This is one of my favorite movies and I've seen it a number of times, but on one viewing a thought occurred to me. Despite its ambiguity and various interpretations, the film is clearly trying to say something about what we can loosely call "human progress." Now in various reviews and commentaries of the film we often see references to evolution and even the "next stage of evolution" and the "evolutionary ladder." This kind of talk always irritated me since it is complete nonsense and the commentator has pop cultural rather than scientific idea of what evolution means, if we take that word to be synonymous to natural selection.
There is no evolutionary ladder. Evolution has no direction, no end game or goal. It is not progress. The notion of "progress" implies moral interpretations or at least some form of judgement that does not obtain in nature. Not unlike entropy, evolution is an amoral process that promotes change rather than stasis and can be mistaken for something with some end goal in mind... honestly, the next stage in human evolution at this point would probably be imunities to diseases that threaten us in infancy and adolescence, things that imperil our survival to reproductive maturity.
So... maybe this point is obvious and I'm being dense, but I think that Kubric is contrasting evolution with progress. In the movie, it is not evolution that is trying to lead us out of our myopic reality, but some intelligence that is in fact attempting to completely circumvent the process of evolution.
Perhaps the off-camera alien species that built the monolith looked back at their own development and realized that there was a narrow evolutionary path that lead to their current level of development, though this occurrence was by no means guaranteed. They won the lottery, but humans might not if left to their own devices.
This is one theory behind the absence of evidence of intelligent life beyond earth at the present time: even if intelligent life is common, most intelligent life is likely to fail. There are more ways to fail than to succeed and more losers of the lottery than winners. If you're a winner, then maybe you'd like to help others rather than leave them to chance
But there is a problem with that, of course. And that problem is not addressed in the movie (I think), but is an interesting rejoinder to its themes. As noted, "progress" is more of a moral term than a scientific one. It is subjective. By imposing their idea of progress on humanity, the creators of the monolith may be creating hegemony.
This ties into one of the notions that I've often thought about. While the greatest risk humanity faces as it increases its control over nature is that misuse of such control may destroy the species, perhaps the second greatest risk is that if we peacefully exert such control, we will create sameness because we have essentially eliminated chance.
And chance is an important driver of diversity and a hedge against threats we cannot imagine. Think of a world were genetic engineering was adcanced and everyone possessed what we all agreed upon were the "best" genes. Then introduce a disease that targets those genes (a likely outcome if any part of the microbal world is allowed to continue to evolve).
This presents a sort of moral conflict where there is no one right answer: is it better to reduce chance and force civilization down the one path we have defined as progress? Or should we allow chance to continue to play a role, even if it means the continuation of suffering? In either scenario, it is impossible to avoid disaster entirely. I think some balancing of the two is best. But now I've really strayed far from the movie... then again, maybe there was an allowance for some element of chance. The second monolith pointed to Jupiter, but it didn't drag us there. We had to make decisions on our own. I don't know.
I really enjoy your writing more and more. This made me think of a friend's book that posited a future where everyone's babies all looked exactly the same simply because genetic engineering was possible. I argued that her premise was flawed because she placed the blame on the technology itself, and I argued that absent some measure of force being brought to bear against parents, there would never be a ubiquitous adoption of one "look," while she was certain that given the choice the whole world would want blue-eyed, blond-haired little Aryans, lol.
But there's something inherently attracted to chance in us I think. There will always be those who play it safe or want more certainty, but I think that is a socially trained aspect of our personalities rather than an innate one. People like a good surprise more than they like a good thing they knew was coming. They gamble and play guessing games and hide and seek... I think we're hard wired to enjoy some degree of mystery and unpredictability and maybe that is evidence of the importance of that uncertainty in our evolutionary journey.
Thanks for the kind words @jrhughes. I'm glad you're enjoying the posts! I've tried blogging before and got very little feedback, even though there were page views. I had no idea what people thought. I will keeping plugging along and hopefully I will stay entertaining!
I had a similar idea as your friend in a story about genetic engineering. Instead of making everyone look the same, I remarked on how people looked like clones of celebrities that were popular at the time they were born. I styled it after the story of Exodus, where the genetically enhanced were the Egyptians and the natural borns were the Hebrews. A natural born child has, by chance, traits that are just as good as those who were engineered. He of course is adopted by parents in the upper class and believes he is in fact engineered until he learns the truth. At that time, there is a plague sweeping the engineered population because of an error in the "manufacturing" process that has accumulated among all engineered people. The natural borns take advantage of this weakness to rise up against the more priveleged class. Now our hero must decide to which world he belongs.
My flash fiction story, Divide the Sea, which appears on this site, distills that much longer story to something more appropriate for blogging. The title of course refers to Moses and the Red Sea, but it is also a metaphor for the things that divide us and the choices we make that cannot be reversed.
A very thoughtful and interesting look at the movie. I've never heard of this movie before, but now you make me want to watch it.
Hey if I turn at least one person on to this amazing movie then I have done my job! I'd love to know what you think once you've seen it.
If I can find it to watch for free, I'll be sure to watch it. And I'll let you know what I think. :)
Forcing civilization is never the right answer. That leaves humanity's "progress" being defined by a select few who can make decisions to further their own control, at the cost of the people.