The Day The Earth Stood Still, Version II

I've just gotten back from seeing this movie. As in the case of most modern Hollywood films, its 'message' is bland pap, tainted by big business interests (see how long it takes you to spot the windows logo). "Our species should not be destroyed. We ARE nearing a crisis moment, we have almost destroyed the Earth, but it is only in moments of crisis that intelligent species truly change and grow", says the big honcho Nobel price doctor. So what, change will just happen by itself, as if it were a simple force of nature? Who will tell us when the crisis is bad enough? What about intelligence, forethought? Aren't we supposed to be capable of planning and preventing? Isn't that what reasoning is for?

The only concession the movie makes to answering these questions is to casually mention that the big honcho doctor got his Nobel price for his work on the biological advantages of altruism. Some poor writer probably managed to sneak that in.

That we cannot change but in moments of crisis implies that we should wait for crises in order to change. As Naomi Klein says in her book "The Shock Doctrine", governments and powerful individuals have largely been using this idea to impose their own views on society, particularly in the last decade or two... The fact that they've been able to use this 'theory', however, goes to show that there is another side to it, because they had to plan and think ahead to achieve their goals. They PREDICTED what would happen, and even though they were not 100% sure as to what would happen if they tried this or that, they could guess.

So can we, when it comes to evaluating the effects our actions are having on the environment. We're in trouble now, and we're headed for even more. Species and ecosystems are disappearing as a direct consequence of certain of our actions and lifestyles. We must change those now! If we wait, it may be too late! There's too many examples of civilizations that carried on for too long with certain behaviors, as well as cases in which forethought and planning and a willingness to compromise saved the day. Take a look at Collapse, by Jared Diamond, for instance.

Maybe i'm exaggerating in taking this movie as an indicator of the mind frame of Hollywood movie makers. After all, this is not the first story, particularly in SF, where change is only brought on by the moment of crisis... I don't remember the author, but there was this one about a scientist who somehow, having access to a lot of resources, contrived to make it seem like Earth was being attacked by aliens. He sustained the illusion for decades, and in order to fight back the aliens all governments had to unite... By the time the lie was discovered, Earth had become united.

I have no patience with this stuff. It stinks of the "Deus ex machina" syndrome, the mark of really bad Science Fiction. Rather than characters failing or succeeding to solve problems thanks to or in spite of their travails, in the poopy section of the SF world problems get solved by themselves through some silly invention or device... In this case, the theory that we will somehow find a way to save Earth when we come to the edge of having totally trashed it.

It's real sad, though. I think many times people don't get involved in changing the world because they give themselves just this excuse: "things are not that bad after all". I know I've done it. Getting involved in change means giving up things, whether it be time, or goods, or convenience, or money, or power... How much are we willing to give up?