In this blog post, we’ll examine the value-neutrality of scientific and technological progress and its impact on human society based on the movie ‘In Time’, and reflect together on whether such progress is always a good thing.
Philosophical Questions About Science Raised by the Movie “In Time”
The phrase “Time is Money” is commonly known as an expression that epitomizes Benjamin Franklin’s philosophy. Franklin did indeed use the phrase “Time is Money” to emphasize the value of time. However, in the movie “In Time,” this phrase becomes not just a metaphor but reality itself. “In Time” is a science fiction film set in a society where time is currency. Thanks to advances in science and technology—particularly genetic engineering—humanity is able to enjoy what amounts to virtual immortality, a dream long cherished by humankind. It is as if science and technology have realized the elixir of life that Emperor Qin Shi Huang so desperately sought.
In the film, everyone is granted a basic survival time of one year starting the moment they turn 25. From then on, wages are paid in time, and time must also be spent to purchase goods. Ultimately, a society has been created where people live by consuming their own lives. The film’s plot depicts the protagonist’s struggle against the contradictions of this society, his falling in love with the daughter of a wealthy family, and his eventual upheaval of the social structure. While the world-building is original, the narrative itself closely follows a relatively typical hero’s journey.
However, what deserves attention in this film is the world-building rather than the plot.
If we set the plot aside for a moment and focus solely on the world-building, we can identify two intriguing questions regarding the philosophy of science. The first is why the benefits of scientific and technological progress are not distributed fairly to everyone, and the second is whether such progress always leads to positive outcomes for humanity.
Why aren’t the benefits of science and technology distributed fairly to everyone?
Let’s first consider the first question. In the film, the wealthy effectively enjoy eternal life, while the poor literally live from hand to mouth. This stark contrast forms the film’s central conflict. If scientific and technological advancements have made eternal life possible, why are the poor unable to enjoy that benefit?
From the perspective of value neutrality proposed by Max Weber, science and technology should provide equal benefits to everyone without favoring specific classes or social groups. Here, value neutrality means that science and technology themselves are neutral entities that do not possess specific values or purposes.
However, even when we look beyond the film to reality, this claim remains closer to an idealistic assumption. For example, just because medical technology has advanced significantly does not mean that everyone around the world enjoys its benefits equally. Due to differences in healthcare standards and economic power among nations, cutting-edge medical technology is often made available first to certain countries and social classes.
The reason the benefits of science and technology are not distributed fairly lies not in science and technology itself, but in the structure of the society and the people who develop and utilize it. Scientists and engineers are members of society and their respective nations, and research and development involves substantial capital and institutional frameworks. Consequently, the phenomenon of scientific and technological achievements primarily benefiting specific groups is easily observed in reality. While science itself may be neutral, social values and interests become intertwined in the process of researching and applying it, making it difficult to maintain value neutrality.
Even in the film, the benefits of the immortality technology first go to the wealthy class that funded the research. This is a natural consequence. While science and technology play a role in increasing society’s overall resources, it is politics and social institutions that determine how those increased resources are distributed. Therefore, even if science and technology expand social wealth, if the distribution structure remains unchanged, the benefits are highly likely to be allocated along the lines of existing inequalities.
The “time zones” that separate wealthy and impoverished areas in the film symbolically illustrate this reality. To travel to a wealthy neighborhood, one must pay a “toll” of no less than 10 years of time. Furthermore, prices in impoverished areas are determined by those in power in the wealthy areas, ultimately perpetuating a structure in which the time of the poor continuously flows to the wealthy.
Ultimately, while it is difficult to say that science and technology themselves are socially biased, the benefits of science and technology are inevitably skewed due to the structure of human society that utilizes them. Therefore, while the value neutrality of science and technology may be conceptually valid, in reality it is closer to an ideal that is difficult to fully realize.
Does the advancement of science and technology always make people happy?
The second question stems from a line of dialogue in the film.
“If you’re poor, you die; if you’re rich, you live in vain.”
If humans were to live forever, would they truly be happy? Eternal life has long been a dream of humanity. The story of Emperor Qin Shi Huang’s quest for the elixir of life and the promise of eternal life in the Christian Bible both illustrate this long-standing human aspiration.
However, in the film’s world—where the eternal life humanity has dreamed of, regardless of East or West, has become a reality—the wealthy actually do not appear happy at all. They spend their days indulging in alcohol and hedonism, having lost the meaning of life and become consumed by nihilism. Even though their dream has come true, they have, in fact, lost their purpose in life. The film shows that while science and technology have fulfilled human aspirations, the result does not necessarily lead to happiness.
Furthermore, the premise that characters do not age because they enjoy eternal life is also striking. The fact that an 80-year-old grandmother, a 50-year-old mother, and a 25-year-old daughter all look the same creates an atmosphere that is more unsettling and eerie than that of a happy family. This scene can be seen as a symbolic representation of the confusion that arises when the natural passage of time and the concept of generations—which humans have long accepted—collapse.
Scientific progress and its associated side effects have long been a subject of ongoing debate in the philosophy of science. Nuclear technology is a prime example. Since the same scientific principles can be used to create nuclear weapons as well as to generate electricity through nuclear power, it is difficult to categorically label science and technology as inherently good or evil.
However, the question posed by the film ‘In Time’ is slightly different. It demonstrates that even though science and technology have realized humanity’s long-held dreams, the results can actually make people unhappy. Although humans have developed nature and built cities to live more conveniently, the fact that many people today travel to reconnect with nature is another example of this paradox.
Reflecting on this leads to the conclusion that the development of science and technology for the benefit of humanity must take into account both the pace at which humans can adapt and the necessary balance. Since the Industrial Revolution, science and technology have advanced at a breakneck pace, and in the process, urbanization and industrialization have occurred rapidly. As a result, while humanity has gained prosperity, it has simultaneously been burdened with new social challenges such as environmental pollution, climate change, and urban problems.
Films such as ‘The Island’ and ‘A.I.’ address similar concerns. Both works illustrate the ethical and social turmoil that can arise when science and technology advance rapidly while humanity remains unprepared. What these diverse works have in common is the message that rapid advancements in science and technology can bring about unexpected side effects for humanity.
Humans must gradually expand their capacity to embrace new technologies while taking into account not only social, economic, and scientific-technological changes but also their own psychological and ethical transformations. Furthermore, science and technology must develop in harmony with this capacity for social acceptance. If the pace of scientific and technological advancement far outstrips the pace at which humans and society can adapt, the likelihood of various forms of turmoil and conflict will increase.
Of course, one could argue that the advancement of science and technology also enhances humanity’s ability to adapt. Indeed, humanity has evolved by overcoming many changes whenever new technologies have emerged. However, it is difficult to conclude, based solely on past experience, that we will be able to adequately handle all future technologies and the disruptions they may cause. In particular, modern cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and gene editing have the potential to exert a far greater social impact than in the past, so they must be approached from a more cautious and stable perspective.
Is the advancement of science and technology always right?
The two questions examined above ultimately boil down to a single question: “Is the advancement of science and technology always right?” as posed in the title.
Considering the answers to both the first and second questions together, it is difficult to say that the advancement of science and technology is always right. However, the reason for this does not lie in science and technology itself. The ultimate purpose of science and technology is to improve the lives and well-being of human society by exploring and understanding nature. Therefore, science and technology cannot be viewed as an independent entity separate from humanity; their meaning is only fully realized when considered in conjunction with people and society.
For this reason, the advancement of science and technology must necessarily take human beings fully into account. We must deeply consider how new technologies will affect human life and society, and we must weigh both social equity and the quality of life for each individual. It is also an important responsibility that scientists and engineers must shoulder together: to adjust the direction and pace of development while carefully assessing the limits of what humans and society can accept.
