Briefly, "The Invasion" is about some alien organism that infects earth via the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Presumably, this method of infection is due to the destruction of the vehicle over Texas, preventing the Shuttle from going through a normal "detox" procedure following a successful landing. This also gives the film a "sense of believability" and allows the use of a lot of inexpensive film footage obtained from networks and NASA.
The "infection" causes humans to behave like robots, with the loss of human emotions. Although there is apparently some "intelligence" behind this and some ill-defined goal, the primary one seems to be "inclusiveness" - i.e. to infect everyone on earth and eliminate human emotion. The government tries to prevent the infection from spreading, while they search for an antidode at some heavily guarded facility. But, since the infection seems to manifest itself during sleep, their efforts initially fail. Most of the film regards Kidman trying to stay awake and avoid infection, while trying to get to "home base" and safety. During the course of all of this, there are a couple of "think about it" scenes, wherein the infected explain to Kidman how great it all is and how much better off we'd all be without emotions. In one scene, an aspen grove is used as an example of interdependency, although, as you may imagine, the direct link between aspen groves and human emotions is somewhat glossed over.
Along the way, Kidman's boy friend is infected and turns against her and the climax of the film comes when Kidman learns that the alternative to infection must be death (i.e. accept the interdependency of the aspen grove and join the team or die, because "group think" cannot withstand individuality). Of course, Kidman escapes, reaches the government facility, discovers the antidode, and "humans" win.
My first thought about all of this was this must be a theme born in the mind of fellow Australian actor Mel Gibson. Who else would revive the old cold war "Body Snatchers" theme of individualism vs. collectivism? This is the "me vs. we" debate and as such becomes vaguely relevant to evolution, Christianity, politics, etc.
However, before I launch into this relevancy, a bit on my personal background thinking.
First of all, in an increasingly populated and complex world, I confess that I have a shade of bias in favor of Zombies. I have come to conclude that the main goal of life - in any form - is to a) stay alive and b) in failing to do that for eternity, perpetuate the species. This is the one, single goal all living things seem to, for the most part unconsciously, share. If our "human emotions" have not evolved to a point wherein we are biologically capable of supressing individual emotions that threaten to destroy the species, then it just may be time to rethink exactly which emotions are necessary (such as love) and which are not (such as hate).
For the Huckabees amongst us (and Libertarians), the key word in the above is "evolved." I must also confess, that I am a "believer" in evolution. Is evolution certain? Probably not, but it appears to me the vast amount of scientific evidence falls on its side. The three "certainties" in my thinking are probability, logic and change. In other words, "change" is a given and through probability, we are able to logically and reasonably predict the effects of change.
In turn, these "predictions" allow us, to one degree or another, to "adapt" and adaptation is the apparent key to species survival.
Neither individuals or species may survive truly "alone." Even the rare species capable of self-reproduction rely on their environment for their survival. Individually, most of us are biologically "wired" for reproduction, but species survival is an awareness we must come to intellectually. So, as we climbed down out of the trees and "evolved" to our present circumstances, there has been this constant tension between what is good for "me" versus what is good for "we."
I suspect that which predominates at any given time is highly situational, but that within the broad sweep of human history there have been long periods in which a given orientation did, in fact, dominate. I would distinguish these periods of "me" and "we" historical orientations with structures and processes. "Me's" create structures which lead to "we" processes. And, while this has been a far from perfect history, it has generally worked well in that "we" as a species are still here. To date, human emotions, as destructive as they may be on occasion, have not resulted in the termination of the species itself...but no bets on the future.
I think one reason for this may have been religion, which may have been a way of intellectualizing the "we" side of the argument...i.e. the existence of a superior being is secondary to the effect such a possibility has on human psychology. With all of its follies, "religion" has in a curious way acted as a "brake" on the "me's" in human history, by introducing a "power" beyond ourselves as individuals and, in a curious way, is species survival insurance. Life after death, to me, is a present awareness that regardless of whatever may happen to me, as an individual, the species will continue. It is the "promise" of life everlasting and a means of overcoming the greatest of individual fears, non-existence.
This intellectualizing religion - whatever religion it may be - is/was a complex process in itself. For the vast majority of individuals, throughout most of human history, life has been "short and brutish." Some type of "promise" in the form of religion may have been necessary to the evolution of human behavior in our relatively lengthy care for our young, which in turn, contributed to our overall intellectual development [Note: This doesn't exclude a basic biological predisposition toward some basic after birth care, but as we have "evolved" this period of care seems to have extended to both pre-birth and after birth care and in a curious way is what anti-abortionists on the right and anti-individualist responsibility adherents on the left have in common].
While it seems to me that all religions offer "something" to their followers, as one who espouses basic Christian ethics, if not the hierarchy and events of Christianity, I "believe" the message of Christianity is to suggest that we arrived at a point of "re-evaluation" of the me vs. we controversy approximately 2000 years ago. I believe Jesus came to understand, in the wake of human agricultural and technological advances, that the "threat" to human species survival lies not in nature external to us but within ourselves, or in other words, that we are, in fact, part of nature, not separate from it.
This "thought," which may indeed have been far ahead of its time, was expressed in what might be termed the 11th and 12th commandments: love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek...or, perhaps in other words, you may be faithful to yourself only through faith in others, for we are all essentially one...a species. "Under God," was, given human history up to that time, a perhaps necessary, but non-essential concept.
I consider this thinking as a swing in human history from "me" to "we." And, I consider it in the vein of "all else being equal" and as a "goal" for which to strive. Practically, I do not think we've arrived at a point wherein this premise can be integrated into our basic fiber or DNA. Evolution is a long and painful process. In a sense, communism was a theoritical attempt to move from "me" to "we" and it failed, perhaps in its magnitude of change and/or the peoples on whom it was imposed. Western, liberal democracy, with all of its own follies and corruption, seems a surer and safer path.
And, too, none of this would be terribily "urgent" were it not for my feeling that we are rapidily arriving at a point through our specific technology and general ignorance of placing the species itself in danger.
Finally, on this topic, is the question of how can human individuality survive in the face of the need for increasing collectivism for species survival, without some quantum leap in the evolution of human behavior that, in essence, prevents evil thoughts and doers? A lot of "good communists" died in the camps of Siberia. A lot of "good Muslims" have died in the streets of Baghdad.
One thing that comes to mind, within the context of Christianity, are the events preceeding Jesus' death by crucifixtion. It occurs to me that Jesus suspected his betrayal at the Last Supper, and hence his reference to it, but was of two minds. Such a betrayal would be the total refutation of everything he had been trying to teach. His later "doubt" on the cross was a doubt regarding his own belief, i.e. the belief that human beings had within themselves the power to change for the greater good; if they did not, as evidenced by his betrayal, then he would have died for nothing. The resurrection was sort of like ornaments on the tree...necessary for only those who later misinterpeted what he was really trying to say in terms of the changes necessary in human behavior to ensure species survival. What came later...the resurrection, the trinty were stories in the tradition of most religion...i.e. to be believed he had to be shown as something more than human; thus, entirely missing his point.
Jesus was in the first instance, a Jew who believed in Judism. He may or may not have been aware that he was taking the religion onto a broader plane, in that he had discovered the common theme of the Ten Commandments and, indeed, of all "law," be it religious or civil...betrayal...i.e. in commiting a crime, you wrong not only another individual, but society as well. I believe that the lesson of the cross is that Jesus saw us as all part of the same human family and as such deserving of a certain respect that prohibits betrayal. Judas' betrayal undermined, in his mind, the basis of his ministry.
I suspect the concept of betrayal may be a central theme of most, if not all, of the world's major religions and is not unique to Christianity. Perhaps, somehow therein lies the key to the survival of our species, in foregoing specified rules (or,as my father once said: "If there are no exceptions, there is no need for a rule") by intergrating respect and faithfulness into human behavior itself. What lingers is the fear that we no longer have the time to wait for evolution.
So, while Nicole Kidman battled infected Zombies outside of herself, Jodie Foster fights the demons within, in the next topic..."The Brave One."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment