I AM reminds me of the Vietnam-era general's quote: We had to destroy the village to save it. I AM has a correct message, but destroys its effectiveness with a lot of new-agey cow pies. (Not sure what the lingo standards are on IMDb.) Lets begin with the big lies. In 1500, the scientists DID NOT say the earth was flat. In fact, 1500 was well into the enlightenment. Even during the Middle Ages the scholars (not "scientists" in the modern sense of the term) knew and said the earth was round. Even during the Dark Ages they knew – and said – the earth was curved. Hemisphere? Globe? They were uncertain, but they definitely knew it was not flat. Yes, they said it was at the center of the cosmos, but it was scientists who proved that wrong. Also, the movie constantly reiterates that scientists have depicted man as separate from the rest of nature, and even parts of nature separate from each other. The statement is true but ignores the science of the last hundred years, which has increasingly changed that view. It was scientists with mathematicians who discovered quantum entanglement (mentioned in I AM), along with quantum physics. And it was a scientists who decades ago stated that the universe resembles less a clock than mind.
It is true, as another commenter writes, that love and cooperation are in our genes. But so is aggression and violence – just read Jane Goodall's account of chimps, or her statements given in interviews. She wrote of seeing one chimpanzee clan literally wipe out another whose members had previously been part of the first clan.
As carlupq points out, the references in the movie (to trees and lions only taking what they need) is ridiculous. Carrier pigeons were once so plentiful in America, that their flocks would destroy a forest by merely occupying it for a month. And biological die-offs are common in nature, the result of natural imbalances building up to collapses.
And yet, clearly, Tom Shadyac is not entirely off-base. We HAVE developed an obsession with money and stuff, and it IS destroying our nation and the world. We are as off-balance as populations prior to die-offs. Worse, we've lost our way spiritually. Commenter carlupq goes a bit too far in his rah-rah for the free market, but we – our society and the world's advanced nations, and advancing ones too – need a new vision. Poverty is not the answer, nor is a mythical touchy-feely view of man as this inherently kind and caring creature – who coincidently happens to have been slaughtering his fellow man and despoiling his environment since the earliest large groupings arose.
No, I AM correctly points to the need for change, a fundamental change in our thinking and our subsequent doings. Unfortunately, it plays off of, and spreads, too many silly ideas to be taken seriously by any except those already in the new-age fold. We need to convince the average Joe and Jane who live in the city and suburbia, and who recognize both the good and the evil in man, that we have to change, and that their children and grandchildren will ultimately be happier by our doing so. We will not convince them with unrealistic views of nature and mankind, but only by the real dangers of continuing on our current paths.
It is true, as another commenter writes, that love and cooperation are in our genes. But so is aggression and violence – just read Jane Goodall's account of chimps, or her statements given in interviews. She wrote of seeing one chimpanzee clan literally wipe out another whose members had previously been part of the first clan.
As carlupq points out, the references in the movie (to trees and lions only taking what they need) is ridiculous. Carrier pigeons were once so plentiful in America, that their flocks would destroy a forest by merely occupying it for a month. And biological die-offs are common in nature, the result of natural imbalances building up to collapses.
And yet, clearly, Tom Shadyac is not entirely off-base. We HAVE developed an obsession with money and stuff, and it IS destroying our nation and the world. We are as off-balance as populations prior to die-offs. Worse, we've lost our way spiritually. Commenter carlupq goes a bit too far in his rah-rah for the free market, but we – our society and the world's advanced nations, and advancing ones too – need a new vision. Poverty is not the answer, nor is a mythical touchy-feely view of man as this inherently kind and caring creature – who coincidently happens to have been slaughtering his fellow man and despoiling his environment since the earliest large groupings arose.
No, I AM correctly points to the need for change, a fundamental change in our thinking and our subsequent doings. Unfortunately, it plays off of, and spreads, too many silly ideas to be taken seriously by any except those already in the new-age fold. We need to convince the average Joe and Jane who live in the city and suburbia, and who recognize both the good and the evil in man, that we have to change, and that their children and grandchildren will ultimately be happier by our doing so. We will not convince them with unrealistic views of nature and mankind, but only by the real dangers of continuing on our current paths.