movies/tv Idiocracy movie, what we can learn from it

[FlowerSun 62]

What i hate is how some liberals/conservatives miss the point or think "see this is what happens when those kind of people run the system"

See here is what is so good with the movie, its essentially criticizing stupidity, that stupidity will replace the future, which means people who don't care to try to contribute or educate society. So its mostly critical to pop culture, lazy people and what an evolved anti intellectual society will look like.

Try to imagine great historical figures, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, they fought for a future. Now compare it to post modern world.

Just saying, while its just a comedy movie some has ironically said that its also a documentary. Its a pretty good movie nonetheless. But just wondering what you think about it?

Edited October 13, 2017 by FlowerSun

[Concerned Bystander 2,904]

The basic premise explained at the start of the film is actually very sound, being that the more intelligent and career-minded people in society are having fewer children and in many cases leaving it too late to have children at all, whereas the underachievers seem to breed like rabbits.  That much of the film is very much observable in society today.

The extension of this in the film being that the average IQ plummets creating a future full of legacy automation and technology that nobody really understands is probably less realistic, but that of course is why the film is a comedy, it's intended to be ridiculous extrapolation rather than a genuine cautionary tale.

There are people in the world that advocate for the abandonment of fact in favour of feelings, such as those calling for empirical science to be expunged and replaced with a new science based on a social justice perspective.  If these people were to have their way then Idiocracy would indeed be our destiny as a species, but these people are a tiny and extreme fringe element who will never have enough influence to actually realise their goals.

Another 'risk' is that as each new generation becomes more and more addicted to social media they spend more time engaged in time-sink pursuits rather than developing themselves and engaging in productive activities, for example, I am currently writing this post while I have a youtube stream on the background, despite the fact that I am surrounded by books, musical instruments, photographic equipment, unassembled models and a whole plethora of other creative and mind-expanding activities.  Am I making the best possible use of my time?  Undoubtedly not, but although I may not be investing my time in my own future I'm probably not going to cause the downfall of civilisation.  That being said, if I was to allow my children to spend their time in the same manner instead of encouraging them to use their time to better themselves, and they in turn set the same example for their children and enough other people were doing the same, then we would indeed be collectively contributing to the intellectual poverty of future generations.

In summary the film, although intended to be a humourous poke at modern society, can be viewed as a warning of one potential future where the decadent indulgences of today are taken to their hedonistic extreme.

[Ivan The Adorable 304]

The failings in conversations about this premise, as I see them, are numerous.

A lot of the bad discussions I see on the subject basically revolve around libertarian/neoliberal mythology of the lazy, stupid poor. Which simply doesn't describe much about how our societies function.
I'm just grabbing this article out of the ether, but it reflects what I've seen from well researched sites: https://qz.com/853651/definitive-data-on-what-poor-people-buy-when-theyre-just-given-cash/ . The basic takeaway from most recent research on poverty, welfare, etc. is that if you give the poor resources they will mostly use it on common sense things they need to prolong their survival, deal with food scarcity, etc.

However, this is starting the conversation off rooting around the wrong areas. The poor don't control our nations resources, our political policy, our media that frames ideology.

As for people who have lots of children being responsible for anti-intellectualism, hedonism, ignorance, consumption, etc:
Thing is, education, like any other commodity, is largely controlled by the whims of the wealthy and privileged. Likewise, extremism across all political ideologies tends to be born and instigated by the, ostensibly, "upper middle class." Consumer identity is also strongly tied to these groups.

There are charts more specific to consumerism, but I happen to have this one on hand related to CO2 emissions and I hope you'll forgive me if I'm not going to go out of my way just this minute on a pony forum to give more focused information. However consider if wealth and education is supposed to correlate to each other and environmental consciousness, what this result means:

The reason I bring this into the discussion, is that the red herring argument a lot of people go for with environmental damage is that it is caused by overpopulation. But in general there is not much evidence that ties bad habits to populations in terms of number of people. It's a similar strain of thought to blaming poor, uneducated people who have lots of children on the woes of society when it's largely just the matter of wealthy people who have power setting standards and using resources for their own gain.

So in a roundabouts way,

What I'd say is the most relevant message a movie like Idiocracy has is how corporatism and social branding destroys the health and integrity of a society. But you miss the mark if you don't put the onus for societies failings on the cycnical wealthy who are actually manipulating our resources and information.

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Ivan The Adorable

[Dreambiscuit 10,721]

I just see it as a funny movie that nails it pretty well as far as human development taking the easiest possible path, which is often what we see these days with over-dependence on technology and general disintegration of morality.