Cocktail Recipes, Spirits, and Local Bars

Brave New Food: New Tech’s Attempt to Feed the World

Brave New Food: New Tech’s Attempt to Feed the World

Weather is pummeling our food supply through droughts, wildfires and the changing climate. Meanwhile, the global population is exploding, so the world needs to produce a staggering 70 percent more food by 2050. Meet the groundbreaking, though in some cases unsettling, foods that their creators say will aid the planet and change the way we eat.

I. The New Food Rules

Dried crickets taste like dirt something died in. They’re crunchy. They stick to your tongue and teeth in a wholly unpleasant way. The wings are the worst part.

But crickets and other creepy crawlies can be quite palatable, according to a slew of entrepreneurs. “Insects are a beautiful, delicious food,” said Megan Miller, founder of San Francisco-based Bitty Foods, which makes cricket-flour cookies and baking mixes. Miller, 36, has blonde hair, chunky black sunglasses and the self-assured air of a PR pro (she worked in media, with a stint in a pastry kitchen and a study of sustainable agriculture before founding Bitty).

Her job, she said outside of a popular Bay Area coffee shop, is to make insects a “trendy” protein-packed food. “Crickets are a sustainable protein source. They can be farmed much more efficiently than meat and some plant proteins,” she explained. “They don’t need as much land or water,” adding that there are nearly 70 grams of protein in just one cup of cricket flour, much more than almond meal or other grain-free flours. Her high-protein cricket cookies, which taste, well, like cookies, are just a small part of San Francisco’s new food tech scene.

In some circles — typically those of the young, affluent and health conscious — the idea of eating insects, or entomophagy, has caught on, fast, spurred on by a 2013 pro bugs-as-food report from the U.N. The only argument against insects as a sustainable protein is the Western “ick” factor, the report said, writing “from ants to beetle larvae — eaten by tribes in Africa and Australia as part of their subsistence diets — to the popular, crispy-fried locusts and beetles enjoyed in Thailand, it is estimated that insect-eating is practiced regularly by at least 2 billion people worldwide.” (The dried crickets previously mentioned were grown and dried in Thailand and shipped to the U.S. through a London-based company, an example of how hard it still is to get human-grade bugs stateside.)

Bugs aren’t the only environmentally friendly food produced in the Bay Area. In San Francisco’s SoMa district, there’s Hampton Creek. The company goal: Create the world’s first plant-based egg that scrambles, emulsifies, bakes, feels and tastes just like the real thing. No small feat for even the most-talented brains Silicon Valley can offer.

Also in the business of plant protein is Beyond Meat, a company headquartered in El Segundo, California, near Los Angeles. The company’s technology was born out of research from Dr. Fu-hung Hsieh and Harold Huff at the University of Missouri. The two scientists created a new method of mixing, heating and pressurizing plant proteins to mimic the fiber structure of real meat, a novelty among soy meat replacements.

Perhaps most controversial of all, innovators in The Netherlands and the U.S. are growing meat in a lab — cultivating real cattle muscle cells that are then “assembled just like you assemble a regular hamburger patty,” researcher Mark Post, of Maastricht University in The Netherlands, told weather.com. “And then basically you just fry it, and eat it.”

These three distinct technologies raise questions about what constitutes “real food” — that 21st-century buzzword popularized by Michael Pollan and the like, to indicate a whole food, nutrition-minded lifestyle. All three technologies also emphasize that sustainable food — not to mention human health and animal welfare — is more important than ever.

“The timeline to act is really now,” Danielle Nirenberg, the founder of Food Tank, a food sector research institute, told weather.com. “It’s to our detriment to think that we have 50 years to solve the issue of unsustainable agriculture.”

What’s about to happen to our planet and our food supply is sobering. There are a variety of factors steering the globe toward crisis.

First, sheer numbers. Today, there are 7.2 billion people in the world; 842 million of those individuals are undernourished, according to the U.N. The population is projected to increase by 1 billion over the next 12 years, eventually reaching 9.6 billion by 2050. These additional humans, as well as climatic factors, mean the world will need 70 percent more food, as measured by calories, to feed the world, the U.N. stated in late 2013.


Food & Wine's Best New Chefs of 2020 on the Future of Restaurants

This year’s class of Best New Chefs tells us how they want the restaurant industry to change after COVID-19.

The restaurant industry is one of the hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. It seemed almost overnight that bustling dining rooms were shut down and sommeliers swapped bottles of wine for bottles of hand sanitizer. If a restaurant remained open, they were forced to switch to take-out and delivery only models, attempting to survive, while the government failed to pass specific measures to help save them. The industry will soon attempt to begin the monumental task of rebuilding itself. We asked this year’s class of Best New Chefs, the culinary leaders of tomorrow, to share their hopes for the future of the restaurant industry.


Sarah Hughes: Clever, brave, bold, funny – my unforgettable friend

“I would be lying if I said that the last decade hasn’t been the best of my life. I’ve been lucky in love, fulfilled in my work, surrounded by friends, laughed more than I ever thought possible at the most ridiculous of things. I can say with absolute honesty that I have had a lovely time and I don’t regret any of it.”

Those words came from a piece Sarah wrote for the Observer two years ago. It was unforgettable. Titled Game of Thrones, cancer and me, it was about her journey through the disease that last week claimed her life, and how her passion for popular culture (in particular GoT) gave her something to hold on to in dark times. The piece wasn’t miserable (although it made me cry for a long time afterwards) or angry. Instead it was bold, practical, reflective and witty. Just like Sarah herself.

We first met about 20 years ago on the Observer, slightly blurry days filled with deadlines, socialising and headaches brought on by too much gin and whisky. But it wasn’t until 2015, when I moved on to the Observer’s news desk, that Sarah and I struck up a working relationship and then, so much more importantly, a fulfilling friendship.

It could have started badly. Unknown to me at the time, I got the job Sarah had gone for. When I found out, I sent her an apologetic email saying I “hoped she didn’t feel peeved at me”. The reply was instant: “Darling, not at all, if I couldn’t get it then I was glad it was you, as much to have someone I’m friends with than a random person.”

We spent the next five-and-a-half years talking, often over lunch, about everything from books, films, TV programmes, sport and global politics to the school curriculum.

Sarah with Oisín at the famous Gleason Gym in Brooklyn, New York City, in 2016. Photograph: Christopher Lane

We found common ground in our home lives – both in our 40s, husband, two children of similar ages and even a dog each. Sarah’s husband Kris, 13-year-old Ruby and 11-year-old Oisín were, without doubt, the best things that ever happened to her.

She was an extraordinary storyteller, equally at home chatting in a pub to a group of middle-aged blokes about her much-loved team Spurs or her passion for horse racing as she was discussing American politics, “trashy” novels (which she loved) or fashion. She was clever, funny, kind and generous with praise. Every email began “Hey darling” and ended in kisses – even when she was a bit cross.

Since the announcement of her death last Tuesday, there has been an outpouring of affection for Sarah and appreciation of her work, from fans of her much-loved Game of Thrones and Line of Duty recaps to scores of predominantly female writers whom she championed.

But it was the articles she wrote for the Observer in recent times that captivated a new audience. She wrote about the agonising loss of two stillborn babies – first for the Observer magazine and then for a piece I commissioned in 2017. Was she OK writing about her own experience, I asked, or would this be too much? “I am,” she replied. “I always get a little emotional … but that’s part of it.”

In the past three years, there were candid and moving accounts about her journey with cancer. Her honest and, ultimately, upbeat accounts drew a new audience, often those who appreciated someone voicing their own experience so articulately.

These articles were difficult to read for those of us who knew and loved her because Sarah rarely talked about her illness. In March 2018, when she came to my desk and said she had something to say and could we go for a coffee, Sarah told me she had an aggressive form of breast cancer. I wobbled over the right response but she batted off any attempt to console her, keen to get back to work. Later in an email, I asked if she had told some mutual friends of ours. In typical matter-of-fact style she replied: “I haven’t but I don’t mind you telling them because to be honest it’s a hassle having to have the same conversation constantly.”

Six months later, she told me the cancer had spread to her liver and was now incurable. I was on my local high street when she called. The rain was coming down, the traffic was loud, so I ducked into a side alley. “It’s spread,” she said, when I could eventually hear her. “I’ve got an interview lined up for you this afternoon but I’m not sure I can do it right now.” Of course she shouldn’t do it, I said – but even then she insisted I line up someone else as she didn’t want to let the interviewee down.

Despite the rapid progression of the disease, she never stopped working and would file from her hospital bed, at one point memorably phoning me about a piece while keeping at bay a nurse trying to get her ready for a procedure. “I’m on the phone to my editor, I just need a minute,” she kept insisting.

During the pandemic, Sarah remained positive even though she had to shield herself from another terrible illness she feared might claim her life. “I’ve never been more glad to live in the suburbs of west London because Kris can take the kids to play Gaelic football up a hill every day for an hour and there’s no one there. Plus I have a garden,” she wrote to me.

In all the conversations we had nearer the end, she never mentioned death and she always kept her sense of humour. She would undoubtedly have laughed her infectious throaty laugh last week if she had known that at one point she was trending on Twitter with Kellyanne Conway and Kim Kardashian.

Last weekend, she left hospital knowing she didn’t have long left. “She got to go out the way she wanted,” her husband Kris said in a message the day after she died. “She was so determined to make it home and she managed it somehow.”


The week in TV: Life The Comey Rule Honour Brave New World – review

Life, which began its own six-episode one on Tuesday, is simply the best soap opera ever devised. If all soaps were like this I’d be boring you weekly with breathless updates about Corrie or ’Stenders or the other one. Not everyone, however, has the luxury of garlanded playwright Mike “Doctor Foster” Bartlett on board, nor the ability to round up the usual suspects, a sublime team of our finest homegrown character actors. It’s lovely, enthralling, exploratory and a little bit cheesy all in one I could have watched these people for a long, long time.

Pretty much everyone excels in this tale of a big Manc house converted into four flats, whose residents variously spin from the realms of stability, achieve closure, pain, babies, loss, joy, and eventually whirl back round each other all over again. The interconnectedness of all things has seldom been better expressed since Douglas Adams, unless it was in 2019’s Years and Years.

Alison Steadman goes without saying – but Peter Davison, as the (outwardly caring) pompous fool who micro-controls and belittles her: well, were he not almost 70 and rather well known anyway, I would declare: what a find! As, incidentally, is young Calvin Demba as the lovely Andy, whom Melissa Johns’s Hannah is unaccountably rejecting. Adrian Lester, or a phenomenal Saira Choudhry, the list goes on… but the absolute fist-in-the-air victor is Victoria Hamilton, reprising and expanding her role as uptight neighbour Anna in Doc Foster, now having left her smug husband and renamed herself Belle.

As a study in an oft-disappointed soul for whom perfection has replaced the desire for friendship, warm human contact even, she is… well, perfection. One scene (of many) still lingers: I hope I’m not spoiling too much, it’s all on iPlayer now, but when she gives her truculent niece a valued brooch for a birthday, then instantly takes it back with a patchy smile and a “You’ll only lose it!”, she is the embodiment of all souls who know how difficult they are being yet yearn for someone to understand their need for control. Which is, of course, born mainly from a previous pain.

It all gets a teensy tiny bit Richard Curtis in only the last episode, what with declarations and jiltings and resolutions and whatnot, but as an exhumation of the human condition it will hardly be bettered this year. Also, it manages to draw a subtle distinction between between serious, chronic, psychological pain and the more usual slings and arrows that harrow us all.

In a timely fashion, Jeff Daniels strode his rather leggy legs on stage to tell us the story of James Comey, ex-FBI head, in The Comey Rule – caught between a rock and a big, bastarding boulder in July 2015 when the first allegations regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email servers surfaced. So 31,000 deleted emails, hmm, yet if he raised concerns might it spin the election for Mr Donald Trump?

Jeff Daniels is marvellous in The Comey Rule. Photograph: CBS Television Studios/Ben Mark Holzberg/Showtime

It’s all told honestly and solemnly, with a welcome gaggle of alumni from Martin Sheen’s West Wing, and Daniels is marvellous in his mix of personal charm and pious boy-scoutery. Comey’s story is in itself a twitch forgotten but savagely relevant today: the Russian interference, where the only intention was to disrupt, disrupt, disrupt America. The splenetic, liberal anti-Trump blindness: pressured by wife and daughter to not reopen the Hillary investigation a week before the election, boy-scout boy asks: ‘If she broke the law, wouldn’t you want to know?’ The answering scream of “No!” has, in its own way, served to factionalise America.

Brendan Gleeson, I can’t think of a nicer way to put this, was born to play the thudmonster Trump. Sorry Brendan. I had thought his performance might be verging on parody, if truthful and awesome parody, but then I caught that Biden debate. Which both splits and shames America. Hugs all round, smiley face.

Honour was one of those dramas that the ITV drama department does so well. Keeley Hawes was Caroline Goode, the officer who brought, with tenacity and pain and sterling help from a little dedicated team, the killers of Banaz Mahmod to justice. They were, basically, her family. It was an “honour killing”, a term that I might beg be wiped from the lexicon.

Quietly searing. Moe Bar-El and Keeley Hawes in Honour. Photograph: Hera Pictures/ITV

Quietly searing in its slow condemnation of ancient, raddled, cultish thinking, it was also just a damned good investigation.

One has to sympathise, if only a little, with the team behind Brave New World, an ambitious attempt at a launch for the new US streaming service Peacock, available here on Sky. Did they remain faithful to Aldous Huxley’s text – written, if you remember, as a dystopian take on 1920s America, which he saw, and not in a good way, as a postwar mire of addled consumerism, hedonism run rampant and unfulfilled personal lives, where “pleasure” was all, yet nobody was actually happy? Or did they update it, Black Mirror-style, to reflect more modern truths – inequality, say, or social media, or the new tribalisms?

In the end, sadly, they did neither. What we’re left with is an undoubtedly slick sci-fi something-or-other, which neither manages (or even sets foot on the road) to explore Huxley’s darker philosophical intentions nor to offer us reimagining, relevance. It’s just a story about “New London” (the rules are: no privacy. No family. No monogamy. Everyone is very happy) and a few individuals’ search for more soul, away from their perpetually pleasant chemical blur, in the rebellious “savage lands”: thus it ticks Huxley’s boxes, but only in a digested-read kind of way.

An undoubtedly slick sci-fi. Brave New World. Photograph: Peacock/Steve Schofield

There are many good-looking, writhing bodies, but it’s not actually sexy in fact the overall experience is like popping a pill of soma, the ubiquitous drug that leaves everyone beaming yet, ultimately, nigglingly dissatisfied. Jessica Brown Findlay, Alden Ehrenreich, Demi Moore, the wonderful Nina Sosanya all do their level best but… it’s just a – meh – easy watch. Which is a problem in itself – it’s rather hard to imagine any viewer, after having spent long hours on the sofa grazing and gazing at nine 50-minute episodes of escapism and shallow orgies, being moved to condemn or reject the idea of a world beset by the mindless pursuit of dull pleasure.

Sadly no previews were available for Spitting Image by the time this section’s presses roll, but the makers have trailed Britbox’s great hope fairly endlessly. Two observations: not every sketch is going to have you in stitches but, crucially, it never did. We all remember our favourites – pub conversations will always revolve tediously around Thatcher’s vegetables, David Steel, Tebbit as the Chingford skinhead – but forget the long acres we waded through unsmiling. And one trailer made much of Trump and Johnson together in a sauna, and I rather wish satirists would desist in conflating the two. While Agent Orange may be – no, definitely is, even as we speak – tearing his own country apart, our own PM is not, actually, literally, Adrammelech, mephitic Assyrian commander of hell. He’s Alex Johnson, posh-boy chancer.


How to Feed Bees

This article was co-authored by David Williams. David Williams is a Professional Beekeeper and Bee Removal Specialist with over 28 years of beekeeping experience. He is the Owner of Bzz Bee Removal, a bee removal company based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Bzz Bee Removal locates, captures, and transports bees to local beekeepers to prevent colony collapse disorder.

There are 15 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page.

This article has been viewed 35,938 times.

It’s usually best to let bees gather their own food. However, you can create your own feed for the bees if for some reason there are inadequate sources of honey, abnormalities in the environment, or for any other reason the bees are not able to feed on their own. [1] X Expert Source

David Williams
Beekeeper & Bee Removal Specialist Expert Interview. 13 February 2020. There are many types of feeders, sugar combinations in feeds, and times of year to think about when feeding. [2] X Research source


7 Fallout New Vegas Redesigned 3 - Open Source

According to the author of this particular mod, New Vegas was rushed to market by Obsidian in a very short space of time, resulting in quite a lot of character oversights. Fallout New Vegas Redesigned 3 attempts to rectify this by going back and touching up each of the characters in the game so that they adhere to established lore.

For instance, haggard and wounded characters now look visually distinct based on their conditions, and that's just one example of many fixes this mod does, including animal bites, puncture wounds, age-appropriate facial textures and models, bullet wounds, etc. It even includes extra levels of interaction on corpses to determine the cause of death. Morbid, but cool.


55 replies

Huxley talks through both sides of his mouth. On one hand he is warning us about the freedoms we are on the verge of losing while on the other he was providing the oligarchs with material and intellectual aid in secret meetings to help them exert their plans over humanity. He ran a good hustle by profiting from both the elites directly and through the serfs (via book sales) while pretending to enlighten the masses.

I've heard many people claim that but I've never seen any proof, so I remain skeptical so far

I think that all dictatorships will be overthrown eventually, (although it might take a long time for it to happen) simply due to the genetic variation that you find in humans. There will always be those with less servile genetics, and they will rebel in the end. (and have done so throughout history) The only way that you could alter that dynamic would be to eradicate that genetic phenotype.

This is not very likely, as that would require a bottleneck type event, (genetic drift becomes stronger) where humanity is reduced to a very small number of individuals, and only those that are passive would survive. That means that even the elites would have to die off really. But even passive organisms can pass on more dominant genes, so you would have to maintain the passive individuals advantage for long enough for those genetics to completely disappear from the gene pool.

Strong and righteous men will prevail in the end, but it might be decades/centuries before that happens. So if you have any ideas as to how to speed up that process, please feel free to share.

I believe that behind all great historical evil movements are supernatural forces, and people's willingness to cooperate with them knowingly or as useful idiots.

I've always held an affinity to Brave New World and see more and more people (including close friends) become addicted to the Soma. Absolutely agree with the premise and the populace's chosen prison.

Though, it's somewhat comical that the prose rejects and criticizes spiritually devoid Big Corporations, yet recommends and links to the Biggest and Richest of them all - Amazon.

Most people never reflect deep enough to really understand why they are so miserable. The distractions to make them immediately feel better such as drugs, alcohol, TV and music are so readily available. So it’s a cycle of suffering, dopamine, suffering, dopamine. It’s not until some hit rock bottom and discover the truth in God do they finally change. The problem is that it is becoming more and more challenging to hit this point. Most are fed lies that the world/government/products have an answer for their unhappiness.

Without knowing God, we are all easily manipulated as there is no way to identify with a suffering servant, the Savior of the world.

The government will feed on these empty souls with the promise of a utopia now, as it continues to maintain more control with progressive destruction until it is too late.

What is defined as “too late”? I believe it’s coming soon.

Keep it up Roosh. Your articles create a lot of thought and discussion. And its effect is that those reading this continue to wake up others.

I've always held an affinity to Brave New World and see more and more people (including close friends) become addicted to the Soma. Absolutely agree with the premise and the populace's chosen prison.

Though, it's somewhat comical that the prose rejects and criticizes spiritually devoid Big Corporations, yet recommends and links to the Biggest and Richest of them all - Amazon.

Brave New World was written after Huxley's (first, he later moved to work in Hollywood and I believe he lived/died in New Mexico, too lazy to look up) visit to the US. Soma was an analogue for pot, which he didn't like not because he didn't approve of drugs but because he thought it made people silly (pot bad, LSD and peyote good, the man was injected with LSD on his deathbed). Also "feelies" were a spoof of the newly released sound movies ("talkies"), sex-hormone chewing gum, etc.

It was a parody of HG Wells style, or books like "Looking Backward" (which I picked up at a thrift store last year). Huxley's later work "Island" has similar themes, but is a "good" planned society.

If you accept the belief that Satan is the grand orchestrator of all evil on Earth, his goal would include reducing the number of souls that enter heaven through a variety of methods

I slightly don't agree with this initial premise if only because it's a common trope thrown around and without an explanation is ultimately deceptive. That is that satan as the 'grand orchestrator' on Earth is a common misconception if not clarified. By saying this you're implying God is not the one in charge. Maybe you're aware of this, it's a common misconception which needs clarification if only because it can cause over exaggeration within the rest of what you write. In other words it can become an aggressively overly exaggerated claim about the entire state of mankind, when in reality the state of mankind is mostly hidden from us.

If you're simply saying "he's orchestrating all evil" (which is what you said) that's a bit different, but you give point after point about how ultimately the world is broken in some way shape or form. Point is God is in charge and if not careful with that line of reasoning we can deprive Him of His power(s) if you're putting the devil on the pedestal. The reason I mention is because this forum, from the looks of it, has a tendency to go all in on the nihilistic attitudes of society without providing any actual solutions. By hammering the nail down repeatedly that 'satan is the grand orchestrator' it can have the opposite effect of maybe your initial intention, which is to preach the word of God right? A friendly suggestion would be for every evil you witness or write about, I'd make it a habit to write something positive or provide a solution which is biblical or is an attempt to repair.

I for one started reading this book, and once I got to the part about nude children I realized it was trash and stopped reading.

"Outside in a picturesque garden, hundreds of naked boys and girls play. The group watches some children playing a complicated game called Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy. With wonder, the Director recalls that, in Ford’s day, games were played with minimal equipment, like balls and sticks, and didn’t increase consumption" - Brave New World

Anyone wasting their time writing about children in this way is misguided. I personally don't believe we need to know the "script" of the "elites" or of anyone actually. The book isn't worth reading in my opinion not because it's a "script" but because it's just not very interesting or well written.

Since the fall, satan became the prince of demons (Matt. 12:24), ruler of the darkness (Eph. 6:12), and the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). The devil is absolutely opposed to good, which is why John the Evangelist describes him as such:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

If there's a lesson to be learned here it's do not speak according to your own nature and will but according to the will of God.

The Bible is clear that the devil is utterly opposed to God. This is important, because we identify God’s essence as perfect good (Summa Theologiae part I, question 6) and perfect love (part I, question 20 1 John 14:16). Theologically, God’s essence (his nature) is his existence (I, 2 3). If satan is opposed to good, then he is opposed to God’s existence. Therefore satan is entirely opposed to the good of redemption, of salvation.

The LORD said to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” We may ask, then, whose kingdom is? The Savior also calls the evil one the “prince of this world.” Now, of course, God is the ultimate Master and Lord of all things whatsoever “of things on the earth, in heaven, and under the earth,”. So how can the LORD Jesus call the devil “the prince of this world?”

The traditional theology of the Church, of both the Old and New Testament, has always understood that before their fall the angels were given various roles in the governing of the universe. The knowledge and power necessary for them to fulfill their offices in creation under God are a constituent part of their natures from the instant of their creation. It would appear that the devil or Satan is the angel to whom was given the care of human kingdoms and societies.

This means that the devil especially resents the good who perform their roles in human society - the family, government, business, education - without being his followers. After all, all these things would be his. So the very fact that there are good people in the world who follow the Savior rather than satan is to him a revolt, a punishable offense and an act of war. The appearance of Christ’s Church on the scene of the kingdoms of this world is actually the incursion of his enemy into his own territory and requires a violent response. This is why there has been and always will be spiritual war between the followers of Christ the King and the followers of the prince of this world.

And this title 'prince of this world' identifies not him as literally leader of creation, but simply as leader of fallen humans. This is the main clarification here. Because he does not 'rule everything' which again, is a common misunderstanding and trope. He rules evil humans, not the world. Simply because a person has a lot of money, it does not logically follow that they are also evil. There's many Saints who were rich and even kings and queens who were Saints, so this identification with wealth as equal to evil is a again, another common misunderstanding. If you believe money itself makes you evil then there's flaws in your overall thinking which need reconciled and examined. As far as the 'global elites', it's impossible to tell the state of their souls.

I don't disagree with the overall premise here, but I do find it misleading, ultimately because it shows a large amount of assumption on the individuals part to presume the state of others souls. We cannot judge someone based on the presumed state of their soul, this is an error. We know them based on their actions. Again, simply having a lot of money does not necessarily make someone evil. This can cloud your overall perception of world events if you think merely gathering wealth is an evil. Wealth does clearly allow for large amounts of influence, but having influence isn't evil either in and of itself.

As the LORD has told us, it is by His being lifted up on the cross in His Holy Passion that “the prince of this world is cast out.” The definitive battle has been fought already on Calvary, while the rest of history is a cleanup operation as the devil tries to desperately hold on to some power over human souls and bodies.

So it's not as though there's some battle to already be won or lost (except on a personal level), the battle is already over, Christ won. On a personal level you can still lose your soul of course, but on an Eschatological level there's nothing satan can do in the overall unfolding of time.

Small businesses were possible in the United States, at least until 2020

Again by and large I don't disagree with your overall analysis here, but you present these massive claims and don't provide any real solutions. I realize it's just a textual review of the book, but this notion of fatalism and alarmist behavior is seen throughout this forum. By knowing the 'script' of the elites what we really accomplished other bringing it up and adding fuel to the fire? Was Christ saying,"Look how Caesar is manipulating you. Why would you use Caesars currency? Go make your own currency." He never said this, in fact He said the exact opposite.

17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him. - Mark 12:17

All things are God's not Caesar's. Again I don't' necessarily completely disagree, yet there is an alarmist bent to this forum which I believe needs tempered with practical solutions rather than more end of the world hypothesiing.

The answer is reaction, not revolution, but first we have to ask what Christ demands of us. Does he want us to take up arms to “fix” the world from the evil-doers, or does he want us to keep our eyes and heart on Him to endure a spiritual struggle for greater rewards in Heaven?

Why not both? Regardless as already mentioned, the main battle is already over, Christ won. This doesn't mean don't do anything, it means if there's actual problems then apply actual solutions and focus on what you can change. Presuming you can alter world events or understand individuals you've never met, whom we you not know is an illusion. Let the 'elites' try to forecast events, they are the ones desperately trying to alter the world. Christians don't need to do this because they already know the outcome.

I've heard many people claim that but I've never seen any proof, so I remain skeptical so far

I haven't come across anything of certainty either. The only thing I have come across is that his parents were fairly prominent people in England, prominent enough anyways to be in social circles were these things were discussed. A lot of Huxleys ideas likely came from their thought experiments/think tanks and talks on how they would like to socially engineer society.

It would also appear from his letter to George Orwell, that he was well read and learned in areas of psychology, and was very good at analyzing how these might be used down the tunnel of time.

21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.

The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.

I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis 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 and kicking them into obedience.

In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency.

Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

The last bit is in my mind the most telling.

It seems a lot of people who were young, or still had in their minds eye and memory, not being far in the timeline away from the world wars, wrote quite a bit about pandemics, the incredible growth of humans over the past 150 years and the insane levels of using up resources.

A George Stewart book named Earth Abides addresses this very subject and was written in 1949. He even drops little anecdotes throughout it regarding other species getting too populated, which always leads to disaster. His depiction is of natural origin, but I think in reality our situation is contrived. The printing of money, debt upon debt. etc. Of course this led to no regulation of peoples behavior. A sense that money and resources were endless, and a loss of perspective of what money represents (a store of value). I think the elites knew this. But they needed it to achieve their personal "god" pursuits on earth.

Another book called The Captive Mind by Milosz, written in 1951 discusses the thinking of the Left/totalitarian mind as well on this matter of population and disease. I think it's one of the most sophisticated books I've read on the mentality of the Left I've ever read.

As for the drastic methods employed -- after all, in the end everyone must die. Let us assume that a large percentage of the population was killed off by a plague, instead of by disciplinary expeditions. From the moment we acknowledge historical necessity to be something in the nature of a plague, we shall stop shedding tears over the fate of its victims. A plague or an earthquake do not usually provoke indignation. One admits they catastrophes, folds the morning paper, and continues eating breakfast. One can revolt only against someone. Here, there is no one. The people who have brought the plague are convinced they are merely fulfilling their historical duty.


Contents

The title Brave New World derives from Miranda's speech in William Shakespeare's The Tempest, Act V, Scene I: [5]

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't.

Shakespeare's use of the phrase is intended ironically, as the speaker is failing to recognise the evil nature of the island's visitors because of her innocence. [7]

Translations of the title often allude to similar expressions used in domestic works of literature: the French edition of the work is entitled Le Meilleur des mondes (The Best of All Worlds), an allusion to an expression used by the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz [8] and satirised in Candide, Ou l'Optimisme by Voltaire (1759).

Huxley wrote Brave New World while living in Sanary-sur-Mer, France, in the four months from May to August 1931. [9] [10] [11] By this time, Huxley had already established himself as a writer and social satirist. He was a contributor to Vanity Fair and Vogue magazines, and had published a collection of his poetry (The Burning Wheel, 1916) and four successful satirical novels: Crome Yellow (1921), Antic Hay (1923), Those Barren Leaves (1925), and Point Counter Point (1928). Brave New World was Huxley's fifth novel and first dystopian work.

A passage in Crome Yellow contains a brief pre-figuring of Brave New World, showing that Huxley had such a future in mind already in 1921. Mr. Scogan, one of the earlier book's characters, describes an "impersonal generation" of the future that will "take the place of Nature's hideous system. In vast state incubators, rows upon rows of gravid bottles will supply the world with the population it requires. The family system will disappear society, sapped at its very base, will have to find new foundations and Eros, beautifully and irresponsibly free, will flit like a gay butterfly from flower to flower through a sunlit world."

Huxley said that Brave New World was inspired by the utopian novels of H. G. Wells, including A Modern Utopia (1905), and Men Like Gods (1923). [12] Wells's hopeful vision of the future's possibilities gave Huxley the idea to begin writing a parody of the novels, which became Brave New World. He wrote in a letter to Mrs. Arthur Goldsmith, an American acquaintance, that he had "been having a little fun pulling the leg of H. G. Wells", but then he "got caught up in the excitement of [his] own ideas." [13] Unlike the most popular optimistic utopian novels of the time, Huxley sought to provide a frightening vision of the future. Huxley referred to Brave New World as a "negative utopia", somewhat influenced by Wells's own The Sleeper Awakes (dealing with subjects like corporate tyranny and behavioural conditioning) and the works of D. H. Lawrence.

The scientific futurism in Brave New World is believed to be appropriated from Daedalus [14] by J. B. S. Haldane. [15]

The events of the Depression in the UK in 1931, with its mass unemployment and the abandonment of the gold currency standard, persuaded Huxley to assert that stability was the "primal and ultimate need" if civilisation was to survive the present crisis. [16] The Brave New World character Mustapha Mond, Resident World Controller of Western Europe, is named after Sir Alfred Mond. Shortly before writing the novel, Huxley visited Mond's technologically advanced plant near Billingham, north east England, and it made a great impression on him. [16] : xxii

Huxley used the setting and characters in his science fiction novel to express widely felt anxieties, particularly the fear of losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future. An early trip to the United States gave Brave New World much of its character. Huxley was outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, and sexual promiscuity, and the inward-looking nature of many Americans [17] he had also found the book My Life and Work by Henry Ford on the boat to America, and he saw the book's principles applied in everything he encountered after leaving San Francisco. [16] : viii

The novel opens in the World State city of London in AF (After Ford) 632 (AD 2540 in the Gregorian calendar), where citizens are engineered through artificial wombs and childhood indoctrination programmes into predetermined classes (or castes) based on intelligence and labour. Lenina Crowne, a hatchery worker, is popular and sexually desirable, but Bernard Marx, a psychologist, is not. He is shorter in stature than the average member of his high caste, which gives him an inferiority complex. His work with sleep-learning allows him to understand, and disapprove of, his society's methods of keeping its citizens peaceful, which includes their constant consumption of a soothing, happiness-producing drug called Soma. Courting disaster, Bernard is vocal and arrogant about his criticisms, and his boss contemplates exiling him to Iceland because of his nonconformity. His only friend is Helmholtz Watson, a gifted writer who finds it difficult to use his talents creatively in their pain-free society.

Bernard takes a holiday with Lenina outside the World State to a Savage Reservation in New Mexico, in which the two observe natural-born people, disease, the ageing process, other languages, and religious lifestyles for the first time (the culture of the village folk resembles the contemporary Native American groups of the region, descendants of the Anasazi, including the Puebloan peoples of Acoma, Laguna and Zuni). [ citation needed ] Bernard and Lenina witness a violent public ritual and then encounter Linda, a woman originally from the World State who is living on the reservation with her son John, now a young man. She, too, visited the reservation on a holiday many years ago, but became separated from her group and was left behind. She had meanwhile become pregnant by a fellow-holidaymaker (who is revealed to be Bernard's boss, the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning). She did not try to return to the World State, because of her shame at her pregnancy. Despite spending his whole life in the reservation, John has never been accepted by the villagers, and his and Linda's lives have been hard and unpleasant. Linda has taught John to read, although from the only two books in her possession—a scientific manual and the complete works of Shakespeare. Ostracised by the villagers, John is able to articulate his feelings only in terms of Shakespearean drama, quoting often from The Tempest, King Lear, Othello, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Linda now wants to return to London, and John, too, wants to see this "brave new world". Bernard sees an opportunity to thwart plans to exile him, and gets permission to take Linda and John back. On their return to London, John meets the Director and calls him his "father", a vulgarity which causes a roar of laughter. The humiliated Director resigns in shame before he can follow through with exiling Bernard.

Bernard, as "custodian" of the "savage" John who is now treated as a celebrity, is fawned on by the highest members of society and revels in attention he once scorned. Bernard's popularity is fleeting, though, and he becomes envious that John only really bonds with the literary-minded Helmholtz. Considered hideous and friendless, Linda spends all her time using soma, while John refuses to attend social events organised by Bernard, appalled by what he perceives to be an empty society. Lenina and John are physically attracted to each other, but John's view of courtship and romance, based on Shakespeare's writings, is utterly incompatible with Lenina's freewheeling attitude to sex. She tries to seduce him, but he attacks her, before suddenly being informed that his mother is on her deathbed. He rushes to Linda's bedside, causing a scandal, as this is not the "correct" attitude to death. Some children who enter the ward for "death-conditioning" come across as disrespectful to John until he attacks one physically. He then tries to break up a distribution of soma to a lower-caste group, telling them that he is freeing them. Helmholtz and Bernard rush in to stop the ensuing riot, which the police quell by spraying soma vapor into the crowd.

Bernard, Helmholtz, and John are all brought before Mustapha Mond, the "Resident World Controller for Western Europe", who tells Bernard and Helmholtz that they are to be exiled to islands for antisocial activity. Bernard pleads for a second chance, but Helmholtz welcomes the opportunity to be a true individual, and chooses the Falkland Islands as his destination, believing that their bad weather will inspire his writing. Mond tells Helmholtz that exile is actually a reward. The islands are full of the most interesting people in the world, individuals who did not fit into the social model of the World State. Mond outlines for John the events that led to the present society and his arguments for a caste system and social control. John rejects Mond's arguments, and Mond sums up John's views by claiming that John demands "the right to be unhappy". John asks if he may go to the islands as well, but Mond refuses, saying he wishes to see what happens to John next.

Jaded with his new life, John moves to an abandoned hilltop tower, near the village of Puttenham, where he intends to adopt a solitary ascetic lifestyle in order to purify himself of civilization, practising self-flagellation. This soon draws reporters and eventually hundreds of amazed sightseers, hoping to witness his bizarre behaviour one of them is implied to be Lenina. At the sight of the woman he both adores and loathes, John attacks her with his whip. The onlookers are wildly aroused by the display and John is caught up in the crowd's soma-fuelled frenzy. The next morning, he remembers the previous night's events and is stricken with remorse. Onlookers and journalists who arrive that evening discover John dead, having hanged himself.

Bernard Marx, a sleep-learning specialist at the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. Although Bernard is an Alpha-Plus (the upper class of the society), he is a misfit. He is unusually short for an Alpha an alleged accident with alcohol in Bernard's blood-surrogate before his decanting has left him slightly stunted. Bernard's independence of mind stems more from his inferiority complex and depressive nature than from any depth of philosophical conviction. Unlike his fellow utopians, Bernard is often angry, resentful, and jealous. At times, he is also cowardly and hypocritical. His conditioning is clearly incomplete. He doesn't enjoy communal sports, solidarity services, or promiscuous sex. He doesn't even get much joy out of soma. Bernard is in love with Lenina but he doesn't like her sleeping with other men, even though "everyone belongs to everyone else". Bernard's triumphant return to utopian civilisation with John the Savage from the Reservation precipitates the downfall of the Director, who had been planning to exile him. Bernard's triumph is short-lived he is ultimately banished to an island for his non-conformist behaviour.

John, the illicit son of the Director and Linda, born and reared on the Savage Reservation ("Malpais") after Linda was unwittingly left behind by her errant lover. John ("the Savage" or "Mr. Savage", as he is often called) is an outsider both on the Reservation—where the natives still practice marriage, natural birth, family life and religion—and the ostensibly civilised World State, based on principles of stability and happiness. He has read nothing but the complete works of William Shakespeare, which he quotes extensively, and, for the most part, aptly, though his allusion to the "Brave New World" (Miranda's words in The Tempest) takes on a darker and bitterly ironic resonance as the novel unfolds. John is intensely moral according to a code that he has been taught by Shakespeare and life in Malpais but is also naïve: his views are as imported into his own consciousness as are the hypnopedic messages of World State citizens. The admonishments of the men of Malpais taught him to regard his mother as a whore but he cannot grasp that these were the same men who continually sought her out despite their supposedly sacred pledges of monogamy. Because he is unwanted in Malpais, he accepts the invitation to travel back to London and is initially astonished by the comforts of the World State. However, he remains committed to values that exist only in his poetry. He first spurns Lenina for failing to live up to his Shakespearean ideal and then the entire utopian society: he asserts that its technological wonders and consumerism are poor substitutes for individual freedom, human dignity and personal integrity. After his mother's death, he becomes deeply distressed with grief, surprising onlookers in the hospital. He then ostracizes himself from society and attempts to purify himself of "sin" (desire), but is finally unable to do so and hangs himself in despair.

Helmholtz Watson, a handsome and successful Alpha-Plus lecturer at the College of Emotional Engineering and a friend of Bernard. He feels unfulfilled writing endless propaganda doggerel, and the stifling conformism and philistinism of the World State make him restive. Helmholtz is ultimately exiled to the Falkland Islands—a cold asylum for disaffected Alpha-Plus non-conformists—after reading a heretical poem to his students on the virtues of solitude and helping John destroy some Deltas' rations of soma following Linda's death. Unlike Bernard, he takes his exile in his stride and comes to view it as an opportunity for inspiration in his writing.

Lenina Crowne, a young, beautiful fetus technician at the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. She is part of the 30% of the female population that are not freemartins (sterile women). Lenina is promiscuous and popular but somewhat quirky in her society: she had a four-month relation with Henry Foster, choosing not to have sex with anyone but him for a period of time. She is basically happy and well-conditioned, using soma to suppress unwelcome emotions, as is expected. Lenina has a date with Bernard, to whom she feels ambivalently attracted, and she goes to the Reservation with him. On returning to civilisation, she tries and fails to seduce John the Savage. John loves and desires Lenina but he is repelled by her forwardness and the prospect of pre-marital sex, rejecting her as an "impudent strumpet". Lenina visits John at the lighthouse but he attacks her with a whip, unwittingly inciting onlookers to do the same. Her exact fate is left unspecified.

Mustapha Mond, Resident World Controller of Western Europe, "His Fordship" Mustapha Mond presides over one of the ten zones of the World State, the global government set up after the cataclysmic Nine Years' War and great Economic Collapse. Sophisticated and good-natured, Mond is an urbane and hyperintelligent advocate of the World State and its ethos of "Community, Identity, Stability". Among the novel's characters, he is uniquely aware of the precise nature of the society he oversees and what it has given up to accomplish its gains. Mond argues that art, literature, and scientific freedom must be sacrificed to secure the ultimate utilitarian goal of maximising societal happiness. He defends the caste system, behavioural conditioning, and the lack of personal freedom in the World State: these, he says, are a price worth paying for achieving social stability, the highest social virtue because it leads to lasting happiness.

Fanny Crowne, Lenina Crowne's friend (they have the same last name because only ten thousand last names are in use in a World State comprising two billion people). Fanny voices the conventional values of her caste and society, particularly the importance of promiscuity: she advises Lenina that she should have more than one man in her life because it is unseemly to concentrate on just one. Fanny then, however, warns Lenina away from a new lover whom she considers undeserving, yet she is ultimately supportive of the young woman's attraction to the savage John.

Henry Foster, one of Lenina's many lovers, he is a perfectly conventional Alpha male, casually discussing Lenina's body with his coworkers. His success with Lenina, and his casual attitude about it, infuriate the jealous Bernard. Henry ultimately proves himself every bit the ideal World State citizen, finding no courage to defend Lenina from John's assaults despite having maintained an uncommonly longstanding sexual relationship with her.

Benito Hoover, another of Lenina's lovers. She remembers that he is particularly hairy when he takes his clothes off.

The Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning (DHC), also known as Thomas "Tomakin" Grahambell, he is the administrator of the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, where he is a threatening figure who intends to exile Bernard to Iceland. His plans take an unexpected turn, however, when Bernard returns from the Reservation with Linda (see below) and John, a child they both realize is actually his. This fact, scandalous and obscene in the World State not because it was extramarital (which all sexual acts are) but because it was procreative, leads the Director to resign his post in shame.

Linda , John's mother, decanted as a Beta-Minus in the World State, originally worked in the DHC's Fertilizing Room, and subsequently lost during a storm while visiting the New Mexico Savage Reservation with the Director many years before the events of the novel. Despite following her usual precautions, Linda became pregnant with the Director's son during their time together and was therefore unable to return to the World State by the time that she found her way to Malpais. Having been conditioned to the promiscuous social norms of the World State, Linda finds herself at once popular with every man in the pueblo (because she is open to all sexual advances) and also reviled for the same reason, seen as a whore by the wives of the men who visit her and by the men themselves (who come to her nonetheless). Her only comforts there are mescal brought by Popé as well as peyotl. Linda is desperate to return to the World State and to soma, wanting nothing more from her remaining life than comfort until death.

The Arch-Community-Songster, the secular equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the World State society. He takes personal offense when John refuses to attend Bernard's party.

The Director of Crematoria and Phosphorus Reclamation, one of the many disappointed, important figures to attend Bernard's party.

The Warden, an Alpha-Minus, the talkative chief administrator for the New Mexico Savage Reservation. He is blond, short, broad-shouldered, and has a booming voice. [18]

Darwin Bonaparte, a "big game photographer" (i.e. filmmaker) who films John flogging himself. Darwin Bonaparte is known for two other works: "feely of the gorillas' wedding", [19] and "Sperm Whale's Love-life". [19] He has already made a name for himself [20] but still seeks more. He renews his fame by filming the savage, John, in his newest release "The Savage of Surrey". [21] His name alludes to Charles Darwin and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Dr. Shaw, Bernard Marx's physician who consequently becomes the physician of both Linda and John. He prescribes a lethal dose of soma to Linda, which will stop her respiratory system from functioning in a span of one to two months, at her own behest but not without protest from John. Ultimately, they all agree that it is for the best, since denying her this request would cause more trouble for Society and Linda herself.

Dr. Gaffney, Provost of Eton, an Upper School for high-caste individuals. He shows Bernard and John around the classrooms, and the Hypnopaedic Control Room (used for behavioural conditioning through sleep learning). John asks if the students read Shakespeare but the Provost says the library contains only reference books because solitary activities, such as reading, are discouraged.

Miss Keate, Head Mistress of Eton Upper School. Bernard fancies her, and arranges an assignation with her. [22]

Others Edit

  • Freemartins, women who have been deliberately made sterile by exposure to male hormones during fetal development but still physically normal except for "the slightest tendency to grow beards." In the book, government policy requires freemartins to form 70% of the female population.

Of Malpais Edit

  • Popé, a native of Malpais. Although he reinforces the behaviour that causes hatred for Linda in Malpais by sleeping with her and bringing her mescal, he still holds the traditional beliefs of his tribe. In his early years John attempted to kill him, but Popé brushed off his attempt and sent him fleeing. He gave Linda a copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare.
  • Mitsima, an elder tribal shaman who also teaches John survival skills such as rudimentary ceramics (specifically coil pots, which were traditional to Native American tribes) and bow-making.
  • Kiakimé, a native girl who John fell for, but is instead eventually wed to another boy from Malpais.
  • Kothlu, a native boy with whom Kiakimé is wed.

Background figures Edit

These are non-fictional and factual characters who lived before the events in this book, but are of note in the novel:

  • Henry Ford, who has become a messianic figure to the World State. "Our Ford" is used in place of "Our Lord", as a credit to popularising the use of the assembly line. Huxley's description of Ford as a central figure in the emergence of the Brave New World might also be a reference to the utopian industrial city of Fordlândia commissioned by Ford in 1927. [speculation?]
  • Sigmund Freud, "Our Freud" is sometimes said in place of "Our Ford" because Freud's psychoanalytic method depends implicitly upon the rules of classical conditioning, [citation needed] and because Freud popularised the idea that sexual activity is essential to human happiness. (It is also strongly implied that citizens of the World State believe Freud and Ford to be the same person.) [23]
  • H. G. Wells, "Dr. Wells", British writer and utopian socialist, whose book Men Like Gods was an incentive for Brave New World. "All's well that ends Wells", wrote Huxley in his letters, criticising Wells for anthropological assumptions Huxley found unrealistic.
  • Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, whose conditioning techniques are used to train infants.
  • William Shakespeare, whose banned works are quoted throughout the novel by John, "the Savage". The plays quoted include Macbeth, The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure and Othello. Mustapha Mond also knows them because as a World Controller he has access to a selection of books from throughout history, including the Bible.
  • Thomas Robert Malthus, 19th century British economist, believed the people of the Earth would eventually be threatened by their inability to raise enough food to feed the population. In the novel, the eponymous character devises the contraceptive techniques (Malthusian belt) that are practiced by women of the World State.
  • Reuben Rabinovitch, the Polish-Jew character on whom the effects of sleep-learning, hypnopædia, are first observed.
  • John Henry Newman, 19th century Catholic theologian and educator, believed university education the critical element in advancing post-industrial Western civilization. Mustapha Mond and The Savage discuss a passage from one of Newman's books. , British industrialist, financier and politician. He is the namesake of Mustapha Mond. [24]
  • Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and first President of Republic of Turkey. Naming Mond after Atatürk links up with their characteristics, he reigned during the time Brave New World was written and revolutionised the 'old' Ottoman state into a new nation. [24]

Sources of names and references Edit

The limited number of names that the World State assigned to its bottle-grown citizens can be traced to political and cultural figures who contributed to the bureaucratic, economic, and technological systems of Huxley's age, and presumably those systems in Brave New World. [25]

  • Soma: Huxley took the name for the drug used by the state to control the population after the Vedic ritual drink Soma, inspired by his interest in Indian mysticism.
  • Malthusian belt: A contraceptive device worn by women. When Huxley was writing Brave New World, organizations such as the Malthusian League had spread throughout Europe, advocating contraception. Although the controversial economic theory of Malthusianism was derived from an essay by Thomas Malthus about the economic effects of population growth, Malthus himself was an advocate of abstinence.

Upon publication, Rebecca West praised Brave New World as "The most accomplished novel Huxley has yet written", [26] Joseph Needham lauded it as "Mr. Huxley's remarkable book", [27] and Bertrand Russell also praised it, stating, "Mr. Aldous Huxley has shown his usual masterly skill in Brave New World." [28]

However, Brave New World also received negative responses from other contemporary critics, although his work was later embraced. [29]

In an article in the 4 May 1935 issue of the Illustrated London News, G. K. Chesterton explained that Huxley was revolting against the "Age of Utopias". Much of the discourse on man's future before 1914 was based on the thesis that humanity would solve all economic and social issues. In the decade following the war the discourse shifted to an examination of the causes of the catastrophe. The works of H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw on the promises of socialism and a World State were then viewed as the ideas of naive optimists. Chesterton wrote:

After the Age of Utopias came what we may call the American Age, lasting as long as the Boom. Men like Ford or Mond seemed to many to have solved the social riddle and made capitalism the common good. But it was not native to us it went with a buoyant, not to say blatant optimism, which is not our negligent or negative optimism. Much more than Victorian righteousness, or even Victorian self-righteousness, that optimism has driven people into pessimism. For the Slump brought even more disillusionment than the War. A new bitterness, and a new bewilderment, ran through all social life, and was reflected in all literature and art. It was contemptuous, not only of the old Capitalism, but of the old Socialism. Brave New World is more of a revolution against Utopia than against Victoria. [30]

Similarly, in 1944 economist Ludwig von Mises described Brave New World as a satire of utopian predictions of socialism: "Aldous Huxley was even courageous enough to make socialism's dreamed paradise the target of his sardonic irony." [31]

The World State is built upon the principles of Henry Ford's assembly line: mass production, homogeneity, predictability, and consumption of disposable consumer goods. While the World State lacks any supernatural-based religions, Ford himself is revered as the creator of their society but not as a deity, and characters celebrate Ford Day and swear oaths by his name (e.g., "By Ford!"). In this sense, some fragments of traditional religion are present, such as Christian crosses, which had their tops cut off to be changed to a "T", representing the Ford Model T. In England, there is an Arch-Community-Songster of Canterbury, obviously continuing the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in America The Christian Science Monitor continues publication as The Fordian Science Monitor. The World State calendar numbers years in the "AF" era—"Anno Ford"—with the calendar beginning in AD 1908, the year in which Ford's first Model T rolled off his assembly line. The novel's Gregorian calendar year is AD 2540, but it is referred to in the book as AF 632. [ citation needed ]

From birth, members of every class are indoctrinated by recorded voices repeating slogans while they sleep (called "hypnopædia" in the book) to believe their own class is superior, but that the other classes perform needed functions. Any residual unhappiness is resolved by an antidepressant and hallucinogenic drug called soma.

The biological techniques used to control the populace in Brave New World do not include genetic engineering Huxley wrote the book before the structure of DNA was known. However, Gregor Mendel's work with inheritance patterns in peas had been rediscovered in 1900 and the eugenics movement, based on artificial selection, was well established. Huxley's family included a number of prominent biologists including Thomas Huxley, half-brother and Nobel Laureate Andrew Huxley, and his brother Julian Huxley who was a biologist and involved in the eugenics movement. Nonetheless, Huxley emphasises conditioning over breeding (nurture versus nature) human embryos and fetuses are conditioned through a carefully designed regimen of chemical (such as exposure to hormones and toxins), thermal (exposure to intense heat or cold, as one's future career would dictate), and other environmental stimuli, although there is an element of selective breeding as well.

In a letter to George Orwell about Nineteen Eighty-Four, Huxley wrote "Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World." [32] He went on to write "Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis 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 and kicking them into obedience." [32]

Social critic Neil Postman contrasted the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Journalist Christopher Hitchens, who himself published several articles on Huxley and a book on Orwell, noted the difference between the two texts in the introduction to his 1999 article "Why Americans Are Not Taught History":

We dwell in a present-tense culture that somehow, significantly, decided to employ the telling expression "You're history" as a choice reprobation or insult, and thus elected to speak forgotten volumes about itself. By that standard, the forbidding dystopia of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four already belongs, both as a text and as a date, with Ur and Mycenae, while the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus. Orwell's was a house of horrors. He seemed to strain credulity because he posited a regime that would go to any lengths to own and possess history, to rewrite and construct it, and to inculcate it by means of coercion. Whereas Huxley . rightly foresaw that any such regime could break because it could not bend. In 1988, four years after 1984, the Soviet Union scrapped its official history curriculum and announced that a newly authorized version was somewhere in the works. This was the precise moment when the regime conceded its own extinction. For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught. [33]


Martin Kreutzberg, in his essay on the development of "Sexual Fantasies and Fantasies About Sex" during the 19th and 20th Centuries, noted that

"In Orwell's dystopia,the only acceptable reason for sex is procreation. Married people, who should not be too fond of each other, occasionally engage in this rather distasteful activity as "their duty to the state". Marriages which don't produce children get dissolved, and the ex-husband and wife should try again with more fruitful partners. Young women are urged to join the "Anti-Sex League". In Huxley's dystopia, the only function of sex is for pleasure, as the production of babies is well provided for by other means. Small boys and girls are made to play sexual games with each other as an official part of their education. Adults are expected to be promiscuous, engaging in an endless series of ephemeral, shallow sexual relationships. Young women take pride in being "pneumatic", and what passes for a religious ceremony consists of six men and six women meeting once a week to hold an "Orgy-Porgy". Yet by such diametrically opposed routes, the two regimes described reach a remarkably similar conclusion: both alike are firmly opposed to the bonding of two individuals in a deep, emotional, long-term bond of love and affection. Both regimes wage a strong campaign against any such bonding - in Orwell's future by torturing loving couples and forcing them to betray each other, in Huxley's mainly by deep psychological conditioning to prevent any such bonding from ever happening in the first place." [34]

Brave New World Revisited (Harper & Brothers, US, 1958 Chatto & Windus, UK, 1959), [35] written by Huxley almost thirty years after Brave New World, is a non-fiction work in which Huxley considered whether the world had moved toward or away from his vision of the future from the 1930s. He believed when he wrote the original novel that it was a reasonable guess as to where the world might go in the future. In Brave New World Revisited, he concluded that the world was becoming like Brave New World much faster than he originally thought.

Huxley analysed the causes of this, such as overpopulation, as well as all the means by which populations can be controlled. He was particularly interested in the effects of drugs and subliminal suggestion. Brave New World Revisited is different in tone because of Huxley's evolving thought, as well as his conversion to Hindu Vedanta in the interim between the two books.

The last chapter of the book aims to propose action which could be taken to prevent a democracy from turning into the totalitarian world described in Brave New World. In Huxley's last novel, Island, he again expounds similar ideas to describe a utopian nation, which is generally viewed as a counterpart to Brave New World. [ citation needed ]

The American Library Association ranks Brave New World as No. 34 on their list of most challenged books. [36] [37] The following list includes some incidents in which it has been censored, banned, or challenged:

  • In 1932, the book was banned in Ireland for its language, and for supposedly being anti-family and anti-religion. [38][39]
  • In 1965, a Maryland English teacher alleged that he was fired for assigning Brave New World to students. The teacher sued for violation of First Amendment rights but lost both his case and the appeal. [40]
  • The book was banned in India in 1967, with Huxley accused of being a "pornographer". [41]
  • In 1980, it was removed from classrooms in Miller, Missouri among other challenges. [42]

The English writer Rose Macaulay published What Not: A Prophetic Comedy in 1918. What Not depicts a dystopian future where people are ranked by intelligence, the government mandates mind training for all citizens, and procreation is regulated by the state. [43] Macaulay and Huxley shared the same literary circles and he attended her weekly literary salons.

George Orwell believed that Brave New World must have been partly derived from the 1921 novel We by Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin. [44] However, in a 1962 letter to Christopher Collins, Huxley says that he wrote Brave New World long before he had heard of We. [45] According to We translator Natasha Randall, Orwell believed that Huxley was lying. [46] Kurt Vonnegut said that in writing Player Piano (1952), he "cheerfully ripped off the plot of Brave New World, whose plot had been cheerfully ripped off from Yevgeny Zamyatin's We". [47]

In 1982, Polish author Antoni Smuszkiewicz, in his analysis of Polish science-fiction Zaczarowana gra ("The Magic Game"), presented accusations of plagiarism against Huxley. Smuszkiewicz showed similarities between Brave New World and two science fiction novels written earlier by Polish author Mieczysław Smolarski, namely Miasto światłości ("The City of Light", 1924) and Podróż poślubna pana Hamiltona ("Mr Hamilton's Honeymoon Trip", 1928). [48] Smuszkiewicz wrote in his open letter to Huxley: "This work of a great author, both in the general depiction of the world as well as countless details, is so similar to two of my novels that in my opinion there is no possibility of accidental analogy." [49]

Kate Lohnes, writing for Encyclopædia Britannica, notes similarities between Brave New World and other novels of the era could be seen as expressing "common fears surrounding the rapid advancement of technology and of the shared feelings of many tech-skeptics during the early 20th century". Other dystopian novels followed Huxley's work, including Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). [50]

In 1999, the Modern Library ranked Brave New World fifth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. [2] In 2003, Robert McCrum writing for The Observer included Brave New World chronologically at number 53 in "the top 100 greatest novels of all time", [3] and the novel was listed at number 87 on the BBC's survey The Big Read. [4]

On 5 November 2019, the BBC News listed Brave New World on its list of the 100 most influential novels. [51]

Theatre Edit

  • Brave New World (opened 4 September 2015) in co-production by Royal & Derngate, Northampton and Touring Consortium Theatre Company which toured the UK. The adaptation was by Dawn King, composed by These New Puritans and directed by James Dacre.

Radio Edit

  • Brave New World (radio broadcast) CBS Radio Workshop (27 January and 3 February 1956): music composed and conducted by Bernard Herrmann. Adapted for radio by William Froug. Introduced by William Conrad and narrated by Aldous Huxley. Featuring the voices of Joseph Kearns, Bill Idelson, Gloria Henry, Charlotte Lawrence, [52] Byron Kane, Sam Edwards, Jack Kruschen, Vic Perrin, Lurene Tuttle, Herb Butterfield, Paul Hebert, Doris Singleton. [53]
  • Brave New World (radio broadcast) BBC Radio4 (May 2013)
  • Brave New World (radio broadcast) BBC Radio4 (22, 29 May 2016)

Film Edit

  • Brave New World (1980), a television film directed by Burt Brinckerhoff
  • Brave New World (1998), a television film directed by Leslie Libman and Larry Williams
  • In 2009 a theatrical film was announced to be in development, with collaboration between Ridley Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio. [54] By May 2013 the project was placed on hold. [55]

Television Edit

In May 2015, The Hollywood Reporter reported that Steven Spielberg's Amblin Television would bring Brave New World to Syfy network as a scripted series, written (adapted) by Les Bohem. [56] The adaptation was eventually written by David Wiener with Grant Morrison and Brian Taylor, with the series ordered to air on USA Network in February 2019. [57] The series eventually moved to the Peacock streaming service and premiered on 15 July 2020. [58]


Good for pets

Our vet-reviewed products are packed full of goodness to bring out the best in your pets, with recipes made from wholesome, high-quality ingredients, balanced for whole body health. We’ve invested in our own pet nutrition plant in Brownwood, TX that puts safety and integrity first, where we continue to research and develop our pet food recipes. Our facility allows us to have control over the formulas, quality and nutrition of our food, ensuring you and your pet get the best from us.

More Goodness Per Bite

Our nutritionally dense food nourishes dogs in every bite, with more calories and protein per cup than most leading brands.

Goodness-First Ingredients

We use wholesome ingredients like farm grown veggies (sweet potatoes, carrots, peas) hearty grains (barley, brown rice, oatmeal) and premium proteins (beef, lamb, salmon, chicken).

Vet-Designed

Our recipes are formulated in partnership with a vet nutritionist to exceed AAFCO standards.

All Goodness, No Fillers

Canidae recipes include no corn, no wheat, no soy and no animal byproduct meals.

Complete & Balanced

Our thoughtfully curated recipes are perfectly balanced with whole body health in mind, with every recipe including probiotics, omega 3/6 fatty acids and antioxidants.


Poached Pears

Poached pears feel luxurious, but they’re much easier to make than you𠆝 think. Simply simmer the pears in a poaching liquid of wine and other aromatics until tender, reduce the poaching liquid until syrupy, and that’s it. You’ll get the most flavor from your poached pears if you make them ahead of time and chill them in their poaching liquid overnight. Serve with dollop of crème fra໬he or mascarpone and save the leftovers—they make a delicious addition to yogurt, or toppers for pancakes and waffles.


Watch the video: What is MAD Tech? (October 2021).