MovieChat Forums > Childhood's End (2015) Discussion > What was the point of giving Humans...

What was the point of giving Humans...


...a temporary Utopia?

Was it so they could give birth to better offspring and therefore they're children could evolve into a higher consciousness, in other words reach their full potential and be able to focus on self realization, ala Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

Or

Was it so Humans could enjoy the "real good life" one final time. Get a taste of it before they were destroyed. Almost as a consolation if you will.

Or was it both?

~What if this is as good as it gets?!~

reply

I would say it was so that the generation of children who would "evolve" could be born into a world that was not full of strife. I imagine a peaceful utopian world would be a better, safer place for the arrival of that generation.

reply

Both so that the kids would evolve but also hopefully the adults would evolve to a mental maturity to accept the end peacefully. Instead of dying in panic.

reply

And they still died in panic... that one guy in New Athens blew himself and probably half of the town up. The parents were crying their brains out seeing their children float up into the air. They still died in fear, afraid of death.

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

Have you ever visited a Palliative Care Hospice? If you have then you'll know why the Overlords did what they did to calm humanity before the "great uplift".

reply

Exactly. They made a hospice for humans. A quiet, restful place to await death in.

reply

Except in a hospice you go in KNOWING you're going to die! No one is playing mind games and taking things away from you like say your children(??)... Please let's NOT compare this to a hospice it's insulting. It would have been better to just go in and destroy it so no one knew what was happening instead of this dragged out END of humanity.

can't outrun your own shadow

reply

Ever been to a nursing home? Especially when dealing with the ones who are suffering from mental degeneration, it's pretty much exactly that.

reply

It was also to stop mankind from destroying itself. When Milo confronts him at the party, Karellan mentions that as the reason why scientific inquiry has essentially been stopped.

Mankind's destruction would obviously have stopped man from evolving.

reply

For the miniseries to make sense they should have allowed mankind a relief valve. Encourage them to explore and study the solar system and other frontier areas. Clarke makes a passing reference of exploring the seas and a giant squid. But it's treated as a parlor game by a bunch of bored dilettantes at a party instead of serious science. I guess that's my biggest problem with the book. While claiming to be a scientist Clarke was woefully ignorant of the joy of scientific research that motivates people to devote their lives to obscure scientific specialties when they could make so much more money doing something else.

The miniseries should have included the entire solar system as the area where humans are restricted. A golden age of solar system exploration and colonization would have kept humanity happily busy until the transformation of the children. The destruction of the solar system would have made more sense for an all powerful hive mind. And if you tie the hive mind to the Gaia Hypothesis, the idea that a collective mind, soul, intelligence of all living things on the earth is what is seeking to ascend to a higher level then many of the moral objections go away. The minds of the last children are simply a catalyst but the minds/souls of all living things with their own unique intelligence/awareness are included. It would provide a perfect explanation why the kids act so weird and distracted. You try mind melding with an octopus. Clarke used childhood as a metaphor, declaring adults to be unworthy of the final ascension. But if all who retain a childlike joy and openness to change, including adults are part of the final Overmind the story end would have became more palatable and Clarkes vision would have been preserved. But that would have required a very talented and visionary writing staff, something that seems to be missing in TV land. My opinion.

reply