Cybernetics [spoilers]


The entirety of this movie is preaching the gospel of cybernetics, a failed scientific discipline that broke apart as soon as scientists began collecting actual data, yet that nonetheless has entered the public imagination and shaped our (failed) modern view of nature, including ourselves. Simply put cybernetics is the study of systems which interact with themselves and reproduce themselves from themselves. It is one of the reasons we've come to see nature as a vast machine, in much the same way as centuries ago scientists thought of the solar system and the universe as one big clockwork, and it is why we always fail to act to change our predicament. Because we've come to accept its false pseudo-scientific beliefs of nature as self-correcting, self-stabilising "ecosystems", or the "balance of nature". There is no reason to act when we mistakenly believe that nature will sort itself out in the end, and that's not just true of the people in governments and corporations that are systematically unable to think in anything but the short-term, but if we're honest, most or all of us.

It is a conscious decision of the writers to have this geodesic dome (which came to symbolise cybernetics at the time) drift into space with a robot to tend the garden. It's not so much the point that Lowell sacrifices himself to protect his cybernetic garden, it is that he sees himself, and by extension humanity, as the failed, broken component in this machine fantasy of nature. It is beyond cynical, and upon closer examination, as unsettling as "holism" and eugenics. A 1967 poem by Richard Brautigan illustrates the underlying philosophy in the cybernetics movement at the time:

All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace (excerpt);

"I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace."

Of course, if you look at the film's message through a blurry lens, it (at least) tries to have a provocative point. It tries much too hard, and in all the worst ways imaginable, but I do admire it for trying. And obviously it's easy now to have the hindsight to pick at it from afar, but that doesn't mean its gaping flaws and faults shouldn't be pointed out and criticised for what they are. Had cybernetics been a valid approach to understanding the natural world, this movie might have deserved its cult status, but it isn't, and viewers ought to be at least aware what was really going on in the minds of the writers, as well as understand that nature is not an inherently stable self-correcting system. It is too complex to reduce to cybernetic diagrams of energy and food webs, as cyberneticists found out when they actually started gathering data.

Here's a concise explanation and background of how cybernetics came to be, from the Wikipedia article of the BBC documentary "All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace" (part 2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Gr ace_(TV_series)#The_Use_and_Abuse_of_Vegetational_Concepts

"This episode investigates how machine ideas such as cybernetics and systems theory were applied to natural ecosystems, and how this relates to the false idea that there is a balance of nature. Cybernetics has been applied to human beings to attempt to build societies without central control, self organising networks built of people, based on a fantasy view of nature.

Arthur Tansley had a dream where he shot his wife. He wanted to know what it meant, so he studied Sigmund Freud. However, one part of Freud's theory was that the human brain was an electrical machine. Tansley became convinced that, as the brain was interconnected, so was the whole of the natural world, in networks he called ecosystems, which he believed were inherently self-stable and self-correcting and which regulated nature as if it were a machine.

Jay Forrester was an early pioneer in cybernetic systems, who believed that brains, cities and even societies live in networks of feedback loops that control them, and he thought that computers could determine the effects of the feedback loops. Cybernetics therefore viewed humans as nodes in networks, as machines.

The ecology movement adopted this idea also and viewed the natural world as systems as it explained how the natural system could stabilise the natural world, via natural feedback loops.

Norbert Wiener laid out the position that humans, machines and ecology are simply nodes in a network in his book Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, and this book became the bible of cybernetics."

If you've seen Silent Running and never once wondered or examined its core message more closely, I recommend watching this fascinating and provocative documentary about the subject and how it connects the Holocene Extinction, Colonialism, Cybernetics and the counter-culture movement, computer utopians, the Club of Rome, World War 3 (the Second Congo War), and even the current financial crises. It's possibly one of the most important and riveting accounts of recent history. On the other hand, Adam Curtis documentaries are complex and benefit from multiple viewings, to say the least, so don't be put off or give up too easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Gr ace_(TV_series)

(to find it streaming, search for it on vimeo using google's search, as vimeo's own search engine isn't very precise and the BBC doesn't allow it on youtube or something)

Thoughts? I was extremely surprised to see this board empty of any discussion of what is clearly the bulk of ideas that went into this film.

reply

Very interesting post. I found this movie to be very sentimental about "nature", which i dislike mostly... but there something in the plot that make me enjoy it: Natural World is not needed for survival! Is more an emotional thing then that. In the ending, i couldn't not have feel sad about the almost "end" of the Biomes, even if keep them alive would be more a matter of... let's say, Love. Eh eh

This also reminds me of one movie that i really love: Orca (1977). Like a more "deep" version of Jaws, i would say. I'm sure you will find it interesting!

reply

brionjames60 writes: "I was extremely surprised to see this board empty of any discussion of what is clearly the bulk of ideas that went into this film."

Yeah.

IMDB is not known as an intellectual sight.

And, plus, it's an old film. Boards for older films seem to have low visitation rates.


 "Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

Your post is convincing and lucid, but I'm not sure ecology has entirely given up on the principles of cybernetics, and while I think Adam Curtis makes some of the best documentatries around, I'm not certain I agree with all his conclusions.

What you can be sure of is that ecosystems are in a balance and, within limits, will tolerate a certain amount of variation in some of the components of the system. This is most famously illustrated in the self regulation of the earths temperature by greenhouse gases. Whilst most scientists agree there is no "Gaia" in the sense of some kind of deliberate design or goal, the idea that systems need to regulate themselves is largely accepted. An ecosystem that doesn't regulate itself is by definition unstable and will quickly die away.

In Silent Running,I could never get over the fact that the earth seems to be existing without trees. Single called organisms produce and estimated 50% of atmospheric O2, trees probably come a close second.

But species will die, ecosystems will collapse. One of the things that dates Silent Running a little is not so much it's view of cybernetics (which is only ever implied) but it's nostalgic, rather conservative view of conservation. Ecologists know that there was a time before tress, there will be a time after trees. Nature abhors a vacuum and something will always come along and fill the gap left by other species. We are not so much "guardians" of nature, Adams and Eves in Eden. We should see ourselves more in the Buddha's sense, part of nature affected by nature as much as affecting it, barely able to understand it, never mind control it. We are, however, right to be saddened when human ignorance or selfishness causes a species to die it. I think one day we will all miss honey. We should send someone like Mr Lowell into space with lots of lavender and honey bees. Only this time, send it closer to the sun, not out towards the cold of Saturn.

reply