Confused on the cause.
Great Movie until the ending. What was the human race doing to cause the earth destruction?
shareGlobal warming and such. The Earth is alive and did quite well on his own maintaining a balance until around the industrial age.
Just as he said about how there are more species that call the planet their home than humans. We should respect and preserve that which gave us life.
I'm not a bleeding heart, just respectful of nature.
That was the suggested theme of the film but it is in itself stupid. I am not even talking about the debate as to how much of the global warming is actually caused by humanity. Just the idea that the aliens would assume that the activities of people could destroy the planet.
The main danger of human activity and resource usage is causing a shortage and unlivable conditions mostly to ourselves.
Even assuming something happens and and humans destroy more stuff dying themselves in the result. Earth would necessarily recover on its own. If not 50-100 years or so then from 200 to 1000 years which is nothing as far as time to "earth".
And more extinction has occurred as a result of natural events such as one of the ice ages, volcano ash blocking the sun, or the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.
What the film presents as the reasoning from aliens is just not believable and stupid. Think about another thing. Does it make much sense that the aliens would be concerned with the planet and animals for its inherent objective worth? Someone has to be there to use it. Plus the idea that they'd go to such length to destroy all human life for earth's environment but not see inherent value in self aware sentient human life is not credible either.
In the end, it is self aware sentient human life which makes Klaatu stop the swarm as he finally accepted that humanity could change if the need to do it was strong enough ("at the precipice, we change"). The aliens had already waited for years for humanity to change its ways but it obviously wasn't going to. Humanity's adversarial and destructive behaviour is the main problem, and pollution and global warming are just symptoms of that - as is the potential to turn the Earth into a barren, radioactive wasteland. We now live in an age where that could happen due to our nuclear technology and our adversarial nature. Even if the Earth could eventually recover from such an event in the centuries or millennia that follow, why allow it to happen in the first place when it can be avoided by simply removing the culprit? That would then allow the other lifeforms on the planet to evolve unhindered.
shareI understand that the fact that Klaatu decided to stop the destruction of humanity is the premise of the film. But I simply state the the core plot, which is that someone who monitors the planet has sent him there and either he or they who sent him thought that remove humanity when their effect on earth compared to things that have happened by forces of nature (like ones I mentioned, ice age, ateroid, mass extinctions) is negligible.
Even such thing as irradiated wasteland is an exaggeration from science fiction. Radiation mostly goes away in under a hundred years. For example Chernobyl now is much less radioactive because the initial strong radiation has short half life. Basically the stronger the radiation the shorter the half life. The former city that was covered with concrete roads and buildings is covered with a lush forest, and I've read that various endangered species of animals thrive there as well. When we read books, or see movies about radioactive wastelands the focus is usually on how quickly a civilization can fall apart, people start following their primal instincts, there is violence and anarchy. It is not that the trees and animals cannot survive.
The thing that something like an atomic war could cause that would cause mass extinction is if such large explosions occur that they send so much ash into the skies that a mass cooling occurs on the surface due to blockage of sun by the ash. But even with so many nuclear bomb tests done after the ww2 in the pacific ocean by France, in Siberia by USSR, and in the deserts of Nevada and Arizona by the USA, didn't produce massive ash. However, these tests could have contributed to the global warming because all that energy has to go somewhere, and initially it goes to heating up the air. In case of underwater tests, millions of gallons of water have been evaporated or boiled. It is still relatively negligible.
Basically I do not see the logic in the superior aliens' concern that the human nature is violent and that humanity abuses the environment, according to Klaatu. I don't see what inherent value they could see in a planet full of animals who aren't self aware like humans because it is difficult to prove objective value of the environment or animals in it. Do you see what I mean?
The only reason I could see is if the plot instead focused on Klaatu explaining to the "leaders" of Earth that because of our technological advancements and relatively violent nature humanity will be a threat to other planets and civilizations once they start populating new planets and systems. That they'd hurt other developing life. That is actually similar to the plot of Space Odyssey 2010 where the Intelligent Mind, or Aliens, tells people that they must not touch what was formerly known as Europa (in the film Jupiter is taken apart by these aliens) because they put those black obelisks there to cause rapid evolution of creatures that live in the water under the icy surface of Europa.
I don't think that humanity's effect on the planet can simply be dismissed as negligible because it is increasing all the time. At the moment it may seem negligible in comparison to something like an asteroid collision or an ice age, but the more industrialised nations we get, the more crap we spew out into the atmosphere, ground and sea, the more natural habitats are destroyed through toxicity or overdevelopment, and also the more nuclear weapons are created. It's been theorised that we could even cause another ice age (though it obviously wouldn't happen overnight like in "The Day After Tomorrow"). Industrialisation has become global now, and even developing nations now have nuclear weapons (and many more want them). Humanity has also caused the extinction or near-extinction of several species on Earth already. It can't be denied that our current way of life is detrimental to the Earth and everything on it. The film is about the proliferation of that and humanity being on this destructive path without the will to change. Klaatu's people obviously opted to step in before the planet went through another mass extinction event, intending to remove the culprit which in turn would allow the Earth to remain habitable and other species to thrive upon it. Those other species may well evolve into higher life forms after we've gone, as we once did (there's your link to Clarke's "2010").
Rather than using a single event like Chernobyl, imagine a full scale nuclear holocaust. There have been hundreds of nuclear tests carried out in the past 70 years, and while those isolated tests can be destructive enough, imagine what it would be like if they were all carried out simultaneously all over the world and all above ground. It's common knowledge that there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. Klaatu's people obviously weren't going to wait for humanity to finally do it.
Although you say that irradiated wasteland is an exaggeration from science fiction, remember that we are talking about a science fiction film here. But regardless of how fast the Earth might recover in real terms after a full scale nuclear holocaust, how much life would have been lost in the process of allowing humanity to indulge in the ultimate tantrum? How many species wouldn't survive it? We have no way of knowing what would survive because we haven't been through a nuclear holocaust yet, it's all academic. But it certainly shouldn't be downplayed.
I do understand what you are getting at regarding what value the aliens could see in a planet full of animals who aren't as intelligent as humans. The aliens' interest in Earth isn't completely explored, it's merely hinted at when he says that planets that can support complex life forms are rare and his people cannot afford to let one species ruin this one. It loosely suggested to me that life on Earth was either seeded by them or at least "adopted" by them and the aliens wanted it to flourish because life is rare in the universe. The aforementioned "Space Odyssey" films and "Prometheus" had similar themes, both of which also left their aliens' motives ambiguous. Alternatively, it could be a little less grand and Klaatu's people are effectively galactic Greenpeace warriors. They don't make it absolutely clear what their backstory is, but it doesn't stop the film's message from being any less valid, which is "poison the Earth, pay the price". In the realm of a science fiction film, I thought it worked fine.
"I don't see what inherent value they could see in a planet full of animals who aren't self aware like humans".....
You're a fu king sc-umbag. I hope you suffer.
Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't
You're a fu king sc-umbag. I hope you suffer.
Wow. That's a pretty childish response.
share
It is? I don't think so. I think its an appropriate response to that conservative dooshbag who thinks animals lives matter less than homo sapiens because they aren't "self aware."
Oh and by the way, FU K YOU TOO.
Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't
It is?
Yes
I don't think so.
Children are frequently mistaken. Perhaps you'll learn.
Oh and by the way, FU K YOU TOO.
It likely WOULD be the best piece of ass you could get but no, I'm not interested. share
I assume you are another conservative prick like the other poster. Go post on the Trump board old timer.
Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't
I assume you are another conservative prick like the other poster. Go post on the Trump board old timer.
You know what they say when you assume - you make an ass out of you. share
I am not a conservative. If I were I'd gladly tell you so. You think you're so righteous writing dismissive and insulting things, but the irony is you probably do not even undertake why I wrote what I wrote when other readers seem to be getting it.
In case of "sentient life" you also didn't get it and jumped to the wrong conclusion. I do not mean that human life is more valuable because humans are self aware and can think. In fact sentient is probably not the right word. Most vertebrate animals we are familiar with are able to feel pain. That's not in question. I mean humans are self aware and the only ones who are aware they will die and who question their purpose for existence. Reason why it's relevant to the argument is because only humans are able to attribute characteristics such as "beauty" to the world and the only animal who can choose to do something against their own immediate self interest to achieve some abstract goals by actions like self sacrifice.
Unless the earth and animals on it existed for Klaatu and other aliens to enjoy then the earth and the animals (including humans) do not have an inherent, objective value. Which is why Klaatu should have explained the reasoning of his masters. Simply saying "you humans destroy the animals and the environment" is a pointless statement because Klaatu doesn't state what the end goal, or purpose to existence of life is.
Gees man, I'm with you on this, I think animal lives DO matter. If it weren't for cows, I couldn't have enjoyed eating that nice, big tasty steak I had last night.
shareYou rush to make a stupid response and yet you do not even get my argument. I have a feeling you didn't even read my entire post. The point is not that the animal life is not worth anything. Point is that Klaatu does not give any explanation of where the value comes from or how the value system is determined. The inherent value has to be explained somehow. The animals, the humans, and the planet itself can have different type of value. To cosmos itself they do not have value. The animals and plants can have value to humans. Not value as a resource but some absolute value.
Is it because the earth and animals look beautiful? Beauty is a construct of a human mind and culture. Without humans on earth there will not be anyone to appreciate any of this beauty.
Anoter possibility is value as a resource. But that doesn't work either. Being a resource implies exploiting plants and animals killing them in the process.
Third option is life for the sake of life itself. That one is even more difficult to explain. Personally I do believe that life is a value in itself. But I cannot explain why apart from me being able to appreciate life as a human who thinks in abstract terms and can appreciate beauty and aesthetics in some form. If you don't think it makes sense just think of any explanation of how life has objective value. You'd be hard pressed to find any except that which humanity attributes to it.
Another detail regarding the film is that natural disasters which don't have anything to do with humans have killed something like 70% or more of species on earth in the past. Could be due to ice age, an asteroid, or an ice age following an asteroid or a big volcano eruption. If klaatu's aliens cared about life and planet so much where were they when the earth was going through an ice age?
Note: you accused me of being a conservative. I am not.
My mistake.
Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't
Global warming isnt the issue. temperatures vary by themselves. All ice melts and freezes in cycles. We're polluting far worse than co2 which plants love and flourish. Its not toxic to us in normal quantities. If we keep this up well die.. take most of the life with us and the planet will keep living just fine but species like us wont come around again. Far too late for that.
share