MovieChat Forums > Into Eternity: A Film for the Future (2010) Discussion > Philosophical and thought provoking

Philosophical and thought provoking

posted 14 years ago by MrMartinJosefsson
10 replies | jump to latest

Besides the main topic (nuclear waste and safety) this documentary also contains several messages in an underlying, more philosophical layer. It was quite clear who of the interviewed people was able to think outside-the-box and who was not. Here are a few things that I heard or that I thought of when watching Into Eternity:

- Critical decision making about humanity’s survival is not for all types of people – humility is needed.

- Some people like to play God.

- You should take into account that you can not know what you don't know.

- Human seems to have a problem with thinking logically when there is the time aspect involved in the calculation.

- When it comes to safety, the chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

- Computer security/safety has taught us a lot about how difficult it is to get it 100 % safe/secure. Despite this, they don’t seem to take all those similar factors into account - when building the cave. They still want to tempt fate. People don’t learn from other’s mistakes.

- Human seems to over and over again fall into the trap of focusing on the technical aspects when trying to find good solutions.

- Stupidity is the most widespread disease.

If you have something to add to this list, please do it! I’d like to read about your thoughts!

[–] BernardoLima 13 years ago

I agree. I thought the documentary was absolutely fascinating. At times, it's more about Men and human nature then about a buried facility.

Incredibly thought provoking and so beautifully shot. I loved the locations and the minimalistic look and I gotta say that the idea of filming everything in slow motion was genius. Not only does it look good but it also adds to the idea of time either stopping or the slow passage of time trough many centuries and generations.

I mean, it was breathtaking.

And the music...just perfect.

Everyone should watch this.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mm1palmer 13 years ago

"Philosophical and thought provoking"

But I thought documentaries where supposed to be factual not philosophical?

Now if they had set out to make a comedy with a message, like Idiocracy, then it may have had some value and made people think. But as a documentary it fails, people that are already rabidly anti-nuclear will cheer and call it groundbreaking, while pro-nuclear people will call it dreck. Meanwhile the great neutral majority will either never watch it, will realize how bias it is or will not get the message the director intends.

So although it will get praise and awards from the PC film festivals, it will do nothing to advance the discussion about nuclear waste. Since whether humans ever generate another watt with nuclear power, we already have an inventory of waste to deal with, a film that just adds to the polarization of the issue is worse than useless. It will lead to stagnation and delay in implimenting any solution, even short term, and leave the waste scattered around the world in hundreds of maybe secure sites rather than at a few truely secure sites.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BernardoLima 13 years ago

@mm1palmer

Actually, I don't think the film was biased at all. no one in the film said or even hinted that nuclear energy was bad. We just know it is, because it's logical. There's too many risks and it isn't sustainable. Plus , the film focused much more on the facility having to exist for 100 000 years and what should be done to warn future generations then on the debate about nuclear energy.

The film isn't adding to the polarization of the issue. It presents facts. that's it. It's up to you to make ur own mind. What were u expecting? a documentary that said once and for all if nuclear energy is good or bad?

[–] clerlic 13 years ago

Nuclear energy isn't bad.

[–] goer_le_renard 13 years ago

nuclear energy is good for now
nuclear waste is bad for future

[–] clerlic 13 years ago

Nuclear energy is in the state it is now only because of nuclear weapons. If there wasn't once a desire for nuclear weapons and therefore uranium-powered reactors, nuclear energy development wouldn't have stagnated. Only recently other fission materials like thorium have started being really experimented with (India is leading on this).

Uranium was chosen solely for it's weaponization properties, nobody cared back then that thorium produced thousands of times less long-term waste, doesn't require enrichment, can't experience melt-down and is much more abudant.
Abandoning nuclear power is therefore stupid, only a change of direction is actually needed.

[–] Mart-13 12 years ago

Just recently saw the documentary.

Most interestingly, the film was released in 2010 and that was before the terrible Fukushima accident, the immediate cleanup of which will take decades and the rest perhaps centuries and maybe even millennia.

In addition to using Thorium as fuel, there have been several explorations of other reactor types and the one that has so far been hailed as the most successful, or the least unsafe, is the CANDU reactor, which, as the name suggests, originated in Canada.

[–] puirt-a-beul 10 years ago

I have just seen this film, and found it hugely disturbing.

I admire the dedication and sense of responsibility of most of the people interviewed. It seems they are doing their best to provide a considered response to the problem, and think outside any vested interests. Kudos to them for doing so.

But the documentary drove home how massive and potent the problem is, and how full of potential pitfalls. For the sake of the very short-lived provision of electric power, we are creating a problem that will be lethal to all life for a greater length of time than we can realistically grasp?

It was utterly chilling when the narration mentioned in its calm way that even this one installation, the size, cost and complexity of which is mind-boggling, will address only a small fraction of existing toxic material, even if we were to cease the use of nuclear power immediately. Deeply troubling.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.