Love the film, but am bothered by how nonsensical the decision to nuke the domes was. The linked piece explains it as "cost cutting", which I don't remember from the film but anyway, how is nuking something more economic than leaving it unnuked?
Our present situation is also pretty nonsensical, though. (There’s no wealth on an uninhabitable planet.) Yet, here we are, stampeding towards the crisis. So, if you squint, Silent Running predicted that, too.
When my city opened a new airport, they had plans to redevelop the old one for other uses. I remember hearing that, in order to stop people from fighting to keep the old airport around, the city quickly destroyed a section of the runways with dynamite. Supposedly this would make it cost-prohibitive to try to use it as an airport again.
A similar thing happened in Berlin. Once BER/EDDB opened, they closed down TXL and said it's still on "standby" when in reality they already decommissioned and sold off lots of the interior.
Daley first shut the field down in 1996 with the intention of turning the airport into parkland, in order to boost slumping Chicago real estate values and shore up political support by closing a symbol of elite privilege. > https://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/day-shut-down-meigs...
It reminds me of greenwashing and other lip service that modern society often pays to social justice issues. Companies will put serious resources into constructing an image that they are "doing good", in a way that has no benefit to the actual issue in question, sometimes even detrimental to it.
The fact that the domes had all the fittings necessary to let them be blown up makes it seem like that was the plan all along, that the whole project was just some kind of busywork to make it seem like they were working on a solution. Feels not unlike the impotent "ethics teams" and DEI teams that big corps set up. Pay some people to do research and write reports and then, when someone is asking what you are doing about X issue, you show them that you are "working on it". Rather than simply executing any of the many legitimate solutions people have already come up with for fixing societal woes.
Well yeah, but it goes even deeper than that, IMO, since the domes could have just stayed on Earth. Why launch them into space and return them later? They're terrariums with all of the life support and lighting that they need.
If you're making a backup ecosystem, you want it off planet in case the primary meets a nuke, asteroid, virus, etc. You could also park it in a stable solar orbit so it gets the right sun for its biostuff.
It seems there's no point sending it to deep space unless you're going to transplant it all on a new planet.
It is a metaphor for disposable product culture and that corps would focus on profits and only profits, if it doesn't make money throw it out / destroy it. (A fear that has arguably come to pass). Triggering the self-destruct is stand in for tossing in waste dump.
It makes perfect sense as a politically-motivated decision. Some excuse was devised to destroy the pods, thus ending the debate forever of whether the Earth might one day return to a green space.
It also forced Dern's character into action, since he would have to return to Earth since his job of caring for the pods was about to end.
The film reminds me somewhat of 'Interstellar' — a once verdant world going dark and expelling the hero.
If you need an analogy, think of unsold books. They get their covers torn off so they can be reported as “destroyed”, and then be issued a refund. (You’ll sometimes see a message warning you about purchasing paperbacks without front covers in books.)
In the movie American Airlines made an insurance claim, or made some other claim of loss on the trees, and so they now
have to destroy them.
I could see some corporate bureaucrat back on earth saying, "well we don't want the liability if the domes crash into a spacecraft or fall to earth, better nuke em".
Comments
Love the film, but am bothered by how nonsensical the decision to nuke the domes was. The linked piece explains it as "cost cutting", which I don't remember from the film but anyway, how is nuking something more economic than leaving it unnuked?
Our present situation is also pretty nonsensical, though. (There’s no wealth on an uninhabitable planet.) Yet, here we are, stampeding towards the crisis. So, if you squint, Silent Running predicted that, too.
The existence of the craft could arguably obligate the corporation to incur ongoing expenses for upkeep.
In retail you see stock intentionally damaged and thrown out. It’s to prevent brand damage or some such crap.
Stuff like this happens with excess food too. https://sixfootjournalism.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/kathmandu...
When my city opened a new airport, they had plans to redevelop the old one for other uses. I remember hearing that, in order to stop people from fighting to keep the old airport around, the city quickly destroyed a section of the runways with dynamite. Supposedly this would make it cost-prohibitive to try to use it as an airport again.
A similar thing happened in Berlin. Once BER/EDDB opened, they closed down TXL and said it's still on "standby" when in reality they already decommissioned and sold off lots of the interior.
This happened to miggs in Chicago. And was more about letting the license run out.
It reminds me of greenwashing and other lip service that modern society often pays to social justice issues. Companies will put serious resources into constructing an image that they are "doing good", in a way that has no benefit to the actual issue in question, sometimes even detrimental to it.
The fact that the domes had all the fittings necessary to let them be blown up makes it seem like that was the plan all along, that the whole project was just some kind of busywork to make it seem like they were working on a solution. Feels not unlike the impotent "ethics teams" and DEI teams that big corps set up. Pay some people to do research and write reports and then, when someone is asking what you are doing about X issue, you show them that you are "working on it". Rather than simply executing any of the many legitimate solutions people have already come up with for fixing societal woes.
Well yeah, but it goes even deeper than that, IMO, since the domes could have just stayed on Earth. Why launch them into space and return them later? They're terrariums with all of the life support and lighting that they need.
If you're making a backup ecosystem, you want it off planet in case the primary meets a nuke, asteroid, virus, etc. You could also park it in a stable solar orbit so it gets the right sun for its biostuff.
It seems there's no point sending it to deep space unless you're going to transplant it all on a new planet.
It is a metaphor for disposable product culture and that corps would focus on profits and only profits, if it doesn't make money throw it out / destroy it. (A fear that has arguably come to pass). Triggering the self-destruct is stand in for tossing in waste dump.
It makes perfect sense as a politically-motivated decision. Some excuse was devised to destroy the pods, thus ending the debate forever of whether the Earth might one day return to a green space.
It also forced Dern's character into action, since he would have to return to Earth since his job of caring for the pods was about to end.
The film reminds me somewhat of 'Interstellar' — a once verdant world going dark and expelling the hero.
TBF it was meant to be nonsensical.
If you need an analogy, think of unsold books. They get their covers torn off so they can be reported as “destroyed”, and then be issued a refund. (You’ll sometimes see a message warning you about purchasing paperbacks without front covers in books.)
In the movie American Airlines made an insurance claim, or made some other claim of loss on the trees, and so they now have to destroy them.
I could see some corporate bureaucrat back on earth saying, "well we don't want the liability if the domes crash into a spacecraft or fall to earth, better nuke em".