While viewing 2001: A Space Odyssey in its entirety certainly proved to be a mission, the film offers its viewers many talking points with regards to the environment, technology, and the relationships that humans have with both institutions.
The film's first chapter, "The Dawn of Man," reminded me of a scene in Creation. The scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where a cheetah ferociously attacks an innocent chimpanzee, paralleled the scene in Creation where Darwin is in the forest with his children, observing the fox eating the rabbit. When viewing the first chapter in 2001, and after witnessing the cheetah brutally attack the poor chimpanzee, all that I that at that moment was "Why? That's not fair; why must the poor chimp get eaten in such a grotesque and inhumane fashion, especially when he didn't do anything to deserve such treatment?" I found myself in the shoes of Darwin's young daughter who, after witnessing the fox "grab his dinner," decried the actions of the fox, complaining that his murder of the innocent rabbit was "not fair." What do you all think of this? Is it fair that some animals need to kill others in order to survive or feed their young? Is the circle of life a vicious one? Can we, as human beings, rationally justify the seemingly unjust acts that occur in the animal kingdom every second of every day?
Another important theme from 2001 that relates to our in-class discussions is the relationship between humans and technology. It is amazing, yet disturbing, how dependent human beings have become on technology. The word dependent is defined as "the state of being determined, influenced, or controlled by something else." For a movie made in the late 1960s, 2001 does a great job with regards to addressing the troublesome human-technology relationship. In the film, we see the strained human-technology relationship manifest itself with Hal, the self-proclaimed infallible computer system. There is no doubt that the human-technology relationship seen in 2001 is a strained one. Additionally, the movie's message can be applied to today's society, as it emphasizes a universal message: do not become dependent on technology. However, something else in this movie stuck out to me. As a Catholic, I have grown up hearing that the only infallible being is God. Through the Catholic lens of looking at religion, God isn't infallible because he knows it all or because he is perfect for the sake of being perfect; God is infallible because he created the world, and thus he knows what is best for it.
How does your respective religion view infallibility with regards to God? If your religion views God in a certain light, (i.e. infallible or fallible) how can you relate it to Hal from 2001?
Feel free to discuss anything else that caught your eye in the film! I am aware that this is a very narrow theme, but I am curious as to how your respective religions view the notion of infallibility with regards to a higher power.
The movie brings up many of the same themes of Creation, like the evolutionary “circle of life.” I feel that our perception that the evolution of man somehow is measured by our growth in technology is kind of destroyed by this movie. It's not technology or physical properties that display our evolutionary state. It's our level of consciousness. Knowledge is structured in consciousness and it determines our present state of understanding and capability, including our understanding of God.
ReplyDeleteGod can discussed in broader terms after viewing this movie because it raises questions that generally are not brought up as result of our day to day experiences. Like, if we encounter life on another planet, would we recognize it with our limited senses and technology as life? What are we not recognizing right now, right here? If we could recognize it and it had all the powers that we attribute to God how would we behave? And how will our present perception of God change as a result?
Interesting to watch.
This movie was probably not one that I would watch just for fun for multiple reasons including the genre and type of cinematography, but the great thing about these classes is that we are exposed to these different ideas and views that we would not normally look into. By interesting cinematography, I am referring to how there were so many instances during the movie when there was no speaking, rather observations of the natural world. As much as we hate to accept it, life is not fair. Certain things that may not seem fair are still necessary for the world to maintain its balance. This instance of the animals killing each other is just an example of survival of the fittest and natural selection, which – I agree with Darwin – are a fact of life. I always find myself asking, why did God create snakes. But then I remember that snakes are there to kill the rats and maintain the rat population under control. Everything that happens, happens for a reason and has a purpose. The relationship between technology and humans in the movie was a very disturbing one and somewhat accurate to nowadays. We generally do not question the correctness of technology but we have become ridiculously dependent on technology, almost dangerously to a point where if the world’s technology shut off one day, humans could probably not survive. Last but not least, in my religion, we view God as infallible. We believe that God is all-knowing and all-merciful and in terms of the imperfections on earth, we do believe that religion and science can coexist and science can have a role in those flaws.
ReplyDeleteThis movie was quite interesting. The opening scene was very enticing. It depicted the natural world and the different things that occur in nature such as competition and survival of the fittest. The opening scene also depicted intelligence among the chimpanzees because the figured out how to use bones both as a tool for killing food and as a weapon to protect their clan. The circle of life is in some aspects unfair but it is a biological process that needs to happen. Humans have in some ways broken the circle of life. We breed and kill animals for food production and have turned it into an industry. This, in my opinion, is more vicious than the natural circle of life. Technology has helped us break free from almost every natural process that occurs. We have manipulated nature for our own benefit with the help of technology. Technology has become so intertwined with our lives that we would not be able to live without it. In this regard, I agree with Anum. Also, my religion portrays God as infallible as well. God is all-knowing and the creator of all things.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really like this movie because there wasn't much plot for a movie that is over two hours long and too much time was spent playing weird music while things floated around. But the movie did have some interesting parts. The "Dawn of Man" showed many similarities between the chimpanzee type creatures and humans, in their body language, their facial expressions, and their learning abilities. I agree with everyone that we have destroyed this natural cycle of life with our culture. The next three parts show that the natural cycle showed in the first part, has been destroyed by all the technology that had been created. Although it is a bit more dramatic in the movie, with innovations like the HAL computer and space stations, it is just a representation of our world. One thing that I thought was strange was there was no mention of God. I am not religious very religious and the way that Bowman simply destroys and takes over HAL could represent the way that we have taken over God's mission of a natural cycle with our technology.
ReplyDeleteI also saw a lot of connections between "The Dawn of Man" section of this movie and Creation. It is interesting that as soon as the ape figured out that he could use the bone as a tool, he used it for violence. It is not part of the natural cycle for members of a species to want to kill each other, but once technology is introduced that cycle is disrupted. As a society we are so heavily dependent on technology. How many of us have forgotten to charge our phones and felt lost without them? I know I do. But you cannot deny the benefits of living in a technologically advanced society. We live longer and less stressful lives because of technology. But the movie suggests that our dependence on technology is dangerous. The HAL computer, which is supposed to be perfect, kills four members of the crew. So what are we supposed to do about our dependence on technology? Are we supposed to return to the middle ages? Or are we going to continue on becoming more and more dependent on technology and just accept the consequences of that decision?
ReplyDelete2001: A Space Odyssey was produced and directed in 1968 by Stanley Kubrick. While the movie was nominated for and won a plethora of awards, its legacy was that it left a significant impression on culture and technology on our society. The movie’s visual effects, which won it an academy award, was designed to imply that the future of our world would be far more advanced then when the world of 1968.
ReplyDelete2001 predicted the outrageous technological innovations that our society could produce. From the tablets that the characters used to the spaceship they flew on, the movie’s goal was to predict the future that was inevitably not very far off. Our world today is a fast-forwarded version of the movie. Technology is the driving force of everything today. Companies look to save money by discovering the newest technologies. Individuals satisfy their marginal utility by buying the newest and coolest toys that are invented. Is this the world that 2001: A Space Odyssey envisioned? Is the constant production of new technology a good thing? What will our world be like in 50 years?
This film, although long and often times confusing, I thought that it contains a few strong ideas and questions that can still be asked and discussed in today's society. The beginning of the movie with the animals shows a strong sense of instincts, both before and after the "discovery" or ability to use the bones as tools and weapons. The apes that realize the new use of bones are able to better safeguard their watering hole and their shelter. This reminded me of the film Creation, and Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. It was also interesting that the large, black, stone-like structure (which seemed to represent some sort of spiritual or all-knowing/all controlling "being") was the source of the ape's sudden new found knowledge. I was confused about how it related to the film near the end, but hopefully that becomes clear through discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe other main question that came to my mind after watching this film was about technology. Are humans becoming too dependent on technology? Are we allowing it to control our lives? There seems to be a line between technology and independence that we still have not yet come to balance out yet, and this film really highlights that topic. It seems as though throughout the film there was this desperate need on humans' part to understand everything and to be part of it or control it (i.e. disconnecting HAL, taking a trip to the moon and Jupiter to figure out what the black structure is).
This film overall was interesting and thought provoking, but I definitely think that discussion will help sort out some of the big questions still lingering.
This film really brought up a lot of ideas about technology and how it has come to play a major role in our lives. Has technology taken over our lives? I feel that in a sense technology has shown so much growth in the human society and the potential that the human race has. Some of the technological advances that have come about are absolutely incredible and have been very helpful and touched the lives of many people. However, nowadays technology is something that is present all around the globe, our world is now based on technology and in a sense it does really limit human growth and learning. For example, it is so easy to just look something up on the internet rather than actually reading it or learning about it. Likewise, it is easier for someone to sit and and play around on the computer or watch tv rather than going outside and working out or socializing. In this sense you can argue that technology is taking over our lives, but i do not think that we have gotten to a point where we are letting our lives be run by technology. Now as technology advances I do think it is a possibility that it will indeed take over our lives, but as of now I think that technology has really been a positive thing in the world. As long as we do not let technology start to run our decision making process, I think it can remain to be a positive thing in our lives.
ReplyDeleteMany have the mentality that humans are supreme on our planet, and the animals and wildlife are here to support us. The opening scene establishes that there will inevitably be a hierarchy in nature; however, the message the film ultimately conveys is that while this hierarchy may exist, humans don't have to take advantage of their high status. As mentioned previously, humans continue to produce technology at the cost of vital natural resources. What 2001: A Space Odyssey teaches is the acknowledgement that technology, our surroundings, and human activity must be balanced to ensure that dependency is not lopsided. If this balance does not occur, a dangerous path of reliance risks opportunities for future generations. For example, HAL was said to be incapable of making errors, which gave the scientists and astronauts trust and comfort. This created a sense of faith, forged between the human and this new technology. In showing the massive amounts of technology used, this film depicts our world where humans have control.
ReplyDeleteWhile God can represent infallibility and what humans should strive for, it is important to realize that humans will never be infallible. This thus necessitates the importance of acknowledging our existing surroundings so that our dependence on nature (or vice versa) does not threaten existence.
I found the movie to be extremely relevant to what we've been discussing in class, including the problem of evil. The movie's illustration of Hal, the infallible computer system, incapable of doing anything wrong made me think of an infallible God. A lot of religions I've learned about view God as infallible. He created the world; He knows what is best for the world, and everything He does, He does with good reason and intention. I consider myself agnostic and I do not believe that everything happens for a reason. I think bad things happen to good people, and if therefore if there is a God, I could never consider him infallible. Everybody makes mistakes. Technology, programed to be correct at all times can malfunction. For example, months ago on Jeopardy, a computer named Watson was able to answer tons of questions correctly, but every so often, he would malfunction. This is because humans create technology, and humans make mistakes, therefore I do not believe we'll ever reach a point where anyone or anything is infallible. Technology is a significant force in our lives, but I do not believe it will ever truly take over.
ReplyDeleteBoth the scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Creation emphasize the brutality of nature in everyday life. Personally, I have always been a major supporter of the environment and being “eco-friendly” and as a result have respected all forms of life. However, I feel that a life is a continuous cycle and a definite part of that cycle is death. It doesn’t matter if it’s fair or not, death comes to everything even if it is for the betterment of another species. Although I am able to justify the food chain, I do find issue in senseless killing. The “seemingly unjust acts” of nature are acceptable, however the taking of another life for enjoyment or revenge cannot be rationalized in any form.
ReplyDeleteThe second topic of human dependability upon technology is one of extreme interest to me. Many a time have I thought about the ability of mankind to rebuild itself if all technology was destroyed. At some point, humanity needs to step back and look at the accomplishments that have been achieved and question what has been worth the efforts. If a new manufacturing plant is developed at the cost of a natural habitat, then is humanity exploiting resources that we should be sharing with the environment? Similar to the food chain from earlier, mankind should take what it needs to thrive, but steer clear of the exploitation of other species for its own good.
Ok, I am extremely annoyed because I was only able to watch the first part of this movie, for some reason it would not stream properly off of blackboard. On the first part however, at first it was extremely boring and I was confused as to what was really going on. However after watching the first part and doing some research on the movie, it seems that this is actually an extremely profound observation. The idea of innovation is seen with the first part when the alpha ape employs a bone to kill for food, and then uses the same technique to kill the leader of an intruding band of apes. The monolith seen in this section seems to be a catalyst for the entire film, as it symbolizes progress and pushes the question of what all is “out there.”
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question of “fairness” posed by Bryan, I do think it is fair, because I think they are a part of nature. Just like animals eat plant life for nutrients and smaller insects eat carcasses, I really believe in the cheesy “circle of life.” I know this is kind of desensitized, but it’s part of the life provided naturally on the earth.
I agree that this movie hints at terms such as the survival of the fittest and the circle of life. The amazing part about the circle of life is that every component is essential in the entire process. If one piece were to die out then the whole circle is unbalanced. The circle is not necessarily always fair or humane but neither is nature. There is no bias with nature. It is a cycle and it takes no sides and holds no grudges. I also agree that this is fair because every part of nature depends on this circle in order to live.
ReplyDeleteLasly, i think that this film does an excellent job of portraying the human dependency on technology, especially in todays world. It is very apparant. Also we need to take note that, by destroying all these natural habitats that we are killing organisms that are essential parts of our circle of life. If we destroy them, then our fate will come soon after theirs.
At first, I was very confused by the film but as I continued it started to come together and by the end I was aware of the message. In the first scene or chapter, Bryan points out the idea of survival and how it works in the animal kingdom. Although it may be difficult or upsetting at times to accept the thought of one animal killing another I think its important to accept the "survival of the fittest" idea. Additionally, I found the second part of the movie very interesting. I thought the emphasis the movie put on the danger of reliance of technology was thought provoking. This movie is still relevant today because I feel that now more than ever humans continue to become more and more reliant on technology for communication, progress, connection, etc. It is scary to think about these programs or systems working against humanity but its important to note that it could happen. As far as the connection to God, I feel that God could only be indirectly connected. While God may be all knowing, he may also only be watching over humanity. He has left the power in the hands of humans and what we do with that power could make us better or destroy us.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, the beginning did not particularly capture my interest and I worried I would be indifferent throughout the entire movie. Nevertheless, I was quite engaged by the time I began to understand it better. When I see some animals kill others, my first instinct, too, is to react with shock. Even though I know such occurrences must be continuously taking place everywhere in the world, it never ceases to amaze me- that nature can be so wonderfully and simultaneously beautiful and cruel. Yet, who are we to be judges of what is fair and what is not? One cannot help but sympathize with the chimpanzee, yet if the cheetah were to suddenly (and hypothetically) develop such feelings of sympathy and decide to leave all innocent animals alone, the cheetah would do so at its own expense. The cheetah would starve, also a brutal death, and one would sympathize with the benevolent cheetah instead of the innocent chimpanzee.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite character/aspect of the film was definitely Hal. I agree it was especially interesting to see his relationship with humans because it seems so viable now. That was absolutely challenging to think about because it makes one consider how one would respond to being in a dependent relationship with a machine and how one would get to that point. It caught my attention when the interviewer noted Hal’s pride and was told that no one could really tell whether he had real feelings but it “certainly seemed like he did.”
Personally, I believe that God is infallible. I am Christian and so I believe” God” is not His name, it is His title (and YHWH is His name, according to Scripture). Thus, by definition, God, as “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as Creator and Ruler of the universe,” must be infallible.
I thought the first section did a great job of setting the scene of technological advances for the rest of the movie. Most often technology is now thought to only consist of electronics, but including the bone scene allowed the progression of technology to be shown. I definitely believe that humans are way too dependent on technology today. Much of it is actually plain frivolous. We seem to have adopted Darwin’s survival of the fittest to mean that without the newest iPhone you can’t survive, rather than the naturally occurring adaptations. I think this film brought up a great point that we can enjoy technology, but we should not allow ourselves to depend so heavily on it.
ReplyDeleteWithout technology, none of us would have been able to watch this (less than) fantastic movie! For a fear of sounding incredibly redundant (because I have the same exact thoughts as most of the people who wrote their blog post) I'm going to talk about mainly one thing that I don't believe anyone has touched upon yet. People are saying that "technology destroyed the natural cycle". I disagree. Technology did not destroy it, but it is a part of it. I don't think God made this earth and put humans on it so we could live our lives in an era without technology (though we wouldn't even know what it was if we did...) I think it was always in God's plan for humans to be an inventive, intelligent species. Just as much as a cheetah eating a chimpanzee is a part of a natural cycle of life, I think technology follows suit.
ReplyDeleteI believe the only infallible being is God. As a Catholic, it is important to trust God's infallible judgement. Nothing God does is wrong - what He does will better this earth.
Survival of the fittest, as Darwin put it, is extremely significant to this film. In the opening scene and throughout the beginning of the film, we see what Darwin saw. Chimp overcomes other animal because it has advanced weaponry. Continuing with the evolution theme, the fittest continue to survive and advance. We can see in the second part of the film, man, who evolved from the chimp, is over taken by machine, in this case HAL. Seemingly powerless to the technology, we can see that advancement of the fittest may not be something we strive toward. This also raises the question, "If God's children are homosapiens, why do robots receive the chance to be more powerful?" It scares me, personally, for the future of technology.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was a little weary of the movie but as it went on it became more and more interesting. What I found to be the most thought provoking part was when Bowan eventually erases Hal's memory. It makes the valuable point that we are constantly becoming too reliant on technology. Also at the very end of the movie in Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite the introspection of Bowman with the older versions of himself was really interesting. Ultimately "reincarnating" at the end with the monolith, the scene really questions the cycle of life and the extent to which our life cycle is relevant in other realms so to speak. Is life for us the same as it may or may not be "out there?" All of the Sci-Fi aspects of the later part of the movie really touch on evolution and the power of time in the earlier parts. I felt that these two concepts were important in For the Time Being, and the movie Creation. Overall I think this was a really interesting way to tie the environment, God, and life all into one.
ReplyDeleteThe parts about the cycle of life in the movie were interesting, but I don't really see a problem with the circle of life and the natural cycle of life. We talked about this in my small group's interview, and how some scientists discuss that humans are actually preventing the Darwinian system of natural selection by extending technology and medicine. This, obviously, is in itself a form of adaptation and by no means am I saying that weaker people deserve to die, but I think that there would be more chaos if we went around saying that everything gets to live an egalitarian lifestyle. The fact is that in our world, every animal reaps the benefits of the creatures below them in the chain, and it is completely necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis was definitily an interesting movie. I was, like alot of others, pretty confused in the beginning of the movie when it just showed animals in their habitat. The movie's theme is about technological advances and their effects and possibilities. Of course I think that we depend alot on technology but what can we really do when technology keeps advancing. We can't just ingnore it and not make any use of it.
ReplyDeleteThis was definitily an interesting movie. I was, like alot of others, pretty confused in the beginning of the movie when it just showed animals in their habitat. The movie's theme is about technological advances and their effects and possibilities. Of course I think that we depend alot on technology but what can we really do when technology keeps advancing. We can't just ingnore it and not make any use of it.
ReplyDelete-Neeki Ahmadi
Bryan, when you said: "Why? That's not fair; why must the poor chimp get eaten in such a grotesque and inhumane fashion, especially when he didn't do anything to deserve such treatment?", it only made me realize how much I do believe in survival of the fittest. As much as I believe in protecting wildlife and nature from artificial, human created pollutants and dangers, I think that it is only part of the ecosystem's life cycle for more powerful animals to kill and feed off weaker ones. The chimpanzee and rabbit are killed in an "inhumane fashion" because neither party is human, they are animals and that is what they do. I suppose then I am putting humans on a higher pedestal? Yes, because humans are capable of higher moral/ethical standards. So overall I don't think there is anything wrong with the cheetah attacking the chimpanzee. This may lead one to question if I believe that it is okay for humans to kill other animals for food. To that I would say, I do not think the mere act of killing an inferior animal is the issue that our society faces today. Environmentalism isn't about turning every human vegan. I think the problem of technology and OVERconsumption, careless, selfish killing of animals/wildlife is what needs to be addressed. Therefore, I stand behind the idea of a "vicious life cycle". Without it, there would be no progression, survival, anything. The seriously disturbing issue is the human dependency on technology and computer (HAL) depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The computer, Hal, almost takes form of a human in its interaction with the real humans. Why do humans feel the need to extend techonlogy's worth and value to something that consumes entire lives, replace natural beauties, perfectly functioning natural processes? Advancement in technology, in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it seems human's insatiable need for something more has turned techonological advancement into something that is bad/harmful. By the way, I don't believe there is nothing infallible in life, let alone infallible technology.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say I don't believe there is anything* that is infallible in life (not "nothing" like i typed before).
ReplyDeleteAwesome posts and insight everyone! Great to hear your thoughts on the human-technology relationship and the circle of life.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are many interesting topics being discussed. God, as an infallible being, is an interesting idea as it is controversial to many other texts we've studied. The idea that he is a benevolent being who makes no mistake perplexes me. It is fascinating to see how each culture/religion sees God because each has their own distinct view. The movie does an excellent job posing questions that still cannot be answered with certainty.
ReplyDeleteI was quite surprised by the opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey". The apes running around acting primal and attacking each other was both disturbing and also uninteresting to me. I found the movie difficult to watch and focus on because the movie held no attention for me personally. Although, this is not the first time I have attempted to watch the movie. The first time I watched the movie, I fell asleep during the opening minutes during the 'DAWN of MAN' stage. There are several moments when I found it not interesting. For me, I could not find a hook that kept me interested, and to be quite honest I probably would not have finished watching the movie if it had not been an assignment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I found the excerpts of Neil Postman's book " Assuming Ourselves to Death" to be much more interesting. I can definitely see how my generation, and myself included is enthralled by all forms of technology. This weekend I watched a whole group of girls go cell phone less for rush, and was surprised to see how difficult it was for some of them. But I can not make any judgements, because I watch more crime shows than most people, and is probably deemed unhealthy my most.
Leonard Wheat's 2000 book,Kubrick's 2001;A Triple Allegory sees the movie as Nietzsche's Thus Spoke zarathustra and Homer's Odyssey retold-HAL=God,made in man's image and the Cyclops,etc,hence it's an atheistic work.
ReplyDelete