MovieChat Forums > Soylent Green (1973) Discussion > is it really so bad,modern thought

is it really so bad,modern thought

posted 14 years ago by corturia2
42 replies | jump to latest

ok just watched this movie again for first time in a few years,so i watch it and yeah we are getting closer to a reality that could resemble this some day,my point is if you are living in a world with no resources,animals,limited plant life and bascially your starveing everyday,and over population, is it really so bad that humans are recycled and eaten to keep the rest of the population going? i understand that in 1973 this notion would be seen as extreme and maybe today as well,but with riseing population growth to stagering levels do out views change on this in 2010.remeber were not talking about people being bumped off to make soylent,just the natural dying people,or people victims of crimes and processed. i dont want to go down the road of yeah but eventually they would start death squads or whatever,in line with the keeping of the movie just natural death,would processing them to feed a starveing world really be a bad thing?

[–] kadawson73 12 years ago

OK, so this film brings up many issues and you're right, that reality is approaching: rapid depletion of resources.

Moral issues aside, given that we have arrived here mostly because we have wasted and taken for granted the resources we have, it seems logical not to waste a 'good source of protein'.
I'm down with that. If we're starving (and running out of places to bury people), it makes sense.
However, one obvious flaw strikes me:
At current population levels (and resource use), surely our dead (natural causes or otherwise) couldn't feed us?
Given that to feed us, chickens outnumber us 4:1... and cows? Pigs? Billions fed, watered and slaughtered, factory farmed to the nth degree.
Surely not sustainable. I'd be interested to see the numbers crunched.

Hopefully we'll wake up before we get there.

[–] Diagoro 12 years ago

We are a long long way from needing to do the soylent green method. For a start the western world doesn't even eat insects yet, easily the most readily available and sustainable protein on the planet. We'll have burgeresque patties with ground up insects one day when meat becomes a luxury item.

----------------------------------------

"Another brilliant post Steinberg..."

[–] Danimal_77 11 years ago

It's STARVING, NOT starveing. It's RISING, NOT riseing. You DROP the E. These is NO excuse to make these mistakes. The words would be underlined in red. You right click on the word, choose the correct spelling and THERE YOU GO.

[–] hayley-l 11 years ago

>> "These is NO excuse to make these mistakes."

Hmm, looks there is something wrong with your own sentence there, bud. I'm all for proper grammar, but c'mon. Double check your own text before going off on someone else.

[–] sehdavies 11 years ago

In reply to OP.
The principle behind the film isn’t too farfetched. During WWII, Britain had a shortage of food and an excess of donated blood which couldn’t be transported in time and going to waste. The proposal was to use the excess blood to make Black pudding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding for human consumptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Pyke. The proposal however was not adopted.

[–] cary_howe 11 years ago

So you are saying cannibalism is better that fixing the problems we face? This is the very reason Soylent Green may happen is attitudes like yours!

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

Soylent Green used people because they ran out of other options and not because it was the best logical choice from the start. From a non-human point of view it was a good recycling. Could be optimized though.
But let's not forget how desperate one has to be to go that way.
Even their world appeared not to be desperate enough to accept it. Take away Soylent Red and Yellow and they'll eat Green even knowing it's made of people. And those who refuse will just feed the ones who accept it to survive.

Pity the movie didn't show the result of the exposure.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

[–] dedeurs 9 years ago

A few years back some scientists suggested an alternative: protein-rich insects. A supermarkt in my (Dutch) neighborhood already sells fried maggots and locusts. It doesn't appeal much to the consument so far. As far as I'm concerned the products are too recognizable as insects (and sold in plastic see-through tubs, too).
Now there are a billion times billion insects on this planet, but with human numbers snowballing like mad, will there be enough? You need a lot of insects to feed an average family of four on a daily base. It means harvesting on a mega-grand scale. What will the consequences be for other species who depend on insects?

[–] TheBoz 11 years ago

The book explains the issue of overpopulation perfectly. Its Science and Medicine that destroys the world.

As Sol say, the mortality rate being high kept the population down. But with Science and by extension medicine making all these advances, people who should have died young, now live and use resource and those who are living are living even longer then before and therefore are using resources.

Soylent green is indeed people. The people keep alive with our medicines and such to the exclusion of the well being of future generations. Let all of Africa starve if they cant get their *beep* together. Why must a country dip into it resources to feed a continent that aside for its Uranium and Gold and diamonds is just one big cesspool. Same with other countries. Let em feed themselves, we are not their keepers.

Like it or not, that's how you avoid the scenario portrayed in the book and movie.

If people want to legalize euthanasia for the sick then let the countries who have nothing institute more pro abortion laws or Euthanasia laws in these countries to keep the young one from having a diminished quality of life.

Giving them a bowl of rice a day does not raise their quality of life so lets not be hypocrites and act allow Euthanasia for all people with low expected quality of life. And those countries that have, like the United States should store its bumper crops for rainy days, not countries that breed like rats.

Sister Theresa would have been more of a Saint if she had advocated Euthanasia for the sick of Calcutta, like those who advocate it for the sick in the richer countries of the world.

[–] la di da 8 years ago

. The people keep alive with our medicines and such to the exclusion of the well being of future generations. Let all of Africa starve if they cant get their *beep* together. Why must a country dip into it resources to feed a continent that aside for its Uranium and Gold and diamonds is just one big cesspool. Same with other countries. Let em feed themselves, we are not their keepers

Whenever you see "hungry Africans" it's political not because of resources.
Africa has the most resources that's why it's raped by by the world.
South and central America,the Caribbean will be fine as long as there is water.

It's the USA that will starve.

We will be running to these countries and I don't think they will let us in.

We are the music makers...we are the dreamer of dreams.Willy Wonka

[–] eelb 10 years ago

Most of these type films from that era, depict corporations that ration natural resources. The real scenario that has played out is the manipulation through marketing and banking, that rations the power of individuals, and enriches the corporations.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

It becomes a problem when you take biomagnification into account.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] chicago85 9 years ago

In Snowpiercer which is about the future, poor people were given these black, quivering jelled looking blocks of food to eat. Later you saw how they made. Thousands of live black looking beetles were fed into a machine that ground them up, added steam and water. Then they were compressed into small blocks and handed out. I can only guess that the beetles were fed feces since the people all lived on a train. The upper classes had gourmet diets including fish, chicken, etc.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

[–] Bavarian 8 years ago

It takes around 100 times the natural ressources (plus a giant climate footprint, CO2, methane...) to produce 1 kg of beef steak than to produce the amount of vegetarian food with the same nutrition values... fat, protein, carbon hydrates.

And eventually it takes 100 or 1000 kg of cattle to produce 1 kg of Soylent Green cookies made of minced old humans.

So feeding people with people would be the worst solution, the most uneconomical method of all possibilities. The most stupid waste of natural ressources imaginable.