I want real danger for a change.

Living in a persistent ant state of bliss is good, but only for a while. It's not real. The way the human psyche is set up, there is bound to be conflict. A human cannot mentally handle being happy all the time. Let's approach this from a scientific point of view. Happy thoughts are caused by things called endorphins (if I'm wrong here then please be gentle in your criticisms). As with any stimulus, the body would ultimately become used to to endorphins and they would lose their effect. So, the fact of the matter is that happiness can only ever be fleeting. For people to truly live a full life, they must experience a full range of emotions. This also hearkens back to the concept of you can't really know happiness unless you've felt sadness. In a utopia, there is no discord (other than the entire existence of the utopia itself, despite the fact that those involved in the utopia aren't aware of this), so by this logic there can't actually be happiness. Due to the lack of the full range of emotions in this case, the people in this society don't live full lives. While they themselves my not realize it, it takes a certain more attentive and in tune group to realize that we were meant to live for so much more. (Have we lost ourselves?)

Sex, drugs, and Mind Control.

I've been to Soma. That is, the South of Market District in San Fran.

www.soma.fm --- Zone Out

Mയ personal opinion on the use of sex and drugs to control the general populus is the fact that they are appealing to peoplemost base instincts and pleasures. It is our natural instinct to want to have sex, and more often than not we as animals enjoy the process. Effectively, through equating essentially every aspect of life with either partaking in a sexual act or through using drugs, they are keeping everyone in a perpetual state of happiness. What's more, people who are kept in such a state are much less likely to question their state. They'd rather exist in a perpetual state of bliss (and we all know that ignorance is bliss). I mean, why mess with a good thing? Furthermore, because these people have been preconditioned to be a certain way and perform certain soceital roles, they are even less likely to question any practices. Human nature is a funny thing, however. Despite the fact that the people have been preconditioned and are already very unlikely to question their situation, the governing powers that be have covered the event that anyone should question the personal role. After all, "A gramme is better than a damn." Any happy thoughts? Obliterate them with soma.

Comparison

While on the whole ludicrous, there are certain aspects of Huxley's Brave New World that are at least partially true. The aspect that was a most clear parallel (while not at a 1:1 ratio) was the concept of being pre-disposed to a certain role in life. While we are not necessarily conditioned to be exactly a certain way, it is arguable that the position in which we are born predetermines where we will ultimately end up in life. For example, those who are born into a low-income family or into a family that does not encourage education and does not instill certain traditionally positive values will generally end up the same way: being the parents of children who will also not value an education or good ethics. This recurrent pattern is a very difficult one to break, and except for a certain few instances generally holds true in our society. The opposite of this situation is also generally true: Children who grow up in families that instill good values and encourage education will generally go on to continue such a lineage. This situation is easier to deviate from (unfortunately), but in large part holds true. This pattern can also be applied in large part by regional constraints (sad but true). Now, if we were to approach this fictitious society from a Leninist perspective (notice how many characters have names similar to important communist or socialist figures; Lenina for example), the society is perfect and as the best for overall happiness. However, there is a large regression in human advancement (not all of which that I believe are necessarily good things)that makes the society out to be a morally and ethically disgusting place. The Beta class and below are encouraged to engage in mindless entertainment, and the fact that small children are encouraged to engage in erotic play is unnerving. The part that disgusts me most of all is the "Bokanovskying" of eggs to produce up to 96 offspring from the same egg. Manipulating nature with science should only go so far.
My summation is thus: Once we've begun allowing certain procedures (mainly ones that a decade ago would've met large scale protest), it's a slippery slope before we can get away with practically whatever we want to. Where will we limit ourselves, and furthermore, WILL we limit ourselves?