In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Andrew Niccol’s In Time (2011) is a dystopian action drama that shows a future world where time is literally money. According to the opening voiceover, everyone stops aging as soon as they hit the age of 25, with the only catch being they’re only given one more year to live. However, extra time can be bought and sold. And now, people go to work and are paid in hours that prolong their lives. When they buy food, it brings them a few minutes closer to death. And of course, the super-wealthy are now virtually immortal.

Niccol himself referred to In Time as the “bastard child” of his directorial debut Gattaca, but it’s clearly meant as a thinly-veiled allegory for the 1% and the growing global divide between the haves and have-nots. It’s an intriguing premise, but unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of effort to dumb down the concept so that even the slowest members of the audience would get it, and once the concept is fully established, the movie seems to have no clue where to go or how to come to a satisfying conclusion.

The article continues after these advertisements...

Just like everyone else in this future world, our hero Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) was given a full year’s worth of time when he was born, represented by a glowing green timer embedded in the flesh of his arm. The clock began ticking when he turned 25, but alas, Will is living hand-to-mouth in the seedier parts of Los Angeles and that time was gone before he knew it.

Will is now an underpaid factory worker who’s trying his hardest to not only keep himself alive, but also his mother (Olivia Wilde, who’s actually three years younger than Timberlake, stark evidence that this is a world where no one grows old). The two are just barely getting by, often ending up with mere hours or minutes to live before getting their next paycheck.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

This is an everyday struggle for Will until he ends up rescuing a rich guy named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer). Henry is from New Greenwich, the well-to-do part of town, and according to his arm-timer, he has over a century to spend. Naturally, this attracts the attention of a street gang who wants to rob him of his time (referred to here as “cleaning his clock”), but Will steps in and saves his life.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

They hide out in an abandoned warehouse where Henry tells Will that he’s over 100 years old, and is just tired of living. He also reveals the true reason behind their time-based economy: If everyone were immortal, the world would soon be overpopulated, and so a system was put in place to ensure that the poor die off while the rich stay alive forever. After their chat, they both manage to fall asleep, but when Henry awakes he quietly gives Will all but five minutes of his time.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Henry soon “times out” and falls off a bridge to his death. His body is later discovered by “timekeepers”, the homicide detectives of this future. The lead timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) wrongly concludes that Will murdered Henry, and makes it his mission to find him and bring him to justice.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Meanwhile, Will now has a hundred years at his disposal, and he goes to meet up with his mother to share the good news. But due to unfortunate circumstances, his mother runs out of time just seconds before he can get to her and pass on some of his time. She dies in his arms, and Will is so enraged that he decides to make the upper class pay.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Will soon calls a taxi to take him out of his “time zone” and into New Greenwich. Eventually, he ends up at a ritzy casino, playing high stakes poker. And I do mean high stakes, because a losing hand can literally take years off your life. Will goes up against an extremely wealthy man (Vincent Kartheiser) with thousands of years to spare, and manages to win a hundred of those years on a straight flush.

The man also has a woman sitting next to him who catches Will’s eye. The rich guy points out that Will has no way of knowing if the woman is his wife, mother, or daughter due to everyone looking the same age, noting that in the past, things used to be so much easier. But to Will’s relief, the woman turns out to be the guy’s daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Will attends a party at the man’s house in the hopes of getting to know Sylvia better. That’s when the timekeepers track him down and arrest him, taking back all his time and leaving him with only a couple of hours. With some quick thinking, Will manages to escape and take Sylvia hostage to ensure safe passage out of the house. They manage to shake off the timekeepers, but on their way back to Will’s home time zone, they get into a car crash and a gang comes along to rob them of nearly all their time.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

The two make a mad dash to a pawn shop, selling off Sylvia’s diamond earrings in order to get enough time to stay alive through the night. Predictably, Sylvia slowly begins to realize what it’s like to live among the common people and not know if you’re going to survive another day. The two decide together to make a ransom demand of Sylvia’s father, but they want the ransom to be delivered to a mission that gives time to the poor. When her father refuses to do it, Sylvia starts to realize he might just be a bit of an uncaring douchebag, and that brings her even more towards Will’s line of thinking.

The two then go on a robbery spree, stealing from her father’s “time banks” and handing out time (which can apparently be stored in sleek silver boxes) to the poor. But they eventually realize that this isn’t going to change the system. A thousand years isn’t cool, one can imagine Will saying. You know what’s really cool? A million years.

And so, they head back to New Greenwich to rob Sylvia’s father, breaking into his special private vault containing a cartridge worth one million years. They plan to hand this out to the poor as well, which is apparently enough time to truly disrupt the economy.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

They escape and the timekeepers are hot on their trail. After a major car chase, the duo get the time to the mission where it’s given out to the people who need it most. The movie ends with Will and Sylvia about to rob an even bigger bank in their quest to bring equality to all.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

When it comes to In Time, the concept was really interesting, and I think it did a good job of making a statement on some of the injustices going on in our freewheeling capitalist economy. I’m not sure a time-based system could ever work in reality, but it was set up convincingly enough that I could just go with it.

However, after the concept is explained, the movie gets rather predictable. The notion that time can be stored away in vaults unfortunately turns this into more of a bland heist picture. And really, the rich do kind of have a point that’s never addressed here. What happens if everyone gets to live forever? Won’t that just drain the world of resources and cause overcrowding and lead to even more crime and suffering? Obviously that doesn’t justify killing off the poor, but there was no depth to the movie’s resolution other than “everyone deserves equality”.

The movie also suffers from being too heavy-handed, and explaining too much, and obviously being made for a teen demographic. You can tell this is why Niccol got the gig directing the Stephenie Meyer adaptation The Host, because it aims at the same audience and is about as deep and thoughtful. Also, from growing up in the ‘90/‘00s, I already have a few issues taking Justin Timberlake seriously, but the rather lackluster feel of this movie made him even more unbearable.

But even putting aside Timberlake’s acting, the dialogue and other aspects of the film were just sort of there. Nothing stood out, nothing was popping off the screen, and the entire movie blends into a rather formulaic action story of two Robin Hood-like fugitives evading the law. You start to feel like everyone was only involved long enough for their paychecks to clear. Even though they add the mathematically necessary amount of action scenes, it just didn’t stand out as something I’d care to watch again.

In Time (2011): Immortality is for the 1%

Also, there seems to have been a few plot threads left dangling. Throughout the film, the timekeepers constantly mention Will’s late father, who was apparently fighting the system, or trying to help the cause of the lower class, or something. However, his story isn’t really followed through, and I have no idea what the point of all that was. And the whole plot is set in motion by a guy who apparently gets tired of living after 100 years. Call me crazy, but if I was insanely wealthy, it would probably take me at least 500 years before I started to get that bored with life.

If you’re looking for an easy watch, then this film might be a good pick. But don’t expect anything that will wow you or leave you thinking after the credits roll. If dystopian class warfare is your thing, you’re probably better off just watching Gattaca than wasting time and money on this glammed-up and dumbed-down take.

You may also like...

  • What happened to Andrew Niccol? The guy wrote The Truman Show and directed Gattaca and Lord of War, but his last two films were this rubbish and The fucking Host (yes, that is its official title).

  • seiler88

    This is another example of Hollywood not understanding economics or psychology. As with most message based scifi they take an interesting concept and then forget (or ignore on purpose) to fully think about how people would react to it.

    There is an easy way to solve the overpopulation problem: Birth Control! We never find out how “time” is “produced”. If at some point a character explained “Time is made from a formula based on refined Unobtanium, a ton of ore only makes an ounce of refined Unobtanium and it takes three ounces to make a year of Time” this would make more sense.

    Let me give you this analogy. You have a piece of bread (people) and only so much butter (wealth). Now if you try to spread the butter out evenly you end up with so little it might as well not have any butter on it (Communism). The logical answer is to make more butter but as history has proven that only Capitalistic societies are the only ones that have even a little success.

    Granted, I am not a “religious” Capitalist. I think there is a way to make a Communist society work. The problem is that most Communists want a legislative solution to what is a technological/scientific problem. If the Communist/Socialists want the society they preach the we need more Chemists, Physicists, and Biologists not more demonstrations.

    • Phil Andrews

      Isn’t it implied that time in this movie is more like DRM than some sort of magic science commodity? Like, they actually cured aging but then implanted everyone with some sort of killswitch that would 86 them if they didn’t phone home to the license server.

      • mamba

        Yes…they DECIDED to put the killswitch as a conscious society choice. Just like they chose the 25 years old as a convenient number…could have made it 50 or 10 just as easially. Maybe they all had a vote at some point.

        The opening narration-geneticist explains it all, and if you have the blue-ray and watch the “documentary” bonus feature, they explain the world they live in, in much more detail.

        • seiler88

          And nobody thought to mention that this means the entire premise makes even LESS sense? Newsflash Hollywood: Profit and sadism really don’t mix on a large scale!

          • Muthsarah


          • Nessus

            Sadism is pathologically destructive. It’s something you can get away with further if you’re rich/powerful, but in itself it tends to create more problems than it helps solve, so it’s not a good profit/advancement mechanic. It’s a vice.

            Apathy or sociopathy are different. They DO mix with profit on a large scale quite well, and to a degree profit on a large scale both rewards and is rewarded by sociopathy. Unlike sadism, socipathy doesn’t compel the bearer to be destructive for it’s own sake. It’s still destructive on the large scale as a cumulative side-effect, but in the small scale destructiveness can be mitigated by making sure the sociopaths’ best interest coincide with everybody elses. Note that this state would by definition be irrelevant to a sociopath, and so must be maintained my non-sociopaths… who can often be a minority in power positions due to profit/advancement selecting for sociopathy. Sociopaths in power would naturally try to unbalance (and thus break) such a system in their favor.

            The trick is that socipathy isn’t an on/off state. Most people are quasi-socipatic or conditionally sociopathic (you genuinely love your kids, but a stranger a thousand miles away isn’t a “real” person, so who cares what happens to them). The conditions are highly plastic, and people have a gravity towards believing/percieving what they want to, making it easy for culture to program, say, an 18th century land owner (or anyone else who stands to profit either financially or self-esteeem wise) to believe that non-whites aren’t “real” people, even when they’re directly exposed to evidence to the contrary on a daily basis. The same thing can cause an exec to make a decision that will result in massive dstruction, because the poeople who are negatively effected aren’t as “real” as the people who profit… and trying to lie/spin the destruction away doesn’t feel wrong for the same reason.

            TL/DR: Slavery and other socially destructive problems with capitalism don’t require sadism, only dehumanization, and dehumanization actually comes frighteningly easily to ordinary “good” people if conditions are just a bit off from optimal.

          • Muthsarah

            I’ve now read your comment twice….and I still seriously don’t know what your point is. Are you downplaying these matters? How are you defining “sadism” versus “dehumanizaton”? For the record, in my above (extremely short) comment, I wasn’t implying “sadism” in its narrow psycho-sexual definition, as in “causing pain for immediate personal pleasure”. Just in a way implying comparative benefits though cruelty towards other humans. Which is a fundamental social condition going back as far as human society (and written records thereof) go. Treating one’s servants as harshly as possible, giving them as little as possible, such as to keep as much for yourself, is the goal of profit, historically-speaking. Same as today. It’s remarkably consistent. Why pay your workers $9 an hour? If you could continue to employ them, and yet only pay them $6/hour, you totally would. And if you wouldn’t, you’d be forced out of your position by someone else who WOULD force such a reduced salary on their workers. For the benefit of the stockholders. Which is how EVERYTHING works. If you won’t consent to be cut-throat, such as to benefit those above even you, then someone else will, so as so take your job from you. The world favors the explotative @$$hole.

            You make as much as you can. You give back as little as you feel you MUST (hence why taxation is so unpopular among voters, yet voters nonetheless feel they are owed the benefits of the taxation of others, hence again why everyone in the US hates Congress for being corrupt, yet supports their own Congressman for “bringing home the bacon” through forcing national taxpayers to finance local projects….the irony of which seems to be lost on EVERYONE). Capitalism is absolutely a natural construct. As is selfishness. No co-incidence. Neither humanity, nor any other species, is so selfless as to naturally advocate anything less. The only reason we have such rules as “minimum wage”, “income tax” or anything else that comes from living in a complex human society is because these rules pop up artificially – from human ideas and human (mass) advocacy of them. Natural law is inherently cruel. and self-interested..compared with human law. Law of the Jungle, basically: kill or be killed, steal or be stolen from. That’s at the heart of our species. Only human law proscribes cruelty towards others, and even then, only when a specific human law states so. Natural law doesn’t care one way or another. And that’s still the norm, unless the rules A) explicitly state otherwise and B) there is some popularly-backed means of enforcing such a prohibition.

            Slavery has existed for centuries. It’s still with us. It didn’t go away in the mid-19th-century as the history books tell us. If you can get what you want by denying even basic human freedoms of movement or legal appeal to someone, then you will do so, if profit is your primary aim. Hence why so many (exceedingly wealthy) Persian-Gulf-states employ Indian indentured servant-laborers, and why they confiscate their identification papers, and work them to death, and deny any knowledge of their existence when they die (which they do, in great numbers…). Or why Centro-American traffickers take money from emigrants and carry them towards the US, but abandon them at the first sign of trouble (they have their money, screw anything else….). Or why North African traffickers do the same for Sub-Saharan African migrants (get ’em on the boat, **** ’em if the boats leak en route to Sicily). Or why Southeast Asian sex traffickers lure poor people into becoming sex workers for them, promising them good jobs in relatively-wealthy countries, then cast them aside once they are no longer worth keeping. That’s humanity. That’s what we humans do. We exploit every advantage, and care not one whit for the desires of another, and pay only lip-service to the supposed “rights” of other humans. If we don’t have to acknowledge them, and if acknowledging them would in any way hurt our short-term interests, then we won’t acknowledge their rights, or even respect them as physical beings. It’s what we are. It’s disgusting, and it’s not as it must be/should be/ideally should be, but it’s overwhelmingly the reality.

            As for slavery in general, it’s absolutely still with us, in all hemispheres, North, South, East, and West. If we don’t see it, it’s ONLY because we don’t WANT to see it. The sexual slavery trade is everywhere. The sweatshop labor trade produces cheap stuff we all buy, children working for pennies to produce the cheap crap we buy unthinkingly for mere dollars. The drug and migration trades plague all of South America and Africa, and all regions their inhabitants try to reach in order to flee the cruelties of their homelands. And as long as there’s a buck to be made, there’ll be plenty of people eager to take their place in this great river of self-absorbed profit.

            If you (and I’m not saying YOU are, at this time) want to downplay this as some sort of aberration, or irrelevance, then I ask that you simply acknowledge so publicly. If, OTOH, you aren’t trying to disguise their actions, I would seriously want to know, what point are you trying to make? You have thus far spoken academically, abstractly, almost philosophically. But what do you advocate? What’s your point? And do current, everyday, real-world treatments of the weak by the strong, not, to you, count as sadistic? And do you REALLY think it’s so unsound, in the short-or-long term, as to be unworthy of consideration?

          • Nessus

            I’m not downplaying it. I’m making the semantic distinction between sadism and sociopathy. Seiler tossed out “sadism” implying that’s what he thought others attribute capitalism’s problems to, and you countered with “slavery?”, implying you attributed slavery to the sadism Sieler was denying.

            To clarify: “sadism” means taking pleasure (doesn’t have to be sexual) in others’ pain, and/or causing others pain for the pupose of deriving said enjoyment. Pain used indifferently as a tool for control (what you seem to think of or include as sadism) does not fall under the dictionary or common use definitions of sadism. You’ve over-extended the definition for your own personal use. That doesn’t make it any better, morally or humanely, it’s just a semantic distinction.

            Sociopathy is a pathological inability to feel empathy for others. Pain used indifferently as a tool for control requires some degree of sociopathy. This is semantically different from sadism, but not morally, ethically, or humanely.

            I’m saying that while slavery provided (and provides) ample opprtunity for sadism, it(‘s) was motivated by profit, and enabled by conditional sociopathy made easy by the desire for profit.

            I’m not downplaying anything. If anything, I’m saying it’s even worse, since I’m saying we’re dealing with a slippery, self-deceptive Conenburgian mind-horror that exists in nearly everyone, rather than aberrant individuals. People want to believe the people who do this sort of things MUST be absolute aberrations: monsters, not like us normal, GOOD people, but the truth is, nearly everyone has some degree of compartmentalized sociopathic tendency which can flourish under the right conditions.

            Nor am I downplaying the damage cause by true sadism. I’m just saying that sadism, as a behavioral tendency, is like a drug that can enhance sucess in the short term, but carries elevated risks in the long term, and thus is not by itself the cause of large scale social corruption. Being a sadist makes using pain as a tool that much easier, but it also compels the sadist to cause pain where it would have either zero or negative practical self-interest value, and thus is a greater self-sabotage risk than sociopathy alone. That doesn’t mean I’m saying the damage caused sadism is any less horrific in it’s own right. It’s just a game theory sort of thing.

            The rest of your post is making arguments apparently based on stuff I never said… which actually agrees with what I DID say. All the stuff you said about slavery, it’s historical and continued existence, and causes, I agree with. I don’t see where I Implied anything to the contrary. In fact the stuff you say about causes is basically an expansion of what I said. The only disagreement is in how you’ve expanded your definition of the word “sadism” to cover these things.

          • Muthsarah

            OK, I think I get you now. Still seems more than a lil’ emotionally detached, and, again, rather academic and almost abstract.

            Again, picking up on “sadism”, I don’t think that cruelty for its own sake (or for the sake of mere pleasure) is the ultimate point of such inhumane actions as I have mentioned thus far, but I think it’s always there, and it’s a fundamental part of the system. I do believe that there is some pleasure taken from such “power trips” as we see in examples of cruelty for profit; there are ways of profiting off of others without such cruel pleasure, but there are many examples of people who still take that road anyway. Whether its personal pleasure they take from it, or some sort of demonstration of apparent superiority over the victims (publicly or privately), it’s absolutely there. Dictatorships are known for not just treating people cruelly, but for being very public about it, to justify their ideologies, or just as a means of recruiting people who will support a system if it gives them their kicks. Power is a drug; I don’t think it takes a clinical sociopath to support an exploitative, unequal system, but it absolutely attracts this sort as middle-men, and this desire helps to keep the system running. While those at the top may be emotionally detached (thinking only of financial/economic matters, the bottom-line sociopaths), there are also those working within the system on a lower level that are doing all the grunt work, and we can see, from police brutality to pimps and more, that these power trips are fundamental means to keep these exploitative systems going. And I just don’t believe that these don’t figure into these systems’ continued existences. The bottom-line sociopath likely wouldn’t get their hands dirty, much as the (unwitting) beneficiary of sweatshop labor might not feel comfortable catering to a company if they knew first-hand what goes into making their desired product so comparatively cheap. The people at the top have the luxury of “forgetting” such things, much as anyone else physically removed from the worst parts of such a system. But it’s all part of the same system, and it cannot be divorced from it; the system can’t survive without such willful negligence.

            As far as classical slavery goes, it wasn’t just about forcing people to work for nothing, there are countless examples of the power imbalance itself being almost the whole point of perpetuating the system (hence how so many theorists have gone to crazy lengths to justify the system), and, yes, many people took the power they were given within that system far beyond simple economical terms, but I don’t think of this as an aberration within a system, but a fundamental part of it. And these unequal power dynamics are still with us, even after the system itself collapsed (or reformed). The sense of superiority (or, if such a thing matters, the implied inferiority of the weak “other”), these implied “facts/truths” keep the system going, and allow the workers within it to simply plug themselves into an ages-old role, so long as it fits with their supposed/learned superiority. Certain conditions may have brought an end to the system, and these conditions could still conceivably return if societal conditions changed back to one where human life can be similarly disregarded. For the record, I don’t believe for a second that classical slavery ended merely because a certain percentage of people suddenly came to the conclusion that it was wrong; there’s more than a little co-incidence that a system of mass manual labor (at different stages in different parts of the world) came to an end around the time that industrialization (with its unthinking, unfeeling machines, needing only to be tended by a few trusted workers) arrived to fill the role once taken by cheap manual labor.

            As far as sci-fi premises such as this film go, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that these kinds of situations could return; if the worth of a human life can be so casually disregarded for some reason or another (overpopulation, in this case), these social conditions could also come roaring back. I think it’s fitting that, in this supposed world, people are allowed to advance to 25 (prime laboring age) and kept there, only so long as they earn their keep to their masters, and are not even allowed to age out of their productive years. The film may gloss over the exact reason for WANTING such a large population of young workers (in order to make a broader point about wealth disparity), but it certainly seems to me to be based on a more classical mode of societal control, backed by traditional motives; unfeeling, unthinking (if possible) people at the top, and the cruel-by-design overseers further down.

  • Does this movie even begin to answer questions like “Do you get extra time for having children?” & “What happens if too many ‘poor’ people die?”

    • mamba

      Actually they do.

      Children born to poor parents will end up in orphanages when the parent inevitably dies, and the kid will grow to the age of 25. (One of the rich people in the movie talked briefly about the adoption agencies in the “poor zone” supplying some workers to him.)

      As for “too many poor dying”, the rich never have to worry about that due to sheer numbers, just like today. They’d just make a new underclass and they’d be the ones with the crappy jobs. They’d just be fewer of them and better paid…for a while. But poverty is a universal fact in society as it exists today, the rich always get rich OFF the poor, and in the movie that basic fact apparently remained.

      Or the rich would just start investing in robots and let them all die off, I doubt they really care one way or the other. Ironically in the movie the rich actually have a reason to care about the long-term health of the society/planet because they personally will be alive to live in it, while today no mater what a rich jerk does, he knows he personally will be dead in 100 years so he has no direct selfish reason to care.

      • seiler88

        No. The rich get rich(at least in a more modern society) by making something or offering a service people want. I did not buy a copy of Skyrim because Bethesda MADE me I bought it because I WANTED to play the game. A company needs to become a government to force people to buy their products. Tell me, who forced you to buy whatever it is that you wrote that comment on? It must be an interesting story. The system you detailed is nothing more than a fast trip to the pointy end of a weapon.

        • mamba

          Not quite true…you are forced to buy basic services like food, shelter, and clothing. (if you make your own, you either bought the supplies or live 10% off the grid and don’t count to this equation of the rich). If you don’t buy them, you will die.

          As the companies make these items, they then use their riches to buy more things that are NOT required but nice to haves, as well as paying their employees who i turn do the same. This “voluntary” expenditure allows for other companies to then become rich.

          Besides, many items are only optional in the technical sense, like electricity or gasoliene/cars/computers. To many people, they become essentials by design of modern society or social pressures from said society.

          So no, the rich don’t force you to buy their products…they just set up the game so a lot of the time, either their fellow rich will buy them (making money off the poor), or the poor themselves will buy it (like food), or pressure will be put on people just so they don’t live like a hippie commune (like TV and cellphone plans).

          The money must come from somewhere…and my job forced me to buy my PC, so it’s kind of a boring story in the end. :)

        • Nessus

          This ideology is based on a false premise. Namely that hard coercion is the sole form of subversion or influence.

          Mamba touched on the ways necessity can both be manufactured and exploited to force people to buy without “holding a gun to their head”, but lets also talk marketing.

          Companies don’t just advertise by telling the public their product exists and hoping that’s what people want. They spend enormous amounts of money on Wile-E-Coyote schemes to lie as much as possible without crossing the legal boundary of fraud, to manipulate the viewer/listener’s emotional perceptions as surreptitiously and reliably as possible. The goal is to get as close as possible to being able to reach through your eyes and flip a switch in your brain to make you want what what they’re selling, regardless of what you would or wouldn’t want on your own. The whole point of lying is for people to believe you. The hiring of psychologists to manipulate people’s judgement is predicated on the belief that it can work.

          And it does work. Modern marketing turns a profit in a sufficiently reliable, non-random way to be a good investment.

          So… either they DO have a statistically significant degree of real, deliberate power to subvert free will… or they’ve all been wasting gigantic amounts of shareholders’ money. All of them. For almost a century (provided you only count the scientific efforts, and not propagandistic methods as old as time… which also work).

          If marketing designed to influence free will is profitable, then it demonstrably works as such, and they have responsibility for such. If they want to deny responsibility, they have to claim it doesn’t work at all, condemn it as waste, and pack it in. Can’t logically have it both ways.

          Trying to manipulate and/or deceive someone is a different beast from merely trying to convince them. So while the consumer doesn’t have a gun to their head, that doesn’t mean they always have sole power or responsibility.

  • Cristiona

    “What happens if everyone gets to live forever? Won’t that just
    drain the world of resources and cause overcrowding and lead to even
    more crime and suffering? Obviously that doesn’t justify killing off the
    poor, but there was no depth to the movie’s resolution other than
    “everyone deserves equality”.”

    So… essentially… Logan’s Run :P

  • Thomas

    Immortality would only lead to overpopulation if one assumes that the drive to have children and thus carry on your family line still exists. Besides, people would still die off from disease and accidents. Not aging would not eliminate every single cause of death.

    • Even if a woman was immortal women run out of eggs and stop being fertile after the age of 50-60, so its not like people are going to have another kids every 20 years or anything.