These Dystopia books never get old

This year we have been introduced to various dystopian novels(especially those lucky few in both lit and language), and it is difficult to miss the similarities that exist in each. There seems to always be a tragic hero who is able to overcome tyranny, rebel, then succumbs to the very tyranny he attempted to defy. There are of course, the novels with the almost happy ending such as Anthem and Fahrenheit 451, but in a majority of these dystopian novels, as is the case with Brave New World and 1984, there is the inevitable descent of the protagonist, the hopeless plight of the faulted hero. A.C. Ward observes the similarities between Huxley's and Orwell's most well-known works, dissecting the possibilities of plagiarism and observing the irrefutable influence of Zamaitin's We on Brave New World and transitively Zamaitin's and Huxley's influence on the formation of 1984.
While it is clear that 1984 has many similarities to Brave New World (a fact even Orwell did not deny), the societies created from the same fear(the fear of dehumanization and oppression) are drastically different. Huxley created a world which controlled its citizens by granting them all that they have been conditioned to desire, therefore in content, they never desired beyond what the government allowed. In Orwell's society, as stated by Ward, "...everything...leads to death..." What I found particularly interesting about the article "Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" was the parallels Ward outlined between the characters and structures of the novels. Although I knew similarities existed between the novels, I missed a great many of the parallels Ward described. I was particularly interested in his relation of Mustapha Mond to O'Brien. While O'Brien inflicted acute pain upon Winston, I found his manner very similar to Mond. "Like Mond he is willing up to a point to engage in debate on the merits of his system and even to assign readings hostile to it...Like Mond, he seems to be, some of the time at least, a reasonable man..."(Ward). These two characters are probably the most fascinating in the two works. While Mond is seemingly the villain in Brave New World, he doesn't seem to be intended to evoke hostility from Huxley's readers. Although O'Brien's actions are somewhat demonic, even he is respected by his victim. Perhaps Huxley creates this mild antagonist and Orwell allows O'Brien to maintain a slight degree of this mildness, in order to emphasize the true villain of their novels: the corruptibility humanity. The evil present in these novels cannot be assigned to one individual. Mond, in his passive position of authority, mirrors the passive oppression utilized by the society. O'Brien's actions espouse the violent imposition of power by the society, but it is Winston's respect and submittal to power that is the true villain of the novel.
Another aspect of Ward's article which I found fascinating was his description of O'Brien's observation of Winston. The idea that Winston's "...rebellion is not his own..." that O'Brien had introduced the idea of rebellion to Winston for the sake of experimentation is perhaps the most frightening aspect of Orwell's creation. The idea that Winston has been stripped of his free will, that even his perceived rebellion was orchestrated by the will of the Party is the embodiment of Orwell's society: it controls all facets of human existence. While thought was the one aspect it couldn't control in its entirety, it found a path of control through an individual's subconscious.
Although neither Orwell nor Huxley's vision of the future have yet materialized(to their full extents), both remain a distinct possibility. Despite who influenced who, who borrowed theme and character ideas, these two novels both offer an individual's perspective on the imminent destruction of humanity, a similar fear which manifests itself in the form of two similar, yet vastly different societies. A.C. Ward describes these similarities at length, and while it is clear he finds Huxley's work more compelling, he concedes that both Orwell's vision and Huxley's have prepared us because "...if and when we actually do enter those new and terrible worlds, it will at least be with our eyes open..."

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Over the course of history there are certain topics, phrases, and occurrences which fall in and out of acceptance, vehemently condemned one decade, a social norm the next. Our grandparents balk at the inculcation of sex in nearly every aspect of the media, while, to most of this generation, it has become a normalcy to spot innuendo on Nickelodeon. With the transformation of society, other topics have surfaced, which had previously existed but were scandalous and publicly condemned. Such topics of discussion include abortion. While abortions have occurred over the course of history, never has it been so publicly debated and considered. I am personally against abortion. I believe that life begins in the embryo, and therefore believe that the practice is the destruction life. However, I do not believe that abortion should be prohibited by law. While I believe it is a horrible practice, I would adamantly defend an individual's right to have an abortion. It is not my place to impose my own moral beliefs on another individual, especially when I could not begin to understand the circumstances of an individual's decision. I have always considered myself a person of moderate philosophy and as such, have always had difficulty defining definitive positions on, well, anything. I have, however, always been against abortion. I hold little sympathy for those who utilize abortion as a form of repetitive birth control and do in some respect consider it a form of murder. While many may argue that this notion of murder is the justifiable force behind prohibition, because it is not MY body or my baby, I believe I have no right to tell someone they can't have the procedure done. Sure I think its wrong, but my idea of wrong could be drastically different from another individual's idea of wrong. Whose to say exactly whose right is truly right? Because I wouldn't have an abortion, doesn't grant me the right to force others to practice my own moral conduct. The basis of my moral conduct is primarily derived from my religion, and as such, cannot be utilized as the foundation of a prohibitory law.
The circumstances of abortion must also be considered. While I believe that there are better options available for unwanted pregnancies, this is a conviction which I have established outside of experience. Instances of abortion with pregnancies that happen as a result of rape or incest, or when the woman is somehow in danger(whether medically or otherwise) are often the subject of debate. In these circumstances, I again believe that no one has the right to restrict an individual's decision. No one should have authority over one's body, except the individual. I am able to say that I would not have an abortion under any circumstances simply because I am separated from actual experience. I cannot definitively state what I would do in a similar situation because I cannot possibly anticipate the emotional turmoil which these individuals endure. It is for this reason that I believe that no one is truly justified in making the decision other than the individual. Extremist Pro-Life groups who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion administers are heinously hypocritical. Rallying behind the idea of preserving life, they destroy life. I have considerable compassion for individuals who have abortions out of desperation. It is tragic. It is a decision which they will have to live with for their entire life and while there are those who have abortions repetitively and feel no remorse, there are also those who are tortured by their decision but felt they had no other option.
If abortions were to be prohibited by law, not only would it be an imposition of one group's moral beliefs on society, but it would put individuals in direct danger. While the law would prohibit abortions, they would inevitably still be administered, this time, however, in less contained and unsanitary atmospheres. Some may argue that in future generations abortions and other current practices will be condemned, just as we as society scrutinize the actions of our predecessors. However, we must not look at the practice in terms of our current(or future) perceptions of morality. We live in a country where everyone is entitled to their own opinions and expression of their personal liberties. If one is against abortion, they may say so, and have the freedom to decide against having one. Similarly, one should be entitled to support the choice of having an abortion and personally decide whether or not to have an abortion, without the interference of those who "know" the boundaries of morality.

Death to ambition

Imagine a world where a child's personality is predetermined. A couple looks through a meticulously contrived catalogue of characteristics and determines exactly who their future baby will be. Cystic Fibrosis? No thanks. Cancer? Definitely not. Smart, pretty, blond? No question. While this proposition seems like a slightly primitive sci-fi movie, the reality of genetic engineering in altering the genetic make-up of embryos is rapidly materializing. The pending question now is, if and when we master this technology, should we use it, and to what extent? The prospect of eliminating physical and mental diseases presents an overwhelming positive proponent to such technology. However, with the elimination of what society deems detrimental imperfections, emerges the question: who decides what is an imperfection worthy of elimination? While genetic engineering provides an opportunity to prevent lethal diseases, it grants a power which would inhibit individuality in promotion of mediocrity and creates the potential for prejudice in nearly every aspect of existence.
As Nancy Gibbs describes in her article "Wanted: Someone to Play God," there clearly exists positive arguments supporting genetic engineering. Eliminating incurable diseases, something which society has previously had very little control over, seems an infinitely positive aspect of this technology. Each couple could ensure for their child a long and healthy life, unburdened by the possibility of dying at age 20 of cystic fibrosis, cancer, or hemophilia. Parents could also eliminate fatal addictions such as alcoholism and tendencies toward drug addictions. Many could argue, and probably would face little opposition, that genetic engineering provides an opportunity to provide humanity with what it is entitled to: life.
While on a personal level this prospect seems undeniably desirable, from a global perspective the effects of this ability would be disastrous. Though it is not a pleasant reality, disease unfortunately serves as a natural source of population control. If all of mankind is given the opportunity to live to his/her full potential, overpopulation would inevitably become an even greater problem. In Brave New World this issue is rectified by OneState's control over the number of embryos developed and the mass death of individuals who reach the age of sixty. In part 1, the Director outlines the order and structure obtained through the Bokanovsky process, the process by which embryos are developed. The director calls it '...one of the major instruments of social stability'(Huxley 7). With the population dilemma genetic engineering presents, the government would eventually have to impose restrictions. Whether these restrictions manifest themselves in the form of eliminating mothers and fathers in society(as in Brave New World) or limiting the amount of children each couple is allowed to have, (as China imposed its "one family one child restrictions"), they deny liberty to its citizens, as well as create a large margin for problems. If a couple has the maximum amount of children permitted, but discovers that the traits they selected for these children do not fulfill expectations, conflict is inevitable. In China, due to this restriction, many girl infants were murdered because a family wanted a male as the one child they were permitted. Additionally, while in Brave New World individuals take drastic precaution to prevent pregnancy, unwanted children are discarded, which would inevitably be the case if such restrictions were to be applied to our society.
The elimination of physical disease also prompts the desire to eliminate learning disabilities and mentally challenged traits. Genetic engineering would enable parents to discover and prevent their children from having mental disabilities. But what defines mental disorder? Some individuals define homosexuality as a mental illness. Does this then grant parents the power to "correct" the genes which they deem unsavory? Nancy Gibbs states "This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps." While the possibility of eliminating mental disability would enable individuals to live "normal" lives, would something, in turn, be lost? The authority to deem what is in the best interest of these individuals is not ours to possess. My cousin, for example, has autism, but his intelligence exceeds the average child his age. Though I cannot begin to understand the struggle he endures due to his disability, he is an amazing person, and I wouldn’t dare change anything about him. By aiming to eradicate mental disorders, we are making a statement on the lives of these individuals, claiming that they are not worth appreciating. This technology provides an opportunity reminiscent of the work of eugenics groups and societies after World War I, who sterilized mentally disabled individuals and others who carried "unwanted" traits in order to inhibit the proliferation of an "inferior" human race(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html). In utilizing this technology in the name of progress, we'd be repeating the mistakes of the past, devaluing those who are different with the facade of righteousness.
Another issue which negates the positive proponents of genetic engineering is its destruction of individuality and its subsequent deflation of ambition. If parents are allowed to choose the characteristics/personality of their children, the prestige attached to those who possess great intellect or talent in a specific field will no longer be unique. If individuals are "programmed" to excel in certain areas, there can be no merit attached to their achievements. People will no longer obtain goals due to their struggle and hard work. The director questions his eager students "Has any of you ever encountered an insurmountable obstacle?...Has any of you been compelled to live through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfillment?"(Huxley 45). In the society which Huxley creates, there is no ambition. People are programmed to want to achieve that which they are capable of, therefore they possess no ambition to strive beyond their capabilities. Also, because many parents want similar traits for their children, it is likely that this technology will result in an overabundance of a certain type of individual, for example someone who possesses great intellect in math and science, is attractive, benign, and not overweight. Not only does this limit the amount of creativity of other fields being contributed to society, but it creates a deficient in other fields, such as necessary physical labor. Onestate is organized into a caste system in which individuals are developed(based on either deprivation or application of oxygen in the embryonic state) and conditioned to fulfill a certain station in life in which there is no opportunity to progress to assure that all necessary positions are occupied. With the deficient of workers mentioned above, the government would be forced to institute restrictions on how many individuals could possess certain traits. With these restrictions, a prejudice towards those who do not possess the most favorable traits would form, and thus destroy the very principles which our society are based upon: competition and liberty.
The prospect of genetic engineering technology reconstructing our society, despite the perceived positives, is a frightening potential. It would grant outrageous power to parents, and subsequently the government, in controlling the demographics of society, promoting prejudice and encouraging mediocrity.