It's funny that people cite Idiocracy despite its explicitly eugenicist premise.

I've heard this criticism before and I don't that it paints the complete picture. I reckon it's less a commentary on "weeding out" the intellectually and physically disabled but more a commentary on a society and government that makes stupid decisions (brawndo on plants) and rewards anti-intellectualism to the point of it becoming a core component of life in the year 2505.

The society depicted in Idiocracy is the way it is by choice that turns into policy. I highly doubt Mike Judge wants to start culling the population of undesirable traits like birth defects, intellectual disablities, learning disabilities, etc.

▲

slfnflctd 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the right take to me. I can't say with absolute certainty, but it feels strongly like the eugenics aspects were there more for shock value... perhaps overestimating the public's capacity to recognize the farce.

And so much of it is so obviously absurd. Invokes everything from Gilliam's Brazil to Kids In The Hall.

As others have said, it's a reflection of what we currently are, magnified. Many aspects of which are not as implausible as they once were. That's where the continued buzz it gets comes from, I think.

I do think the eugenics stuff would be avoided if it were to be made today. If that turns out to be how Mike Judge actually thinks, well, I'd be very disappointed and would have to eat some words.

	▲	DonHopkins 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

rayiner 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> more a commentary on a society and government that makes stupid decisions (brawndo on plants) and rewards anti-intellectualism to the point of it becoming a core component of life

Yes, but in the movie society became that way because the dumb people kept having kids while the smart people didn’t. This wasn’t an uncommon trope in the 1990s and early 2000s. There was a lot of commentary on teenage pregnancies and whatnot before the birth rate collapsed among the lower class.

> I highly doubt Mike Judge wants to start culling the population of undesirable traits like birth defects, intellectual disablities, learning disabilities, etc.

But he (like most people) is probably fine with designer babies and sperm clinics that expressly sell product based on the characteristics of the donor (tall, high IQ, etc). That’s a tidier form of the same thing.

	▲	rc5150 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>But he (like most people) is probably fine with designer babies and sperm clinics that expressly sell product based on the characteristics of the donor (tall, high IQ, etc). That’s a tidier form of the same thing. that is a wild blanket assumption that "most people" "probably" want designer babies, as if a majority of prospective parents are using sperm clinics. I think you missed the entire point of the film. You know the end speech where Not Sure says something along the lines of "read a book" and "maybe don't put sports drinks on soil and expect it to grow". The main premise of the second and third acts of the film demonstrates the scientific process. Hypothesize: "water will make plants grow", Experiment: "put water on plants instead of brawndo", analyze data: "the plants are growing". Go figure, after people see the results of the experiment they change their preconceptions! It's stupidity by choice. Willful ignorance.

▲

like_any_other 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

'Despite'? I thought the theory of evolution was widely accepted.

	▲	drcongo 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not in America.

▲

15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

rotringlvr 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]