Brave New World: beyond trippy

Okay. This book is obviously really trippy. I think we can all agree on that. For me, the thing that trips me out the most from Brave New World is...okay there is more than one thing. I think it's most of their beliefs. For example, "generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone if society." when i first read this i seriously paused and then blurted out "really?" what's so great about having a stable society? Nothing interesting happens. in my opinion, it just seems rather lame and boring. Oh and then it gets even better. the whole concept of "progress." the whole description from page six of how like ninety-six "humans" can be made from one embryo. i would understand if you were talking about like production junk and whatnot, but humans? how in the world is this progress???? What is so beneficial from having tons of people who look alike, have the same name, and were created for the same function? the D.H.C. just goes off about how this process is the key to social stability. hmmm. it's just hard to wrap my mind around this concept. .
Question: did anyone else catch like all the satirical religious references? like the whole A.F. deal. “after ford,” like today’s calendar system begins with the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of the lord”). and the whole shindig with predestination and whatnot.......anyone???
 I found it rather depressing when they condition people to not feel emotions. i don't feel like going back into the book and finding the exact quote, but it was something to do with like parents, romance, etc. and then the kids just start cringing at the sound of those words. oh and the books and flowers thing! how cruel!!! they just like electrocuted babies!! the D.H.C claims that reading is a waste of the communities time; so does this mean we are wasting our time reading Huxley's book?? alrighty so i'm going to see if i understand the motive behind hating flowers. flowers = nature = no consumptions of goods = bad. is that correct? they want the consumption of goods to continue to rise and nature only cause the consumption of transportation.
this world is just a weird, perverted society; i would never understand why anyone would want to live in such conditions. ah i found the quote if anyone cares: "mother, monogamy, romance"  another question: what is the whole deal with sex? why must everyone, starting at a very young age, be very very promiscuous?? does it show that they are devoted to society or something? that's one thing i just don't really get at all about this book.
Bernard Max. is he looking for something more meaningful than sex? or is just a big grump? someone please explain this to me. or not. i think it'll become more clear as the book goes along??? hopefully.

alrighty. i'm wrapping up this big hodgepodge of thoughts. thanks for reading it! :]