Sushi Year Round Change Analysis

Ryan Hubelbank [e-mail] Dr. Sheila Winbourne
Science Fiction/Film: Ethics
CRN: 17583
3 October 2016
The Danger of Drastic Change: How Well-Intentioned Change Can Go Awry When people see problems, it is natural to want to fix them. Sometimes solutions to these problems may be somewhat drastic. While these solutions are not inherently bad simply because of this, massive change often has a fair amount of danger and should be handled carefully. Snowpiercer contains examples of efforts for massive change that led to an undesirable result. The major change efforts seen in Snowpiercer are the attempt to overthrow the leadership of the train and the attempt to leave the train. These efforts are well-intentioned efforts to fix problems,
but they ultimately did more harm than good; despite achieving their goals, these solutions had negative consequences that outweigh the positive change they wanted to make. In the end, efforts to improve have the potential to destroy, despite the intentions of those who champion the change. There is clear difference between the lives of those in the back of the train and the lives of those in the front. This much is quite clear. When Edgar complains about this massive difference in lifestyle, Curtis states that they will be different when they get there. This seems to imply that Curtis thinks that what is needed to rid the train of the suffering that exists is a change in leadership. The revolt seems to be founded on this type of logic: the current leadership is evil for allowing this difference to exist, and, as a result, a revolt is necessary to overthrow them and place someone else in charge, such as Curtis, who would not stand for the unfairness that existed, thereby causing the suffering to go away, since the evil leaders have been replaced.
This is not quite the case, however.
On the way to the front of the front of the train, there is a short stop where the rebels who have made it thus far eat some sushi, at Mason’s suggestion. What is particularly noteworthy, however, is the point that the sushi is not served year-round. Mason explains that serving sushi year-round would not be sustainable, due to the fact that the train is a closed system. The fact that serving sushi year-round would deplete the supply to the point where there would be no more sushi in the future suggests that the number of people consuming sushi has exceeded the amount that the system can support naturally, as a result, artificial rules with regard to when sushi can be served must be enforced, so that consumption is limited and can be sustained. In addition, this excess of people is in the front section alone. If those in the back were also eating sushi, the availability would have to be even more
restricted.
It is fairly safe to assume that the situation with regard to the rest of the food is similar, due to the fact that a closed system would place the same type of constraints on almost any food. In other words, the number of people on the train has exceeded the amount that can be left to their own devices, since people would completely deplete the system and, in doing so, prevent its function. The train (a closed system) simply does not have the ability to sustainably support so many people without artificial limitations on human behavior. The need for balance is echoed by Wilford, who tells Curtis that this applies to all aspects of the train. This shows the reality of the matter. Even with someone like Curtis in charge, the unfortunate truth is that the number of people exceeds the number that the closed system can support without any suffering. Curtis must maintain the system if he wants humanity to be able to continue to survive in the current system. The reality of a closed system is something that cannot be overturned by simply replacing whoever is in charge. This is the flaw with the revolution (at least from those hoping for true improvement), since despite the sacrifices of many to put Curtis at the front of the train, once he is there, he realizes that humanity cannot continue to exist inside the train if he does not adopt a role similar to that of Wilford.
There is one more twist: the train is not a perfect system.
It is dying, and, in order to keep the engine running, it appears necessary to have children serve the role that mechanical parts once did. This is what pushes Curtis over the edge. He decides that the benefits of the system are not worth the cost of maintaining it and that the best idea is to give up on the system. While the rebellion may have been founded on false ideas that the leadership was the problem with the system, it did lead a meeting between the one who would gain control of the train, Curtis, and the one who had an idea for a better system, Namgoong. So, naturally, when Curtis decides that the current system is not acceptable, he turns to the only alternative presented. Unfortunately, this is where things go wrong beyond repair. Curtis accepts the alternative as is and that is the problem. The plan of leaving the train that was presented to him did not account for the fact that Curtis would now be in a position to facilitate the effort to leave the train. As a result, the way to leave the train is excessively drastic, relying on a bomb to literally blow a hole in the system. This is unfortunate, since the idea of leaving the train had the potential to lead to a humanity that would begin life in what would effectively be a much, much bigger closed system. Ultimately, the same questions would arise, similar to the types of issues we see today (Lazaridis, P., and A.C. Drichoutis), but more time would pass
before then, and perhaps a solution that led to another, bigger system would appear before then.
As things happened in the movie, however, the bomb was set off to escape the system. This led to an avalanche that derailed the train and the only people we see alive to escape the train are Yona and Tim, who were shielded from the blast and likely protected somewhat from the train derailing by those who knew that it was coming. While the two of them technically could eventually repopulate humanity, it is near-impossible that they would even be able to survive in those conditions. Between the cold and threats such as the polar bear that we see, those two, who have never lived outside of the train and know basically nothing of the real world, are simply not equipped to survive. A group of people, including many adults who knew of the real world, would have had a serious chance, but the two of them do not.
Ultimately, the two major efforts for change led to a negative outcome. While this could have been changed, if the two efforts had been coordinated with each other more and proceeded in a reasonable manner, as seen in the movie, the well-intentioned efforts to make the state of humanity better effectively led to the extinction of humanity. While the intentions for performing these change efforts were good, an extremely undesirable end result was achieved. If we analyze these actions according to consequentialism, where “whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences” (Sinnott-Armstrong), we see that even the actions of those who mean well could be considered morally wrong. This is why it extremely important that massive change is handled carefully, as humans make mistakes, which can lead those with the best intentions to make the worst of choices.

Works Cited
Lazaridis, P., and A.C. Drichoutis. "Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the 21st Century." ASA Special Publication (1994): 21-33. Freehostia. Nov. 2014. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 20 May 2003. Web. 01 Oct. 2016.