Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Agreed. As iconic as that eugenicist prologue might be, it harms humanity and doesn't really serve the plot.
Not at all how I see it. It's not eugenics its education, well the lack there of, that made the world in idiocracy.
The movie maybe. But that intro was basically divorced from the rest of the movie.
The intro suggested that stupid people having kids was the reason humanity started evolving backward. It invoked natural selection and "survival of the fittest."
The intro even labeled the low birth rate couple and high birthrate couple with IQ scores to illustrate this point.
You argue that that the movie attributes the stupidity of its world to societal shifts. It does. It does a great job laying out a progression from late stage capitalism to idiocracy.
But that just further highlights how unnecessary that intro was. The intro attributed the stupidity to something entirely different.
Just watched the intro. I'm not really on board with the eugenics angle even after watching it. It's more social darwinism than eugenics.
Eugenicists as ive always thought of it is an intended or active pursuit of creating "better" humans(or whatever species).
One factor I see being a difference between natural selection and unnatural selection. Unnatural selection being eugenics, and natural selection being what a result of an environment having an effect on the evolution of a species.
The intro Primarily sets a path of one group having more children than the other group and i will concede ~~it~~ the intelligent couple having problems having kids misrepresents the rest of the movie while still giving the audience a vehicle to how the future they wanted to craft could happen. And it also is meant to be entertainment not just exposition.
Would be very interested in an in depth response from Mike Judge and the rest of the filmakers. Would be an interesting use of AI/Deepfake to redo the intro if it actually wasnt intended to invoke a eugenic view of the future