I do not recall any real moment that the premise of the villains is challenged though, the challenge is “you cant be ecofash for moral reasons” and the head ecofash is constantly portrayed as a uniquely troubled genius.
Is there a potential future where a third season would reveal it to be all bullshit? Sure, but then it becomes bad television instead, since the ecofash narrative is one of the things that was innovative and challenging about it.
From what I remember, the ecofash are the villains. The villians has some ecofascist beliefs and are motivated by those beliefs, but I don’t think that the show itself accepts ecofascism. To me it was pretty clear that the show was saying ecofascism is bad.
It does say that but at the same time as it accepts the core premises and “question” of ecofascism, but it attempts to suggest a different answer for moral reasons.
Like if there was a show about IQ or something and the message was that you shouldnt oppress people for having lower IQ collectively.
There are some parts that are legitimate issues to be concerned with, but the show places a huge emphasis on overpopulation specifically and not very much focus by comparison on matters such as resource allocation, economic systems, shit like that.
So you get a cabal of rich capitalists that get to essentially unchallenged* present the issue as one of all of humanity at once, and not one that they are directly and constantly perpetrators of. As with the other comment, is there a world where season 3 would critique this? Maybe, but that doesnt seem likely given that the provocative nature of the show is the supposed moral dilemma of population culling vs humanity facing extinction.
*Unchallenged in that the claims they present are not challenged on a factual basis, nor are the protagonists able to present any opposition in terms of what can be done about the issues but only on matters of morality, and the only protagonist who even has proper knowledge of the same issues is entirely convinced of the antagonists worldview and plan, while those that continue opposing the antagonists legitimately do not have knowledge of the issues.
It’s a shame the premise is basically just accepting ecofash assumptions in order to be provocative, but the style and acting is great.
deleted by creator
I do not recall any real moment that the premise of the villains is challenged though, the challenge is “you cant be ecofash for moral reasons” and the head ecofash is constantly portrayed as a uniquely troubled genius.
Is there a potential future where a third season would reveal it to be all bullshit? Sure, but then it becomes bad television instead, since the ecofash narrative is one of the things that was innovative and challenging about it.
From what I remember, the ecofash are the villains. The villians has some ecofascist beliefs and are motivated by those beliefs, but I don’t think that the show itself accepts ecofascism. To me it was pretty clear that the show was saying ecofascism is bad.
It does say that but at the same time as it accepts the core premises and “question” of ecofascism, but it attempts to suggest a different answer for moral reasons.
Like if there was a show about IQ or something and the message was that you shouldnt oppress people for having lower IQ collectively.
deleted by creator
There are some parts that are legitimate issues to be concerned with, but the show places a huge emphasis on overpopulation specifically and not very much focus by comparison on matters such as resource allocation, economic systems, shit like that.
So you get a cabal of rich capitalists that get to essentially unchallenged* present the issue as one of all of humanity at once, and not one that they are directly and constantly perpetrators of. As with the other comment, is there a world where season 3 would critique this? Maybe, but that doesnt seem likely given that the provocative nature of the show is the supposed moral dilemma of population culling vs humanity facing extinction.
*Unchallenged in that the claims they present are not challenged on a factual basis, nor are the protagonists able to present any opposition in terms of what can be done about the issues but only on matters of morality, and the only protagonist who even has proper knowledge of the same issues is entirely convinced of the antagonists worldview and plan, while those that continue opposing the antagonists legitimately do not have knowledge of the issues.