[usr 5]
What kind of future do we want to live in? Jeff Bridges presents this beautifully photographed 4K tour de force of original thinking on who we are and the life challenges we face. This film upends our way of thinking and provides original insights into our subconscious motivations, the unintended consequences, and how our fundamental nature influences our future as Humankind.
Although thematic aspects of “Living in the Future’s Past” will be familiar to many viewers, the filmmakers clearly understand that in order to drive public policy, the content must eventually resonate with a wider audience. Beautifully photographed, edited, produced and directed by Susan Kucera, and narrated and produced by Jeff Bridges, this documentary presents a systematic look at how humans managed to arrive at this point in time, and what options the species may have left.
Bridges begins by describing the manner in which humans comprise a superorganism affecting the environment along many fronts, yet remain unaware of the bigger picture. Starting 12,000 years ago, human culture and civilization changed significantly with the development of agriculture. Cities grew much larger and societal structures became more complex.
With the introduction of fossil fuels such as cheap oil, energy use spiked in the early 20th century, ushering in material abundance not seen in all of previous human history. Yet as the filmmakers note, humans have now lived comparatively opulent lifestyles long enough so that it’s hard to appreciate the hardships endured by those from previous eras. Few in society recognize that our current way of life constitutes the glaring anomaly in a grand sweep of human history spanning more than two million years.
We fly, drive and build infrastructure all heavily dependent on fossil fuels. We luxuriate in lives of unprecedented comfort and convenience, predicated on planned obsolescence that encourages the desire for new things. We seem to confuse need and desire. As Bridges asks, “Are we our urges? Are we our principles? Who are we?”
Kucera and Bridges have assembled an impressive slate of experts ranging from scientists to journalists to economists and social philosophers. They discuss the potential outcome resulting from the intensive and rapid human engineered changes to the planet. The film hints at efforts such as the Big History Project, which examines the evolution of the universe, explains the present, and imagines possible futures. Several books and articles elaborate on the Big History concept, which demonstrates that the universe remains indifferent to humans.
Eco-centrism, the idea that humans play a role apart and unique from other species is a disingenuous narrative. For one thing, if you look across earth’s history, humans haven’t always resided at the top of the food chain. Rather, we entered somewhere in the middle, inferior to many other predators. As such, if sapiens bring about their own demise by overharvesting ecosystem services and overloading the environmental sink, the rest of the universe will hardly notice or care.
Those interviewed in the film note that dramatic change on so many fronts – rising temperatures, ocean acidification from CO2 absorption, oceanic dead zones from nitrogen/phosphorous fertilizer runoff, ozone depletion, and others – makes future predictions difficult. How will the planet and other organisms react? Will these trigger feedback loops that have already occurred on Venus, a planet that used to have water? Due to greenhouse effects on Venus, the surface temperature currently exceeds 800 degrees Fahrenheit – hot enough to melt lead.
Bridges tells us that energy is the currency of life. However, only since the industrial revolution have humans so drastically accelerated the flow of energy, first with wood, then coal, then oil, now more and more with natural gas. Some argue that widespread use of nuclear power will be the only way to sustain anything approaching current lifestyles.
As suggested by the film, perhaps a more realistic alternative will be for humanity to rethink opulent existences and instead rely more heavily on renewable energy – although such a prospect tends to make us uncomfortable. Acknowledging the full implications of ecosystem stress is a difficult pill to swallow if it means the diminishment of consumption-oriented lifestyles. To the contrary, human nature typically gravitates to the rosier picture proffered by climate change critics.
The film encourages us to think through the actions that we take each day. Each time we start the car – what does that do to the atmosphere? Each time we put something in the garbage – does it end up in landfills or the oceans? Each time we turn on a light switch – was coal burned to produce the electricity?
It’s worthwhile to note that the general public increasingly recognizes climatic impacts, as both global temperatures and sea levels rise. Beachfront properties now sell at a discount, which suggests that economics could play a part in driving future behavioral changes.
Full life-cycle accounting, for example, constitutes a different way of looking at the world by using price mechanisms to reflect the full environmental impact of industrial activity. Preliminary work undertaken estimates the value-added ratios using current pricing for industrial activities such as solid waste combustion, coal-fired electric power generation, and sewage treatment are negative – from an air quality standpoint alone. A full set of environmental accounts would encompass not only air, but also water pollution, solid waste, and hazardous waste as part of the national economic accounts system. Unfortunately, no such governmental function exists at present. Perhaps one day.
“Living in the Future’s Past” is a uniquely comprehensive and insightful examination about ways in which we might change the future for the better. The narrative instructs without patronizing or admonishing its audience.
As Bridges closes the film, he intones, “Impossible goals are possible. Everything is a system of relationships and it’s not easy to see the connections. It requires effort, but each of us can think about how we think. We can visualize.”
Then he asks, “What kind of future would you like to see? What am I willing to do, to contribute? Something that is natural to me, that I can sustain. Something that is a part of who I am.” These are important and timely questions. The viability of future generations depend on our ability to answer them wisely.
Available on DVD Tuesday, November 6th
