"Brave New World" vs "1984"

In "Conclusion: The Two Futures" from The End of Utopia, the novels Brave New World and 1984 are discussed and compared as to which would be more probable to occur in today's society. I have to side with the author and say that Brave New World is a more likely utopia, or dystopia for the world we live in now. I know I personally would go along more with a society who rewarded me for nothing than a society that punished me for everything, and I like to think I'm among the majority in that opinion. The article mentions that "more than any other novel of its type, Brave New World is continuing to approximate the social and political whole truth as the present turns into the future almost one might say to the point when this novel will express the whole truth of a lamentably truth-empoverished time". In other words, this novel, more so than other dystopia novels-including 1984- speaks to a future that is increasingly approaching until a point where the world predicted by Huxley could come true. "Test tube babies" are already increasingly popular, not to the point where they are manufactured in bulk and not raised by parents, however in vitro fertilization shows the potential for that to develop. The world Huxley envisioned is not only more likely to happen, but more efficient. As opposed to Orwell's world, which the article points out is "simply not efficient and all other things being equal efficiency leads to stability as inefficiency leads away from it". 1984 has too many opprotunities for failure within its system, regardless of the extraordinary cautions the government put into place. The majority of the population consists of a subclass, the proles. While the proles did not realize their power in the novel, the potential for an overthrow by them is still very plausible with the society they live in. Also, the practice of releasing "brainwashed" prisoners back into society is on that lacks efficiency. A potential lies in that practice for a person that still believes everything they used to before "Room 101" to go back into society with the knowledge of where they went wrong before and start rebelling all over again. Huxley sent his rebells off to Iceland, where they could think freely without influencing anyone else. Being high in society in Brave New World, one receives endless pleasures, and those who are low in society were born with out the understanding or really knowing their position. Being high in society in 1984 still holds the same fears and worries that those low in society have, and those low in society can't even think about the fact that they are low without commiting "thought-crime". The article states "the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing", which is evidenced through the more effective government put in place in Huxley's Brave New World.

Funding for Arts in Education

The cause I am strongly in support of is funding for the arts in education. Because of the fact that subjects such as music and fine arts are not "testable" subjects, the funding in them has been greatly decreased under the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools who have subpar grades on tests and are losing funding as a result make cuts in the budget of art programs because they do not improve upon test taking skills. However, I don't believe that a life can be measured in the tests that are taken and possibly failed. In an increasingly scientific and mathematical world, creativity is hard to come by. If all the classes which encourage creativity are eliminated due to cuts in funding, very few inspiring new creations will exist. Education is supposed to prepare students for life, and life is not tested by scantrons or essays, but by experiences. Art creates for more valuable experiences than math or science. However, math or science can easily be converted into questions for a standardized test, so therefore they are more important than art. At least, in the eyes of education policy makers thats the case. I do not believe that because music and theatre and drawing cannot be graded through a scantron they are any less important. In fact, that makes them more important. The purpose of those fields is simply to educate- not to prepare for a test. Students participate in arts because they have a genuine enjoyment or will to learn. In order to remain a society of independent, free thinkers who follow what they want, the arts need to remain well-funded and supported.

Designer Babies: Where is the line?

In the 21st century, the role technology plays in life is ever-increasing. Through genetic engineering, that role could evolve to include not only how we live, but how that life is created. Intelligent people on both sides of the issue argue the pro's and con's regularly. So, the question becomes: are the many negative sides to genetic engineering worth risking in order to acheive the positives that could result?
There is a line that is fairly blurred between where genetic engineering should be and where it should never attempt to go. Many can agree that on one side is the elimation of autism and downsyndrome, the lessening of risks for cancer and other genetic diseases, and numerous other hereditary mental and physical illnesses. However, even those things toe the blurry line a little too much. The average cost of this kind of genetic engineering is much more than an average couple could afford, let alone a lower income couple. A rich family, however, would have no trouble paying the bills that would come along with designing their own children. Because of this, autism and the other related diseases would not be completely eliminated in any way. They would just be less prevalent in upper class America. The rich generally choose causes which in some way are relevant to them to support and donate money to. If the rich could genetically alter their children to be disease free, all the diseases they no longer have to deal with would have much less funding for research. In the long run, even the biggest positive genetic engineering has could potentially be a negative that seperates the classes even more than they presently are.
On the opposite side of that blurred line, where the obvious negatives reside, is where much more can be found. Not everyone in the world is fit to be a parent, and even less are fit to design the child they would be a parent to. The term designer baby conjures up images of a factory spewing out blonde haired, blue eyed beauties by the bus load. They would all be disease free, with great personality traits, and the best genes money can buy. Except of course for that one child, with the crazy parents, who created a sociopath. That, and much worse, could be possible as a result of genetic engineering. As if parents don't live vicariously through their children enough to begin with, they now get to create the perfect child. They get to make a baby that is, essentially, what they've always wished they had been. The role of a child could change over time from a human being that requires love and attention to a thing that is required to live up to the expectations put on it at design. And while the designer child might not have disease or physical flaws or personality traits that make life more difficult for them, the pressure to be the perfect creature they were created to be might end up too great.
There is a blurred line. However, even the blurriness cannot hide the dangers genetic engineering poses. The cons outweigh the pros in a large way, and even the pros have their flaws. In order to perfect genetic engineering, boundaries must be set that prevent some of the great threats it has.