Warning: Spoilers ahead!
Yesterday I went to see Disney/Pixar’s new animated motion picture WALL-E (or more correctly WALL·E), released on June 27, 2008. I had seen previews for the new film for many months, and had just recently heard that the critics were heralding the movie as one of the best of the year, perhaps even the best that Pixar Animation has ever produced. Indeed, our local Deseret News movie critic Jeff Vice said it’s “the best-looking of all the Pixar animated features to date” [1]. RottenTomatoes.com currently has a 97% approval rating on the film [2], and IMDB has it ranked the 19th best movie of all time [3]. The eminent Roger Ebert even gave it 3 1/2 stars [4]. But there is more to this story.
First let me say that I love Pixar movies. Since I was young I’ve had a fascination with computer graphics. My career dream was to work for Walt Disney or Pixar producing computer graphic films. I even interned and worked for a couple prominent computer graphics companies in Utah valley. At BYU I decided that I wanted to go into design more than animation, but I know several people who graduated in Animation, and even have a friend who currently works at Pixar. My work in and fascination with computer graphics hasn’t ceased, and I have been enthralled by the high caliber of films that Pixar and other Hollywood studios produce.
My opinion of the computer graphics in WALL-E hasn’t changed. It is perhaps the most exquisite computer-generated film ever made, with some scenes so realistic that you sometimes forget you’re seeing a computer-generated image. And the human emotions that the animators were able to convey in the characters is astonishing. But, as you may have gathered from my title, I have a real concern with a certain element of WALL-E. The message.
The movie is set 700 years in the future, at a time when humans have had to leave the planet in a space shuttle because toxicity and garbage levels have grown so high as to make our planet inhospitable for any life. Earth has been destroyed by humanity. WALL-E is a robot left behind on Earth whose job it is to clean up the garbage left behind by the humans. As a miniature trash compactor he goes around collecting garbage, compressing it within his body into perfect squares, dumping it out, and then arranging it into skyscraper-like piles. His daily routine is interrupted when the space shuttle sends back a probe to see if Earth is a viable living place again. The probe, named EVE, is another robot who becomes friends (and a love interest) with WALL-E. When WALL-E gives EVE a green plant he found, a journey ensues back to the space shuttle to inform the humans that they can finally return to Earth. Back on the space shuttle the humans, we find out, have degenerated into obese, brainless, boneless, fast food slurping, bedridden, entertainment obsessed, insociable, instantly gratified, indolent, endlessly pampered, sterile, computer-controlled drones. Eventually the humans recognize they need to return to Earth, and after some struggles with the omnipotent and mutinous artificial intelligence that runs the ship, they are able to return. When they arrive back to Earth they recolonize it.
What I say here might be blasted by the more liberal-minded, but I feel it needs to be discussed. Contrary to Jeff Vice’s note that “the ecological and environmental messages in [this] story are not nearly as strident and overpowering as they could have been” [1], I personally could not focus on hardly anything else! While I perfectly understand that it is a fictional story, the moral undertones could not have been stronger. I don’t believe I have seen a more liberally charged or politically correct motion picture than WALL-E. It could have just as easily been written by Al Gore and entitled “An Inconvenient Truth 2: The Space Years.” Our exceedingly environmentally sensitive society has bought into the campaign that our human “species” is destroying the Earth, and that we are in imminent danger of disaster. I believe WALL-E is another card in the deck of fear-mongering tactics employed by our common Enemy to get power, money, control, oppress mankind with false “prophets,” and terrorize prior to the return of the Savior.
Those are pretty strong words, Bryce. Yes, they are. Let me give you another example of a card in this deck which is not as easily masked as a children’s movie. Mail Online in the UK published an article in November of 2007 entitled, “Meet the women who won’t have babies – because they’re not eco friendly.” The intro reads:
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. [5]
Vernelli works for an environmental charity, and was so horrified of having children that she got an abortion and at age 27 was sterilized in order to ensure that she could “protect the planet.” She believes having children is selfish because the “carbon footprint” and “over-population” that they produce on the planet will eventually prove its destruction, and as such children are a “sinister threat to the future.” Children only “add to the problem” of of our environmentally-challenged Earth. She claims that through her work she has met countless other environmentalists who share her view of saving the planet rather than having a family. It is immoral, she says, “to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.” A life without children has proven quite a luxury for Vernelli, who travels regularly with her husband to the most exotic places on Earth.
The news story also talks about another couple, the Hudsons, who also share a similar lifestyle of protecting the planet from pollution by abstaining from having children. Mr. Hudson shares:
It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth…. Sarah and I don’t need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet. [5]
This is the kind of lifestyle and philosophy that the movie WALL-E is promoting; if we don’t “go green,” we will destroy our planet to a point where it will become inhospitable and we will become nothing more than a degenerated race of homo sapiens, if it doesn’t make us go extinct first.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe an important part of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the dominion that man has been given over the Earth and the living things upon it (Gen. 1:26, 28). That dominion means that we have a vital stewardship to take care of the animals and all living things upon the face of the earth. It does not mean that we flippantly overrun, overpollute, and care less for an inferior earth. But as with many tools of the adversary, Satan loves to take things that are good and turn them bad. His method for doing this is expertly subtle. He takes the commandments of God and turns them on their head, a perfect mingling of the philosophies of men with the principles of God (notice the Adam & Eve and Noah’s ark elements). Having a stewardship of the earth does not mean that we give up our freedom, our life, liberty, property, and family (Alma 46:12–13). Such an overarching and overzealous concern for the Earth is worldly, most literally, and is the religion of environmentalism rather than the religion of God. It would not surprise me if the oil debacle is being artificially created by those in power positions who are worshiping the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12) and want to force us to drive less, use cleaner forms of fuel, and to minimize air pollution to “save our planet.” I have heard estimates that the world’s oil reserves are enough to serve all energy needs for decades, yet we are seeing today the effects of shortages in supply. Why? Are we really that blind to see this socialist scheme?
We live in a time when living prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ have declared that the “family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” These seers have proclaimed that “the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.” They “affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.” The Psalmist wrote, “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Ps. 127:3). “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” “We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” [6]. Have the living prophets and apostles ever taught that we must “go green” or perish? The Adversary’s environmentalism plan is plotted squarely against God’s plan of salvation. Choose you this day whom you will serve (Josh. 24:15; cf. Alma 30:8; Moses 6:33). The prophets have outlined our modern day title of liberty.
It is unfortunate that companies such as Disney and Pixar are beginning to propagate agendas of a maleficent nature, though for their sakes likely without knowing it, when they have promoted so much good in the past. Here is yet another example of something good being pushed to an extreme. The Adversary apparently finds it best to start them believing in such perversion while they’re still young. Roger Ebert noted that WALL-E “involves ideas… not simply mindless scenarios… It involves a little work on the part of the audience, and a little thought, and might be especially stimulating to younger viewers” [4]. It’s precisely the access this message has to children that I’m worried about.
(The author, Bryce Haymond, is the editor of TempleStudy.com, a blog dedicated to sustaining and defending the LDS temple by comparative studies of religious worship found around the world and throughout history.)
Notes:
1. http://deseretnews.com/movies/review/1,5208,480000976,00.html
2. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wall_e/
3. http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0372784
4. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/REVIEWS/963071290
5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies–theyre-eco-friendly.html
6. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html
Excellent review of both the movie (which I hated for the reasons you discuss), and the article in the daily mail, which made my stomach turn.
It would not surprise me if the oil debacle is being artificially created by those in power positions who are worshiping the god of this world
Explain to me what you think is happening…are the major oil producers (Saudis, Russians, Venezuelans, Nigerians, Iranians, etc.) getting together to limit the supply in order to help the cause of Al Gore? Or perhaps you think some people are secretly buying up the oil and storing it somewhere? I don’t quite understand your theory.
You are correct that it is a bit of a puzzle why oil prices have risen so sharply so fast. I just have a hard time understanding how it could be some sort of environmentalist or socialist conspiracy. It seems more likely to have to do with rising demand coupled with a desire by those that own the oil to get as much money for it as possible.
I have heard estimates that the world’s oil preserves are enough to serve all energy needs for decades, yet we are seeing today the effects of shortages in supply. Why?
If the reserves (not preserves) were really going to run out in decades, doesn’t it make sense that the price should start rising NOW, so that the oil doesn’t just suddenly run out all at once one day in the future.
Tell me, how would YOU determine what the correct price of oil should be? Remember that at each point in time, supply must equal demand in the market.
It is truly disappointing and shows how unhinged some on the right have gotten that they cannot accept the message of a beautiful movie like this for what it is. It seems that it has touched a raw nerve, and people like Bryce ought to think why.
Mr. Andrew Stanton (who wrote WALL-E) is no newcomer to messages in his film. Take Finding Nemo, which fairly strongly makes a message against fishing. Where is the outrage there? The outrage against WALL-E is that those like Bryce, have been fighting against changing our lifestyles to protect the planet we live on and would prefer to be on the Axiom. So it touches a raw nerve. It is too bad that you let such a message get to you, Bryce. It is a mere gentle reminder. It doesn’t whack you over the head like a sledgehammer. Just chalk it off as a nice rebuke to our over-consuming society and move on.
I don’t like messages in films. Period. Didn’t like the anti-fishing message in Nemo, didn’t like the old-time American message in Cars. And I don’t need Pixar to preach to me about the environment. I watch movies for entertainment, not sociopolitical messages.
The movie is anti-rampant-consumerism, but I don’t know how you got from Wall-E to people having abortions to save the planet.
Why are you still watching Pixar movies Tossman? They’ve all had messages, it seems like you would have given up by now.
Don’t forget Toy Story and its message. Save the Toys!!!
Tossman,
What is your favorite film?
Thank you for your thought provoking post Bryce,
What my kids got from WALL-E was, “Don’t be a lazy bum all day!” (exact quote from daughter #1 ten years old) We had discussions about what too much TV, junk food, lying around (while a robot i.e. your Mom waits on you), and making a big mess is not good for our bodies, our minds or our world. Active living (like gardening), cleaning up your junk, and not having too much junk (food and stuff) and taking resposibility for yourself is better for your life and the world.
Thanks, Bryce.
I was turned off by the message. I think it would have been possible to make a movie like this without the environmental evangelism that pervades it.
Nice action, good animation; but the “humans are destroying the earth and corporations aren’t helping” did not please me.
I believe the reason why people are so upset with environmentalism is because it is taking the shape of a sort of totalitarian, intolerant, and irrational movement. Any movement that causes such incredible ideas as abortions to the save the planet must be addressed and about which one must be very wary.
I find it interesting that such indoctrination takes place, especially towards kids, without any protest, but anything with a Christian or conservative message to kids is usually derided and condemned.
We have a mandate to care for the earth, indeed, but in ways that magnify our potential and the potential of the earth.
You know Dan, it is freaking me out that I actually agree with you
Wow. I thought that rejection of materialism and stewardship of the earth were messages taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and by the prophets.
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
Maybe you should read the whole post, Mike.
This is a joke, right? Suggesting that abortion is somehow a cornerstone of environmentalism is ludicrous. Picking extreme examples of behavior to define a movement is just poor reasoning. Your utter disregard for very real and serious issues facing our planet is sad.
No joke.
JA Benson,
I’m not an extremist. We will probably agree on many things. Just not some, er, more hot topics.
First, I believe that God is in control. All of these discussions about environmentalism and saving the planet seem to completely ignore Him who made the earth. Yes, we can damage it, but He is not impotent.
Second, various people have begun attributing to a seemingly all-powerful entity (Climate Change, pollution, whatnot) what are properly the doings and power of God (weather, earthquakes, etc.). We “blame” such things on AGC rather than consider Him who has done these.
This ignoring of God is a very serious matter. This is but one way to elevate humanity and obscure God.
Third, various environmentalists and anti-materialists ignore why materialism and pollution can be bad. The prophets and apostles are very clear as to why these are bad: materialism is bad because it is the love of money rather than the love of God. It is a form of idolatry. Pollution is bad because it spoils the gift God gave us, which is the earth. But because some have transformed materialism and pollution into evil per se, the other issues behind them suffer. Being industrious helps people achieve a higher standard of living and equip people with the ability to help those around them better and more.
Notice that it is not money that is the root of all evil but rather the love of money that is.
By stifling trade, industry, innovation, and other forces of materialism and capitalism, we stifle the progress of humanity. The progress of humanity means more tools to spread the Gospel and build up Zion.
I think an excellent exposition of these issues is Approaching Zion by Br. Nibley.
The reason we bring up “abortion to save the planet” is because it reveals a widespread and pernicious mindset. They elevate the planet above humanity. They pervert the purposes and institutions of God to serve Gaia. To use somewhat religious terminology (which is apropos to this issue): they fetishize the planet. It becomes a god to them, and environmentalism becomes a religion. These are spiritual perils which we must be very wary of.
We must never forget why the earth was created to begin with: it was created for us, for humans, for the children of God.
So you actually believe that persons who abort their babies in the name of “going green” define the larger environmentalist movement? And that the creators of WALL-E, because they communicate an eco-friendly message in their film, are linked to these women who abort their children?
Muslihoon, if you think Hugh Nibley advocated unrestrained capitalism, you might want to try reading him a little closer.
By stifling trade, industry, innovation, and other forces of materialism and capitalism, we stifle the progress of humanity.
Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”
Muslihoon, if you think Hugh Nibley advocated unrestrained capitalism, you might want to try reading him a little closer.
What I meant is that Br. Nibley criticized capitalism and materialism for the right reasons, putting them into perspective and context. We should follow his reasoning and exhortations rather than the world’s, because the world’s reasoning and perspective are false.
Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”
Absolutely. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And all opposed to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.
So you actually believe that persons who abort their babies in the name of “going green” define the larger environmentalist movement? And that the creators of WALL-E, because they communicate an eco-friendly message in their film, are linked to these women who abort their children?
Do women who abort their babies betray the fact they place the planet above humanity? Yes.
Do many other environmentalists put planet above humanity? Yes.
Are women who abort for the planet the norm? No. But this shows how far such reasoning can go, as well as betraying in a more clear way just how much planet is placed above humanity.
Atrocities have been committed under the guise of “progress.”
Absolutely. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And all opposed to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.
I was thinking more along the lines of Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren, as well as Reagan and the Bushes.
All of whom, of course, were/are devoted to trade, innovation, materialism, and capitalism.
Bryce, you are the one who is overly sensitive to message.
The story tellers here took normal environmental concerns and inflated them in order to tell a story. B&N the only store? Sky scrapers of garbage? These are obvious exaggerations in order to propel a story and provide some context and humor. Do you honestly believe the film makers see this as the future of earth? If anything I think they were tweaking the environmentalists.
I would say you missed the message of the movie because you were caught up in your own militant anti-environmentalism.
You missed the message of the movie because you were caught up in your own militant anti-environmentalism.
The polarity being expressed here is fascinating, isn’t it? Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
A friendly note from the UK: the Daily Mail is a national joke, well known for taking extreme examples (an environmentalist had an abortion) and whipping people up into a frenzy (the environmentalists want abortions!).
Muslihoon,
Second, various people have begun attributing to a seemingly all-powerful entity (Climate Change, pollution, whatnot) what are properly the doings and power of God (weather, earthquakes, etc.). We “blame” such things on AGC rather than consider Him who has done these.
This paragraph of yours got me thinking. I’ve often wondered how the events of the last days wouldn’t be obvious for everyone to see and correctly interpret as the signs of the times. But if secular society has something else to blame all extreme natural disasters on (Global Warming) then they will have an excuse to continue to disbelieve.
***
Going back to the main thread topic… Whether you dislike the message behind this movie in particular or not, it’s a good reminder that creators of entertainment do have the ability to interject their own personal beliefs into their movies or books, giving them a powerful voice that they would not otherwise have. So consider carefully who you give money to, remember that you are helping build their soapbox. Support those who will share positive messages to society.
Bryce, ignore the nay-sayers. Your post is right on.
I will add, however, that I didn’t have any problem with some messages in the movie. Our consumerist society is problematic. We are growing fatter and lazier as a people (just watch the average body type in a 1930s movie and compare to today — it’s just like that scene in Wall-E when you see a thin first captain, and the captains get fatter and more useless over time).
I also liked the fact that it is the humans who have to go back to Earth to re-create their planet — there are messages of optimism there.
But, having said all that, the environmentalist extremist message in Wall-E was repellant. Anybody who has spent any time around environmental extremists knows there are many of them who are also against child-bearing in general (the world has too many people already, according to them). It seems obvious to me that for many people environmentalism IS a false religion with its own themes of the coming apocalypse, Messiahs and saviors and sin and redemption.
So, overall, Bryce, good, timely post.
Left-leaning orthodoxy is kind of a given in filmmaking nowadays–and as frustrating as it is, if the film is good overall, in spite of whatever socio-political message it may tout, it will live beyond that “message.” Think of something like “Bambi.” While it pegs man as the enemy of the forest, the story is about much more than that–and will live for generations to come because of it’s beautiful treatment of the more timeless elements of love, life, coming of age, and so forth.
For those who doubt a direct link between environmental extremism and population control, including abortion (especially the snarky Julie M. Smith who linked to this article with an inaccurate title at T&S), I recommend some reading:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/62157/
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Ecoterrorism.htm
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/press/phoenix2.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819809/posts
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000302.shtml
If all else fails, people who still doubt a link between environmental extremism may want to visit China, which still has a one-child policy and still justifies forced sterilization and abortion as part of its effort to “save the environment.”
WALLE is not environmentalist propaganda as much as both sides of the
debate want it to be! It is an apocalyptic science fiction story made
in our time. Certainly it is telling that the apocalypse our culture
most identifies with is an ecological one, but it does not affect the
message of the movie! The main social message, if you feel compelled
to look for one, is that consumerism and self-centered technological
fantasy worlds are destroying our social structure and taking away our
humanity. The ecological apocalypse is not even the main apocalypse of
the movie. It is merely the vehicle that gets us to the more
disastrous social one. The fact that the passengers of the Axiom get
excited about farming and taking care of the Earth again in the end of
the movie is significant in that they are taking responsibility for
anything instead of existing in their monotonous, unnoticing worlds
and barely propaganda for some great church of environmentalism. This
is a film about humanity and the joy of life that is influenced – as
are all films – by some common sensibilities of its day. That is all.
Please do not be distracted by the environmental influences. WALLE’s message is much better and more important than simple propaganda. It is a reminder to not get distracted from the things that make us human and therefore make life worth living – like love, wonder, responsibility.
Dan,
I know that you are not an extremist. I am.
Bryce,
My wife and I loved your post. You are a great writer, no matter what subject you are treating. I have been very disappointed with some of the commenters here. I want to tell them to just wake up and stop being deceived so easily. This brings to mind Eph 4:14:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This is the reason we have modern prophets and the Church–to help us not to be deceived.
Some have blown out of proportion the great point you made about people (in this case a woman) who take these ideologies too far–to the point that that woman had an abortion to “save the planet.” This is no exaggeration. I have met people that sincerely believe that they are doing the world a favor by having no children. This “extreme” idea is not a rarity these days. “Zero population” has been an influential and persuasive argument among these people for decades. It is amusing to me that people think they will be helping the world by having no children–but they are saving it for whom if there will be no children to inherit it? I can understand making the world a better place for future generations, but the idea that having no children will help anything is certainly inspired by Satan.
Although we haven’t yet seen Wall-E, it is clear that it is just another page in this same book. I have noticed, as well, that more and more Disney (and others) movies are going this direction. Happy Feet is a good example.
To conclude, I just wanted to share a prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith, saying that “the time would come when none but the women of the Latter-day Saints would be willing to bear children” (Young Woman’s Journal, Nov. 1890, 81).
Again, we need to wake up and pay attention to what it is we are believing in.
Thanks again, Bryce!
David
Luke, you make a good point (the same point I was trying to make above, but you make it more convincingly), but the environmental extremism is there also.
Luke,
That was lovely.
Reigning with “blood and horror on this earth” always seemed a more obvious stab at Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, and the like rather than Greenpeace.
Environmentalism = abortions?
Are you freaking nuts?
Seth R. Thanks for proving my point.
Geoff, China’s “One-Child” policy was not even remotely about “saving the environment.”
It was about preventing an out of control population explosion from destabilizing the POLITICAL order and throwing Chairman Mao out of power. Saying Red China was a “bunch of environmentalists” is giving them entirely too much credit.
And yes, I know that there are ideologues out there that have linked population control, abortion, environment, and heaven knows what else. That doesn’t make abortion the “cornerstone” of modern environmentalism. Nor does it make Bryce’s post any less cartoonish.
It was also rather classy how he remarks in the post at 11:41 AM that the polarization he stirred up evidences people choosing “mamon over God.”
Can you tell me something Geoff? What exactly distinguishes that kind of comment from the nonsense Gary Lawrence just wrote for Meridian Magazine? Obviously, according to Bryce, if we support environmental agendas, we’re a bunch of pro-abortion folk who love mamon more than God. Really?
No wonder people in Utah get so pissed-off anytime someone suggests draining Lake Powell or closing off ATV access. They think they’re a “baby murderer.” Fascinating and pathetic statement on how conservative Mormons have managed to polarize affairs and demonize those who disagree with them.
Who’s ruling with “blood and horror” here?
For those who seem to have missed it the first time in my post:
I agree so far as to say that environmental issues are politicized by extreme groups (on both sides). However, your claim that Wall-E is part of a scheme “to reign with blood and horror” is just another example of extremity. Do you also suggest that we retract “For the Beauty of the Earth” from the hymnbook?
While Latter-day Prophets have not said “go green or perish,” they have frequently exhorted us to be good Earth stewards. The Church is practicing what it preaches….the City Creek Development in SLC is a “green” development. THE LDS CHURCH IS GREEN! Don’t believe me? Check out this press releasefrom the Church. Don’t forget to listen to the audio clips.
Why no mention of the clear biblical parallels in this movie?
The main female is named EVE, for heaven’s sake!
They bring back a plant (an olive branch?) to show that the earth is once more habitable!
It just seems funny that people are so anti-environmental that all they see is the environmental message…and they miss everything else.
Also, those of you who don’t like the movie…how do you like Bambi? Just curious.
Bryce, if there are two environmental movements: one Godly one (as you mention in your 3:37 pm comment), and one Satanic one (pro-abortion, etc), then couldn’t Wall-E just as easily be associated with the Godly one as the Satanic one? It’s not really clear why, of those two options that even you concede exist, you chose to put Wall-E in with the dark side.
Wall-E doesn’t explicitly promote abortion, I think we can agree on that! And I don’t think Wall-E promotes the idea that human presence on the Earth is an unqualified bad thing for the environment either. The movie clearly says that humans returning to the Earth (as wise stewards this time) is a good thing.
One reason why I don’t participate on online discussion boards anymore is the complete and total lack of logic and reason exhibited by people who ought to know better. I detest the “sky is falling” Chicken Little-ism of the modern hypochondriac environmentalist movement, where man is the parasite rather than the paragon of the environment. I am hoping rather for a return to the more moderate environmentalism of Muir and Bartram.
Bryce’s reasonings are consistent, well thought out, and appropriate.
Environmentalism is being turned into a god of its own. After all, Al Gore has already been called a “prophet” by people whose hearts get all a-flitter when he speaks. Um, yeah.
Yes, the scriptures counsel us to be good stewards. The scriptures also say that there is “enough and to spare” when it comes to both room for humans and food and natural resources.
And I think it is wise and intellectually healthy to question the motives of those that compete for our time and attention.
Bryce’s original post is one of the most extreme and irrational reactions to Wall-E I’ve read anywhere. Here’s a funny, clever and imaginative family movie (how many movies has anyone seen that can entertain so well with no dialog for 40 minutes?), yet he finds hidden, sinister motivations behind it.
The only post more ridiculous was Geoff’s suggesting that the Chinese one-child policy was based on “environmental extremism.” Beyond the factual error, would Geoff prefer having three billion people in China today? Historically, populations have been kept in check through famine and war. Is that preferable to limiting families to one child? It’s a little myopic for someone in the U.S. to complain about how the Chinese deal with their unique problems.
This tendency to seek for (and infer) evil motivations behind even the uplifting and joyful aspects of modern culture is one aspect of LDS culture that is both unbecoming and off-putting to outsiders. If you think Wall-E is a negative commentary on humanity, you haven’t read much of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the other early prophets–or even Spencer W. Kimball–all of whom expressed much harsher criticism of the human impact on the environment and the foolishness and short-sightedness of materialism.
It’s a travesty that LDS aren’t leading the environmental movement. Had we done so–and no other religion has canonized reverence for the Earth that compares with ours–we wouldn’t have a handful of prominent environmentalists who do advocate a steady-state or declining human population (a tenet of deep ecology, btw). But instead, we LDS have largely rejected environmentalism, conservation, and preservation in favor of rabid consumerism. Bryce gives a weak nod to “dominion” and “stewardship” as if to appear balanced, but where is the harm in showing an ultimate outcome of our society’s focus on materialism and consumerism?
If anything, Wall-E teaches reverence for life and deep appreciation for the Earth as home for humanity. It’s a wonderful family movie that can be ruined only by twisted interpretations that reflect the interpreter’s mindset, not the filmmakers’ objectives.
Reading these comments has ruined my day. Troubling, very troubling. “All we like sheep, have gone astray…”
I have to say that I totally disagree. I don’t think the message was heavy handed or even an environmental one. It was a love story, and a story about an individual spirit (albeit a robot one) The move makers needed to get the humans off the planet, and an overabundance of trash was a great way to do it.
It reminds me of the time I wrote about a short story about an underground candy rebellion in a elementary school, and some people decided that it was an allegory for the legalization of drugs. No, it was just about candy.
Dave,
Click your heels together three times and repeat “there’s no place like home.”
With therapy, you may come to forgive us one day.
David,
I think it’s awesome that a cartoon can offend you so much and that a few comments defending anti-consumerism/anti-pollution on a blog can ruin your day. And thank you for making my day just that much better.
Bryce,
Your nod to “stewardship” was indeed weak, especially when followed up by “Satan loves to take things that are good and turn them bad.” It’s like saying “I’m sorry that you got offended” is an apology. Please tell us your environmental stance and what you personally are doing to make sure that we don’t flippantly overrun, overpollute and care less for this inferior earth. I’m sincerely interested in your answer.
And FWIW, LDSus is exactly right about the Church moving toward a sustainable future. With different subsidiaries (ranches, businesses, etc.) they are putting into place measures that eliminate pollution, waste and that which degrades the earth. I don’t think they are doing it “to save the earth” per se, I think it’s more about becoming self-sustainable, but the end result is the same. Hey, different strokes for different folks, but it makes me wonder why we can’t all hold hands and agree that pollution and waste is bad, let’s do everything we can to eliminate it rather than associating abortionists with those who want to recycle.
How many of us give more than a “weak nod” to our scriptures? Do we really believe “all is well” in the world, and that even the most seraphic productions from Babylon might not harbor false pretexts? Extreme naivete is what worries me.
David sweetie, go see the movie please! You need to have a dog in the hunt before you condemn us all as having gone astray!
Seth R. I agree with you about China. Having been to China (like many of you) and I can testify that the air and water are so polluted you can smell it. The water is a danger to drink. We were told to brush your teeth with bottled water; and while in the shower to keep your mouth and eyes closed. It it laughable that China would have a environmental concern for anything.
They have done nothing but rape and pillage the land for last 60 or so years.
As a mama to one of the victims of the one-child policy. The policy was ordered by Deng Xaioping. It was all about government control and resources because of the environmental catastrophes under Mao.
William F. Buckley observed that that conservative people are sometimes their own worst enemies and inflict more damage on their own cause than anybody else, simply because they make such poor arguments in the worst possible ways. The circular firing squad appears to be fully operational here as well.
Since when does being conservative mean we need to have giant chips on our shoulders and imitate Kos in our methods? The desire to score points and gratuitously offend, and the apparent compulsion to reach for the most extreme examples to buttress an already poor arguments are the worst parts of political discourse today, and this post could serve as exhibit A.
I think we weren’t meant to see the humans as gluttonous slobs, but as babies. They all wore onesies, all their food was pureéd, their proportions were closer to that of babies than cartoonishly fat people, they couldn’t walk, and every time they showed the state of the adults they showed a group of actual infants to compare with (note that they never showed children or the elderly except in advertisements). Also all of the humans were lovable sympathetic characters, each one was curious, friendly, genial- really their only flaw was their (understandable) boredom and helplessness. I don’t think this movie was misanthropic at all.
I would say that this movie showed what happens when we disregard our stewardship and flippantly overrun, over-pollute, and fail to care for the earth.
I saw the movie recently too, and I thought the satire of undisciplined, self-gratifying people was worthwhile. We do need to consume and waste and pollute less.
I didn’t get alarmed about environmentalism from this movie like you did. I was more distracted by how dumb the storytelling was in many aspects, how unconvincing the world-making was and how internally inconsistent and illogical the story was compared to real Pixar successes like the two Toy Stories, Invincibles, and Finding Nemo. I don’t get why everyone likes this obnoxious, unsatisfying movie so much, even though I do admit it LOOKS great.
The movie aside, I do think that environmentalism becomes a replacement for true religion for the secular world, in a similar way as I think gay rights is becoming a counterfeit moral crusade for that same crowd. Neither one will end well for our civilization.
Rusty,
My environmental stance is that God has given us this world to live on. He has given us dominion over it, not subordination under it. We are sons and daughters of God, not an animal species that must be kept in check. He has given us a stewardship to take care of everything that He has placed on the earth, but also authority to use the resources of the earth for our progression. We’ve been granted the “fullness of the earth,” including the right to use plants and animals for food and raiment, the wood of the forests for homes and workplaces, the expanse of land for growing and cultivating (even oil!), the fruit of the field for sustenance, and everything else upon the earth which was expressly made “for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul” (D&C 59:16–19). I don’t think any modern environmentalist would repeat these words of the Lord. All these things were given to man for his use, but “not to excess, neither by extortion” (D&C 59:20).
How do I not use God’s resources in excess? My family only owns one car. I live in a condominium complex and share the resources of water, land, landscaping, and amenities with my 135 neighbors. The last computer I bought was in 2002. The last phone I bought was in 2004. We buy clothing for our children at a second-hand store, and other used goods off of Craigslist or Freecycle. We buy our food by ingredient at the supermarket and limit our fastfood outings to once or twice a week. I have not bought a new shirt, new pants, or new shoes for years. I often skip lunch altogether. My wife sells used books on Half.com. Our daughter’s clothes and toys will be recycled for our future children. My wife has sewed toys and drapes from scrap. I promote biodegradable, recyclable, and earth-friendly products as the Design Manager at a company in Provo. In fact, we are planning on launching a “green” line of products for 2009. I often wear a T-shirt from Simplehuman which says simply, “RECYCLE.” Basically, my family tries to consume the least amount possible, reuse whatever we can, and clean up after ourselves. I think we’re doing a pretty good job of taking care of the earth while keeping our appetites and passions for our earthly stewardship within the bounds the Lord has set. Efforts to “save the earth” much further than this, I believe, is looking beyond the mark (Jacob 4:14).
Interesting to note the large amount of ad hominems but the extremely small amount of actual factual, logical arguments. A lot of scoffing took place about the environmental movement’s link to population control — my response was to provide actual evidence that it is taking place. The scoffers responded with more scorn but no actual facts. Yes, by their fruits ye shall know them.
Whether by deliberate distortion or perhaps, more charitably, by a simple lack of understanding, several people mentioned my discussion of China’s one-child policy. My words were the following:
“If all else fails, people who still doubt a link between environmental extremism may want to visit China, which still has a one-child policy and still justifies forced sterilization and abortion as part of its effort to “save the environment.” ”
Note the word “still.” China’s policy is decades old and indeed was instituted for different reasons. But if you go to China today, you will note that it is justified today by the corrupt leadership as part of China’s attempt to “protect the environment” by preventing overpopulation. This despite the fact that demographic trends show China’s population will begin to decrease in the next few decades. Yes, it’s easy to justify the abortions and forced sterilizations that have taken place in China — if you are a fascist leader. But those of us with an understanding of the gospel should recognize the people in China have just as much right as we do to come to Earth and receive a body — and the parents should have just as much right to have children. It’s a sad commentary when people justify fratricide.
Bryce has good reason for concern. It is not a leap of logic to consider that out-of-control environmentalism and abortion are closely linked. The article Bryce quoted clearly shows that.
Here’s how the so-called “leap of logic” goes:
“The earth is being destroyed by human beings.”
ergo
“Fewer people on the earth will result in a decline in the destruction of the earth.”
There, that wasn’t such a large leap, right?
Well, at least not in the minds of people who are taking their cause over the top.
Look, there are definite signs that the environmentalist movement of today is following the same path that Hitler followed. Hitler used as his excuse for killing millions of Jews the “fact” that they were harming civilization by being alive. But he didn’t just wake up one morning and say “Let’s kill six million Jews.” It first started with the idea that society wasn’t progressing because of the mentally retarded, defective children, the elderly, and the handicapped. Subtract that element of society and you will have a healthy, productive, and robust work force that will never be sick and can never be conquered. Then there were the other “mongrel races” (illegal or not) who created drag on national ideals. Oh, and let’s not forget the Jews who started to get in the way because, according to Hitler, they controlled the economy of Western European nations. So, let’s add them to the mix.
Pretty soon you have a recipe for genocide at the hands of elitists who are just trying to do the best thing for the world.
The same signs are appearing in the environmental movement, which is often closely linked with zero population movements, which are inextricably linked with the abortion movement. Put those together and you start to see a clear agenda. Read the article Bryce quoted and it becomes glaringly obvious that the intended message is getting through to the sheeple.
Never mind about the immorality of murdering someone. It’s okay because it helps save the planet. But what is particularly hypocritical about this philosophy is that they feel free to use their freed-up resources to go gallivanting across the world, not taking notice of the carbon dioxide they’re still spewing into the atmosphere in their travels.
Don’t human beings who are fortunate enough to make it through the birth canal breathe out lots of CO2? What, then, would stop the elite high priests of this new environmental religion, and their government stooges, from performing cleansing rituals, sacrificing to Gaia all that profanes her and returning them to the earth from whence they came? Wouldn’t that be the Final Solution to trump all solutions?
Sleep tight.
That woman who aborted her child for environmental reasons and now travels the world…
Do any of you actually think she did it for environmental reasons? It sounds to me like she didn’t want the hassle of a child…she wanted to travel, and a child would’ve made that much more difficult.
I think that sometimes people make false claims for why they do things.
Another note: If any of you have studied biology, you will know that an ecosystem can only hold so many members of a species. China has a huge number of people, and they have big problems with having such a big population, especially with water supply. I’m not saying I support their one-child law, but had it not been enacted, there is a very good possibility that millions would have died of starvation.
Right-wing magazine American Conservative goes after conservative critics of WALL-E with insight:
“The only evils of mankind portrayed [in the film] are those that come about from losing touch with our own humanity. Staples of small-town conservative life such as the small farm, the ‘atomic family,’ and old-fashioned and wholesome entertainment like ‘Hello, Dolly’ are looked upon by the suddenly awakened humans as beautiful and desirable. By steering conservative families away from WALL-E, these commentators are doing their readers a great disservice.”
http :// http://www.amconmag.com/ blog/ 2008/ 06/ 30/ wall-es-conservative-critics/
(Remove the spaces from the URL above)
Bryce’s post is proof positive that today’s social conservatives have to go looking for enemies under every rock and behind every tree.
I took my three kids (ages 12, 9, and 4) to see WALL-E, and I thought the message of anti-consumerism and anti-laziness was right on target.
Somehow I missed the hidden plug for greater access to abortion.
I have a dream….that one day Latter Day Saints will come to a unity of the faith. One day.
One day.
@Tim: I agree with you on your first point, but vehemently disagree with you on the second. By reducing its population China created a generational vacuum that it is now trying to compensate for by — tada! — destroying the environment in an attempt to rapidly increase its GDP for the sake of caring for its old people with fewer workers.
Japan, for the same reasons as China (reduced family policies) is suffering a population meltdown. Why is Japan so famously good at robotics? Few realize that, in part, it’s because they’re trying to compensate for the complete lack of two generations of health care workers, who were never born, so as to bathe, feed, and care for the elderly.
Anyone think it’d be fun to be carried from your bed to the toilet by a robot? Or fed by “My Spoon”.
Raise of hands?
“Somehow I missed the hidden plug for greater access to abortion.”
That’s because, no offense intended, you’re the proverbial frog boiling in its own pot. Messages such as the ones that elite zero populationists want to foist over on the public cannot be so overt as to be advertised on billboards and TV commercials saying things like “Abortion really is a good solution to the world’s environmental problems. Just kill everyone who produces carbon dioxide and, problem solved. More land and posessions for those of us who can be trusted with them. Trust us. We know what’s best for you.”
Nope, when evil works, it works in subtle ways, slowly leading us down a primrose path of apathy until we get to a point where it’s too late to reverse course. We human beings are pretty good at recognizing outright acts of evil as just that, evil.
What we’re not so good at is recognizing the patterns that led an individual, group, or society to commit those acts…until it’s too late.
I have a dream….that one day Latter Day Saints will come to a unity of the faith. One day.
One day.
And your attempt at acheiving said unity is to insult those Latter-day Saints’ opinions with whom you disagree on environmental issues as made up of “complete and total lack of logic and reason” and labeling them “hypochondriac environmentalist[s]“? Interesting formula for unity.
Actually, millions did die of starvation already in China under Mao. In Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, a pretty depressing book, filled with stories of Mao’s deceit and treachery, on can read all about Mao’s disregard for science and the environment.
Around 1958, while Mao is starving his people while exporting grain to the Soviet Union in exchange for arms and other military and industrial assistance, the following absurd episode takes place:
“One day it hit Mao that a good way to keep food safe would be to get rid of sparrows as they ate grain. He designated sparrows as one of “Four Pests” to be eliminated, along with rats, mosquitoes and flies, and mobilised the entire population to wave sticks and brooms and make a giant din to scare sparrows off landing so that they would fall from fatigue and be caught and killed by the crowds. There was much to be said for eradicating the other three, which were genuine pests, though one side-effect was that whatever slight privacy people had once had in performing their bodily functions disappeared, as eager fly-collectors loitered in droves at public lavatories.
But the case for eliminating sparrows was not so clear-cut, as sparrows got rid of many pests, as well as eating grain — and, needless to say, many other birds died in the killing spree. Pests once kept down by sparrows and other birds now flourished, with catastrophic results. Pleas from scientists that the ecological balance would be upset were ignored.
It was not long before a request from the Chinese government marked “Top Secret” reached the Soviet embassy in Peking. In the name of socialist internationalism, it read, please send us 200,000 sparrows from the Soviet far east as soon as possible. Mao had to accept that his anti-sparrow drive was counter-productive, and it gradually petered out.
North Korea’s Kim Il Sung turned out to be less stupid than Mao on this issue. Mao had pressed him to emulate China’s anti-sparrow campaign. To humour Mao, Kim drafted a “3-Year Plan for Punishing Sparrows,” but then did nothing while he watched to see how Mao’s campaign turned out.”
Bryce,
I appreciate your response as well as your sincere effort to reduce waste and excess. And I gotta tell ya that I was with you for almost your entire comment (I would, in fact, repeat those scriptures), but then you had to throw in that last sentence and ruin everything. In it you seem to be indicating that the line you have drawn is the only reasonable line, and that anything more (or less) than that is “looking beyond the mark.” Not only is it silly to argue that your lines are the only reasonable ones, but it is also shows your lack of understanding about the direction the Church is moving as well as ways in which we can all be more self-sustainable (something the Church desires of us).
For instance: let’s assume I’m doing all of those things that you are, but that I want to add solar panels to my roof. Not only am I using a renewable resource that helps reduce pollution, but it also puts me in a position to be both more self-sustainable (not relying on the city grid) and puts more money in my pocket (after the savings have paid off the cost of the panels). Is that “beyond the mark?” How about installing a bamboo floor (rapidly renewable) rather than hardwood? Is this decision beyond the mark? Does a desire to use sustainable resources rather than polluting/wasteful ones put me in the extreme category? I’m being completely sincere with these questions. I am just having a hard time getting past the “sure we should look after the earth, anything more than what I’ve done is extreme” thing.
Again I’ll ask, if this kind of environmentalism is acceptable, why isn’t Wall-E’s environmentalism acceptable? What is the difference? It seems to me that the movie is in line with what you describe as the right approach. It shows humans as necessary to the vitality of Earth. Earth is a dull, void and profoundly not-fulfilling-its-purpose place without the humans, who return to nurture it back to health at the end of the movie. This is a bad thing? I really don’t get it.
Actually, “Christopher”, I gave up on online civil discourse a long time ago. However, in a debate, there is nothing wrong with making an statement that you find certain arguments lacking in logic or sophistication. It’s part of having a debate.
I’m sorry if you consider yourself to be a hypochondriac environmentalist. I really didn’t intend for my comment to bite you so personally.
There has always been a certain amount of despair in the world, especially in times of war, famine, plague, and disaster. There have always been some who are so horrified by the state of the world that they convince themselves that it would be wrong to bring a child into the world. Just look at the warped doctrines of the Cathars in the 12th century.
This impulse has a very long history in humanity, long before the environmental movement came on the scene. Aside from a few extremists, most environmentalists recognize that it will be future generations that achieve the technological breakthroughs that allow for the solution to seemingly intractable problems (which doesn’t mean that the current generation shouldn’t be doing its utmost in that regard). Optimism has always been the better bet.
I was glad to hear some of that optimism from the Governor of Utah earlier today:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9871278
and I’m relieved that regardless of the outcome this November, some optimistic sanity will return to the white house.
I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy behind what you’re saying, but in this case, it’s a litte misapplied. I read a really great interview with Andrew Stanton about WALL-E at Christianity Today, that shows the film ISN’T about the false religion of environmentalism. Here is the link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/andrewstanton.html
Rusty, any unrealistic, zealous, disproportionate, overly concerned, and often more expensive, action we take to believe we’re “saving the planet” belongs to the religion of environmentalism, I believe. You clearly believe otherwise. But I don’t believe in it. I believe the Lord wants us to focus our efforts and means elsewhere. The supposed “present danger” to our world is, I believe, largely fabricated for political ends.
Sister, WALL-E depicts humans as having destroyed the earth, and only after having left it for several hundred years are able to return. That is the utter extreme of our modern environmentalism ideology. The only reason the earth is a dull, void, and unfulfilling place is because the humans have altogether wrecked it. I believe the environmentalists want to scare us into believing that this is the very real future of our planet unless we buy into their religion and propaganda. It’s a remarkable deception.
Bryce,
But you didn’t answer my question. Would solar panels be “looking beyond the mark?”
I’m still not clear in how you determine what is “unrealistic, zealous, disproportionate, overly concerned and…more expensive” and with what reasonable measuring stick I am to measure my own actions to your response. In other words, how do I (and everyone else) get lined up with your definition of “unrealistic, zealous, et al?”
Mike Parker, did you miss the comments of Greg Pollowitz, Shannen Coffin, and Kyle Smith in your “conservative” link?
Rusty,
“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” -Joseph Smith (cf. D&C 58:26)
Your review reminded me of this one by Gennady Stolyarov.
Bryce, I appreciate the “looking beyond the mark” idea, idolatry, all that. I also like Elder Oaks Ensign article on “Our Strengths Becoming Our Weaknesses.”
Fine.
The problem with your post, is where the rubber meets the road. Who is looking beyond the mark? If I believe that global warming is a scientific fact, does that mean I’m looking beyond the mark simply because I don’t share the same opinion you do? What if I liked Al Gores movie (never seen it)? Does that make me an idolater? Does that mean I like Al Gore more than Jesus?
It seems more like you define as “looking beyond the mark” anyone who doesn’t buy into the same political ideology you do.
So what if I believe that the earth is being irreparably damaged by human activity? That doesn’t mean I’m out there calling for the Church to put its “Redeem the Dead” focus on hold while it advocates an end to offshore drilling.
I mean, are Democrats capable of being good Mormons? Or are they all “looking beyond the mark” too?
It’s great that you remember Joseph Smith’s quote about correct principles and self-governance. But you then proceed to undermine those words in half the examples you are using to illustrate your point.
I love it when liberal Mormons bring up the old “are Democrats capable of being good Mormons” pastiche, as if anyone with a contrary-to-left-wing view somehow believes this automatically. Last time I checked, Harry Reid was still in “good standing” with the Church, despite his public profanity.
Bryce didn’t say anything about “Democrats” or “Republicans”. Bryce doesn’t strike me as a politically partisan kind of guy, anyway.
Oh, and lest I am accused of being an evil Republican, I’m actually a libertarian independent. So there.
Bryce,
Are you saying it is okay for Rusty to put up solar panels as long as he does it without thinking he is doing something positive for the environment and that the time spent installing them doesn’t suck up time that could be spent with his home teaching families? Is that the measuring stick?
Frankly I am humbled by the fact that we are living on this dirt clod which is being hurled around the sun at speeds I don’t comprehend. It makes complete sense to me that people become concerned about the state of the planet and the fragility of life, even if one has a traditional religious background. What does having dominion mean when one is dependent upon the thing one is to be dominating? I feel more like the flea on the dog’s back rather than its master.
Clearly one’s fears and concerns about the environment can be stifling. I think greater attention to the teaching of the spiritual aspect of caring for the earth is the antidote to this problem rather than the more common environmental rebuttals that are given in LDS circles. More discourse on the spiritual ethic of stewardship is needed. For religious or spiritually-minded people, the spiritual aspect of ecology, i.e. the interconnectedness of “things,” is apparent. If Deep Ecology has missed the mark with respect to stewardship, then we should offer an alternative.
This is about the oddest, most bizarre thread I have ever seen. It has literally become a parody of itself, and that’s pretty hard to do.
It started out with an indictment of people who cannot tell the difference between a political position and a religion, and now, as we poke about in the wreckage, we find mostly people who are defending a political position with a religious zealotry. It is the other side of the coin, but it is still the same coin.
We find just about everything a fanatic could wish for. Earnest calls to repentance, scripture quoting, boiling frogs, invocation of Godwin’s law, lamentations for the lack of unity in Zion, and The Final Solution. All this over the interpretation of a cartoon! Apparently, there is only one true and living way to see this.
I have only one request: In case many of you people ever are thinking about joining an online discussion where you will attempt to defend the church, please don’t. Seriously. You do more harm than good, and it is absolutely 100% guaranteed that you will damage the church and your efforts will be counter-productive.
To any people who are not LDS who find this blog post, please, give us another chance. Not all LDS people are like the one you see here.
“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”
Brilliant. Okay, so I’ve been taught the correct principles of stewardship over this earth and in my effort to govern myself I decide that solar panels is the best use of the resources (sun, technology, sustainable principles, etc.) God has given us. Now am I looking beyond the mark?
Mark IV,
I’m not defending environmentalism one way or the other. Honestly, I don’t feel like your environmental beliefs are really all that determinative of your status as a believing member. If you don’t believe in global warming, and take all those conservative positions liberals hate, I still don’t consider you to necessarily be “looking beyond the mark.”
Bryce does not seem willing to extend the same courtesy in the other direction however.
“To any people who are not LDS who find this blog post, please, give us another chance. Not all LDS people are like the one you see here.”
Translation: I want conservative Mormons to give up their bizarre beliefs in their silly ideals such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so that they can more conform to the politically correct notions that are all the rage today. Please help me convert them to a more liberal pathway and belief.
“I have only one request: In case many of you people ever are thinking about joining an online discussion where you will attempt to defend the church, please don’t. Seriously. You do more harm than good, and it is absolutely 100% guaranteed that you will damage the church and your efforts will be counter-productive.”
Have you seen my blog?
“To any people who are not LDS who find this blog post, please, give us another chance. Not all LDS people are like the one you see here.”
Ouch!
Cana,
Do you really think that most mainstream conservatives believe that the cartoon WALL-E is “maleficent” and that concern for the environment will lead to the future genocide of humanity? If so, I thank David Cameron that the political conservatism I espouse in the UK as a member of the Conservative Party seems to have nothing to do with the conservatism of which you are proud.
If you are right, then British and American conservatism have very little in common.
But I don’t think you are right.
BTW, Mark IV is a conservative.
Bryce,
He has given us a stewardship to take care of everything that He has placed on the earth, but also authority to use the resources of the earth for our progression. We’ve been granted the “fullness of the earth,” including the right to use plants and animals for food and raiment, the wood of the forests for homes and workplaces, the expanse of land for growing and cultivating (even oil!), the fruit of the field for sustenance, and everything else upon the earth which was expressly made “for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul” (D&C 59:16–19). I don’t think any modern environmentalist would repeat these words of the Lord. All these things were given to man for his use, but “not to excess, neither by extortion” (D&C 59:20).
If we are stewards, then we are accountable. How we use the resources of this earth has consequences. And frankly, right now, we are abusing this earth, badly. There will be consequences. If there are no consequences, there are no punishments. And if there are no punishments, there are no laws. And if there are no laws? You know the rest. Read 2 Nephi.
We are stewards of this earth, and we will be facing an accounting of why we have abused the resources of this planet.
Secondly, we truly have been abusing the resources. Look at the vehicles we have created here in America. What is the point of a Hummer? Is that really a vehicle we “need?” Of course not. It is therefore, excessive, and an abuse of the resources under our stewardship. There are plenty more examples, but it is quite clear that our society (and much of the world) is quite wasteful and not productive. We are consumers, not producers. Heck, we even call ourselves Consumers!
Finally, I am an environmentalist who will repeat those words of the Lord.
Rob,
“Somehow I missed the hidden plug for greater access to abortion.”
That’s because, no offense intended, you’re the proverbial frog boiling in its own pot. Messages such as the ones that elite zero populationists want to foist over on the public cannot be so overt as to be advertised on billboards and TV commercials saying things like “Abortion really is a good solution to the world’s environmental problems. Just kill everyone who produces carbon dioxide and, problem solved. More land and posessions for those of us who can be trusted with them. Trust us. We know what’s best for you.”
Huh, I seemed to have missed the message too. Can you please show us where in WALL-E is the message that we all should go aborting our children? Please, show us the light.
Excellent article by Gennady Stolyarov II from the Ludwig von Mises Institute about the other many egregious ideological errors in the film WALL-E. Thanks Connor!
For the record, as far as I can tell:
WallE – good movie about love amongst the robots
Abortions to save the world – really, really stupid idea
I find no relationship at all between the two topics. That is all.
Um, Bryce, it’s a story. Its reflection of our history and reality is meant to be tangential. In other words, who cares if it fails to reflect reality, it is a story.
From the Church website:
I see in WALL-E “inappropriate behaviors and viewpoints” and am speaking out against it.
Elder Ballard likewise warned in his October 2003 General Conference talk “Let Our Voices Be Heard“:
Dan, re: your question earlier, my favorite movie is probably The Bourne Identity.
My beef with the modern environmentalist movement is this: Any criticism of the movement itself is considered anti-environment.
I am not anti environment. I just can’t stand today’s environmentalist. The modern environmental movement, with its de facto religion and the holier-than-thou attitude of its minions, is misguided at best.
It’s also become a fad, which makes it even less attractive to me.
Bryce,
Still no answer?
Bryce,
If you could show me where Wall-E attacks religion, undermines family, or turns virtue into vice, I would be on board. Can you?
John,
Have you read my post?
Rusty, we believe that all mankind may worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. That includes you. If you believe installing solar panels is a correct and godly principle, then all the more power to you. [no pun intended]
Wow, if I didn’t have a good testimony, and if I believed this article was the actual opinion of the church, I’d consider removing my records from the church.
Fortunately, I do have a testimony. And I realize that this is in no way the church’s stand.
And Ballard was clearly focusing on morality and sex in media…I apologize if I fail to see where he talked about environmentalism, of all things.
Bryce, you’re still not answering the question. I didn’t ask if I think it is a correct and godly principle, I asked if you think it is. That’s what I’ve been trying to understand ever since you initially drew your lines in the sand at “what I’m doing is fine, but beyond that is looking beyond the mark.” Please, please, please tell me if you think installing solar panels is looking beyond the mark.
This is possibly the stupidest blog post I have ever read, at least among blogs that could be taken seriously.
I agree with David Larsen, I have a hard time seeing the logic on either side of the arguments here. Bryce wrote a an accurate, insightful review of this film. Ignoring the underlying message is naive. Bryce’s point about Satan taking something good and corrupting it applies to both the environmental movement and to capitalism. And his point with environmentalism being evil is this: no one should have the right to take away my choice or limit my freedom of choice. Yet, this is what extreme environmentalists want to do. They want to legislate what I can buy, what I can drive, whether or not I recycle, etc. They use hyperbole to exaggerate the state of our natural resources to excite participation in their misguided efforts. Whether or not I become a materialistic, gas guzzling, electronic junky or an environmentally conscious, resource preserving, steward should be entirely up to me. I will not and do not support the current environmental movement in this country and in the world because they want to take away that choice.
Rusty, apparently you’ve missed my point. But for your sake, I think for one to personally install solar panels on their home is prohibitively extravagant and excessive at this point in time, especially for someone in my economic standing. While it might be good for the environment (although I’m not sure why hydroelectric energy is not any more environmentally clean), in my opinion, it is currently looking beyond the mark. IMO. As soon as the Church starts installing solar panels on top of chapels and temples, I may change my mind.
Penny,
If I want my own personal tank, or nuclear missile, is that my choice?
If I want to marry another man (and I certainly don’t) is that my choice?
If I want to build a skyscraper in my nice suburban neighborhood, is that my choice?
Obviously, our choices aren’t entirely up to us. We have laws largely to protect people from other people’s actions.
The environmental movement is much the same.
Of course, anything good can be taken to an extreme. There are those who take environmentalism to extremes. I don’t, however, see that extreme in WALL-E (or, for that matter, in Bambi, The Iron Giant, or countless other quality cartoons).
Since when was environmentalism opposed to the doctrines of the Gospel? I believe that as stewards of the Earth, we are responsible for its well being and general care.
I don’t believe that God will one day wave a hand that will clean up what was the result of poorly used free will, resulting in the pollution of the Earth. Our Church is different from other Christian churches, which have sometimes been responsible for defining the conservative, anti-environmental movement, in this sense : we believe in natural principles and truth–regardless of its source.
Can we afford to be dogmatic in our understanding of the principle of stewardship to the earth and reject it as a “liberal” cause? That seems like a Mormon succumbing to worldly rationales and political definitions rather than understanding it from a perspective of truth or fiction.
There is the reason that the Church does not endorse a particular political party or ideology. Environmentalism is not a political issue. It is an issue about addressing the consequences of free will that has adversely affected our world. We may have different political priorities or solutions, but that’s the truth.
If you ban your children from watching Wall-E on the basis that it emphasizes the consequences of unchecked, wasteful behavior, then you are missing the point.
Just so everyone knows, any reference to profanity will not be tolerated here, and will be swiftly expunged.
Bryce,
I have read the post. As I noted initially, the connection you draw between Wall-E and the crazy abortionist is practically non-existent. I do not see how the one promotes the other and I don’t see why you are making the connection. You then answered my assertion that the connection you draw is fallacious with an assertion that it isn’t really. Unfortunately, that is insufficient proof.
Do you have another way of demonstrating the sinfulness of Wall-E than a false and fallacious analogy? If so, what is it?
John, I don’t believe it to be a false and fallacious analogy, and many in this thread have agreed.
Micah,
“Environmentalism is not a political issue. It is an issue about addressing the consequences of free will that has adversely affected our world. We may have different political priorities or solutions, but that’s the truth.”
Your last line explains why environmentalism most definitely IS a political issue. It’s all about perspective and how you rank the competing priorities. What is more important, construction that improves the quality of life of countless humans, or preserving the natural habitat of one obscure species? Does the increased national security that a fence provides justify the environmental impact? Should we become less dependent on foreign oil by drilling locally? What about the impact on the environment?
All of these questions are political issues with an environmental component. How you feel about them will depend on your own personal priority scheme (and outside influences that you listen to).
With all the overt evil in the world that needs to be addressed, I’m simply stunned at the vicious attacks I’ve seen here against a sweet family film with a positive message about love, responsibility, and living for the right reasons. Is it really necessary to make up a “hidden evil message” that the vast majority of viewers don’t read into the film and that the filmmakers didn’t mean to convey?
Teapot, meet tempest.
Again, Elder Ballard:
This is not a commentary on R or X-rated flagrantly violent or sex-saturated motion pictures.
Mark IV @ 6:45 am, I with you on this. My primary concern at this point is Google. I have good non-Mormon friends with whom I have been working for years to convince that Mormons are not required, as a tenet of our faith, to find “enemies under every rock and behind every tree”, as Mike Parker nicely put it above. Once they come across this on a Google search, my efforts in this regard will become largely wasted but your disclaimer and the reasonable comments of many of the commenters will, hopefully, save the situation, at least a little.
Bryce, I understand the impulse behind this thread much better than you will probably believe after reading that I agree with Mark IV, Mike Parker, Rusty, and some of the others. But your post to me really does seem to be quite off the mark. It is overbearing rather than bold and it verges on unrighteous dominion in the way you are using scriptures against people who I know to be entirely upstanding Latter-day Saints with very strong testimonies of the Restoration.
Bryce, please listen especially to what Rusty is saying. You are drawing lines and then judging people based on whether they subscribe to the lines that you yourself have drawn.
I must confess that I believe that God is very pleased whenever we as stewards over the earth make decisions in our stewardship that contribute to the preservation of the beauty and resources that the earth provides us and that he is displeased when we are slothful or indifferent about damaging the natural environment or usurping it without heed to replacement or sustainability. Exploitation of the environment without regard for sustainability can just as easily be interpreted as an expression of greed, materialism, lust for power, and other unseemly characteristics of the natural man, I might point out.
Bryce,
As soon as the Church starts installing solar panels on top of chapels and temples, I may change my mind.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/58/26#26
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Again, Bryce, it’s quite obvious that Ballard is speaking primarily about sex and morality.
There are countless films, even children’s films, that are guilty of “immorality and sexual innuendo.”
Why not attack films (especially the ones aimed at younger viewers) that are guilty of “immorality and sexual innuendo?”
Personally, I like Ballard’s comment about “offensive, destructive, and mean-spirited media influence”. I fear I’m guilty of the mean-spirited part, to some degree, and I realize that perhaps, just perhaps, Ballard was saying that I was the one that needed to repent.
I’m still working on it.
Fine, Bryce. Then explain it to me.
As an example, you have chosen to eloquently describe your reaction to the movie and cited that reaction as a motivation for the post. However, it is unclear what exactly you are reacting to.
You say that Wall-E and the stupid abortionist are two cards from the same deck. The substantiation of that seems to be that both cite environmentalism as an important aspect of their outlook.
To a great degree this is same as insisting that because both Obama and McCain breathe air, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. Superficial similarities do not strong connections make.
Further you base your objection to Wall-E firmly in LDS beliefs on the family. Fine. Give me the scene, the moment in the film that denigrates the family. If not that, then demonstrate why the stupid abortionist has something to do with Wall-E? Does she cite it as inspiration? Has she even seen it? Can you give me something substantive to demonstrate your point?
John F,
“I must confess that I believe that God is very pleased whenever we as stewards over the earth make decisions in our stewardship that contribute to the preservation of the beauty and resources that the earth provides us and that he is displeased when we are slothful or indifferent about damaging the natural environment or usurping it without heed to replacement or sustainability.”
What if your decision is to have less kids for the sole reason that you want to have a smaller carbon footprint?
Is the immediate impact to the Earth’s resources the most important of all considerations? I don’t think the anyone is encouraging waste or pollution. I think they are highlighting the danger of a skewed perspective, and how media can contribute to it.
John F., I subscribe to Joseph’s words:
You may act however you please, but I will not change my belief in this regard. And please don’t accuse me of self-righteously judging my brethren. It’s not nice. I’m explaining my view of things, my personal beliefs and opinions. If you don’t like it, then you may politely move on.
Dan, funny you should mention that scripture since I just did. (see comment July 13th, 2008 10:10 pm)
Bryce,
If you insist that Wall-E offers some “untrue” principle, please explain exactly what it is, where it is, and why you see it?
There were a bunch of cute little chubby babies in Wall-E. It obviously isn’t anti-family.
The nutjobs that are sterilizing themselves aren’t people we want in the gene pool anyway.
Although many Latter-day Saints enjoy the film The Princess Bride, I believe it is really an anti-family film designed to teach wicked messages to our youth for the following reasons:
This is a fun game. I bet I could find the hidden evil message in any movie.
My next review will be Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Message: It’s okay to shack up with seven people of the opposite gender.
Tim, films that are conspicuously guilty of “immorality and sexual innuendo” are not the ones I’m worried about parents monitoring their children’s viewing of. I don’t think those are the ones Elder Ballard was necessarily worried of either.
John,
My evaluation of this movie is not as unfounded as you might believe. That this movie has an intense environmentalist message at its core is evidenced from this sampling of responses:
WALL-E: A World Without Us
The Environmental Technology of Wall*E
Wall-E: Robotic Ode to Environmental Protection
The Devin’s Advocate: Is WALL-E Environmental or Hypocritical?
Wall-E & LF
WALL-E:Marxist Philosophy and Environmental Theology Writ Large “For The Children!”
The Hypocrisy of WALL-E
The Environmentalism of Wall-E
Environmentalism, Hollywood, and Wall-E
No Humans: Filmmakers Fascinated About What Comes Next
Wall-E: Environmentalism Propraganda?
The Wall-E Attitude
To name a few. The Al Gore infused environmentalist religion and chimerical apocalypse is the heart of Hollywood’s latest promotion, and some people will go even to immoral ends to worship it. Anyone wanting to jump on the bandwagon may want to keep that in mind. The prophets have always warned about the fads of popular thought. This is another one.
A quick comment: I am very sadly dissapointed at how you, Bryce, have handled this thread. While you are more than entitled to your own interpretations of movies, scriptures, etc., you are failing to grant others the same privilege without implying that they are less faithful and don’t follow the prophet. Your eisegesis of scriptures and JS quotes are truly troubling.
It’s sad to see a bright mind resort to this.
Also, any intensely personal attacks will be swiftly expunged here as well. The ad hominem is exasperating.
B. Park, I’m not sure how I have failed to grant others the privilege of believing how they may. If my beliefs differ in any respect with others they are immediately labeled as judgmental. Unfortunately, I get the same response from our anti-Mormon friends. This is extremely troubling. If my exegesis of scripture or quotations from the brethren have been in error, then show me.
So are your “personal attacks” against others who don’t share their view not applicable?
B. Park, so if I have a view that isn’t in concert with another, it is an attack?
Since this thread is turning into a flamewar, it’s closing now. Thanks all.