It has often been said, “art imitates reality” – a concept that philosopher Aristotle posited in what is called the mimetic theory of art when he said that art should be an imitation of life. But when life imitates art, what is that called? Insightful? Prophetic? Eerie? If art imitates life and life is imitating art, are we lost in some sort of perpetual Ground Hog Day or “chicken or the egg” loop? The powerful literary art form I am referring to is the genre known as the dystopia. Some familiar books and movies of this genre include Brave New World, Animal Farm, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, Gattica, and The Island. In each of these the writer brings to the table a certain set of beliefs and extrapolates those to tell a story of what the world would look like in the future if a certain set of parameters were true. It is the initial set of assumptions and the logical and consistent progression from those assumptions that paint the generally bleak view of the future that all these books and movies share as well as what makes the stories told often eerily prophetic. Some of the themes that are frequented, almost to the point of cliché, are those of totalitarian regimes controlling the details of people’s lives (loss of individualism), food shortages and their affect upon how societies live and are governed (animal competition for scarce resources), and overpopulation (man’s destruction of the earth’s environment for his own comfort and survival).
The 1973 movie Soylent Green, loosely based on the Harry Harrison novel Make Room! Make Room! (1966), is set in 2022 when the world is dealing with the issues related to overpopulation. Food shortages have resulted in uneven distribution of limited food supplies which leads to riots and other social ills. There are food luxuries such as meat and $150 a jar strawberry jam, but these are only accessible by the wealthy elite. Everyone else is reduced to a diet of marginally palatable food supplements such as Soylent Red and Yellow which are produced by the massive Soylent Corporation. Human dignity has been reduced to effectively being no more than an animal, and some in society are even referred to as “furniture.” Life is cheapened by the freely exercised and legal right to assisted suicide. The philosophy of utilitarianism is ultimately revealed in the denouement when it is revealed that the new, healthier and tastier supplement, Soylent Green, is made from…
WARNING!! SPOILER ALERT! Soylent Green is made from people
The premise of this film is readily apparent; the natural resources of the planet will be strained, making the competition for these scarce resources brutal. People’s lives and meaning will be reduced to that of subsistence and survival. Any dignity or sanctity of life will be reduced to simply surviving if overpopulation is not addressed. Through the lens of such movies as Soylent Green, we are presented with a distinct view of what things could be like in the future if humanity continues down its current path.
Overpopulation and its affects on the planet are “problems” today that have gathered much attention in the political arena and in the media within the last few years and are the subjects of much political wrangling and headline news stories. One need not look far to see how this view of the earth and man’s place in it is viewed by many. Active organizations dealing with the issue of overpopulation, such as The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona, are doing so by handing out 100,000 condoms beginning on Valentine’s Day to bring attention to the impact of human overpopulation on endangered animal species. The message is very clear; human beings need to reduce their numbers so that the animal species of the planet will have a fighting chance at survival. Other organizations such as the UN Population Fund have their own take on how to deal with the “problem.”
Soylent Green’s premise is not just a fictional vehicle for entertainment but is insightful in that it reveals a viewpoint that has been adopted by many who are actively working on solutions to the “problem” of overpopulation. We are told that unless something is done regarding human population growth, the adverse affects of our abundant presence upon this planet will be irreversible and life, as we know it, will cease to exist here on earth. Some factions believe the damage done to the environment is already irreversible. But how do we approach a solution to this “problem?” There are many questions and different answers to the questions depending upon your point of view.
For instance, if, to stem the tide of population growth, a one child policy were to be implemented, then how would that policy be enforced? What about people who live in countries with high mortality rates? Or those who live in countries that are not industrialized and, therefore, do not have the efficiencies of mechanized industry and food production? Would not a one child policy be akin to cultural bias or racism as those peoples would effectively be wiped out within a matter of a few generations? Who will be the enforcers of a one child policy and how will they be chosen? What tools will they use for enforcement? What of mothers who give birth to twins, triplets, etc? Will forced sterilization be practiced? What about people who believe that children are a blessing, love children, and believe that having children is an important practice regarding their religious faith? Will the state dictate the practice of their faith? And from the perspective of the state (South Korea, Japan, and most of Europe are current prime examples), how do you continue to fund your public liabilities with a dwindling tax base? Do you move to a model wherein all work is done in the employ of the state and the state which then distributes food and other benefits as the state sees fit?
There are many questions related to just the one child solution to the “problem.” Much can be written just on the few questions posited here but the purpose of this essay is not to address any of the questions raised here or their answers. This is not because the “problem” of overpopulation and the various questions and answers aren’t important, but because to discuss them without first having a framework in which to place the various arguments would be like building a house from the roof down. Any argumentation would be from an arbitrary basis as far as you, the reader, would be concerned, regardless of whether you agreed with the arguments. To have a meaningful, well reasoned discussion on this topic, we need to first lay a firm groundwork and foundation from which all subsequent discussion should emanate within a logical and reasoned construct. I am proposing a bottom up discussion as opposed to a top down or a middle outward one.
To begin with, it is important to recognize that for any issue we bring to the table certain presuppositions, biases, understandings, learning, and epistemology. These are collectively known as your worldview. We all have one and it is important for us to understand what ours is and where it comes from. No matter where you stand on the “problem” of overpopulation, the nature of the “problem,” and its attendant questions and solutions, the issue is not entirely the “problem” itself, but is ultimately about your view of the human race and its place on earth. This is part of the warp and woof of your worldview. Worldviews are based upon what we believe to be true about the world and the things we perceive in it. A rational worldview is not a series of isolated, siloed bits of belief and knowledge, but is instead made up of interrelated particulars. It should be noted that not all worldviews are created equal. A worldview may be judged not only by its logical consistency in all its particulars to each other but also in how those particulars correspond to physical reality. A strong, reasonable worldview will have one particular building upon another and also fit best with the reality of the world we live.
Take overpopulation as an example to illustrate how differences in worldviews and the importance of foundational presuppositions that inform those worldviews can lead to very different perceptions of the “problem” and how to address it. If I believe that man exists on this planet because the universe came into being by some cataclysmic event and, due to a random progression of events, brought forth life on this planet; and that human life came into being through chance, gradualism, mutation, adaptation, survival of the fittest, and a great deal of time; and if I believe that overpopulation is a problem affecting the future of the planet and that of all humankind; then I should believe, to be consistent with my worldview, that the strongest of humanity should continue to live while the weaker in society should not. This will relieve the pressure on the earth and its limited resources and reduce the competition for limited food resources. This would ensure that the strong of humankind will survive, thereby, ultimately, preserving and evolving the species with the desirable trait of strength.
On the other hand, if I believe that the universe came into being through the divine fiat of an infinite, loving being and that man was this being’s unique and specially thought of creation, I would approach overpopulation completely differently. In this instance my worldview would inform me that man has a special place in this creation and that his place on this earth was also special and highly valued by that divine being. It would be my responsibility, then, to determine how that creator had revealed himself to creation and through creation that I might know him, if at all possible, and know what he required of me. If he revealed that I should love my fellow man, the “problem” of overpopulation becomes a completely different one than for the person with the naturalistic worldview.
Worldview, ultimately, determines how we perceive any issue and its solution, whether we recognize that or want to admit it or not. The two examples I gave above would be consistent worldviews though I have left out a number of intermediary conclusions for the sake of space. In other words, if one began at the points I began at and progressed reasonably to the “problem”, then the conclusions I gave should be consistently and reasonably reached. This is not to say that everyone will reach the same conclusions. There are a number of reasons for this.
The first is that some people diverge at various points in the progression because one or more reasonable following conclusions are unpalatable to them. Another is that of applying faulty reasoning or completely skipping a priori arguments that would naturally follow. Many people formulate their worldview in a way that is incoherent. This approach often involves formulating their worldview based upon multiple a posteriori arguments, many of which violate the law of non-contradiction. This is, perhaps, now the most common means by which people in our post-modern age formulate their worldviews. In this view an individual tackles problems on the basis of how they feel about the problem and what they feel is the right solution. This type of worldview is very shaky and subject to our fickle natures. In dealing with overpopulation I may one day feel like wiping out everyone who doesn’t agree with me and the next day I may feel like removing myself from the gene pool. Radically different approaches; but without any foundation they would be equally valid, or invalid – depending upon your perspective.
There is one last means of developing a worldview that I want to discuss. This is the worldview that doesn’t fit reality. This worldview may be internally consistent but its initial presuppositions and, perhaps, some of those along the way do not match with reality. In this worldview one may believe that aliens placed us here on the planet or that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Fast forward to our example of the overpopulation “problem” and my solution may be to dump vast resources into developing interstellar spaceships in order to seek out these aliens that placed us here so that we might be reunited with them or so that we could colonize space.
The importance of one’s worldview cannot be overstated. If we are to avoid having our worldview soggily planted in mid-air then, in the areas of beliefs, understanding, knowledge, and actions we must have a foundation that is firm and that fits best with the observable world around us. And, in the example of overpopulation, our worldviews are quite literally a matter of life and death. How about you? What is your worldview and what is it based on?
