all this AI stuff could great.
No man, it's just that saying "this scenario is popular because it makes for a good story therefore it'll happen in reality" is an absurd point to make.
Taking scientific breakthroughs and extrapolating and/or comparing to Science Fiction? Shock, clutch my pearls, who would do such a thing. The absurdity. Surely nobody has done this before.
Sure. If you take all of Science Fiction, if you want, take all of Literature. And compare it to everything that actually has happened. Then Fiction has guessed at more things than have actually happened. So, a poor predictor.
Not sure what that point is proving. We shouldn't look at fiction for any inspiration or cautionary tales? Just shut up and calculate?
The point is proving that "chickens now, maybe humans later" is just an extremely poor predictor. It's a useless disapproval of a new technology based on "hey, you can't prove it won't happen!".
So, we might not get humans. Ok, but we also wont get humans without simpler test cases along the way. Simpler animals, simpler mechanisms. So now we are taking those steps.
We can't see the end, but we are on the road.
Maybe that is why the fictional stories resonate here. It is easy to see the possible connections. Easy to make the leap from here, to what could be. Even if it is not an actual predictor like a scientific proof.
I still don't understand how an artificial hard physical egg, like the ones a natural chicken lays, which I'm pretty sure is not where humans come from; I don't understand where that is "on the road" simply because, and again, I'm no biologist, but as far as I know, humans don't come from hard shelled eggs.
You need to invent transistors before you can invent the computer.
If you went back in time when transistors were invented and told them to be careful, those might lead to a global computer network controlled by social media companies that will enslave you. They would look at you like your crazy. And yet there was sci-fi stories at the time about future computers.
So, on one hand, yes I'm making a leap. But on other, it isn't completely crazy. Not so crazy to dismiss.
The egg is on the same technology path. But yes, humans are far off.
scientists inspect eggs newly laid by real hens within 24 to 48 hours. They select the most promising ones, crack them open, and delicately pour the contents—everything but the shell—into the artificial egg structure. But everything that happened before then, from fertilization to egg laying, required a real chicken.
Am I the only one wondering if it's 26 chickens at once from a single artificial egg or they just succeeded 26 times with different eggs? Rationally it probably has to be the latter, but the title confuses me.
(26 different artificial eggs. The artificial egg is the main development. Basically they take a chicken embryo (by cracking open a fertilized egg) and allow it to develop inside the artificial egg, and from which it can eventually be "hatched". Other methods for growing chickens from embryos outside their eggs have not had very high success rates.)
At least animals getting ground up live is a horror as old as time. We seem to always be moving in the other direction and creating more new horrors instead of making things better.
The complete omittance of even acknowledging we have invented modern animal horrors far worse to work on first makes it sound like we just need to do better than other animals. Willfully ignoring that to act like doing so is a form of agreement between the statements is a bit gruesome itself.
I'm glad you want to handle some of the problem, but let's not act like we just need to do better than other animals is all to discuss. It's easy enough to agree with the full problem unless you're fine with the other parts.
Factory farming refers to a wide set of practices that range from loathsome to banal.
I don't see how the use of this technology makes factory farming any worse than it already is. Maybe it saves male chicks from the shredder, making it slightly less loathsome.
Colossal Biosciences has other ongoing projects including reviving the "Red Wolf" using DNA from coyote/wolf hybrids and CRISPR. They also want to introduce a Wooly Mammoth/elephant hybrid.
The company was founded by George Church, and is able to embark upon these projects thanks to deep-pocketed investors and skirting/bypassing traditional approaches aligned with federal programs and the Endangered Species Act. The following MIT Technology Review article covers the wolf project in detail:
This article is so strange. It is written by the company, but written in a way that an outsider would write.
> Colossal has not released its hatch rate for the 26 chickens, which limits direct comparison to prior shell-free systems. The announcement was also made without an accompanying peer-reviewed paper or publicly released dataset, meaning independent scientists have not yet been able to evaluate the underlying methodology.
From this I can deduce that your grasp of chaos theory is better than your grasp of genetics. People who know about genetics thought the genetics sucked. People who know about computers thought the depiction of computers was awful. Don't ask get anyone who knows about nutrition started on acting as if there are no sources of lysine found in nature. And economists...
It is, literally, a movie with something for everyone.
JAPANESE STUDENTS HATCH A HEN'S EGG WITHOUT A SHELL! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAJDTYUw0sk