MovieChat Forums > Children of Men (2007) Discussion > What would be a possible reason for the ...

What would be a possible reason for the global infertility?


I loved this movie (saw it about three times), and I get that the reasoning behind the infertility isn't mentioned, but what could be a possible cause?

Also, I'm still having trouble contemplating why society would be in such a terrible state once extinction was being faced. My assumption of what would happen in a situation like this (which is probably based on my general utopian perspective of society) is that people would be kind towards each other in an effort to extend lives and improve the quality of living for the last generation of people on Earth. However, maybe what happens in this movie is more probable because there is competition/greed/power struggles due to the fact that children aren't around to provide a sense of innocence. I believe that is the message to obtain from this movie.

reply

"I loved this movie (saw it about three times), and I get that the reasoning behind the infertility isn't mentioned, but what could be a possible cause?"

There are numerous possibilities:

* A punishment by God.

* Pollution.

* A virus engineered by aliens to take out the human race as a preliminary step to colonisation.

* A virus engineered by an embittered scientist to wipe out the human race and save the environment. (I lean towards this theory myself. It explains why the animals aren't infertile as well. Gregory Benford's short story "A Desperate Calculus" also described that idea.)

"Also, I'm still having trouble contemplating why society would be in such a terrible state once extinction was being faced."

If there is no one to pass skills onto, then conditions will gradually deteriorate. A lot of occupations would become irrelevant without children, so the economy would be affected. I often recommend the Brian Aldiss novel Greybeard because it has a similar premise to this film - the human race became sterile and the youngest people left in the world are in their mid fifties:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greybeard-S-F-Masterworks-Brian-Aldiss/dp/0575 071133

reply

*A punishment by god.


LOL that was hilarious.

reply

Sure, I can see how that may seem hilarious if you are a stupid atheist. For atheists who aren't stupid, well, they wouldn't have written that in the first place.

reply

Yep...



I have over 6000 films now, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

reply

[deleted]

Yep, typical atheist reductionist crap. For people who claim to stand for "knowledge", "reason", "logic" and whatnot, you sure seem to love logical fallacies. Make no mistake, atheists who post on imdb, youtube, facebook, etc. are, generally speaking, slow and ignorant, and the funniest part about people like you is your delusions of intellectual grandeur.

reply

[deleted]

You can't prove that they are delusional. You just claim they (literally millions of people) are delusional because that's what's convenient to your set of beliefs (or lack of beliefs, whatever you want to call it). Any explanation you think you can provide for said millions of people's religious experiences would just be taken directly out of your ass, or out of the ass of other biased atheist d*bags you like to watch on youtube or read on the web. You keep proving my point that some atheists, especially the ones that can't stop commenting dumb sh*** on imdb, are just plaint dumb pieces of crap who LOVE to claim they stand for reason and whatnot, all while using fallacy after fallacy in their arguments.

And no, even if you think you can prove they are delusional, you can't. That would mean you are proving that God doesn't exist, which is an impossibility for science, much more for people like you who know sh** about science, or reason, or logic (even if you claim you do know about such things, you don't).

I'll say it again: your delusions of intellectual grandeur are absolutely hilarious! The fact is that you are a bunch of pseudointellectuals who think too much of yourselves. By now, I don't have the patience to engage in worthless discussions, where people like you just love to use their fallacies and misinformation to try and prove that God doesn't exist, that religion is the main cause for wars in history (which is factually wrong according to real historians, not that you read such things), that anything related to the bible is automatically false, etc. etc. So I'll just say: *beep* you. Been there, done that.

reply

Scientifically, unless you can prove something empirically it is no more than a theory. So unless you can prove god exists it is just a theory and NOT a fact. I am not without spirituality however I do not believe in a god or gods and have no respect for any organised religion. Religion is an invention of man, created by those in power to control the masses and has been used in that way throughout history.

Religion may indeed not be the main cause of war but some of the worst atrocities in our history have carried out in the name of god this is FACT. Religion is one of man's greatest or most heinous inventions ever.

Name one religion that has not had any atrocity carried out in it's name or the name of it's particular god... Let's hear it Mr "laughing at everyone else who does not BELIEVE in the same things as you" intellectual..

reply

Scientifically, unless you can prove something empirically it is no more than a theory.


I think you have your terminology mixed up. Gravity is a theory. Germ theory is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Heliocentrism is a theory. General relativity is a theory. All of those things have been empirically proven to be true. If you can't prove it, it's only a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is something that's been around for a *beep* load of time, generations of the smartest scientists have spent their entire lives trying to disprove them and all failed. A theory is something that is most likely true and has a ton of facts and evidence to back it up.

reply

the·o·ry

noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.
Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.


hypothesis
noun, plural hypotheses
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


Theory and hypothesis are very similar..

however... theory is not fact and is something that has not been proven, it uses proven facts as a basis of it's explanation whereas a hypothesis does not use proven facts as a basis for the explanation.

String Theory is a theory but not proven ..as are all theories.

In fact there is an entire discipline in Physics (Theoretical Physics) which deals with theories of which another discipline in Physics (Experimental Physics) then attempts to prove through experimentation and observation etc. If any theory is proven it is no longer a theory and becomes a law or fact.

reply

the·o·ry


Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but this is what you said:

Scientifically, unless you can prove something empirically it is no more than a theory.


You said, scientifically, not coloquially, and now you're giving the colloquial definition of "theory" as an explanation. The scientific definition is basically what I laid out above.

reply

You are not being a grammar nazi, you are just being logical. You can't define a specialized term by appealing to common dictionaries. If anything, the other guy should start taking a look at what philosophers of science say about the term "scientific theory".

reply

I made a casual remark about divine retribution in the same spirit as Jasper's joke about the stork. I wasn't expecting it to spark a religious debate. Sheesh.

reply

Sorry that it blew out of proportion.

reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Properties_of_scientific_inquiry

Basically supports everything I said..

I was talking Scientifically .. Theories cannot be proven empirically, you yourself said "most likely true" ..

I think we are saying the same things here now .. I believe my original comment on God being a theory was giving religion a little too much credit.. I should have said hypothesis...

reply

Theories can be empirically proven tentatively, just not to a degree of absolute veracity (which isn't really possible in the first place). The way theories are "proven" is, paradoxically, by trying to disprove them. If a theory has stuck around for nearly a century and no one has been able to falsify it, with empirical evidence in it's favor, it's considered a theory. It has been empirically proven (but, of course, it could always be disproven in the future if new evidence is introduced - every single fact is tentative, even in everyday life).

Saying a theory not proven to a degree of absolute certainty is a red herring. You need to be more pragmatic than that in science.

Man, just eat some crow and admit you mixed up "theory" and "hypothesis". It's just a typo. Or are you one of those guys who would rather starve to death than eat crows?

reply

Man, just eat some crow and admit you mixed up "theory" and "hypothesis". It's just a typo. Or are you one of those guys who would rather starve to death than eat crows?


I already admitted that I should have used hypothesis rather than theory when referring to God in the post above.

However, my points are still valid regarding theories not being proven fact but a very good guesses based on established facts. The inability to disprove a theory does not prove it nor does it make it fact otherwise by your reasoning God, ghosts, angels, vampires,big foot etc. must exist because they cannot be disproved. Disproving a theory merely disproves it it does not prove it.

reply

I couldn't care less about your views on religion, or about what you believe in. I'm not saying you should believe God is a fact just because you can't prove He doesn't exist, but I don't really have to prove anything to you in order to believe he exists. And I don't laugh at people who don't believe the same things I believe in, it is actually the contrary, I respect them (and by the way, I never really said what I believe in). My problem is with stupid people who use stupid fallacies, misinformation, and intentional distortions of facts in order to diminish someone's way of living, or someone's opposing argument. You are another example of this when you use this stupid arugment:

"Name one religion that has not had any atrocity carried out in its name or the name of its particular god".

That argument makes no sense whatsoever. The exact same can be said about atheism. Just take a look at dictatorships such as Stalin’s or socialist Albania's. The atheist reply is always: "oh, people like that did it for power, not because they were atheists", but that response is completely ignorant and based on your positive bias towards atheism, not real historical information. You are just claiming that their atheism isn't to blame because that's convinient for you, but no historian will agree with you that Stalin didn't believe in the ideology he was promoting. The fact is that their atheism and bias against religion were the principal motor behind their religious persecutions and you can't spin this fact, as much as you try. So if you want to say anything about how religious people have commited awful acts in the name of their god, do it starting from the fact that despicable acts have also been commited in the "name" of atheism. Don't try to hide the fact under a number of dumb excuses and distortions, because if you start to say dumb sh*** like "oh, but that doesn't count because, because, because they weren't real atheists", then I'll know what kind of person I'm arguing with (the kind that is too biased to have a worthy discussion with).

In fact, the exact same stupid argument can be used against anything. White people have commited atrocious acts in the name of the white race, so should we condemn all white people? Is white race one of the most heinous characteristics of evolution just because lots of people throughout history have commited atrocious acts based on their belief in white superiority?

I think it is extremely stupid, to the point where it is unbelievable, how some people carry the atheist banner as if it was something to be proud of. It's gotten to the incredibly ridiculous point where they are even willing to distort historical facts just to make it look as if an atheist could make no wrong.


"Religion is one of man's greatest or most heinous inventions ever".

I think man's most heinous enemy is his own inability to understand that others are simply different. When people claim that religion should be abolished they are not being part of the solution, they are part of the problem. The solution is not to force everyone to think the way you do, the solution is to accept and respect the fact that others simply don't think the way you do, or live the way you do. I'm not intolerant towards atheism, I'm intolerant towards intolerance, and in my experience no one is more intolerant that internet atheists who believe they have a crusade against religion.

reply

As I said numerous times, I've found that arguing about religion is one of the most pointless and tiresome activities on the web. I've literally lost countless hours in such stupid debates and there's just no point in continue doing it. You just have to deal with the fact that ATHEISTS HAVE COMMITED ATROCIOUS ACTS IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM TOO. So no, your complaint about religion doesn't make any sense. You can either accept that fact, or *beep* off because you won't win any debate by taking what a few people in history have done and apply it to an entire population. Just like it doesn't make sense to take a look at the KKK and condemn all white people. I'm just replying again to tell you that I will reply no more. I'm completely tired of dumb people who use such irrational arguments as weapons. You sound just like a white supremacist arguing that black people are bad because statistically they do this and that.

reply

I am not an "Atheist" as your definition of atheist is actually "anti-religion", I would say I am of non-religious spiritual beliefs. I have issue with the way religion and anti-religion for that matter is used and abused by their respective institutions.

I am sorry if you felt picked on but I was not actually talking about individuals either, this includes you.

I'll say it again: your delusions of intellectual grandeur are absolutely hilarious!


p.s. You actually did laugh at people who did not believe the same as you..

reply

i don't think he is laughing at your beliefs, but rather at your inability to support them

reply

I believe in what is fact, and thus already supported/proven .. I don't need to provide any additional support.

I would be interested in what you regard as my "inability to support" said beliefs when in fact I have no actual belief in the religious sense.

reply

[deleted]

It's understandable. No one knows the reason why childbirth all over the world has stopped. The answer is likely to be scientific, but they haven't found it yet, and they have been searching for it for eighteen years.

When something terrible happens like this, when the whole world is about to face the end of humankind and there is no explanation why, even skeptical people might wonder if some force outside their understanding is causing it.

reply

Yeah...I read it and was thinking wtf that isn't a possible option

reply

[deleted]

I think he meant like AIDs and the Haiti earthquakes. You know how god is, all punishee and whatnot.

You ain't got a license to kill bookies and today I ain't sellin any. So take your flunky and dangle

reply

If such a thing happened in real life, I would suspect it could only be caused by radiation or a new strain of microbe, possibly brought to Earth by a meteor or satellite.



"Why is it that every time I need to get somewhere I get waylaid by jackassery?"

reply

The problem with a microbe is that it wouldnt be able to reach 100% of the population so quickly. There are still going to be pockets of people all over the world who dont get infected.

reply

It seems clear that the cause is never fully explained, but several possible ideas are hinted at, which another poster listed. The characters have no answer, but we see them debating it themselves.

The reason society is in disarray? Loss of hope. Without children, humanity as no future... and the film is suggesting that the way we ultimately make sense of the main question of existence (ie "how can we make sense of/what is the purpose of our existence when we are all doomed to die, and all our creations will ultimately turn to dust?") is in the hope that children will carry on our legacy. Without this, life becomes meaningless.

reply

It's a lot more than loss of hope.

Society crumbles because people are @ssholes, who jump at the chance to destroy each other at the first chance they get. See how many car bombings or mass murders happen everyday across the planet? That's normal when things are looking up. Once the apocalypse hits, all bets are off.

No one in the film other than a small Amnesty type group cared about the survival of the human race. They were only interested in retaining whatever meager power they had left. Which was pretty realistic. When the chips are down, people become animals.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply

my theory: the government wanted a way to deal with illegal immigrants. and they figured out a way to sterilize them (a virus?) and it got out of hand. i lean to this theory because the problem of illegal immigration is stressed many times throughout the movie.

reply

the government wanted a way to deal with illegal immigrants. and they figured out a way to sterilize them (a virus?) and it got out of hand

This is a reasonable theory. Governments, militant political groups and terrrorist factions have experimented on people many times in the past with or without their knowledge. Or it could have been a disease that accidentally escaped a laboratory and got into the wild, No one would want to admit they were the cause & take the heat for that.

I don't necessarily think it was in response to illegal immigration since, in the movie, that only seemed to reach a boiling point many many years after the infertility had taken hold worldwide. Immigrants were flooding into UK because it had the only stable government/economy still standing.




"There's two kinds of people my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig."

reply

I would guess E number, they will be our downfall.

reply

I'm pretty sure I read on one of the signs being held up by some of the groups of people "Last one alive owns the planet" so yea it's partly greed and a kill or be killed situation as well as what some other people have posted about loss of hope etc.

reply

"Last one alive owns the planet" -- The sign certainly does NOT say that!...

What it really says is "Last one alive, Turn off the lights". It's easy to read...not sure why you thought it said differently.


JD


-- That IS a tasty burger! (Jules Winfield - Pulp Fiction)

reply

Genetically modified foods. Nobody knows what the effects of those foods are over a 30-40 year period (well, really, even a 10-year period).

reply

Exactly, if you google you already find that mice has problems with procreation. And given the fact that Monsanto is working hard to get a world wide monopol on seed ...

reply

Came into this thread to post this.

reply


A virus engineered by aliens to take out the human race as a preliminary step to colonisation.




Liberate tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex.

reply