"1984" vs. 2004

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I only attack those who think that it's just about surveylance, most of which haven't read it and point at everything here and there being "Orwellian".

But alright.

[Uther]

1984 : Newspeak
Now : Politically Correct speech

Kind of, but the I would argue the anti-PCers are every bit the PC movement's equal in terms of media airtime and strength.

1984 : The red sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League
Now : The red ribbon of the Anti-Aids celibacy league

This has already been discussed to some extent- but I bet teenage sexual intercourse rates are higher now than they were in the 50s or 60s- and what's soooo baaad about celibacy?

1984 : Telescreens in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles have no way of turning their screens off.
Now : Televisions in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles rarely turn their screens off.

Again, I don't have the stats, but I think hours spent watching television were much higher in the 50s than they are today.

1984 : Telescreens in all public and private places, so the populace could be watched to prevent thoughtcrime.
Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead of our intrusive government, the end result is the same.

Yes, but the public seems not to care; this may be the price of living in a world of terrorists and portable WMDs. Is anyone really worried about privacy on a city street? Can you really argue visiting SD.net during your work hours should be OK with your boss?

1984 : Helicopters silently watch over the masses to keep people from committing thoughtcrime, by planting the fear of "always being watched"
Now : Helicopters silently watch over our highways to keep people from breaking traffic laws, by planting the fear of "always being watched"

Because thoughtcrime and traffic laws are in any way equatable.

The lottery:
Yes, it's harder to live if you're stupid. Sorry.

1984 : Ministry of Peace
Now : Department of Defense

Homeland Security is much more Orwellian. Would you prefer they call it the Department of War? Who cares what the name is?

1984 : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the telescreen as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.
Now : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the Evening news as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.

I'll admit crazy polls are troublesome. But by and large they're pretty accurate. It's those internet polls that CNN and co. use that should be disallowed.

1984 : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. All references to oldthink were being removed or rewritten.
Now : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. The most obvious example of this - The removal of "racist", Violent, or Sexist material from popular cartoons. "Heckle & Jeckle" cartoons have been permanently shelved, since they are said to portray "negros". "Tom & Jerry" cartoons that contained the "mamma" character have also disappeared. You no longer see Daffy's head actually being blown off by Elmer. I recently saw an old superman cartoon in which the sexist line, "Isn't that too dangerous for a woman" (referring to Lois) was removed.

What common thread links all of the "Now" examples? Oh, that's right, they're all aimed at the kids! Yes, we're shielding children from some offensive racial stereotypes and some over the top violence. Head for the hills.

1984 : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by rationing.
Now : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by warnings that declare that these items are bad for your health.

And yet they still somehow manage to die by lung cancer and heart disease in droves. Is sugar a "rare good" these days?

1984 : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.
Now : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed (or threatened) on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.

What a cynic. The US hasn't been in a declared war since 1945! Seriously folks, this may have some truth, but it's a gross oversimplification.

1984 : Songs are created by machines. This is done to make sure nobody can take credit for songs, or write songs not in line with Ingsoc.
Now : Songs are created by synthesizers. Nobody can realistically take credit for their own songs because most songs are re-mixes or a collage of dubs from other people's music.

Should I even dignify this with a response?

1984 : From Goldstein's book - "The effect (of the atomic wars) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated."
Now : The effect (of the only nuclear war in history, WWII) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although the threat of atomic war remained, no more bombs were dropped. All atomic powers merely continued to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believed will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for fifty or sixty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the aircraft carrier, (which generally stays far away from any actual combat); but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the television, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

Except the number of nuclear weapons is far less today than it was formerly. And I'd like to see the 1950s US Army versus the 1990s US Army. Oh wait, that was Desert Storm I. We won that one, didn't we?

[phongn]

Except the number of nuclear weapons is far less today than it was formerly. And I'd like to see the 1950s US Army versus the 1990s US Army. Oh wait, that was Desert Storm I. We won that one, didn't we?

Um, no, the 1950s US Army would have rained down nuclear fire as soon as possible with whatever field guns survived the air campaign.

[The Yosemite Bear]

wait I found another one

fat pig "squealer" changes the animal's constitution while drunk with power

John Ashcroft rapes the bill of rights while drunk with power.

[Darth Wong]

This has already been discussed to some extent- but I bet teenage sexual intercourse rates are higher now than they were in the 50s or 60s

Oh wow, so society is not as bad as it was under McCarthyism? Congratu-fucking-lations! How does that change the fact that the constant mind-numbing barrage of "sex = immorality" messages is similar to one of the messages of 1984?

and what's soooo baaad about celibacy?

When it's promoted as an intrinsic characteristic of morality? A lot.

[Stark]

and what's soooo baaad about celibacy?

In 1984, the celibacy organisations were used as part of the establishments ongoing dehumanisation of human beings. As an extension of this, they planned on changing humans in such a way as to prevent orgasms. Without a sexual drive, the natural order and Freud tell us there will be less competion, less challenge to authority, and less aggression.

[Peregrin Toker]

As an extension of this, they planned on changing humans in such a way as to prevent orgasms.

I'm no expert on biology... but how exactly would that done over less than hundreds of years of genetic engineering?

Except the number of nuclear weapons is far less today than it was formerly. And I'd like to see the 1950s US Army versus the 1990s US Army. Oh wait, that was Desert Storm I. We won that one, didn't we?

At the height of the cold war, weren't there enough nuclear weapons to make humanity go extinct if they all were detonated at once?

[phongn]

At the height of the cold war, weren't there enough nuclear weapons to make humanity go extinct if they all were detonated at once?

Nowhere near that many.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

As an extension of this, they planned on changing humans in such a way as to prevent orgasms.

I'm no expert on biology... but how exactly would that done over less than hundreds of years of genetic engineering?

Conditioning.

Keep in mind that it was a book written in 1948, though.

[Peregrin Toker]

At the height of the cold war, weren't there enough nuclear weapons to make humanity go extinct if they all were detonated at once?

Nowhere near that many.

Sources, please?


I can list mine:

According to a 1983 Danish book called Krigens ABC (directly translated: "The ABC of Warfare"), by the time it was written, there was 3 tons of explosives for each human alive on the earth. In my opinion - and also that of the books author Bertel Heulin - that's more enough than cause mass extinction. (and that is BEFORE we consider the radioactivity created by nuclear weaponry)

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Your source is bullshit. We had at most only a handful of gigatons total.

[Peregrin Toker]

Your source is bullshit. We had at most only a handful of gigatons total.

Again, I ask:

Sources, please?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I don't have one. Ask the HAB.

[Colonel Olrik]

According to a 1983 Danish book called Krigens ABC (directly translated: "The ABC of Warfare"), by the time it was written, there was 3 tons of explosives for each human alive on the earth. In my opinion - and also that of the books author Bertel Heulin - that's more enough than cause mass extinction. (and that is BEFORE we consider the radioactivity created by nuclear weaponry)

That's not a valid reasoning. It is density that matters. Humans are spread all over Earth's surface, not stacked up in concentration camps.

If you only had 3 tons of explosives and a single human being on the surface of the planet, do you think it'd be correct to say that would be enough to garantee his extinction?

[Peregrin Toker]

If you only had 3 tons of explosives and a single human being on the surface of the planet, do you think it'd be correct to say that would be enough to garantee his extinction?

You're kinda right, but in theory...

[phongn]

If you only had 3 tons of explosives and a single human being on the surface of the planet, do you think it'd be correct to say that would be enough to garantee his extinction?

You're kinda right, but in theory...

No, he is absolutely right. Nuclear warheads will not magically split into nice 3-ton weapons and spread over each man, woman and child.

As for sources:
According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the world's arsenal currently stands at about 5GT (source) with about 14000 active warheads or so.

Assuming that average yields remained constant, the 1986 arsenal was about 65000 warheads, or about 23GT. That would be enough for about 4.6 tons per person (4.9 bn world population) in 1986. As the 1986 arsenal likely contained many more tactical weapons than now, the average yield per person is probably high.

[Illuminatus Primus]

According to a 1983 Danish book called Krigens ABC (directly translated: "The ABC of Warfare"), by the time it was written, there was 3 tons of explosives for each human alive on the earth. In my opinion - and also that of the books author Bertel Heulin - that's more enough than cause mass extinction. (and that is BEFORE we consider the radioactivity created by nuclear weaponry)

Perhaps you'll consider a vast amount of those gigatons would be very highly concentrated in extreme localities, and most of that mass wouldn't become energy, and most of the energy would go to waste without causing death.

[Robert Treder]

1984 : Telescreens in all public and private places, so the populace could be watched to prevent thoughtcrime.
Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead of our intrusive government, the end result is the same.

Speaking as someone who works in a business that uses surveillance cameras, I can attest to the fact that the end result is not prevention of thoughtcrime.
People against security cameras are a pet peeve of mine. First of all, most businesses do not actively monitor their security camera footage; that would be a waste of time and money. They only review the tapes when something is stolen. In fact, in all the stores I've worked in, most of the security cameras aren't real anyways, and only a few of them are actually taping anything.
Second of all, even if businesses were watching the cameras to see what you were doing in their store, what the fuck does that matter?
Third of all, what the fuck are people afraid of? OH MY GOD! That security camera just saw me pick my nose! I'm going to die! Please. What the fuck is it that people are doing in PUBLIC spaces that they don't want to have on tape?

[Thinkmarble]

What the fuck is it that people are doing in PUBLIC spaces that they don't want to have on tape?

Everything

[Robert Treder]

What the fuck is it that people are doing in PUBLIC spaces that they don't want to have on tape?

Everything

What, do people go into 7-11 and start masturbating all over the candy? No, I don't think so.

[Mayabird]

What the fuck is it that people are doing in PUBLIC spaces that they don't want to have on tape?

Everything

What, do people go into 7-11 and start masturbating all over the candy? No, I don't think so.

I thought that was more a statement that people don't like the thought of being watched, no matter what they're doing. How many of us haven't ever gotten unnerved because a friend was watching you eat? Or better, gotten nervous even the slightest bit because someone was watching you over the shoulder, even if they just want to watch you play a game or something harmless like that? I think we've all had those moments. And it's too damn easy to think of those cameras as glass eyeballs watching your every move.

But that last bit might be my paranoia kicking in. *dons tinfoil hat*

[Robert Treder]

*jots Mayabird's name down on the "crazy freak" list*

Seriously, if you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't have a problem with people watching you shop, drive, etc.

And may I reiterate that most stores do not review the tapes unless something happens. So there's a very very slim chance of your surveillance footage even being seen. It's not like they pay a guy to just sit and watch security cameras all day, unless it's a fairly big operation.

[Crazy_Vasey]

I thought that was more a statement that people don't like the thought of being watched, no matter what they're doing. How many of us haven't ever gotten unnerved because a friend was watching you eat? Or better, gotten nervous even the slightest bit because someone was watching you over the shoulder, even if they just want to watch you play a game or something harmless like that? I think we've all had those moments. And it's too damn easy to think of those cameras as glass eyeballs watching your every move.

But that last bit might be my paranoia kicking in. *dons tinfoil hat*

It's the same for me. I just hate being watched. It makes me nervous and puts me off what I'm doing. I can't think of any rational reason for but it happens anyway. Same as how I hate being caught in a crowd.