(Note: Original date of comment: Mon Sep 28 2015 21:02:31 - Then I fixed a typo a year later.)
I have an important insight to share, courtesy of the late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck. A quote from his book The Road Less Traveled:
"[E]veryone has an explicit or implicit set of ideas and beliefs as to the essential nature of the world. Do patients envision the universe as basically chaotic and without meaning so that it is only sensible for them to grab whatever little pleasure they can whenever it is available? Do they see the world as a dog-eat-dog place where ruthlessness is essential for their survival? Or do they see it as a nurturing sort of place in which something good will always turn up and in which they need not fret much about the future? Or a place that owes them a living no matter how they conduct their lives? Or a universe of rigid law in which they will be struck down and cast away if they step even slightly out of line? Et cetera. There are all manner of different worldviews that people have." (p. 186)
Yes, this film was far from fantastic. And that is not what I expected. My worldview or "religion" (to use the term as Peck does) -- my default intuition about the essential nature of the world -- told me that this film would be great.
When I began watching and observed that it was far from fantastic, I noticed how this wasn't what I expected, how the quality of the film wasn't in line with my worldview.
I assumed the film would be great -- that it had to be good -- because a story as important as this requires that a film about it be great in order to do the story justice (or so my Peckian world view goes). But the film was overwhelming. Why? Because that's reality. Reality doesn't guarantee that great stories get great films. Great stories get the films that people create for them.
This film is far from fantastic, but it is the film this world created.
No "Great Forces" came along and made sure that a great film would be created for this significant story. Kevin Costner (and the other celebrities who appeared in this film) arguably tried -- perhaps he saw that they could make the film a bigger hit by being in it, thereby making it more the film that it ought to be -- but even he could not be the "Great Force" to create the fantastic film that I (and I would guess many others) assumed would be created to do this important story justice. So my world view is not true.
(To be clear, when I speak of these "Great Forces," I am talking about how sometimes we think the world ought to be a certain way, but it isn't. By saying that there are no "Great Forces" making the film great, I am recognizing that the world is not the way my Peckian world view says it is. I am recognizing a bias in my thinking.)
I realized this when watching the film and then immediately drew an important parallel: another instance where myself and others assume that reality must be some way, when in fact it need not be that way. -- And really I see this as the point of the film. This is the main idea the film illustrates:
Life on Earth is very fragile now that we humans are here developing new technologies at an increasing rate that can have tremendous impacts. That's the true reality, even though it's not the reality that the world views many of us have tell us is true.
So it's important for us to recognize: There are no "Great Forces" ensuring that we won't accidentally destroy ourselves in the near future. It's just us and the decisions we make.
I thought the film illustrated this idea wonderfully -- perhaps better than it would have if it were a $100 million blockbuster produced by the greatest filmmakers in Hollywood, because if it were a fantastic film, then the film itself wouldn't have lead me to realize that what I assume about the world (via my Peckian world view / "religion") often isn't true. I would have expected a great film and gotten one.
So again (all for clarification to make sure you understand my point): By being an imperfect film created by imperfect people in an imperfect world not guaranteed to run perfectly,
The Man Who Saved The World (2014) woke me up to the fact that I have a Peckian world view which isn't correct about what it says about films. This lead me to realize also that my Peckian world view that I have also isn't correct about what it says about the future course of humanity. My Peckian world view says that life will go on successfully for a long time to come with a lot of flourishing. But this may not be true. My world view assumes it is true, but that's an unjustified assumption. It's quite possible that an existential catastrophe could occur some time in the next few centuries, if not sooner if we aren't careful.
No "Great Forces" came along and made sure that a great film would be created for this important story and no "Great Forces" will come along to make sure that there is a great future for humanity, a great future of life.
To end this, here is a quote from the film in which Stanislav Petrov and Kevin Costner express the idea I've been describing (English subtitles):
Petrov: We must forget about the past. It's sickening to live in an atmosphere of animosity and old hate. Why can't our countries get along? It's senseless! Thousands of our missiles are aimed at each other on full trigger alert. It's insane! Nobody will win in a worldwide nuclear war. No one! No one.
Costner: Right.
Petrov: We have to learn to coexist as brothers. Or perish like dinosaurs.
Costner: Yeah.... I understand. It's like, the choices we make, you know.
Stanislav Petrov of course understand more than possibly anyone else the truth of the reality that the future of humanity depends on what we do. Any Peckian world view he may have had (saying that there are "Great Forces" in the world ensuring that things will turn out all right for us all) was smashed by his experience. He understands reality well, without any lingering superstitions that the universe has a certain nature that will guarantee a good future for humanity, that will guarantee that we are able to solve our problems, that guarantees we will have enough time to solve them once we identify new threats to our continued existence.
And Costner understands too, as he says. Only we and the choices we make can guarantee that things will work out. And there's no guarantee that we will succeed.
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars." - Carl Sagan
I don't know how to save the world, but I think it's the most important problem to work on. In this era, solving all other problems is important primarily for instrumental reasons (because of their effect on existential risk).
I recommend interested people check out the Future of Humanity Institute (University of Oxford) and the Center for the Study of Existential Risk (University of Cambridge).
reply
share