Renegade_Turner wrote:What they do is provide this "solution" but no way to achieve that solution.
That's not entirely accurate. They have numerous proposals that are sound in theory. Particularly resource distribution is a valid approach to world hunger, there's no doubt about it. And a basic upgrade to our infrastructures, annihilation of wealth and a focus on scientific endeavors have all been generally deemed to be some of the steps towards bettering the world, and ourselves.
They even put up an organization to progress towards these steps.
It's neither complete hogwash nor the absolute truth, basically. Where it reaches its limits though is mostly the ambition of the individual. In actuality, most of us don't give a shit about bettering anything, really.
So at the point where the individual can take a shortcut towards wealth, he takes it, as has been witnessed over all these years of written history. We basically would need a reboot ourselves.
And we've got potential for such a reboot; particularly in western society, where young people are starting to realize their role as loanslaves, do not accept religion in a dogmatic manner anymore, favor open governments and all that.
I don't think the final steps will be made in our lifetime though. At least not without some kind of prototypical autarkic society that "clears the bushes", so to speak.
Anyway, the hint at critical thinking was more aimed at some of the details, and the indicated groupthink at banks and governments. My impression is that even in leading positions, the majority of actors basically blindly follows rulesets that lead to the outcomes the films investigate. So there might have been some kind of driving force at specific points in history, particularly times like the 1920s or the late Cold War. Taking that as a general theme is borderline paranoid though, at least from where I'm standing.
A lot of decisions are rather circumstancial also. So you have, for instance, the already initiated tumbling of the economy which leads to extraordinary struggles to keep businesses afloat. And ten years after, you have negative repercussions, and the fallacy would be to attribute intent to bring about said repercussions.
Just as it is with all kinds of conspiracy theories