Point Counter Point - Aldous Huxley [168]
‘Some of them may take us a little more slowly than others,’ suggested Philip.
Rampion shrugged his shoulders. ‘But so very little more slowly that it wouldn’t make any appreciable difference. They all believe in industrialism in one form or another, they all believe in Americanization. Think of the Bolshevist ideal. America but much more so. America with government departments taking the place of trusts and state officials instead of rich men. And then the ideal of the rest of Europe. The same thing, only with the rich men preserved. Machinery and government officials there. Machinery and Alfred Mond or Henry Ford here. The machinery to take us to hell; the rich or the officials to drive it. You think one set may drive more cautiously than the other? Perhaps you’re right. But I can’t see that there’s anything to choose between them. They’re all equally in a hurry. In the name of science, progress and human happiness! Amen and step on the gas.’
Philip nodded. ‘They do step on it all right,’ he said. ‘They get a move on. Progress. But as you say, it’s probably in the direction of the bottomless pit.’
‘And the only thing the reformers can find to talk about is the shape, colour and steering arrangements of the vehicle. Can’t the imbeciles see that it’s the direction that matters, that we’re entirely on the wrong road and ought to go back—preferably on foot, without the stinking machine?’
‘You may be right,’ said Philip. ‘But the trouble is that, given our existing world, you can’t go back, you can’t scrap the machine. That is, you can’t do it unless you’re prepared to kill off about half the human race. Industrialism made possible the doubling of the world’s population in a hundred years. If you want to get rid of industrialism, you’ve got to get back to where you started. That’s to say, you’ve got to slaughter half the existing number of men and women. Which might, sub specie aeternitatis or merely historiac, be an excellent thing. But hardly a matter of practical politics.’
‘Not at the moment,’ Rampion agreed. ‘But the next war and the next revolution will make it only too practical.’
‘Possibly. But one shouldn’t count on wars and revolutions. Because, if you count on them happening, they certainly will happen.’
‘They’ll happen,’ said Rampion, ‘whether you count on them or not. Industrial progress means over-production, means the need for getting new markets, means international rivalry, means war. And mechanical progress means more specialization and standardization of work, means more ready-made and unindividual amusements, means diminution of initiative and creativeness, means more intellectualism and the progressive atrophy of all the vital and fundamental things in human nature, means increased boredom and restlessness, means finally a kind of individual madness that can only result in social revolution. Count on them or not, wars and revolutions are inevitable, if things are allowed to go on as they are at present.’
‘So the problem will solve itself,’ said Philip.
‘Only by destroying itself. When humanity’s destroyed, obviously there’ll be no more problem. But it seems a poor sort of solution. I believe there may be another, even within the framework of the present system. A temporary one while the system’s being modified in the direction of a permanent solution. The root of the evil’s in the individual psychology; so it’s there, in the individual psychology, that you’d have to begin. The first step would be to make people live dualistically,