One dystopia the other; Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

Neil Postman

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman compares George Orwell’s dystopian worldview in 1984 to Aldous Huxley’s in Brave New World.

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. 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.

Postman argues that Huxley’s dystopia might be closer to reality. Amusing Ourselves to Death was published in 1985. The situation in the Western world, and especially the United States, is indeed terrifyingly even more spot on than in 1985. In today’s China, and even more so in Russia, Orwell’s reality, where Big Brother watches over the people, seems to be the state of affairs.

How astonishingly farsighted were Huxly and Orwell in 1932 resp 1949.

Remarkable mathematical truths

Kurt Gödel

Deductive systems are either incomplete or inconsistent. Meaning

  • Inconsistent: they contain contradictions. Statements can be true and false in the same deductive system.
  • Incomplete: Statements can be found that can not be proven to be true or false.

Gödel proved this for us.

Wittgenstein formulated something similar:

The truth is built of true facts and untrue facts: facts that are not based on a system of observation yet are true anyway. Nevertheless, Wittgenstein seems to disagree with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Food for a lasting scientific debate. Anyway, Wittgenstein was looking at language and philosophy, not at mathematics.

Final remarkable mathematical truth for now from Cantor.

Cantor proved that one infinity is not the same as the other infinity. He developed a way to compare infinite sets and describe how infinite sets with different characteristics exist.

As an example, Cantor proved that real numbers are more numerous than the set of natural numbers. While both are infinite. He also invented a way to operate on infinite sets.

Cantor ended up in a mental hospital, which seems to be viewed as as heroic achievement among mathematicians—an opinion I do not share.

I recall reading The Mystery of the Aleph by Amir D. Aczel about Cantor. Unfortunately, I have lost my notes and the book. This book was very accessible, I do recall that.

Murakami’s Norwegian Wood reread

On the plane back from Prague, I finished reading Norwegian Wood—re-reading, actually. I don’t often re-read books, but Murakami is a favorite of mine.

Watanabe is in love with Naoko. She is the girlfriend of their mutual friend, who died at a very young age. Naoko can not cope with life and commits suicide in the end, while Watanabe is torn between emotions he is not able to identify or is not even conscious of. The girl who falls in love with him must tell him he is in love with her. An old friend tells him he has to choose for himself. While perfectly capable of analyzing other people’s situations, he is unable to analyze his own issues. Let alone that he is able to come up with a choice for his own problems he is not even aware of.

Seth Godin – The Practice

Notes from The Practice by Seth Godin.

Change someone, ignore everyone. (Seth Godin / Hugh MacLeod)

You don’t create a hit trying to please everyone.

Create work that matters to someone. Develop a genre. Be peculiar.

Commit to the journey (not to the engagement).

Great work is work that’s worth doing.

Sales is turning “never heard of” into “yes” or “no”.

If it fails, would you still do it?

Reassurance is futile. Instead of worrying, get to work.

There is no guarantee that the world gives a shit about your mission. Nobody cares; it should be your starting point.

Balance your own point of view and pleasing the audience. How? Through work. Ship creative work on a schedule without attachment or reassurance.

Art for free creates deniability: what did you expect? It was free.

Being peculiar is natural. And beneficial.

Just because the outcome is uncertain doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.

Consistency is the way forward. Work that thymes. Not repetition.

Flow is productive, but desirable difficulty brings us to a new level. The hard work.

Generic is a trap; genre is a lever.

Find your cohort.

A few or one superpowers. Commit to it. We must choose.

Do your homework. Read the essentials in your genre.

Constraints can be a creative source.

Hugh MacLeod

Dieren Eten van Jonathan Safran Foer

Dieren eten van Jonathan Safran Foer is een boek dat iedere vleeseter eens zou moeten lezen om zich te realiseren wat de vlees industrie voor gezondheidsrisico’s, milieuvervuiling en dierenleed veroorzaakt.

De invloed van de bio-industrie op beleidsbepaling is enorm. Misschien in de VS nog wel groter dan in Nederland, of Europa.

Gebrek aan hygiëne bij kippenslachterijen. Kippenvlees wordt volgespoten met vuil water.

Dierenleed. Doorgefokte kippenrassen die nog nauwelijks zelfstandig kunnen staan.

Massaal gebruik van medicijnen en antibiotica als normale toevoeging aan dagelijks voer.

Voorspelling van nieuwe epidemieën van virussen door vleesconsumptie. Het boek voorspelt ver voor COVID – het boek is van 2009 – al voor een COVID-achtige pandemie. En ook dat we er nog veel meer zullen krijgen als we zo doorgaan.

Stress van varkens is een zorg voor varkensfokkers. Maar niet ingegeven door dierenleed, maar omdat het de smaak van het vlees negatief beïnvloed.

Smithfield, de grootste varkensproducent van de VS produceert een zee aan stront die gewoon op de rivieren wordt geloosd. Stront is een chemisch, supergiftige soep. Massasterfte van vissen en andere dieren is het gevolg.

Waarom blijven mensen varkens eten?

Waarom is vlees zo goedkoop? De overheid onderneemt nauwelijks actie, de consument ook niet.

Onwaarschijnlijk sadisme bij veefokkers. In alle mogelijke (on)denkbare vormen.

De bio-industrie koopt fokkers op en slachterijen die wel diervriendelijk willen werken.

Nog levende dieren worden geslacht en aan stukken gesneden. Dit is allesbehalve een uitzonderlijke situatie.

Uiteindelijk is het de consument die kiest voor het eten van vlees en het onbeschrijfelijke dierenleed en de ecologische ramp die de bio-industrie veroorzaakt.