Neither. Obviously the government doesn't see everything, although the way people use social media that has more to do with government ineptitude than a lack of surveillance capability. So we're nowhere near Orwell's 1984. And Idiocracy was about people becoming so reliant on technology they didn't need to understand that even leaders gradually became incompetent malleable fools. Telying on ad slogans to understand the world around them (which could be compared to Demolition Man's "oldies" radio station for an interesting premise about how modern cultural trends will impact the future based on sci-fi and how past trends impact the present) as if they were hypnotized into believing everything they're told.
Personally, I'd say the world has more in common with Fahrenheit 451 but I also wouldn't consider that a change from the past aside from advances in technology. We live in a society that prioritizes charisma and social competence above all else. But that's not any different from the past. The ability to coerce, manipulate, and most importantly charm others has always been the most prized attribute of our species. Since athleticism has always had the potential to win over crowds it's also highly valued, while less social and athletic pastimes like reading are discouraged by society. Genuine intellectuals are mocked or shunned by the public while charismatic pseudo-scientists are celebrities known around the world. Then there's the technological similarities. Wall sized wall mounted televisions with "interactive" voice activated programs that do nothing more than scan a sentence for keywords to provide a prewritten response. Obscenely fast sports cars sold to some of the most obnoxious people on the planet who frequently kill themselves or others by driving drunk. And flying spy drones meant to seek out people or look for specific signs of illegal activity.
"Idiocracy": I don't think you can make such a sweeping generalization in claiming that the world as a whole is ignorant. Sure, there may be ignorant people, but there have always been ignorant people. Now, I'd say people are better informed and educated than they ever have been in the past, so it's pretty unfair to say that we're living in an age of ignorance.
"1984": I've said it in other threads and I'll say it again. Here in the US, our rights are not being infringed upon as much as people like to say they are. Here's what I wrote in another thread:
I also don't believe that our liberties are being infringed upon as much as many people seem to believe. Currently, under the NSA's PRISM program, a vast amount of metadata is collected, but very little of it is actually reviewed. Most likely, some sort of system that cherrypicks data based on certain keywords is implemented. What that means is that as far as I'm concerned, the government really isn't invading my privacy at all. When I shoot a text to my mom telling her I'm gonna go pick up some eggs at Safeway, sure, there's a chance that that text gets collected, but in the end it's just going to get thrown into an ocean of other information, never to be examined since I didn't mention Allah in my text. Anyways, if a machine like the one proposed in the OP were to exist, I think it would work in much the same way as the current PRISM program, because as Hahiha mentioned, it would be impossible to extensively search through all the footage of every camera in the US. And in my opinion, the government would be justified in implementing such a program if they saw fit.
I don't know about Idiocracy. I have read 1984, and while reading I noticed there are some very astute observations and comments in the story also applying to our society, however those are mostly relatively unspecific things. I would not go as far as saying we live in a 1984 society, definitely not. The story does have its relevance, but most of it is fiction.
Anyways neither. And both are impossible to achieve.
1984 is a silly book that offers an EXAGGERATION (because some people tend to think it's an entirely possible society we are becoming) about censorship, totalitarianism, and privacy.
Idiocracy is a movie about Luke Wilson, dax Sheppard, and the girl from SNL who peoe think is funny for some reason.
The ability to coerce, manipulate, and most importantly charm others has always been the most prized attribute of our species.
Well, no. It really hasn't. That's only valuable to the fields of politics and law.
Since athleticism has always had the potential to win over crowds it's also highly valued, while less social and athletic pastimes like reading are discouraged by society.
Well, no. Historically, athleticism was valued primarily for its survival fitness. In more recent history (by which I mean from about 500B.C.E. onward), reading was also valued, partly for the cultural and historical awareness it imparts, and partly because it was an indicator of class. As intellectual pursuits have only become more highly valued from the renaissance onward, a Fahrenheit 451 comparison doesn't make any sense at all.
Genuine intellectuals are mocked or shunned by the public while charismatic pseudo-scientists are celebrities known around the world.
Well, no. They aren't. Intellectuals are shunned by certain religious zealots and unsophisticated bumpkins. The general populace may not understand what Einstein and Hawking have achieved, but few non-intellectuals would shun them now. Would you call them charismatic?
