The 11th Hour provides ecological insights

Michael A. Zmolek

Freelance writer based in Washington DC

Another epic film about a sinking ship starring Leonardo DiCaprio has hit the silver screen. The 11th Hour, which might have been better dubbed "Titanic 2," provides an overview of how every ecological system on our planet is in decline, and suggests that we have the available technologies to prevent ecological collapse. 

When I viewed the movie Titanic several years ago, what struck me about the film is how it provided a highly likely scenario for how the ongoing and future ecological collapse of ecosystems on our planet will play out.  First, we see that in based on their confidence in their "unsinkable" technology and under pressure from a media promising a heroic story, the captain, the chief engineer and their advisors ignore warnings of icebergs and recklessly embark on an absurd race against time.  Second, even after the ship has struck the iceberg, the initial reaction is one of denial, especially on the part of the very wealthy, prone as they must be to greeting with skepticism any suggestion that they might be on the verge of losing all that they have.  Eventually, a scientific assessment is made and the leaders acknowledge that the ship is sinking, but they immediately recognize that in their overconfidence they did not provide enough life boats.  Third and finally, the most expensive film ever made (to that date) treats us to a tale of betrayal and class conflict, as the lower income passengers are trapped below deck while the rich escape on the life boats.  As the camera panned the icy waters of the North Sea and we saw the frozen bodies of the mostly lower income victims, I saw (and this was before Katrina) an allegorical future for the poor of the planet: while the rich retreat into whatever "lifeboats" they can afford to buy—say the remaining overpriced dry land—the rest of us will have to bear the brunt of ecological collapse. 

While "Titanic 2" does take some rather tepid shots at the oil corporations and at the Bush administration specifically, unlike "Titanic 1" there is little analysis of the role played by social inequality, and not a single mention of the term "capitalism".  The extremely important point is made that the industrial revolution brought about the beginnings of an age in which we humans no longer lived off of direct sunlight through plants and animals and instead began to construct artificial environments based upon fossil fuels, or recently unburied, ancient sunlight, so that today most people in industrial societies feel themselves to be alienated from the rhythms of nature.  After the film, and in meditating on this point and on how fragile all life truly is, I began to feel a wonderful new sense of kinship with my houseplants as fellow living creatures on planet Earth and decided I need to start talking to them more often.

Profound as such thoughts may be, I nevertheless felt the same frustration with the film as I have felt about much environmental writing, which is the tendency to suggest that the solution is up to "you" the consumer, while failing to point out that in all but a few cases, the biggest polluters are not individual consumers but industrial corporations and militaries.  Each of us can consume less or use clean alternatives, but what of those institutions that consume and pollute the most?   

We are unlikely to find solutions to the ecological crisis, which is bound up with the exponential growth of the human population, without resolving issues of social inequality.  We may observe that many wealthy, industrial societies today have stagnant or declining population growth, whilst the highest birth rates are to be found in poorer countries.  If industry and consumerism were ecologically sustainable, then high consumption for all might lead to an ecologically stable human birth rate.  But what we are poised for is a 21st century in which rapid industrialization and consumer-driven economic growth in massive countries like China and India accelerate the already unacceptable pressures threatening the earth's carrying capacity.  This suggests that what we need instead is balance: for the rich to consume less and divert more of their remaining surplus to ending the poverty that drives rapid reproduction rates.  And yes, we desperately need at the same time to start applying available technologies that can drastically reduce pollution levels and re-integrate human social systems with nature. 

"Titanic 2" ends on a high note, telling us that such technologies are available and that there are more ecological associations on the planet than ever.  This brave optimism (and we're going to need it) makes the film commendable.  But I have to say that the warnings I felt were implicit in "Titanic 1" are more relevant to a world in which the war-minded men of wealth and power have so long and so strenuously sought to deny that there is any danger at all in global warming and the concomitant decline of ecosystems.  If we continue to let those beholden to corporate power rather than to the people steer the rest of us headlong toward destruction, most of us (or our children's children's children) may find ourselves bobbing not in icy seas, but boiling seas with no icebergs to hit.

Mike Zmolek is currently completing a doctoral dissertation on the origins of capitalism and the industrial revolution.  He is a former legislative aide to Rep. Cynthia McKinney, for whom he drafted reports and legislation dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  He co-authored the articles of impeachment that Rep. McKinney introduced against President Bush in December, and assisted Rep. Dennis Kucinich in drafting articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney.  He has previously taught ecological politics and environmental history as a faculty member at the University of Dubuque, and formerly served as Coordinator for the National Network to End the War Against Iraq.


Michael A. Zmolek
Freelance Consultant and Web Designer
301-270-4858 cellular
202-747-3311 home
240-491-3311 fax