Review of Mr. Green: why sci-fi needs to grow up

Remember my post about giving people the power of photosynthesis? Someone already made a short film about it; Mr. Green by Greg Pak is a movie from the site Future States, and it's been described as "thoughtful, intelligent sci-fi". I disagree. At best, it's a poorly-researched and misguided attempt at environmental activism; at worst, it's the kind of fear-mongering that we've all seen in the machine-uprising movies, but without any cool robots.

Recap (Spoilers ahead): Climate change is real, and it's too late to fix it.. Attractive female scientist just lost funding for her project, so she seduces the head of the appropriate government agency, takes him to her hotel room, drugs him (why the date rape undertone here?), infects him with a virus that gives him plant-like powers. He finds out next morning when he sees that his hair is starting to turn green. So he confronts her, and she convinces him by spewing irrelevant data and showing him how nice it is to be a plant. Having been recruited, he spreads the green virus to other important government figures.

The poorly-researched: Sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than 1 meter until 2100. Even if it does by the year 2020, the US will be fine; we can wall it off like in New Orleans (hopefully without Katrina type failures). Besides, once past the tipping point, carbon emissions will be the least of our worries, and might not make much difference at all.

The misguided: "End the consumption of meat in America and you reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by..." What kind of selfish, America-centric thinking is this? So much of the world won't even have food, let alone meat. The poorest countries will be the hardest hit by climate change. Low-lying regions like Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India might lose access to farmland and fresh water, and without ability to rebuild their infrastructure, millions could starve. On the other hand, America will continue to have plenty of food, since our grain and corn belts are far inland and the Mississippi River does not originate from a glacier.

Her technology can ensure that the less fortunate will never face starvation. Her cause should be a humanitarian one, not environmental. I don't care if it will make people feel more connected to nature.

The fear-mongering: Bio-terrorism is not the best way to push an environmental agenda. If her tech is so amazing, why didn't she tell people about it, give them a choice, sell it to them? So it worked on that guy she met at the bar; does she really think that the President will be happy if someone tampers with his genes? No; she'd be arrested and the CDC will take away one of the most important inventions ever. She can wave that Nobel Prize goodbye.

Is the filmmaker confusing angst with idealism? Or does he think that scientists are entirely unaware of ethics? What is the message here?

And if the movie is actually a warning about the dangers of bio-engineering, well, I've had enough of "beware the new technology" stories, especially ones with the stereotypical misguided mad scientist. At least Terminator had badass robots. The transhumanist technology in Mr. Green has the potential to save millions of lives; don't fuck it up with a juvenile and misguided message.