Mirjam Reino, M202300052 What is science? What happens when science is influenced/contaminated by non-scientific factors, such as politics or economics? As in the movie, there are a lot of factors that come into my mind. The first hour of the movie, I kept thinking about information overflow and how did the president become so numb and self-serving. The president mentioned that there have been guests to her office talking about global warming and other world-destroying issues and she pretty much does not care as long as she stays in power. I am not a qualified person to comment on the systems in the USA, having travelled there only once, but “American ignorance” towards the rest of the world seems to me to be a common problem (unless there is oil or other political reason to interfere). I am not saying power hunger does not exist anywhere else on Earth, rather that the world’s leading nation is giving bad influence on other countries. I do not mean that every political decision made in the US is bad, e.g., the American model of democracy which played a role in shaping South Korea's political system, and the USA-s major influence on South Korea's foreign policy. South Korea has generally followed the lead of the United States in international affairs, and the two countries have worked together closely on several issues, including the North Korean nuclear threat. Furthermore, I try to see the other side of the coin and find the reasoning to the president’s and her followers’ mindset: is it accumulated over the years in the US political sphere? Is it related to the general human need to fit in and belong? From what I have seen in reality shows and the news, the “Don’t look up” representation of voters in America could have been a real representation of how unempathetic they are. Like seen in the movie, Americans like to separate into 2 groups, the pro- and the anti-group. Thus, it is possible that the anti-science group truly believes scientific discoveries of global warming, gravity etc. are made up. Influencing these people with a couple of political maneuvers would further deepen their beliefs and therefore widen the gap between anti- and pro-science groups. I asked my new friends from KNU exchange studies and this polarization seems uncommon anywhere else in the world, but especially in Europe. The only exception I could find was form Mirjam Reino, M202300052 the Netherlands, where anti-climate-change activists are occupying the roads with their tractors and saying that climate change does not exist and demanding less taxes for their farms. I think the main point of the movie this could have been to bring awareness to the environment and climate change, but instead of having half a year to live, we have a bit more and should act now. I know that good solutions come from talking about problems and thinking through the possible solutions, but it seems to me that there has only been talk and no action. I recently came across a book (“The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World”) that was written in the 2010s about a plan developed in the late 80s which offered solutions to climate crisis, including decentralized energy distribution and systematical changes in the energy system. In the 40 years since that plan was developed, no one has changed the way the energy system works, probably due to economic reasons. With the EU plan developed in 2019, for example, many countries have set targets to cut emissions by X % (40% in case of France and 30% in case of Poland), but by searching the news, I could not find any specific steps that are taken towards that goal, even though there have been plenty of research on the topic. There are many countries that have taken small steps, like starting to build a new nuclear power plant or hydro/wind turbines, and/or redesigning the infrastructure to promote the use of less polluting means of transportation, like introducing bike lanes, switching the traffic lights so that they promote walking to work/school instead of waiting for the light to turn green, but it seems that all these steps are way to small and require a whole generation change to see the benefits from those implementations. Fast action by the policy makers is only seen with problems that “have gone viral”, like the #savetheturtles from 2015, which lead to the EU banning plastic straws in 2019 (directive came into effect on July 3, 2021. If such a small directive took a total of 6 years to implement, then even with the best scientists and best discoveries and plans, the European climate law set in 2019, would not reach its goal of EU emissions will be cut by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990). Having worked at an energy company (a monopoly), I have seen how the decisions are made, which usually only consider the out views and profitability of the next 5-10 years. This further proves that these emissions reducing plans would probably fail. Just like in the movie, what Mirjam Reino, M202300052 help would it be if the project is more profitable if there is no planet to pursue the project on. Due to legal reasons, I can not elaborate on this further. Here, I must also mention that I am not the most environmentally conscious person. I believe that the best thing anyone can do is limiting consumption. The next best thing is choosing environmentally “cleaner” products, and the worst is “normal” products. Whenever possible, I use a reusable mug, bring my own bag to the store, pick up the trash from the street, choose reusable towels instead of paper towels, avoid excess packaging (when grocery shopping), and reduce shopping unless it is truly necessary. Coming from a relatively poor country, most of reuses come naturally to me, and I don’t even think before I reuse my shopping bag as a trash bag, fix the hole on my shirt, or cut a stained shirt up to make a cleaning cloth. These habits are obviously not likable for the big companies trying to sell me clothes, cleaning products and plastic products, they would prefer me to still buy the slightly environmentally better (or in some cases, due to “greenwashing”, worse) option. To finish this essay, another issue with science and political agendas and economic reasons is the lack of cooperation between different parties, at least in Estonia. In my home country, scientists are expected to publish a specific amount of research papers every year to keep tenure, so they tend to only accept project proposals that could lead to a new paper published. This is not in the interest of the companies though, and as the project scope changes, neither party will accomplish their hope for the project. I must mention that there have been good projects coming from the cooperation of private sector and researchers. For example, the CRISPR gene editing technology was developed by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier at the University of California, Berkeley. The technology was funded by a number of private companies, including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It has the potential to revolutionize the way we treat diseases and improve human health, and has already been used to study smaller organisms, and produce organisms with specific genotypes. In conclusion, the movie underscores the pressing need for both awareness and action in addressing global challenges. While it reflects on the pitfalls of information overload, political self-interest, and societal polarization, it also points towards the urgency of cooperation and meaningful change. To combat climate change and similar crises, we must bridge divides, enact systemic transformations, and prioritize global collaboration. As individuals, our conscientious Mirjam Reino, M202300052 choices matter, but collective efforts and policy changes are imperative. The film reminds us that our planet's well-being hangs in the balance, and it is our collective responsibility to act decisively and sustainably for a better future.
