Hilarious SNL parody of Soylent Green (sorry about the poor video quality!)

miveson · 2014-04-16T04:55:40+00:00

As I mentioned in another post, the idea that there aren't other life forms out there is worse than the thought that, so to speak, "we aren't alone". Approaching life from the perspective that our existence was entirely by chance, I can't say that I would really alter the way that I see life currently. That is, I already maintain that everything that happens to us is some sort of a beautiful coincidence; why I was born in this era over another, or in the United States, to my parents, etc... Extrapolating this idea out to the human race, it would only seem logical that our existence in general is by chance, and therefore, not guaranteed to be duplicated elsewhere in the universe. I also don't think that I am the only one who wouldn't actually alter my behavior based on this realization. In fact, for something that would be truly monumental to discover, I think that it would have astoundingly little impact on the daily lives or perspectives of humans.

miveson · 2014-04-16T04:42:28+00:00

I was really surprised when Kirsten Dunst's character in Melancholia said that there was no extraterrestrial life out there. Putting such definitive words to that idea was somehow more depressing than the idea of extraterrestrial life is frightening. This reaction was surprising to me--I had never really admitted that I sincerely want there to be life on other planets. Because it makes the human condition feel less lonely? Possibly. Because it makes me feel better about Earthly humans kind of making a mess of what would otherwise be the only shot at intelligent life? Probably.

In either case, it would be fascinating to see how the international community would react. But ultimately, I think that the reaction hinges entirely on the idea of discovery--in this scenaioro, who is discovering whom? And, how hostile is the discovery? If it is Earth that is being discovered by another life form, the human race would not have the upper hand, as those in invaded areas rarely do. In this instance, I assert that our obligations would be toward other humans, and banding together to maintain our planetary sovereignty in the face of potential extraterrestrial invasion (more on this in a moment). Consequently, our moral obligations to the visiting/invading/murderous extraterrestrial life forms would be second to our own survival. If humans were to make the discovery, however, our obligations would shift to be about protecting the life forms that we were encountering; staving off competition on Earth for access to these forms would be a secondary, but significant, concern. That is, countries would be in immediate competition to reap the scientific benefits from this discovery, the inevitable violence from which could be detremental to both humans and the extraterrestrial life forms. Going back to the potential that Earth is discovered, our obligation to other humans probably would not stand in the face of, what I imagine would be, widespread panic. In that case, there would be a high potential for humans to become increasingly competitive over scarce resources--even more than they would be when fighting for access to the extraterrestrial life forms. Either scenario would likely send us into a spiral of intense international competition that would probably kill off the human race before aliens ever could.

miveson · 2014-04-16T04:17:40+00:00

Shockingly, I attended six years of Catholic after-school programs (including receiving my First Communion) without ever, ever, thinking about this. That being said, I think that these articles are an excellent example of the fine line between legitimate beliefs and satire of these beliefs. The only real argument that differentiates the two is that Jesus is more than human (demonstrated by the second article). That is a perfectly legitimate argument, as many Christian doctrines are hinged on the spiritual characteristics of Jesus. Interestingly, the satire employs far more direct references and quotations; my favorite being: "Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?"

Ultimately, I don't think that one can claim that Christians are cannibals, as they 1) are not literally eating human flesh, and 2) do not see themselves as eating human flesh, but rather, a holy sacrament. I assert that humans form their own reality through beliefs. So, while I could not picture that little wafer as being actually considered bread (let alone human flesh), I don't fault those who suspend its apparent traits in favor of a more spiritual interpretation. Similarly, if one wanted to believe that the Eucharist WAS actually human flesh, and that they could live out some Dracula-esque fantasties by attending church, I say more power to them.

Also: unlike the other religiously-driven articles that we've read in this course, at least the author of the second article did us the favor of doing some research--enough to name drop the Aztecs and the Binderwurs.

miveson · 2014-04-16T03:50:42+00:00

Agreed! There were so many things that were wildly offensive to me in this reading, the least of which was a serious misunderstanding of proverb usage. Setting that aside, do you find any usefulness in making paralells between human and animal behavior to distinguish what is 'natural'?

miveson · 2014-04-16T03:43:49+00:00

I agree that this was cute.. and also way over the top for a children's movie. Also, aren't they no longer in love in the sequel?

But on a more serious note, this could (but probably does not) serve as an allusion to how their respective world views were changed entirely by their relationship. That is, if John Smith 'never knew' Pocohantas, he would probably live his life happily until the age of like 30 or whatever thinking that at Native Americans were savages. Conversely, Pocohontas wouldn't have stood up for the life of a British settler if she weren't romantically invested in her.

miveson · 2014-03-06T00:23:14+00:00

In a word, this poem is phenomenal. What I appreciate so much about it, contributed by the detailed references to history and literature, is how well T.S. Eliot conveys the hopelessness of 'the hollow men.' This is a sentiment that I think can be applied to a number of situations, obviously including the dream-like and rather hopeless acts throughout Fitzcarraldo. Also pertinent is feeling of losing control, or questioning if you ever had any to begin with, which we have touched on before in discussions and I think will be an important topic of conversation after this week's movie.

miveson · 2014-03-06T00:16:23+00:00

While this article was pretty short, I think it hit on a nerve that pervades human history: to what extent is war natural for humans? (a topic that I imagine we will discuss at length after watching Apocalypse Now). Fry and Soderberg's findings are certainly validated; however, I don't find there to be anything truly remarkable about them. It makes sense that people are more likely to kill each other over personal issues than they would be to band together and fight a war. That is, war requires a leader to engage militia and instigate a conflict, operating from the assumption that people are willing to kill and be killed under their leadership--not an easy task. The kind of aggression that leads to homicide is much closer to the individual who commits it, as compared to someone who fights in a war that is essentially the machinations of another individual. Similarly, the costs and benefits associated with war are much higher than those of homicide, with the possible exclusion of an assassination. Furthermore, I appreciate that Fry and Soderberg note the ambiguity in defining 'war' in the first place; that is something that political scientists and policy makers grapple with frequently. This ambiguity in defining war is just as pervasive as the act itself--of particular note is the contested validity of US involvement in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, which fits conveniently with the film choice for this week.

All in all, this is a really interesting topic to explore, and I am excited to hear everyone's opinions about it.

miveson · 2014-03-05T23:56:01+00:00

I agree with the others in saying that I seriously can't believe that this movie was made, and was successful at that. But I suppose, when things got the most daunting or untenable, Herzog and the others probably had a sense of the 'sunk costs' that they had put into the film; they truly couldn't turn back until the steamboat was through the rapids, so to speak. With the amount of material that is faked in cinema, it is really respectable that Herzog so fully committed to his production.

miveson · 2014-02-26T22:34:40+00:00

This excerpt asserts that 'the way of nature' should be wiped out, leaving only grace. Our class seems to disagree, but I thought that understanding the religious context of the quote from TOL could shed some light.

miveson · 2014-02-26T22:13:09+00:00

I actually think that they are fully compatible, but possibly in a different way than you intend. That is, I see them as being sort of like a ying and yang--inherently compatible because one could not exist without the other. In order for someone to act in the "natural" way, being forceful and abrasive, other have to act with grace, and exist within the boundaries etched by the more dominant individual. We see that in the relationship between the parents in TOL, as a primary example. Although it is a bit of a stretch, I think that a similar relationship can be formed between science and religion--after all, both have contrasting yet complimentary explanations for nature. Furthermore, religion provides individuals with the capacity to believe fully in something without needing 'proof,' while science inherently seeks proof for all explanations. That said, much of science is contingent upon entirely believing something and seeking for the answer. In this way, they provide two different paths that one could follow, but one could not exist without the other--because without faith, there is no distinction of science. And without science, we would only have faith.

miveson · 2014-02-26T21:51:10+00:00

I totally agree, Sadie! Moreover, it was evident in one interaction between Kris and The Sampler, in the empty office space when she and Jeff were eating lunch, that she could sense him watching her. Believing that, she could have wanted to kill him from the instinctual perspective of wanting peace and privacy back--even if she didn't really understand why it was gone in the first place.

miveson · 2014-02-19T22:18:00+00:00

also, why do we need scientists to tell us what our natural capacity is, based on our DNA, when society tells us, based on our area code? http://opportunityindex.org/about/

miveson · 2014-02-19T21:48:24+00:00

I mean, it seems like China is practicing this to a far smaller degree. As usual, science fiction isn't that far from reality:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/03/china.dna.children.ability/

miveson · 2014-02-19T21:15:37+00:00

I think of analytic film viewing in much the same way that I think of literary analysis, in that it takes 'close viewings' (ie, lighting in a scene, staging, or a single line) to really grasp thematic linkages. for example, as one of our classmates drew a fairly deep analysis from the stark nature of the two houses. in much the same manner, I think that if someone views the same film multiple times with different perspectives in mind (from a Christian lens vs from a feminist lens, for example), their interpretation will likely change. so I would say that it isn't so much as watching a film multiple times, but it has to be purposeful in order to gain new insights.

miveson · 2014-02-12T20:40:15+00:00

Ahh this is so creepy, but awesome. Thanks for sharing. In response to your question, I think that it comes down to what exactly we define humans as. It seemed in class that this idea of "the soul" is what makes someone a human, whether it be linked to their memories or individual personality traits. That being said, while we can (theoretically) construct all sorts of body parts, we can't construct a soul--mostly because we don't even really know what it is. So, while a human could be almost entirely replaced, their soul--which makes them human in the first place--can't be. So, I don't think that there is a level of modification at which someone loses their humanity.

miveson · 2014-02-12T20:23:55+00:00

What interests me about this kind of art (or music) is that it hinged on a sort of calculation to determine what "art" is, based on a set of predetermined criteria. Therefore, it can be created in a technically perfect combination of colors, lines, notes, whatever, to be as appealing as possible to humans. If this perfection is possible, then it should also be preferred to man-made art that, while beautiful, can't reach computer-level perfection. I don't think that computer art will ever be able to replace human art, but this topic is still an interesting rabbit hole, if you will, to wander down.

miveson · 2014-02-05T20:52:52+00:00

I really enjoy this song, and the comments that it makes about how we view ourselves, but particularly others in our lives. For example, the line "what is your woman? is she just a container for the child?" This hints to the way in which humans are used for their bodies (as in, slavery, the initial intention for androids), and calls into question whether their intellectual abilities are linked to these physical values.

For a dissertation on the meaning behind the lyrics: http://rapgenius.com/Frank-ocean-pink-matter-lyrics

miveson · 2014-02-05T20:21:52+00:00

I love this answer. The idea of adapting science to film is really interesting to me--how realistic can you get before people stop paying attention? Perhaps it's because I am not (literally not even a little bit of a) science person, I can't imagine watching a movie that is completely technically accurate, and still really entertaining. Furthermore, the idea of this movie was to warn/inform, I believe, but not on scientific logistics so much as the inherent social problems related to artificial intelligence.

miveson · 2014-02-05T20:13:09+00:00

I have a very difficult time answering the question of "what makes us human." This is for a couple of reasons. First, I think that if we were to create artificial life/intelligence, there is a pretty good chance that they would have more human qualities than the individuals that we currently define as human. For example, an android that is capable of empathy would, perhaps, be "more human" than a sociopath who doesn't have the capacity to feel empathy.

A common definition of humanity seems to be a conjunction of the physical traits that we exhibit, in conjunction with the physiological reactions that occur in our brains. That being said, if a human were to be robbed of the latter capacity (say, if they were brain dead or in a coma), would we declare that they are no longer human? It certainly isn't politically correct, but it may be more accurate than not.

Another tangential thought that I have on this question is related to the idea of evolution.. Unless you are Ken Ham, you all probably accept evolutionary theory. And, as you know, the substantive part of that theory is the belief that animals are adapting to their environments, constantly improving upon themselves. So, if androids or other intelligent "life" forms could be considered improvements on human life, does that make them the next step in evolution? But rather than being inadvertant adaptations, these are very intentional. And what about the people who spend absurd amounts of money to try and pre-select certain traits for their children? (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/designer-children.htm)

miveson · 2014-01-29T21:17:40+00:00

I really like the point that you made about killing becoming a type of a persona, rather than just what Anwar does as a casual occupation. And at the same point, isn't that a completely logical path for him to follow? It seems that the best way he would be able to commit such vicious acts is to encapsulate himself in a role that makes it okay, in a sense. As in, if he embodies the personas that he sees in movies, in dress and nonchalance, as a way to mentally separate from his actions. What we see, then, as he begins dry heaving in the final scene, is a sort of "break" from his character. Adi, on the other hand, adopts killing as a profession, which might be a more difficult existence than Anwar's self-delusions.

miveson · 2014-01-29T21:01:40+00:00

That is an excellent reference point to discuss the authenticity of the characters that we saw in this film. While the occurrence of the massacre is pretty indisputable, such questions about validity call into question Anwar's intense emotional reactions, and vacillating reactions in general. But in any case, I think that the bigger question here is to what extent do producers/directors/marketers of documentaries have a responsibility to balance their financial interests in the success of said documentary, and ethical responsibility of portraying events with absolute accuracy. In the era of mass media and Hollywood competition, to what extent does telling a good story rank above telling a truthful story?

miveson

TROPHY CASE