Okay, maybe we're getting a little too specific here. But this vacation-gone-wrong is pretty much exactly what happens to poor Bernard Marx in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Brave New World begins in an uncomfortably sterile and controlled futuristic society, commonly referred to as “the World State.” We join the story as a group of young students are receiving a factory tour of the “London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre” from the center’s director, whose name is… The Director. It's all a little creepy.
Linda, still high on soma, dies shortly after John arrives at the hospital. He is grief-stricken, but in this new world, everyone has been conditioned to think of death as no big deal. So no one understands his emotion. Angered by this and by the circumstances of his mother’s death, and by the fact that Lenina just tried to take his virginity, John freaks out. He finds a group of Deltas waiting to receive their daily soma ration and spiritedly chucks the dozens of boxes of drugs out of the window, trying to explain to these drones that they can only be free without it.
In Brave New World they don't have a god they have Henry Ford and they worship him like a god by saying oh Ford and naming important things after him or after the Model-T.
Shakespeare in Brave New World Essay Shakespeare in Brave New World essay shakespeare www gxart orgwords essay on william shakespearepoetry analysis essay on william shakespeare english language
They who allege the practice of mankind, for exposing or selling their children, as a proof of their power over them, are with sir Robert happy arguers; and cannot but recommend their opinion, by founding it on the most shameful action, and most unnatural murder, human nature is capable of. The dens of lions and nurseries of wolves know no such cruelty as this; these savage inhabitants of the desert obey God and nature in being tender and careful of their offspring: they will hunt, watch, fight, and almost starve for the preservation of their young; never part with them; never forsake them, till they are able to shift for themselves. And is it the privilege of man alone to act more contrary to nature than the wild and most untamed part of the creation? doth God forbid us under the severest penalty, that of death, to take away the life of any man, a stranger, and upon provocation? and does he permit us to destroy those he has given us the charge and care of; and by the dictates of nature and reason, as well as his revealed command, requires us to preserve? He has in all the parts of creation taken a peculiar care to propagate and continue the several species of creatures, and makes the individuals act so strongly to this end, that they sometimes neglect their own private good for it, and seem to forget that general rule, which nature teaches all things, of self-preservation; and the preservation of their young, as the strongest principle in them, over-rules the constitution of their particular natures. Thus we see, when their young stand in need of it, the timorous become valiant, the fierce and savage kind, and the ravenous tender and liberal.
It might reasonably be asked here, how come children, by this right of possessing before any other, the properties of their parents upon their decease? for it being personally the parents, when they die, without actually transferring their right to another, why does it not return again to the common stock of mankind? It will perhaps be answered, that common consent hath disposed of it to their children. Common practice, we see indeed, does so dispose of it; but we cannot say, that it is the common consent of mankind; for that hath never been asked, nor actually given; and if common tacit consent hath established it, it would make but a positive, and not a natural right of children to inherit the goods of their parents: but where the practice is universal, it is reasonable to think the cause is natural. The ground then I think to be this: The first and strongest desire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, being that of self-preservation, that is the foundation of a right to the creatures, for the particular support and use of each individual person himself. But, next to this, God planted in men a strong desire also of propagating their kind, and continuing themselves in their posterity; and this gives children a title to share in the property of their parents, and a right to inherit their possessions. Men are not proprietors of what they have, merely for themselves; their children have a title to part of it, and have their kind of right joined with their parents in the possession, which comes to be wholly theirs, when death, having put an end to their parents use of it, hath taken them from their possessions; and this we call inheritance: men being by a like obligation bound to preserve what they have begotten, as to preserve themselves, their issue come to have a right in the goods they are possessed of. That children have such a right, is plain from the laws of God; and that men are convinced that children have such a right, is evident from the law of the land; both which laws require parents to provide for their children.
The argument, I have heard others make use of, to prove that fathers by begetting them, come by an absolute power over their children, is this; that “fathers have a power over the lives of their children, because they give them life and being,” which is the only proof it is capable of: since there can be no reason, why naturally one man should have any claim or pretence of right over that in another, which was never his, which he bestowed not, but was received from the bounty of another. 1. I answer, that every one who gives another any thing, has not always thereby a right to take it away again. But, 2. They who say the father gives life to children, are so dazzled with the thoughts of monarchy, that they do not, as they ought, remember God, who is “the author and giver of life: it is in him alone we live, move, and have our being.” How can he be thought to give life to another, that knows not wherein his own life consists? Philosophers are at a loss about it after their most diligent inquiries; and anatomists, after their whole lives and studies spent in dissections, and diligent examining the bodies of men, confess their ignorance in the structure and use of many parts of man’s body, and in that operation wherein life consists in the whole. And doth the rude ploughman, or the more ignorant voluptuary, frame or fashion such an admirable engine as this is, and then put life and sense into it? Can any man say, he formed the parts that are necessary to the life of his child? or can he suppose himself to give the life, and yet not know what subject is fit to receive it, nor what actions or organs are necessary for its reception or preservation?
The people who may compose this national legislature from the southernstates, in which, from the mildness of the climate, the fertility of the soil,and the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly acquired, and where the samecauses naturally lead to luxury, dissipation, and a passion for aristocraticdistinction; where slavery is encouraged, and liberty of course less respectedand protected; who know not what it is to acquire property by their own toil,nor to economize with the savings of industry - will these men, therefore, be astenacious of the liberties and interests of the more northern states, wherefreedom, independence, industry, equality and frugality are natural to theclimate and soil, as men who are your own citizens, legislating in your ownstate, under your inspection, and whose manners and fortunes bear a more equalresemblance to your own?
Protection and defense against the murderer, the robber, the thief, the cheat,and the unjust person, is to be derived from the respective state governments. The just way of reasoning therefore on this subject is this, the generalgovernment is to provide for the protection and defense of the community againstforeign attacks, etc. They therefore ought to have authority sufficient toeffect this, so far as is consistent with the providing for our internalprotection and defense. The state governments are entrusted with the care ofadministering justice among its citizens, and the management of other internalconcerns; they ought therefore to retain power adequate to that end. Thepreservation of internal peace and good order, and the due administration of lawand justice, ought to be the first care of every government. The happiness of apeople depends infinitely more on this than it does upon all that glory andrespect which nations acquire by the most brilliant martial achievements. And Ibelieve history will furnish but few examples of nations who have duly attendedto these, who have been subdued by foreign invaders. If a proper respect andsubmission to the laws prevailed over all orders of men in our country; and if aspirit of public and private justice, economy, and industry influenced thepeople, we need not be under any apprehensions but what they would be ready torepel any invasion that might be made on the country. And more than this, Iwould not wish from them. A defensive war is the only one I think justifiable. I do not make these observations to prove, that a government ought not to beauthorised to provide for the protection and defense of a country againstexternal enemies, but to show that this is not the most important, much less theonly object of their care.