Orwell warns us against the dangers of totalitarianism, and surely we should take this threat to heart (and, yes, he also has plenty of warnings of the dangers of our own western methods). This is perhaps best represented by the old Soviet Union or the Chinese government today. The denial of freedoms in these regimes achieved, or achieves, few ends to justify the means. The people suffered in the USSR, but there was little progress. There is some progress in China, but it comes at a cost of human rights violations and terrible damage to the planet, and undercuts wages in the rest of the developed world.
Huxley warns us of the danger of too much freedom.
Of course, these dangers are well represented by the culture here in the U.S. We medicate ourselves instead of solving our physical, intellectual or emotional problems. We chase after a meaningless long shot at "riches", mostly unaware that riches have little power to make us happy, give our lives real meaning, or let us live with inner peace. We think we are fighting to protect our own freedom when we are largely protecting the right of others to exploit us. We are going nowhere at a terrific clip, and also gobbling up resources we don't need and damaging the planet directly or by proxy."Intelligence and knowledge without good will and charity are apt to be inhuman, and good will and charity undirected by intelligence and knowledge are apt to be either impotent or misguided."
So, does man lose if one or the other of these systems prevails in the world? Do we lose both ways? Is there a better way? What countries might represent this better way in your eyes? If this better way in fact exists, how might we push the two extreme 'ideals' toward this compromise? Does man have a too strong tendency to see everything as a dichotomy? Can we overcome this tendency and make the world better before we destroy it?