I just logged in to ask a similar question and would like to hear what others thoughts are on this. I don't support the ideas or situation described in BNW but what is the alternative that we should hope to achieve?
How do we draw the line between "helping people live happier lives" and "tricking the masses into contented servitude"?
What is the ultimate goal of humanity and our global society? What should it be? How do we reconcile differing opinions on this question?
A frequent answer for me is "to reduce suffering as best we can for the greatest number of people" but if taken to the extreme... a sedated and distracted society might be the one with the least amount of suffering? I can't support that idea but it is the unfortunate logical extension which reminds me of the sci-fi dystopias in which AI is tasked with ensuring the best for humanity...
Which is the greater horror: oppressively managed lives imposed on the populace, or sought by the populace?
"Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program, entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from." - _The_Matrix_
It has been a very long time since I last read BNW, but at the time I read it I felt that that was a very conspicuous tension in the novel. Specifically that our expectations of 20th/21st century people, and our veneration of individualism, were at odds with a society that ostensibly delivered what hoped for in terms of poverty, crime, happiness. Even the rebellious that couldn't live in such a stifling society were shipped off (it was to Iceland right?) to live with other intellectuals and iconoclasts where they would likely be much happier than if they had stayed among the happy masses.
How do we draw the line between "helping people live happier lives" and "tricking the masses into contented servitude"?
What is the ultimate goal of humanity and our global society? What should it be? How do we reconcile differing opinions on this question?
A frequent answer for me is "to reduce suffering as best we can for the greatest number of people" but if taken to the extreme... a sedated and distracted society might be the one with the least amount of suffering? I can't support that idea but it is the unfortunate logical extension which reminds me of the sci-fi dystopias in which AI is tasked with ensuring the best for humanity...