Don’t Look Up

The film, Don’t Look Up, is a most interesting film not only for how it relates science to political economy, but also in that images of wildlife—Nature, as it were—are interspersed throughout the movie, and it is Nature, rather than our circumscribed, petty, and yet economically successful species, that continues on after a large comet hits Earth and our species is wiped out. In fact, that impact-event in the movie cancels out the one that really happened 66 million years ago by returning dinosaurs to dominance. The last scene in the movie shows some of the political and economic elite waking up in their spaceship and landing on Earth more than 200,000 years in the future only to be eaten by dinosaurs that look "cute." two of those stupid people had been in charge both in the White House and in business before the comet hits, whereas the two principal astronomer-scientists who warn of the coming comet are repeatedly relegated and dismissed by the political and economic elite until the president realizes how she can use them politically—albeit just until the political winds turn again and comet-denial is more useful politically to the president. Does this sound familiar?

For a species to have reached such plenty economically as ordinary people could live better than medieval kings had in Europe and yet be so petty and reckless, essentially squandering what the species had built up, with indifference even to an upcoming cataclysmic event, is what the astronomer-protagonist in the film is left marveling at just before his life, along with those of friends and family sitting around his dinner table, is instantly ended. “We really tried,” he says. I suspect that climate-activists may be saying the same thing regarding the abject refusal of enough of our species and its power-brokers to take combatting carbon-emissions seriously enough.

“Most social life seems a conspiracy to discourage us from thinking” about “what, if anything, can we do about death—now, while we are still alive?”[1] Even so, “there is a rare type [of person] for whom death is present every moment, putting his grim question mark to every aspect of life, and that person cannot rest without some answers.”[2] So it is that in the Katha Upanishad, Nachiketa beseeches Yama, the king of death, to answer his burning question on whether there is an afterlife. “When a person dies, there arises this doubt: ‘He still exists,’ say some; ‘he does not,’ say others. I want you to teach me the truth. This is my third” wish.[3] Although the answer is beyond the reach of human cognition and perception, Yama reveals that the essence of a person, one’s essential self, or atman, survives the death of the body. Nachiketa’s undaunted urge to know the truth anyway points back to how much thoughts of death are part of life. That Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is based on the assumption that the instinct for self-preservation is primary in human beings is yet another indication of how important it is to us to put off our own death for as long as possible.

So it is a “red flag” in the film, an indictment on human nature, that so very few people are thinking about the prospect of their own death even though the two scientists and then even the U.S. president have announced on television that a comet is hurling through space, heading directly at Earth in what is known as an extinction event. Initially, two television hosts dismiss the two astronomers who had calculated that the comet would hit Earth and be of such magnitude that our species would go extinct; those journalists are more interested in the romantic life of a young singer. Not even the U.S. President, or her chief of staff, are much interested, at least until after the midterms, for their party could lose control of both chambers of Congress. It is only when the political calculation changes that the White House decides to make a public announcement. This prudence is short-lived, however, as the president calls for the space shuttle to abort its mission to bomb the comet into a new trajectory that would miss the planet. An Elon-Musk-type, new-age CEO of a cell-phone company has so much influence on the president, no doubt from having made donations to her campaign, that she heeds his direction to abort the in-progress space-shuttle mission to bomb the comet to divert it from hitting Earth, and instead send risky, untested drilling machines to land on the comet in order to blow it into pieces, which would then presumably fall harmlessly to the Pacific Ocean to be harvested by the U.S. navy so tech companies using computer chips could profit wildly. The CEO is a businessman, even though he angrily rebuffs the astronomy professor for pointing out, “You are a businessman,” who thus has absolutely no formal education in astrophysics and spacecraft technology upon which to make the judgment to abort the mission that would probably have diverted the comet. Instead, his idea is to send untested drillers to land on the comet to dig holes in which to place bombs so the comet would blow up into profitable chunks. The astronomy professor is correct when he calls out the cell-phone techie, but the president sides with the latter nonetheless.

Regarding just how pathetic the president, her immature chief of staff, and the techie businessman are, at the end of the movie, the professor turns down the president’s offer to join her, the businessman and other elite personalities on a spacecraft that returns to Earth when it is again habitable. You enjoy your (obnoxious) chief of staff; I’m all set here, he tells the finally contrite president by phone. Faced with an imminent extinction event, the level-headed astronomer makes the judgment that it is better to die with friends and family then go on living with superficial comet-deniers for whom already having a lot of power and wealth, respectively, is not enough, and other people are to be used in line with power-aggrandizement and higher profits.

Science fiction is an excellent genre for bringing up contemporary controversies without setting off alarm-bells and thus having one’s message blocked by the opposition. The allusions to President Trump and Hilary Clinton, and the tech titan Elon Musk are hardly subtle. That the film was released in 2021 means that the relationship between the president and the techie CEO are not based on the later relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk. Instead, the president character is, I submit, based on Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The president in the film is engaged in “comet-denial” as a political slogan similar to how Trump was engaged in climate-change-denial during his first term, is a woman like Hilary Clinton in subsuming everything, even the destruction of the species, under political calculation, and easily forgetting to save her chief of staff in the end, perhaps as the Clintons left Brent Forster in their wake before Bill Clinton was president. The political-calculating, selfish president in the film is herself an indictment on American democracy, for presumably she was elected. At a certain point in the film, people need only look up to see the comet for themselves to realize that the U.S. president was lying. The comet in the movie, like climate change in our world, is real, and it is the political and economic elite that in both the film and real life drop the ball, even though the respective stakes are both huge. Of course, in both cases, the American people are to blame too.

It is strange, in watching the movie, how indifferent people generally are to even the possibility that they could die in a bit over six months. Even after Ivy League experts ironically favored by the White House confirm the calculations of the astronomy professor, the president decides to play political games rather than take the first possible opportunity to divert the comet. Then she decides to do the bidding of her techie billionaire donor and “turn lemons into lemonade” by recklessly (in terms of rocket technology) helping him to profit from the comet once it has been pulverized and felled to the ground. Lemonade cannot be made if the lemons are handled recklessly rather than rendered usable. Just before dies, the astronomy professor remarks on the species to his friends and family, “We had everything.” The implication is: and yet we blew it, because some powerful people in business and government wanted more. Even though the techie billionaire had developed a very advanced and financially lucrative cell phone, it is as if that man perceived himself as not having enough, and thus as needing more.

The desire for more is a good definition of greed. Even given declining marginal utility, there seems to be no base limit of wealth that is enough in terms of a person not risking even everything to profit more.  A rational person might realize that pushing the comet out of the way of Earth should be priority number 1, and that NASA and other space agencies around the world should be entrusted with that task, or else all current wealth could be lost, as you can’t spend it when you’re dead. It is as some powerful people in the business and political American elites dismissed even the 99.97% chance that the comet would smack into the Earth because greed and power-aggrandizement are instinctual urges that lie by distorting both cognition and perception. We “modern” humans may be so used to being so narrowly self-interested in accumulating money and power that we regard the indifference shown in the film to a catastrophic event to be surreal or even as too incredulous to even be believed in a film!

Even though the movie ramps up the explosive and sudden climax to keep viewers titillated in movie theatres, the same dynamic of indifference and denial applies as our species stews unabatedly in a hotter and hotter climate that one day may be very difficult or even impossible for our species to continue to live on Earth. This prospect having become realistic when the film was made, and definitely in June, 2025, when both parts of the E.U. and U.S. suffered from long heat-waves, should be enough to make resisting coal and other business interests and their captured politicians by making climate a high political and economic priority, but alas, too many people are like the people in the movie, who are taken in by the comet-deniers and profiteers, as if the masses of people were consisting of Nietzsche’s herd animals that are oblivious as they are being taken to the slaughter house. Presuming that we could just move to Mars or the Moon, and that we could even profit by doing so is the sort of thinking that does not work out in the movie, so the lesson is that it is reckless for us to deny climate-change and postpone cuts in fossil-fuel emissions under the assumption that we will be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat just in time when the time comes to pay the bill as species. To be sure, whereas the comet hitting Earth is a sudden event, the baleful effects of climate-change are gradual, yet accumulating, and thus human nature is less well-equipped to take immediate action rather than putting it off. Even so, the denial for partisan advantage and the proclivity of managers in companies to compartmentalize at the expense even potentially of the survival of the species even within a few generations are the same. Perhaps Nietzsche was correct in claiming that ideas are really instinctual urges, and reasoning is the tussling of contending urges—the most powerful of which reaches consciousness. Rather than being a check on passions, reason is itself a manifestation of instincts. The lesson of the film is that there is no guarantee that the instinctual urge that dominates others is in line with self-preservation and even the medium-term (and even short-term) survival of the species.

---

1. Introduction to Katha Upanishad, in The Upanishads, trans. Eknath Easwaran (Petaluma, CA: Nilgiri Press, 1987).
2. Ibid.
3. Katha Upanishad, 1.1.20, in The Upanishads, trans. Eknath Easwaran (Petaluma, CA: Nilgiri Press, 1987).

Pope Francis: A Man of His Word

The documentary, Pope Francis: A Man of His Word (2018) chiefly lays out the pope’s critique of economic Man. The film begins with references to climate change too loosely linked to the global population figure of 8 million humans, 1 billion of whom are unnecessarily living in poverty. The viewer is left to fill in the gaps, such as that because as biological organisms we must consume and use energy, the hyperextended overpopulation of the species is the root cause of climate- and ecosystem-changing CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Arguably, the salvific Son of God or the means into the Kingdom of God enjoy pride of place in the gospels, but compassion for the poor as well as outcasts and the sick is indeed a message that Jesus stresses in the faith narratives. Rather than being a sign of sin, poverty, especially if voluntary,  can permit the sort of humility that is much superior to the pride of the Pharisees. In the documentary, Jorge Bergoglio, who took the name Francis in becoming pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 2013, is a practical man who points to the sickness or temptation of greed that keeps humanity from riding itself of poverty, unnecessarily. Moreover, the hegemony of the market, with its culture of consumerism and commoditization, comes at the cost of the common good, which to Francis has a spiritual basis. Abstractly speaking, harmony, which inherently respects its own limitations, should have priority over greed and markets. Both of these can go to excess without enough built-in constraints as occurred before and during the financial crisis of 2008, with poverty plaguing humanity even more rather than less as a result. 

   

Such poverty as exists in the world (in 2017) is a scandal, the pope says, because we could solve the problem. “We have such riches, so many resources for giving food to everybody,” yet so many children are hungry. If we become a little bit poorer—having not so many things—we can help the poor. The pope even wants “a poor church for the poor.” Unfortunately, men can be found even in the Church who have yielded to—rather than resisted—the temptation to have more things. More things owned by fewer people means that more people get less.

Organizational theorists speak of dysfunctional organizations; the pope refers to the Curia, the government of the Church, as dysfunctional. Sins are malfunctioning diseases that weaken our service to God. In men of God, the result is tremendous hypocrisy. According to the pope, a sick organization can suffer from people who think they are immortal in the sense that they deem themselves immune from temptation. Other spiritual diseases include rivalry and vaingloriousness (boastfulness), closed circles (cliques), and lugubrious (sad looking) faces. Existential schizophrenia[1] and spiritual Alzheimer’s disease[2] are two others. Last but certainly not the least, given Francis’ preoccupation, is hoarding. A person seeks to fill an existential void in one’s heart by accumulating material goods not out of need, but, rather, to feel secure. Twice the pope states, “As long as there’s a church that places its hope on wealth, Jesus is not there.” This alone doesn’t exclude a church from having wealth, though Francis clearly wants a poor church for the poor. To be sure, a church that is itself poor has limited funds to lift the poor out of poverty, let alone help them momentarily, but in the spending of vast wealth a large church can made a dent in the problem and the remaining lower cash-flow can make use of fund-raising.

We need only look at Wall Street bankers to see that wealth can be accumulated much beyond even the most risk-averse need for security, financial and otherwise. Pope Francis does not discuss Wall Street in the documentary. No doubt he would have expressed disgust at the many traders for whom maximizing a yearly bonus is a game even during a financial downturn such as that of 2008-2009 even though many sub-prime mortgage producers and mortgage-based bond traders were culpable both ethically and in terms of competence. Making unnecessary hoarding into a game when ending poverty lies within our species’ grasp and poor people are suffering surely involves an immature, selfish dysfunction. What is for one person a game is for another hunger and even homelessness. No brotherly love exists in such a deprived culture of consumption.

In such a culture, money can apply value anything that can be commoditized. Goods, services, jobs, and even people are valued monetarily. A Hollywood movie star (i.e., a popular actor), for example can make millions of dollars on just one film, while dollars can be scarce for organizations that attempt to reduce poverty. This is a reflection of how much movies and reducing poverty are valued in a society. As Pope Francis makes clear in the documentary, enough wealth exists that poverty could be eliminated, but people with a surplus of money want to go to the movies more than they want to pitch in together to end poverty.

St. Francis rejected the distended hoarding disease that springs from the sin of greed. He likened money to animal dung and lauded poverty, especially of the voluntary sort.[3] So he viewed money itself, rather than just the culture that forms from it, as problematic. In the context of ordinary Christians first being able to accumulate coin from trade during the Commercial Revolution in the High Middle Age, St. Francis eschewed his inheritance to undergo voluntary poverty in solidarity with the poor, the sick, and the outcasts like Jesus.

The saint felt a calling to restore God’s house on Earth, for which a complete transformation of attitude would be needed. Such a transformation, while not impossible with human nature, would surely go against its grain and thus could not be based in it. Like Kant’s notion of perpetual peace protected by a world federation, the transformation is possible but not probable.[4] Being very difficult to accomplish in human nature, we can conclude that the transformation is sourced either in the higher faculties of human nature or a source that is wholly other to our artifacts and nature. Both St. Francis and the pope who took that name would say that the transformation is so foreign to our nature (and thus ways) that the source must be divine, transcending Creation, hence wholly other.

To St. Francis, the transformation of attitude, which I submit applies not only to greed, but also pride,  can result in “a new brotherhood of man dedicated to the common good.” The documentary uses that rather secular language—the common good. In political theory, the common or public good stands for what is in the public welfare—the good of the whole (e.g., a city). The aggregation of private uses can fall short of that which is in a community’s interest. Hence, in Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith advocates a role for government in regulating markets. Relatedly, public goods like air and water are for common use because either they cannot be privatized (e.g., contained in packages) or the cost of exclusion is too high. Air and water, respectively, apply. This is why Polanyi argues in his book, The Great Transformation, that social norms should hold sway over markets, rather than vice versa, and thus governments should not be controlled by the financial sector. Even though markets can efficiently allocate goods and services, even a financial system, if left to itself especially in times of great volatility, can go beyond equilibrium and collapse without the overarching public good being enforced by a government, such as in the United States in 2008.

In St. Francis’ usage, the term common good is not just secular, for the transformation needed has a divine rather than an earthly source. The transformation runs against the human nature to economize even for a person’s own self-preservation. Godric of Finchale, a trader during the Commercial Revolution more than a century before St. Francis, gave his accumulated wealth to the poor in order to live as a hermit close to Nature. Godric put even his own life at risk because he, like St. Francis, believed that having any wealth would castrate his salvation. That is, salvation does not allow for making an income and accumulating wealth. The underlying assumption is that wealth is tightly coupled with the stain of underlying greed. Elsewhere, I call this stance the anti-wealth paradigm.[5]

That paradigm was dominant in Christian thought for centuries; the pro-wealth paradigm, in which greed is not necessarily behind profit-seeking and wealth, only began to take hold during the Commercial Revolution in the High Middle Age. Interestingly, just as capitalism arrived on the world stage two centuries before Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations during the eighteenth century, so too did the pro-wealth paradigm come to dominate among theologians two centuries before Max Weber wrote his Protestant Work Ethic. Ricardo’s world capitalism began during the sixteenth century, and the pro-wealth paradigm had begun in the Italian Renaissance during the fifteenth century. Renaissance theologians emphasized the Christian virtues of liberality and munificence as “good uses” of wealth, and thus as justifying the fortunes of even the usurer Cosimo De Medici.[6] He made a deal with Pope Eugene IV: In return for financing the renovations of a Florentine monastery (at which Cosimo got a cell for prayer), the international banker could keep his fortune of usurious interest and secure his salvation. St. Francis must have been spinning in his grave.

As shown in the documentary, Pope Francis is also an adherent of the anti-wealth paradigm. “Jesus in the Gospels says no one can serve two masters. We either serve God or we serve money,” the pope says. He is assuming that serving money means that greed and money are present. In other words, greed and wealth are linked. Unlike Godric and St. Francis, however, Pope Francis was at the time the head of a very wealthy organization, the Roman Catholic Church. Although he says in the documentary that he wants a poor church serving the poor, he, like the pro-wealth paradigm adherents, had to confront, by which I mean legitimate, the extant wealth of his Church. He emphasizes good uses, namely to the poor, in the documentary. In contrast, St. Francis “attacked the subtle temptation of pious Christians to pile up wealth under the pretext of using it to beautify churches or serve God.”[7] Had he been alive in Cosimo De Medici’s day, St. Francis might have preached that Pope Eugene should pick up one of De Medici’s usurious coins by the teeth and deposit the coin on top of a pile of animal dung. Moreover, by contrasting St. Francis and Pope Eugene IV, we can see that the zenith of the anti-wealth paradigm had been replaced by that of the pro-wealth paradigm by fifteenth century—two centuries before Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic.[8]

As if channeling St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Francis says in the film that the big temptation for mankind is greed. Even though Francis mentions St. Francis’ notion of an attitudinal transformation, the pope could have said more concerning how the dysfunctional attitude of pride fits in. This would be a nod to Augustine, who had written of pride as the chief sin. In the twenty-first century, the term sin can seem vague and even antiquated; hence the pope uses the terms, temptation and disease. Perhaps these, while workable in reaching a secular world, do not go far enough.

Beyond the temptation of greed issuing out in diseases, St. Francis’ transformation of attitude could be contemplated beyond the immaturity, selfishness, and lack of compassion for others. When Wall Street traders turned maximizing their bonuses into some kind of a game, something more than greed was at work, even during the mortgage-bond fiasco that led to the financial crisis of 2008. Not only did it not matter that subprime mortgage borrowers were going homeless; traders actually blamed the scheme on those borrowers (for being stupid) instead of themselves. During a flood, arrogance has no place above water, let alone on stilts.

A dysfunctional socio-economy can be viewed as an encrusted artifact of the attitude borne of the temptation of greed and its diseases. In the film, the pope bemoans an economy of exclusion and inequality, where money rules, as having resulted in a plundered planet; we have abused rather than cultivated it, and climate change may be our reckoning. Work is sacred, the pope says, because creating something is a version of doing the Creator’s work. “The way to escape consumerism, this corruption, this competitiveness, this being enslaved to money, is the concreteness of day-to-day work”—a “tangible reality.” Similarly, Heidegger wrote that in concrete work, such as nailing with a hammer, a person comes to realize oneself as an entity that exists (dasein). God sent our species to cultivate, through work, not only the land, but also science, art, technology, and culture. “But when someone feels that he owns this culture and feels all-powerful,” the pope says, “the temptation arises to go further, and destroy the culture.” This feeling of “all-powerful,” as if self-appointed as a god, is otherwise known as pride. Here we see the pope link it to the temptation of greed. Perhaps the common denominator is a refusal to recognize limits upon oneself. As Gordon Gekko says in the film, Wall Street, the wealth that he desires as a trader is unlimited. How much is enough?  "It’s not a question of enough.”

Exploiting the planet’s resources, including coal for energy, plays into more for its own sake. Increasing the CO2 concentration in the oceans and atmosphere does so as well. Even being fruitful and multiplying without limit—as if the divine command holds even after sufficient multiplying has enabled our species to cultivate the Earth—plays into more. Indeed, as the overpopulation is behind the CO2 increases because biological organisms, including of our species, must use up energy, our species may go extinct because of the refusal to rationally curb the more even to the extent that it is instinctual and woven into the fabric of our economic, social, and political systems. In the film, neither the narrator nor the pope go this far in connecting the major themes. Essentially, the pope argues that if people live as Jesus in the gospels, then exclusion, poverty, and the cult of more, including its destruction of the planet at least in terms of human habitation, and thus the overall good of humanity, could be expunged. Instead, a harmony could exist in line with the principles of ecosystems. It is a “law of nature,” the pope says for lack of a better expression that “all things should be in harmony.” Plato’s notion of justice, by the way, is when a musical-mathematical harmony exists within a reason-directed psyche (mind) and polis (city and even country).

---

1. Efforts to stabilize one’s existence, in this case by having more wealth.

2. Remembering God no longer. In this void, a person can engage in self-idolatry, which can include worshipping one’s own wealth as an extension of oneself.

3. Skip Worden, God’s Gold.

4. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace.

5. Skip Worden, God’s Gold.

6. Ibid.

7. Dan Runyon, “St. Francis of Assisi on the Joy of Poverty and the Value of Dung,” Church History 14 (1987).

8. Skip Worden, God’s Gold.

First Reformed

First Reformed (2017) contains fundamental ideas concerning the human condition and wrestles with the relationship between religion and politics.  Ideas play a significant role in the film, hence it can be used in support of the thesis that film is a viable medium in which to make philosophical (and theological) ideas transparent and derive dramatic tension from clashing ideas. In this film, the ideas that clash concern the role of religion in the political issue of climate change—or is that issue primarily religious?

Early in the film, Rev. Ernst Toffer counsels a despairing environmentalist, Michael. After listening to Michael provide a litany of scientific reasons for despair on climate change as inevitably leading to the unlivability of the species, Toffer acknowledges that “if Man’s accomplishments have brought us to the place where life as we know it may cease to exist in the near future,” such despair is new. In fact, if “humankind can’t overcome its immediate interests to ensure survival, then you’re right; the logical response is despair.” Nonetheless, Toffer proffers that wisdom is holding two contradictory truths—hope and despair—simultaneously; the holding of these truths simultaneously in the mind is life itself. Blackness—the sense that one’s life has no meaning—is something else. As for that, the reverend states that forgiveness and grace apply to us all. This leads Michael to ask, “Can God forgive us for what we have done to this world?” Rev. Toffer replies, “Who can know the mind of God? But we can choose the righteous life over evil.” The religious response to the despair over climate change rendering our species extinct (or at the very least very uncomfortable) is at the individual level: to lead a righteous life.

Righteous is predominately used in the religious domain; in the moral domain, good is used. It would sound strange to say that the righteous person should get into a political debate over pollution with an executive of a coal company even though prophets in the Torah confront kings over their abuse of power. But if no one can know the mind of God, at least concerning whether God is in favor of climate change, then it would presumably be impious (i.e. highly arrogant) of a person to urge coal company executives to reduce carbon emissions because that’s what God wants. The implication here is that climate change is a political issue, and that religious discourse should not encroach on the other domain.

Yet Rev. Toffer, in meeting in a diner with his senior pastor, Rev. Joel Jefffers, and Balq, an executive with an energy company, turns to the polluter and asks, “Will God forgive us for what we’re doing to his creation?” Balq dismisses the question as “loose talk.” Shifting to the political issue, Toffer tells both men what Michael had said: that a scientific consensus of 97% of relevant scientists provides a very solid basis on which to take climate change, and thus pollution, very seriously. Michael had also told Toffer that in 2010, the IPCC predicted that if nothing is done by 2015, environmental collapse would be irreversible. Nothing was done, Michael said in despair, at least as of 2017. Just as Michael claimed, people—including Barq here—have not been listening. Even worse, I submit, is when people not educated in natural science presume nonetheless that they as individuals have a legitimate veto or override over the scientists. Perhaps just as Yahweh uses a flood to clean the slate on mankind, so too God may be using climate change to expunge such an arrogant species.

Balq is arrogant in dismissing the scientific consensus and any knowledge Toffer may have (e.g., from Michael) by retorting, “It’s a complicated subject.” Toller shakes his head no. It is actually not complicated; just look at who benefits. Who profits? Perhaps Toller is implying that Balq’s presumed superiority in understanding the impact of industry on climate change boils down to a desire to continue profiting? For Balq then shorts, “Can we just keep politics out!” Claiming the turf for religion, Rev. Toller counterclaims, “This isn’t politics—what God wants.” But then Toffer has just slipped into his own trap. “Oh, you know the mind of God?” Balq asks. “You spoke to Him personally? He told you His plans for Earth?”

Toffer himself does not believe that politics and religion are mutually exclusive on this issue, and thus by implication in general. Speaking later in his senior pastor’s office, Toffer says, “The whole world is a manifestation of God’s holy presence [omnipresent]. The Church can lead, but if we say nothing? The U.S. Congress still denies climate change.” Referring back to Balq, Toffer adds, “We know who spoke for big business, but who spoke for God.” At that point, Rev. Jeffers pivots his chair so his back faces Toffer and says, “Creation waits in eager expectation of liberation from bondage.” In other words, don’t anger our major donor by getting involved; rather, wait for God to deal both with the planet and the polluters, assuming of course that big business hasn’t been a tool being used by God to applying judgement on an arrogant, conflict-ridden species. “So we should pollute so God can restore?,” Toffer asks, exacerbated. “We should sin so God can forgive?” Jeffers suggests that exterminating us may be part of God’s plan, to which Toffer almost jumps out of his chair. For 40 days and 40 nights it rained; maybe this time God has had it with the species.

From a religious standpoint, therefore, we mere mortals cannot know which side of the political debate is consistent with God. We could be inadvertently thwarting God’s plan by inventing carbon-absorption technology, for example, or the inventive spark may come from God and thus be in line with God’s plan. On this issue at least, religion should step back from entering the political domain. To seek to dominate it would be even more presumptuous. 

What then can a religious person do within the religious domain in which God is both the constraint and the hope? The only clue given in the film comes in Toffer’s advice to Michael to live a righteous life. Righteousness is lived out in conformity with God, rather than in presuming to know God’s mind and act outwardly based on that knowledge. Yet righteousness also includes acting as God's stewards of his creation on Earth. This point was not explicit in the film. Our species role as stewards involves doing what God would do. In the case of climate change: either it a case of us failing to do our job or climate change is part of God's plan and therefore arresting the trend lies beyond our normal custodial work. We typically  view climate change as our species' fault and further assume that we have failed as stewards. So we assume a religious rationale for political or business activism to cut carbon emissions. A CEO, for example, may apply Christian stewardship to his or her role as an ethical leader. 

Alternatively, from assuming an abject failure of righteous stewardship, we can see why God may have a plan that excludes our species such that climate change takes on the mythic role of the flood. Kierkegaard would say that we are left with these alternatives, whereas Hegal would urge us to find a higher synthesis. Such a synthesis, which resolves the contradiction in a higher unity, must fall short of knowing the mind of God because the synthesis comes from a finite mind. Divine revelation is of course another story. Absent that, we are not able to divine the divine mind, hence we are not able to know whether climate change is God's will or due to our failure as stewards to tend God's creation on Earth. Wisdom, Rev. Toffer says, is holding two conflicting ideas (hope and despair) in mind simultaneously. Absent divine revelation, our finite minds may are left in this case with the tension in the contradiction of hope and despair as life itself. In regard to the matter of religion claiming the upper hand in other domains such as politics, a higher synthesis is, I submit, possible even absent revelation. 

I submit that encroachment itself is unethical, and dominance in someone else's garden is especially so. It is problematic, therefore, that the boundary between the religious and political domains remains fraught with difficulty, as this may invite incursions. At the very least, that border ought to be respected, at least on the religious side; the political domain is fueled by the desire for expanding power, it being the essence of politics.

Passengers

Augustine wrote that Christians are ideally in the world but not of it. The fallen world is not the Christian’s true home. For the 5000 (plus crew) prospective colonists hibernating aboard a mammoth spaceship in the film, Passengers (2016), the planet Earth was presumably not their true home—or maybe that home was becoming climatically rather untenable and the 5000 were lucky souls heading for a new, unspoiled home. In any event, the film’s central paradigm can be characterized as “travel to” and “end-point.” That is to say, means and end characterize this picture at a basic level. The film is particularly interesting at this level in that so much value is found to reside in the means even as the end is still held out as being of great value.

For Aurora Lane, intentionally woken by Jim Preston with 89 more years to go on the trip, Earth had not been home in the sense that home is where love has been found. For her, home was mobile—moving through space at half light-speed—for she found love with Jim in spite of the fact that he had deprived her of living to see the end-point, the colony-planet. In refusing Jim’s new-found way of putting her back to sleep so she could wake again just four months before the end of the voyage, Aurora must have realized that she had found her home with Jim traveling through space. With plentiful food and drink, and no need even of money, Aurora and Jim faced a downside only in the possibility of encroaching loneliness. Headless waiters and a bottomless bartender—all robots—could not be said to give rise to any viable sense of community.

It is strange, therefore, that 89 years later, at the end of the voyage, the awakened crew and passengers do not encounter any offspring having been made out of Jim and Aurora’s love. The couple having realized that they would not live to see the new world, would they not have naturally wanted to have children who would have a chance of seeing the prospective paradise? It seems to me that the screenwriter did not think out the consequences of the couple’s decision far enough in this respect. The awakened passengers and crew should have come upon both trees and the grown children whose entire life had been in space.

In spite of having only each other, perhaps Aurora and Jim relish the peace that can be so compromised in a community (imaging having an apartment complex all to yourself!) and the freedom from the insecurity of want—two assets that could only be found during the journey. The spectacular views of space are also worthy (although it is difficult even to imagine a ship of such material that could withstand such a close pass to a sun). Yet, even so, how difficult it is for us—the audience—to understand why Aurora and Jim could possibly come to prefer a life spent entirely en route, on transportation. We are so used to being goal-oriented, teleological beings that we miss the sheer possibility that the journey itself might constitute a full life worth living.

Abstractly stated, we are so used to relegating means to an end as long at the end is viable that we have great trouble enjoying the means apart from the end. As long as the end stands a chance of being realizable, we cannot ignore it and thus fully rest content along the way.

The ability to reason about means and ends is a virtue.[1] Interestingly, virtuous actions “may be pursued ‘instrumentally’ but must be done ‘for their own sake.’ . . . They must be ends in themselves. . . . Actions truly expressive of the virtues are actions in which the means are prized at least as much as the extrinsic ends to which they are directed. . . . The telos, the best life for human beings to live, is an inclusive end constituted in large part by virtuous activity.”[2] In other words, virtues are both means and ends. A person should value acting virtuously for itself, rather than merely as a means to an end. While not a virtue-ethics guy, Kant uses this characterization in Critique of Practical Reason to claim that human beings should be valued as ends in themselves, rather than merely as means to other ends (e.g., manipulated). Can a boss ever push his use of his subordinates for his own ends sufficiently out of his mind to value those people as ends in themselves—as having inherent value?

The space voyage in the film is shown at first as only a means to a distinctly different end, the colony. Yet by the story’s end, the spaceship comes to be an end in itself too. Due to the length of the trip and the appreciably shorter human lifespan, Jim and Aurora find value in the means not as a means, but only as an end in itself.  Yet as human beings, could they ever come to disconnecting the spaceship from awareness of its end? Could Jim and Aurora ever feel a sense of ease on board without the sense that they have lost or given up the spaceship as a means? For the remainder of their lives, the colony is ahead of them. Is it even possible that two human beings could become oblivious to this fact?

Here on Earth, the Christmas season is so oriented to Christmas Eve and Christmas Day that it is scarcely imaginable that the festive atmosphere during the first three weeks of December could be chosen over Christmas itself. I suspect that more adults like Aurora and Jim, being without family, would prefer the season over the holiday itself—even opting out of it. Yet can a person come to enjoy a Christmas show or attend a Christmas party without having in mind the “not yetness” and the “betterness” of Christmas itself? What if the experience with friends at the Christmas Party two weeks before the actual holiday is better than the saccharine day itself? Can the experience ever hope to get its due regard and esteem for its own sake even as it is regarded as a means?

---

1. Joseph J. Kotva, The Christian Case for Virtue Ethics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996): 24.

2. Ibid., p. 25.