For last year’s Earth Day, NRO asked me to write a piece about Hollywood pitching anti humanism in the name of the environmentalist religion. I thought it was worth revisiting. “From Homo Sapiens, Get Lost:”
When Aldous Huxley wrote his prophetic 1932 novel, Brave New World, he envisioned a dystopian future in which mankind would become, in the words of bioethicist Leon Kass, “so dehumanized that he doesn’t even realize what has been lost.” Huxley believed we would evolve into a society steeped in radical hedonism — where drugs would be used to erase every negative emotion and promiscuity would be not just common but the norm. He also saw us as becoming profoundly utilitarian and eugenic, depicted in his novel by genetically engineered babies being decanted through a cloning-type process rather than being born, and then propagandized rather than educated, so as never to question the existing order. Huxley’s Brave New World is a society without families, without the old and sick — who are done away with rather than cared for — and without real purpose other than experiencing transitory pleasure.
Looking around, can we have any doubt of Huxley’s prescience? But as acute as his prophetic faculties were, he did miss one crucial feature of the coup de culture against which he warned: The minions of Brave New World believed in nothing. However, as an intrinsically moral species, we may be congenitally incapable of literal agnosticism: We will always believe in something — and that “something” increasingly looks like a radical earth religion that views human beings as the enemies of the planet.
I discuss The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Happening, and how they fit right into Deep Ecology ideology. Since then, we’ve had more of the same, such as Wall-e (disputed by some SHSers), and most notably, Avatar. Such self loathing isn’t healthy.
April 22nd, 2010 | 11:33 am
I was wondering when you’d get around to blasting “Avatar.”
I saw it more as the old slam on European colonists wiping out Native American culture, and someone did a hilarious bit where they took a synopsis of Disney’s “Pocahontas” and just changed the names to the Avatar equivalents. Very little modification was needed.
I should point out, though, that Cameron made his Navi’i (sp?) hunters and meat eaters, with aboriginal rites of praising and thanking their prey.
The predatory humans were cartoonishly one-dimensional and short-sighted of course, and did act as an invasive species. So, plenty of liberal guilt-mongering there.
But you know what? Relocate this movie to Earth, let humans repel the exploitive invaders, and what do you have? “Independence Day.” Maybe we could dye Will Smith blue… ;)
April 22nd, 2010 | 11:35 am
Here’s a link to the Avatar/Pocahontas thing:
http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
April 22nd, 2010 | 11:46 am
[...] Cunningham wrote an interesting post today. Here’s a quick excerptEarth Day Anti Humanism at the Movies. Thursday, April 22, 2010, 10:59 AM. Wesley J. Smith. For last year’s Earth Day, NRO asked me to write a piece about Hollywood pitching anti humanism in the name of the environmentalist religion. … [...]
April 22nd, 2010 | 12:09 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, ProLifeBlogs and Stem Cell Blogs, d l. d l said: RT @CO2HOG: SHS: Earth Day Anti Humanism at the Movies http://bit.ly/9YALQB #tcot [...]
April 22nd, 2010 | 12:35 pm
In today’s issue, my local newspaper ran an editorial cartoon by John Darko (dated April 26, 2009) with the heading “Earth Day, just one day out of the year”. It depicts the planets Saturn and Jupiter looking with concern at Earth. Saturn is saying to Jupiter “Psst, if you want to survive, Never, Never become infested with humans!”
Lovely verb that, “infested”.
April 22nd, 2010 | 1:10 pm
I’m a “man of the right” to use Whitaker Chambers’ phrase. I thought “Avatar” was great. I still do.
There may be some Hollywood writers and directors who see their Mission in Life to teach the great unwashed what they should know. My impression is most of them don’t have that much ambition, thanks be to God.
Instead, like Cameron, most of them are reflexively, uncritically, and unthinkingly liberal in their biases. And it shows. Just as the opposite showed,with much more hilarity, in “Team America: World Police.” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/
In the case of “Avatar,” underneath all that other stuff is, for one, the sense that Creation is just that: created, and hence interconnected, and we’re part of something greater than ourselves, and we have a destination that’s glorious. That still resonates dramatically, often even in the worst movies, for a simple reason: it’s true.
It’s also true that Cameron didn’t, and is doubtlessly unable to, develop that as a theological exegesis or a Christian metaphysics. Thanks be to God for that, too.
April 22nd, 2010 | 1:36 pm
Another twist: There were those who criticized the plot of Avatar as being racist (speciesist?), in that the Navi’i couldn’t defend themselves effectively until a human (= “white man”) became their leader. “Lawrence of Arabia” syndrome, I guess. Or the movie where Rambo teaches the Afghans how to fight off the evil invaders? ;)
April 23rd, 2010 | 8:44 am
Padraig,
That’s a funny point, along the lines of characters in the book Politically Correct Bedtime Stories recognizing their unavoidable occasional lapses into misogyny or speciesism.
April 23rd, 2010 | 8:52 am
You define the recognition that certain human activities can be harmful to humans in the short- and long-term as “self-loathing”. Isn’t that a bit hysterical?
The modern political philosophy that we should strive to maintain our environment as close to the state in which our species evolved seems to me to be very pro-human.
Laws to keep the water we drink and the air we all breathe healthful seem sensible.
In 1987 nations came together and enacted the the Montreal Protocol limiting the human production and use of halogen-containing compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere–chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. Since then we have seen a gradual replenishment of protective stratospheric ozone. Rush Limbaugh thought the ozone story was bunk and maintained that volcanoes, not humans, were responsible. CFC manufacturers also did not buy into the theory that their products depleted ozone.
In 1990 Congress amended the Clean Air Act, enacting a cap and trade (‘cap and tax’ in Teabonics) program to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (mostly from coal burning). The 1990 act and previous policy interventions have resulted in the significant reduction of acid rain. Rush Limbaugh thought acid rain was bunk and maintained that volcanoes, not humans, were responsible. The coal and power industries also did not buy into the theory their activities contributed to acid rain.
Man-made global warming? Rush Limbaugh thinks global warming is bunk and maintains that natural processes, not humans, are responsible. Petroleum- and coal-related industries do not buy into the theory that their activities contribute to global warming.
Recognizing that human activities impact the environment in which we all live IS healthy.
The contention that human animals are somehow independent, indeed exceptional!, of the world we live in, besides being unsupported by evidence, is unhealthy.
Finally, since Rush Limbaugh is always wrong, any time you find your position on an issue in alignment with his, it’s time to re-examine your position.
April 23rd, 2010 | 9:26 pm
Jeffery -
It’s one thing to believe in reasonable stewardship toward the Earth. I believe the Earth is owned and operated by someOne much bigger than myself. As such, I believe in controling pollution, taking care of His animals, and treading lightly on His creation.
But at no time do I submit to such theories as, “All Humans are killing the planet with every little thing we do!” And *that* is where I take exception with the radical environmentalism shown in such films as Avatar, The Happening, etc.
(I still disagree about Wall-E. I see too much redemptive symbolism, and the fact that the humans continue to use their technology, just more responsibly to take care of their home, makes perfect sense to me.)
Being a good steward also means caring for the humans living on this planet, seeing to their health and well-being. So, yes, we do need to take care of the ecosystem. But not at the expense of other people.
Deep Ecology claims that humans need to decrease their numbers and their “carbon footprint.” That means fewer unsavory human beings. Keep in mind that the overpopulation myth was started by a British preacher who was bad at math and who thought that by getting rid of the lower classes (killing them, I believe, is what he perscribed), the upper classes would have more breathing room and be able to live comfortably, without having to worry about resources being consumed by the have-nots. And the Rockefellers bought into this, too.
Since Deep Ecology says there should be fewer people, wouldn’t it be wise to ask, “which groups do you volunteer to bite it?” Being an unemployed single femme of Italian/Jewish background, I don’t much fancy being in the “unsavory” group.
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:21 pm
By your definition I am a self-loathing environmentalist who is concerned about the state and fate of the natural world, and of human culture too.
My concern and actions are based on these recognitions.
The negative exploitation and killing of human beings violates the heart of one and all.
The negative exploitation and killing of non-human beings by human beings violates the heart of one and all. Therefore all should take care to maximally avoid and prevent the negative exploitation and non-necessary, or otherwise inhumane, killing of non-human beings by human beings.
The negative exploitation, and progressive degradation, and potential destruction of the fundamental order of the natural environment on which all of Earth-life depends violates the heart and directly threatens the life of one and all. Therefore, all should always actively participate in positive service and global cooperation that respects and perpetuates the fundamental order of the natural environment of Earth-world.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
John: If you want to give “rights” to nature and punish those who develop resources for human prosperity, if the shoe fits…So, when animals kill humans does it violate the heart of one and all? When they kill each other? We have 6 billion people plus on the planet. We need prosperity or there will be chaos and mass death. That doesn’t mean turn the planet into a toilet, but it does mean that environmental Utiopianism is dangerous, and in the end, anti human.
April 23rd, 2010 | 10:30 pm
At heart or the intrinsic condition of prior unity, a human being is not the slightest bit different from the reptiles, the birds, the elephants, the plants, the trees, the wind, the sky, the microbes.
Apart from their function in the conditional world, all beings are the same.
Human beings are not uniquely to be Saved.
All beings, and even conditional manifestation are forms of the Divine Presence.
If you examine beings other than the human, feel them, are sensitive to them, enter directly into relationship with them, you will discover that they are the same–that there is not a jot of difference.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
There is a huge difference between you and a squirrel, John. Even the squirrel knows that.
April 24th, 2010 | 7:38 am
Hey Wesley, didn’t you say “I don’t do religion”?
You said: “We need prosperity or there will be chaos and mass death. That doesn’t mean turn the planet into a toilet, but it does mean that environmental Utiopianism is dangerous, and in the end, anti human.”
But, you never bother defining “environmental Utopianism” for us. Without your telling anybody when, where, how and why it’s dangerous except in arcane and arguable philosophical terms, you simply insist that a particular action qualifies for that label, and that it’s a dangerous alternative to “prosperity” (whatever THAT is).
Thereafter anyone can use those terms at random and appear erudite without actually saying of substance. The word(s) become just one more slogan, one more epithet whose meaning can be left to the imagination of the user; a club with which to attack an opponent’s legitimate concerns (like “liberal,” “radical,” “activist” or “traditional values voter”)
Worse, its inventor can smile his most ingenuous smile and insist: “but I never meant ‘THAT’.” Messing around with language in that way is a technique straight out of the Propaganda 1.1 playbook.
April 24th, 2010 | 5:13 pm
Tabs,
I am unfamiliar with Deep Ecology but would certainly condemn any person or movement that advocates killing others for any reason.
The mainstream environmental movement strives to protect the Earth for us as well as our children’s children and beyond. And yes this includes reducing CO2 emissions. Wesley hysterically claims reducing emissions will destroy the world’s economies but offers no supporting evidence.
I also think it is unfair hyperbole to call environmentalists anti-human. I don’t know anyone who subcribes to “All Humans are killing the planet with every little thing we do!”
Anyone who finds an unemployed single femme of Italian/Jewish descent unsavory is no friend of mine!
April 26th, 2010 | 7:59 am
Avatar is a real story, happening to real people, who know Avatar is about them.
Hear their voice:
http://srj.ca/clients/srj/health-or-wealth-blue-skinned-pointy-eared-indians-p4808.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=143&mad=No
April 26th, 2010 | 8:03 am
From the above Slave River link:
Not many seven-foot-tall, blue-skinned Aboriginals with pointy ears, yellow eyes and long tails live in Fort Chipewyan or Fort McKay, although it is commonly accepted that Avatar, the highest grossing movie of all time, is based on the lives of people in the region and that the exploitation of a valuable energy source called “unobtanium” represents the oilsands industry.
Making movies is all about creative license and the imaginations of renowned Canadian director James Cameron and his talented team were in overdrive, evoking all the positive, romantic Hollywood imagery about Native Americans. Avatar is a political statement as well as a romance, but most of all it is a spectacle. People have flocked to see its incredible imagery and enjoy the love story. The plot contains a very strong message of sympathy for a people exploited by greedy, uncaring corporations and complicit governments. That message is horrific for the oilsands industry and an international public relations nightmare for the Alberta and federal governments that support it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact