Silent Running

Recently, I saw the science fiction film Silent Running, for the first time in probably over thirty years. Compared with today’s movies, it may seem a bit dated, but for 1972, this was an exceptional science fiction film, and the film’s themes are still relevant for today’s audiences.

It was the directorial debut for special effects trailblazer, Douglas Trumbull. He was involved with the special effect of many films, including, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Andromeda Strain, Close Encounters of a Third Kind, Blade Runner, and, of course, Silent Running. Trumbull wrote the initial treatment for Silent Running, and the script was written by Deric Washburn, Michael Cimino and Steven Bochoco. Some of these writers, you may recognize.

For those of you, who have not seen the film, I will give a brief synopsis. It is set in the future, when all of the forests on earth have been destroyed, possibly by global warming. For that matter all vegetation and animal life have been lost. We are told that there is an even temperature of 75 degrees all over earth. We are not told why this has happened, but what is apparent is that humanity has stopped caring to preserve the Earth’s wildlife.

The main character played by Bruce Dern, Freeman Lowell, is one of the crew members on one of several ships that have been sent into space to preserve the last vestiges of vegetation and animal life. The dichotomy between Lowell and the majority of Earth’s inhabitants is depicted in Lowell’s ideology clashes with the other crew members. Lowell eats fresh fruit from the forest domes, while the other crew members eat synthetic foods. Lowell tries to convince them of the importance of this mission to preserve the Earth’s wildlife, while they deride him for caring about such things and from where the food comes. Humanity has adapted to living without wildlife and natural foods.

Lowell eagerly awaits the orders for the ships to return to Earth to re-forest the planet. Instead, the crew is told that due to financial cutbacks the ships were being recalled to be re-purposed. They are given orders to jettison the forest domes, nuke them and return to earth. Lowell, of course, pleads with the other crew members to disregard the orders and preserve the forests. The other crew members do not share Lowell’s concerns and are excited by the news, because it means that they can now return home. They eagerly want to get back home and set out immediately to nuke the domes. Lowell decides to save the forests and when he fails to persuade them, he kills them. The rest of the film is about Lowell living with the consequences of his actions and how he interacts with the drones.

As I was watching Silent Running, it teleported me back to my early teenage years, when I first saw this film. On the surface, Silent Running is a warning that we may lose the Earth’s natural resources, if we don’t do something to preserve them. Around this time is when ecology became a central part of the politics around the world. In 1970, there was the first Earth Day and the Environmental Protection Agency was created. In 1972, the UN held the first Conference on Human Environment and the Clean Water Act was passed in the US. This was definitely a theme that struck a chord with me. One obvious message for the 1972 audience was to awaken people from being apathetic towards the environment—if humans don’t change and do something now, it may soon be too late.

Silent Running‘s environmental message is obvious, but it is much more than just an environmental film. It is one of those rare science fiction films that deal with complex human issues and is not there merely to entertain, which is, to a large part, what the science fiction genre has become. For Lowell, the greater good was to save the last forest left. Something that, if destroyed, would be lost forever. Many would agree that preserving the last of Earth’s wildlife was a noble cause, but was it a noble enough cause that justified preserving it at all costs, even the taking of human life? Today, Eco-terrorism is usually in the form of civil disobedience and sabotage, and generally not acts of violence against other humans. Under the names of Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, this group has done $48 million dollars damage to property, including the more than $24 million dollars of damages to a Vail, Colorado ski resort, in 1998. To them, they are doing, as Lowell believed he had to do, what needed to be done to preserve the Earth’s environment.

As a young teenager, raised as a Christian, I probably believed that there were certainly “good causes” that justified extreme actions. Religion, unfortunately, is one area where people routinely believe that the ends do justify the means. After all, what greater authority can one appeal to, than God, for a justification of one’s actions? Even though, there is a commandment prohibiting killing, most people do not view this as an absolute, to be applied in all circumstances. Given this and the fact that the scriptural writings of the major religions are full of examples where God’s plans are advanced by unscrupulous actions and violence, even genocide, it is a dangerous mixture, which could be interpreted as sanctioned violence for good.

An obvious example of perpetrators of religious violence are Islamic terrorists, who use suicide killings, hijackings and kidnappings to further their political objectives. From their point of view, they, undoubtedly, feel justified in using violent acts. For them, they are fighting against those, who have taken their land away and have oppressed them.

America has its own brand of religious terrorism. One that has been widely reported is the killing of abortion clinic personnel. Paul Jennings Hill was one such person. He declared that he expected to get a great reward in heaven for committing the murders and encouraged others to do as he has done—to do what you have to do to stop abortions. For him, he believed that he was doing God’s work and that taking life was justified by God, in order to save the unborn.

I have observed, over the last decades, a very dangerous climate that is gaining momentum in the US. There is a rising voice of violence against those that have been demonized. Once you demonize someone then, it becomes that much easier for a fanatic to make the final leap to justified murder. This is exactly what Jim David Adkission did, when he opened fire on the congregation of a Unitarian Universalist church. His manifesto was a rant against Democrats and liberal ideals that, in his mind, were ruining America and had corrupted the members of the Unitarian Universalist church. For him, he was trying to save his country.

An example of violent language that promotes killing. You can get bumper stickers, shirts and hats with these violent messages.

I know that we are a country of free speech, but it seems that there is a rise in open or half-veiled threats on the president’s life and the desire to see his death. Even though, past Democratic presidents have been labeled as the anti-Christ, it is really coming to a head with the presidency of Barack Obama. Among those who do not support President Obama, there has arisen the slogan, with a wink and a nudge, of Psalms 109:8, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” ^[1] This is one of those half-veiled threats. If one reads the entire psalm, it is clear how the leader is to be removed from office, and if you read the comments on forums that discuss this, there are people who acknowledge that it is the death of Obama, which is the hidden message in using this verse. These are the verses that immediately follow:

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. ^[2]

If it was intended to just use the one verse to promote voting Obama out of office, it was very foolish to use a verse from this psalm. This psalm is attributed to David and is a prayer for God to kill a leader that is his enemy. It is not that great of a leap for an imbalanced person to go from praying that God would remove a leader, to doing it for God.

Before the 2012 election, Ted Nugent spoke at an NRA convention that amounted to comparing Democrats to coyotes that should be shot. He also made a direct threat on the President Obama’s life by saying, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Texas congressman, Steve Stockman invited Nugent to be his guest at President Obama’s State of the Union speech, calling him a true patriot. This can only be viewed as an indirect endorsement of Nugent’s views and statements, even the threat against Obama’s life. From reading comments on the Internet, there are some who would believe that removing Obama by any means, even assassination, would be saving the country.

Of course, what is considered a worthy enough cause to justify sacrificing human life to achieve is relative to the person. In the above examples, each felt justified in their actions, but most people would not agree with them. Even if we could get a consensus on something that would be worthy, who are we to say that another person’s life is worth sacrificing.

The Bush Administration achieved partial consensus of the the American public for a preemptive invasion of Iraq to stop what was being sold as an imminent threat. If one had listened to the UN inspectors, it would have been very clear that there wasn’t a threat and the “evidence” given by Colin Powell, at the UN, was full of holes. Many Iraqi and American civilians and soldiers have paid a high price for this threat that was not really there and for the administration’s ulterior agenda.

So the question looms, “Are immoral acts ever justified, even if we could determine absolutely that it was for a good cause?” My short answer would be, no.

Michael Cimino, one of the co-writers of Silent Running, received an Oscar for directing The Deer Hunter, which he also co-wrote. The Deer Hunter is about the value of human life that is worth saving even at the risk of losing his own life. This film had a great impact on me in my late teens and early twenties, in formulating my pacifist views to value the preciousness of all life, above all else.

I would say that there is darn little, if anything at all, that would warrant taking a life. Perhaps, a direct and immediate threat to one’s life would warrant retaliation that may result in the attacker’s death, but it cannot be merely out of the fear for one’s safety. People have been mistakenly killed from unwarranted fear. One must remember that extreme measures, requires extreme circumstances.

Further Reading
John Kenneth Muir’s Reflections on Cult Movies and Classic TV