Do artists need to have personally suffered in order to produce good art? Does the audience of art need to have suffered to appreciate good art? Is it enough for suffering to take place (and be known) somewhere in society for good art? And if suffering is required, how much suffering should we tolerate as the price to pay for the art? (And does the answer change when we consider the value of art from an perspective of individual aesthetic appreciation, or for what it does to enrich and guide a culture?)

As a piece of literature, is this book good art?

How can you bring a utopia to the gaming table in a compelling way? Can pure utopias be the setting of an interesting story?

On the one hand, everyone his happy. People have all their material needs met, and the society is set up so that people are fufilled in their roles. People can fulfil their potential and gain satisfaction from doing so, even if that potential is limited by eugenic breeding. For instance, Linda took her book on conditioning techniques implies that workers need to study to be successful at their jobs. From a Utilitarianistic perspective it's nearly a perfect society: happiness is maximised, as everyone is happy all the the time.

On the other hand, people are conditioned from fertilization to puberty to be happy with their assigned role. They have little choice about what they do, and most people are mentally and psychologically crippled to want no more from life than that their assigned role. Is slavery any less wrong if the Epsilon-class slave is happy in their role and unwilling and unable to do anything else?

What makes a setting utopian or dystopian? How could the Brave New World move from one to the other?

How much freedom is required to have a fulfilling life? How much risk, and how much consequence, should society allow for for individuals? When should society intervene to prevent someone making mistakes or poor choices? If people are prevented from making bad choices, are they also prevented from living life to the full? How much pain and hardship should we allow to happen?

For instance, should we provide a welfare state, to provide some basic level of food, shelter, and medical care for all? Should we provide some work, or meaningful work, for everyone? Should we provide free education to all, and to what level (primary school or bachelors degree)?

Does it make a difference if the society that intervenes is The State, or more local groups such as a  church congregation?

I'll start.

• Sexism and misogyny: The world is stated as being gender-equal, but the only Alphas we see working are all men. Lenina may be an Alpha, but she's portrayed as being a shallow, hedonistic, infantile person.
• Racism: Similarly, ethnicity is mentioned a few times, but the only non-whites we see are outsiders or lower caste people. I don't recall any mention of ethnicity of Alphas, implying we should think of them all as white.
• Technology: there are punched cards where we would use computers. There are Epsilon sub-morons where we would use automation (for instance, the lift attendant).
• Ecology: The world is based around consumerism, and profligate consumerism at that. Could the global ecology support the high levels of population and consumption we see?

What else is there?