Brave New World is a dystopia that probably never fully occurred as a whole. It's more of a warning courtesy of Huxley rather than all of it. However, the essay question is: “How does the dystopian concept of Brave New World fare when compared to Nietzsche's relevant ideas: are they similar, different, or in opposition?” Nietzsche also wrote of the need for Übermenschen and weaker subalterns to maintain stability in society and for the radical elimination of old ethics and morality. And what is also important to note is that part of Nietzsche's philosophy (centered on the idea that the highest moral virtue is life itself) might be more positive than the whole of Christianity, as it might be seen in a certain light (a original observation made by the author of the essay) and again, in Brave New World, Mustapha Pond claims that soma is “Christianity without tears” (Huxley 235); so there are some connections between Brave New World and Nietzsche. Brave New World is cited in its original version, of course, but Nietzsche's works are translated from Czech, sometimes slightly coordinated with the German original, when the need arises. Both Nietzsche and Huxley work with the idea of ​​hierarchy in society. Nietzsche defends aristocracy, “true kindness, nobility, greatness of soul” against the ideals of gregarious animals who “see an attempt to transform them into cosmological or even metaphysical ideals” (Nietzsche, Intellectual 9). Similarly, alpha and alpha+ individuals are assigned a “prominent” place in the society of the World State. As Mustapha Pond discusses with the Savage in chapter 16, the alpha-only society didn't work, however, because it caused instability: the alphas doing the lower-ranking work wanted to rise higher, but the alphas doing the lower-ranking work they were qualified. since their conditioning wanted to keep it that way, so the optimal population “is modeled on the iceberg – eight-ninths below the waterline, one-ninth above” (Huxley 222). He is not very dissimilar to Nietzsche – he observed that “not everyone is an 'individual' (…) most people are not an 'individual' at all. Everywhere, where mediocre qualities prevail so that the type can move forward, it is a luxury and a debauchery to be so” and also that “the 'individual' is a relatively isolated fact in light of the more important continuity and mediocrity; it almost appears as something against nature" (Nietzsche, The Intellectual 90).