Don't Look Up - Film Review

“It is as if the world’s astronomers were telling us that an asteroid is heading our way and will make a direct hit destined to wipe out all of life, to which the public responds by remaining fascinated with sporting events, social media, the latest political machinations, and celebrity gossip.”

Reads like the script of the film Don’t Look Up doesn’t it? The above quotation was written almost two years before the film came out. In a highly recommended article in 2019 titled Facing Extinction¹ Catherine Ingram addressed the probability of human extinction and possible emotional, psychological, and spiritual responses to that scenario.

Ingram is not the only one who has warned us of such a probability. Many others have done the same, and that is the theme of the film Don’t Look Up.

The film, however, is not another attempt to warn us. It is, unashamedly, a parody of our collective desire to look away (to not look up.)

Certainly, the film is corny, absurd, and over-the-top Hollywoodism and jingoism. As such, it is a film that this reviewer would normally not wish to view. However, as has been said: the experience is not the same thing as the message. The experience of watching this film may be cringe-worthy. The message, however, is compelling. We simply are not taking sufficient (if any) notice of the warnings that scientists, and others, have been trying to tell us since at least the early 1970s.

The film is an analogy and the comet (that is destined to destroy Earth) is a metaphor for a number of inter-connected, mutually reinforcing events. Indeed, it is possible to think of comet as an acronym. The comet metaphorically alludes to (inter alia): Climate change, Overshoot, Mass extinction, Environmental destruction, Techno-addiction.

Many of our sacred cows of distraction are held up in the film and shown for what they really are – dangerous addictions. Whether our addiction be to mobile phones, or celebrity gossip, or the worship of the hero/saviour, Don’t Look Up rails against them all.

This film then, is a warning to take the warnings seriously.

Will it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not.

Does the film offer any hope? Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon what sort of hope you are expecting. The final scenes mirror the final words of Catherine Ingram’s paper with which this review was introduced:

“…it is likely you have had many moments when you knew that love was all that ever really mattered. And in your final breaths it is likely to be all that is left of you, a cosmic story whispered only once.”¹

1. Catherine Ingram, Facing Extinction, first published February 2019, updated July 2021. https://www.catherineingram.com/facingextinction/ accessed 4 January 2022.

Tactical Mistake Made By Change Activists

Following on from last weeks blog post about tactics, there arises the question of what tactic to use with those groups who are directly opposed to your standpoint?

This post discusses one of the common tactics used, and suggests that the tactic is a big mistake.

The tactic?  Re-posting, or sharing a YouTube clip, a Facebook post etc., by your opponent in order to then discredit it.

Before explaining why this is a mistake, I’ll expand upon this tactic a little more so that it is clear what I mean.

Recently I came across an example of this.  A clip of a out-and-out climate denier was posted to a Facebook page.  From there, that clip was shared by other users.  Some of those who shared the clip did so because they disagreed with the climate denier, and made that clear in their re-posting or in their comments.

At first glance this may seem an appropriate tactic, or at least a benign one.  After all, climate denial is a position that is damaging to the planet, so needs to be challenged – doesn’t it?

Well, yes it does, but this particular tactic is a mistake.  Not only does it not change the attitude of the denier, it may intensify the denial, and may even spread the misinformation and lies to more deniers and potential deniers.

How so?

Most of us will have heard that Facebook and YouTube use algorithms for ranking content and that this then informs which posts people will see in their news feed, and in what order.

The Facebook algorithm uses various elements, one of which is the popularity of the post.

Guess how the “popularity” of the post is determined? 

Exactly: by the number of likes, comments, and shares that it gets.

So, each time a Facebook post is shared, its ranking goes up.

What’s more, once a post has been shared, the sharer has no control over who then re-shares that post nor how many times it is re-shared.

Returning to the example given earlier.  I went back to the original post about two weeks after it had been first put up.  The post had over 100 shares, and in the order of 300 likes.

There is no telling how many of those 100+ shares were then re-shared.

Hence, that post by a climate denier now has a higher ranking than when it was first posted.

D’uh!

Re-posting and sharing a post that we wish to criticise may assuage our anger, and may make it look as if we are promoting a different perspective, but tactically it often works to the benefit of the opponent.

Repeating a bad idea, even if to critique it, still shares the bad idea.

What Tactic Is Better?

Silence. 

We all know that silence is death for an idea.  If no-one is discussing an idea, then the idea goes no-where, it gains no traction, it has no chance to add to prejudice, misinformation or ignorance.

Hence, in our example, the best tactic of those who wish to diminish the idea of climate denial would be to completely ignore the climate denier.

The author of a book on building good habits has coined a law that summarises this idea very well.

“The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year – even if the idea is false.”¹

Let me emphasise those final six words – "even if the idea is false.”

In the area of social change tactics, we are far better employed disseminating good ideas rather than repeating bad ones.

Note:
1. James Clear, Atomic Habits, RockyHouse Publishing, 2018.  James Clear called this law after himself: Clear’s Law of Recurrence.

Icelandic Example (Sortition in Practice)

The world is experiencing large disruptions just about everywhere we look: calamitous earthquakes and tsunamis around the Pacific, financial collapse in Europe, political unrest in the Arab world and uncharacteristic floods and droughts everywhere.  People are confused, uncertain and becoming increasingly frustrated.  Our lives seem to be battered from all sides.

Who is to blame?  The stock answer is the government.  And so, everywhere there are greater demands for transparency, accountability and better representation in our democracy.  In some parts of the world the demands are for democracy itself.

But democracy is failing to meet these demands.  Is there a way out or a way through?  Often we find the answers to big questions in small places.

Iceland is such a small place with a population of just 320,000 (just four thousandths of one percent of the Worlds population).  “Iceland?” I hear you ask incredulously.  "What possible answer could it have for the rest of us?  It went bankrupt just a few years ago, didn’t it?"

Yes, it did.  In 2008 Iceland’s main bank was nationalised, it’s currency (the Krona) was devalued and it’s stock market crashed.  A Proposal to buy their way out of the financial crisis was thrown out by 93% of voters in a referendum.

Back to the Kitchen

Using the power of social media young people mobilised themselves and others to articulate their frustrations.  In January 2009 thousands gathered outside the Althingi (Iceland’s parliament) banging pots and pans in order to disrupt the proceedings within.  Thus began the “Kitchenware Revolution”.  Eventually the Prime Minister and his Government resigned.  So too did the heads of the central bank and the financial regulator.

The newly elected government included the country’s first woman Prime Minister who acknowledged that “the people are calling for a change of ethics”.  How does she, her Government and Iceland  achieve that?  They look to a different way of selecting their representatives and a new way of involving the populace in the making of policy.  They look to a means of selection that has tremendous merit.  They look to sortition.

In November 2009 almost1,200 randomly selected (sortition) citizens along with 300 invited guests participate in Thjodfundur 2009 (a National Assembly) in Reykjavik charged with planning a future vision for the country.

The Act that set up this Assembly prescribed that the sortition process was to take “due regard to a reasonable distribution of participants across the country and an equal division between genders, to the extent possible”.  Those selected fulfilled these guidelines with ages ranging from 18 – 88, coming from all over Iceland and having 47% women and 53% men.

A Transparent and Open Process

Working in groups of 9 the 1,500 participants came to consensus as to the priority issues and what was to be valued.  Integrity was the value of most importance with others highly rated being: equal rights, respect, justice, responsibility, freedom, sustainability and democracy.

Following the Thjodfundur a Constitutional Council of 25 elected members worked on the draft of a new 114 article Constitution for Iceland based on the vision produced by the National Assembly.  Recalling that the Kitchenware Revolution was brought together through the power of social media the Council utilised the same media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr) extensively with the open proceedings of the Council being shown via the Internet.  Comments and submissions were also made to the Council via this media.  The draft of the Constitution was presented to the Althingi at the end of July 2011 where is is awaiting ratification via a referendum.

What Was Learnt?

One of the 25 members of the Constitutional Council tweeted that “what I learnt is that people can be trusted”.  What about the rest of us?  Surely, we should learn the same lesson.

During its session the Council noted three main themes: distribution of power, transparency and responsibility.  No doubt these themes will be recognised throughout the world, from Tunisia to China, from London to New York, within our own cities, towns and communities.

Yes, small places can provide us with examples to learn from.  Both process and outcome.