I thought the bigger issue was the premise. If earth is in a climate apocalypse, and we have extremely advanced technology that lets us bring life to far out planets, then why are we leaving earth? Can’t those same technologies be applied to saving the earth people?
The whole “we have to go space” feels like manifest destiny and the desperate urge of capitalism to expand.
What I got out of it was that plant life got diseases that killed them/made them unedible and corn was the only one holding off until the start of the movie. Also in my extremely slim understanding of planetary modification you need to release gases (carbon dioxide, oxygen etc) on a planet to create an atmosphere and it’s way easier to release gases than remove them.
So their plan was to let the earth crops rot away and plant fresh ones where there is no diseases.
Who is the mess? Going off world, to me, is the perfect opportunity for billionaire and bureaucratic assholes to try and create an ethno state. Who decides who gets to leave the planet? This planet isn’t a mess, that’s what eco-fascists want you to believe
There is no real response because we’re talking about a fictional future, with unknown ailments, established by maybe 20 minutes of film as a backdrop. They wanted to tell a story titled “interstellar”, not “terrestrial”.
Given all those unknowns, it stands that there are times when starting fresh is easier than undoing. Trying to unmix brown pigments comes to mind.
You asked:
If earth is in a climate apocalypse, and we have extremely advanced technology that lets us bring life to far out planets, then why are we leaving earth? Can’t those same technologies be applied to saving the earth people?
This is a potential answer, given the lack of established truths in this fictional universe.
Ion what you tryna say, it was honestly a whole lot of nothing. Wtf does “trying to unmix brown pigments” mean? That’s cryptic asf and doesn’t make any sense, wouldn’t it be impossible to unmix any pigment color combo? And wtf does that sort of metaphor even mean?
Look man, what I was saying in response to your comment was that I don’t think it’s acceptable to call the planet an unfixable mess. Maybe it’s easier to start fresh for some people, but that was literally the problem I was trying to point out to you.
I just hate how Interstellar tells the audience that in a climate apocalypse, the only solution is to leave the planet. It’s ecofascism
wouldn’t it be impossible to unmix any pigment color combo? And wtf does that sort of metaphor even mean?
It’s an example of a situation where it’s easier to start fresh than undo past actions, which by your point you show you understand.
I don’t think it’s acceptable to call the planet an unfixable mess.
Let’s differentiate between OUR planet, and the planet depicted in the movie. Are you saying that there are no ways in which a fictional future earth is unsalvageable?
Do you also rally against movies set in, for example, a dystopian cyberpunk setting due to not liking the scene it was set in?
Dude you’re not understanding my point. Like I said, it matters how the film/situation is shown to the audience. Yes interstellar is fictional, but it is also about a possible future for our planet. All it does is buy into the trope of saving the planet through space, and show audiences how seemingly cool that would be.
I never said I didn’t like the scene it was set in, I said I don’t like their reaction to the scene. The dystopian cyberpunk I like cause at least they didn’t give up 🤷
I thought the bigger issue was the premise. If earth is in a climate apocalypse, and we have extremely advanced technology that lets us bring life to far out planets, then why are we leaving earth? Can’t those same technologies be applied to saving the earth people?
The whole “we have to go space” feels like manifest destiny and the desperate urge of capitalism to expand.
What I got out of it was that plant life got diseases that killed them/made them unedible and corn was the only one holding off until the start of the movie. Also in my extremely slim understanding of planetary modification you need to release gases (carbon dioxide, oxygen etc) on a planet to create an atmosphere and it’s way easier to release gases than remove them.
So their plan was to let the earth crops rot away and plant fresh ones where there is no diseases.
I also didn’t like the “I’m going to fuck off and let everyone else die” philosophy of not solving the climate issue at home.
It can be easier to start with a fresh slate than it is to salvage a mess.
Who is the mess? Going off world, to me, is the perfect opportunity for billionaire and bureaucratic assholes to try and create an ethno state. Who decides who gets to leave the planet? This planet isn’t a mess, that’s what eco-fascists want you to believe
There is no real response because we’re talking about a fictional future, with unknown ailments, established by maybe 20 minutes of film as a backdrop. They wanted to tell a story titled “interstellar”, not “terrestrial”.
Given all those unknowns, it stands that there are times when starting fresh is easier than undoing. Trying to unmix brown pigments comes to mind.
You asked:
This is a potential answer, given the lack of established truths in this fictional universe.
Ion what you tryna say, it was honestly a whole lot of nothing. Wtf does “trying to unmix brown pigments” mean? That’s cryptic asf and doesn’t make any sense, wouldn’t it be impossible to unmix any pigment color combo? And wtf does that sort of metaphor even mean?
Look man, what I was saying in response to your comment was that I don’t think it’s acceptable to call the planet an unfixable mess. Maybe it’s easier to start fresh for some people, but that was literally the problem I was trying to point out to you.
I just hate how Interstellar tells the audience that in a climate apocalypse, the only solution is to leave the planet. It’s ecofascism
It’s an example of a situation where it’s easier to start fresh than undo past actions, which by your point you show you understand.
Let’s differentiate between OUR planet, and the planet depicted in the movie. Are you saying that there are no ways in which a fictional future earth is unsalvageable?
Do you also rally against movies set in, for example, a dystopian cyberpunk setting due to not liking the scene it was set in?
Dude you’re not understanding my point. Like I said, it matters how the film/situation is shown to the audience. Yes interstellar is fictional, but it is also about a possible future for our planet. All it does is buy into the trope of saving the planet through space, and show audiences how seemingly cool that would be.
I never said I didn’t like the scene it was set in, I said I don’t like their reaction to the scene. The dystopian cyberpunk I like cause at least they didn’t give up 🤷