My Problems with Interstellar Act 2

I'm not a fan of wormholes as a transportation device. With all due respect to Dr. Kip Thorne, in reality they make a terrible medium for travel.

First, wormholes are possible in theory. However, there is no empirical evidence to prove they actually exist, but the math suggests they do. Einstein was the first to propose the existence of wormholes, and he's been right so often with his theories that it's hard to believe he would be wrong. The difficulties come with how they are created, and it tells you a lot about the kinds of forces you are dealing with. It's these forces which cause the problem with traveling through a wormhole, and not the existence of the phenomenon.

Wormholes are accurately explained in the movie. They describe what a wormhole does, and what it looks like. The problem is not the phenomenon itself. The problem comes with how they are crated. Einstein and Hawking both wrote about wormholes. Einstein posited that if a mass were to be dense enough, it could cause a highly localized distortion in space-time. This distortion could form a hole in space-time causing it to fold space from one point to another. Hawking proposed, and has since modified, a theory that the wormholes form their own pocket universes. In either case, wormholes require a huge mass that has compressed to the point where it rips a hole in space-time.

NASA JPL actual black hole

black hole from Interstellar Movie

Black holes are massive and dense enough they can rip holes in space-time. We know they exist, and have even photographed them, and they look fairly close to what we thought they would.  The forces on the ship and crew is a major problem that would prohibit traveling through space.

The next issue confronting the progression of the plot is the Plan B contingency. Plan B is the use of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to repopulate a habitable planet. This would occur if the crew was unable to return to Earth, or the people on Earth were unable to evacuate the planet. My issue is not the technology, or the idea, but how it's carried out.

The idea would be for Anne Hathaway's character, Dr. Brand, to act as surrogate for the embryos, and become a surrogate Eve on the new world. Obviously, this plan was concocted by someone who has never been a parent, or given birth. There is almost a metric ton of frozen embryos for use in this plan. I wondered if the plan was for her to give birth to them all, because that seems to be putting a lot of eggs in one basket.

This entire plan is designed to fail. Why?

Because, Dr Brand is the ONLY female on the mission. The mission starts with three males, and ONE (singular) female. The back-up plan is for her to use IVF to get pregnant (a lot), and hope that she doesn't die giving birth. There is no fail-safe measure. There are no other women on the ship, and (wish all you want) men can't have babies (even with IVF).

By the end of the film (SPOILER ALERT), she's left alone. How many women would be willing to:

1. Live on an alien world - ALONE
2. Have a child - ALONE
3. Raise said child - ALONE

All of this while scratching out an existence on a world with unknown hazards and hardships (need I repeat it - ALONE!). This would NEVER work as a plan.

You might be thinking: "This writer is an idiot. He doesn't know how strong women are. He must be some misogynist jerk who doesn't give Dr. Brand the credit she deserves."

You would be wrong. I am married to a strong woman. She raised two of her own children, and many of her siblings by herself. My mother, and sisters are all strong women. My great-grandmother raised a whole bunch of kids by herself in an unforgiving mountain valley in Idaho. I know strong women. I know what mentality it takes. I know that there comes a point where, if living becomes too much of a challenge, people can't continue. No matter how strong they are.

Pioneering a new world would be challenging enough, but raising an entire civilization by yourself would break Dr. Brand. I base this on her reaction after she makes a bad decision, and gets one of the crew killed.


The simple problem comes to this: There are far too few crew, and not enough women to complete the secondary mission if the primary one fails. For a science heavy story, it fails basic math.

Act 3 soon to come.

My Problems with Interstellar Act 1

I like Christopher Nolan's work. He is a thoughtful director and writer. I actually LIKE Interstellar, HOWEVER, for a film that concentrates so heavily on the science, this one falls through plot holes the size of Gargantua.

First, let's look at the premise which starts our protagonist on his hero's journey. Earth is doomed to run out of food due to a nitrogen loving blight. The last crop is corn. Wars are finished, because people can't feed the armies needed to fight them. Technology is shunned, because we need food not television. NASA has gone underground because of the proliferation of anti-scientific propaganda. The only person who can save us all is a pilot/engineer who has turned to farming because... reasons. Yet, this farmer is the only one who can fix combines which still use a functioning GPS constellation to till the fields between dust storms. SIGH!

Let's start with the idea that technology is bad. At the same time, vehicles are still used, power is still on, and somehow there are satellites in orbit. All of those things require technological infrastructure to build and maintain. Satellites are not autonomous. They require a ground control station. Power generation is also something that requires constant maintenance and control. Vehicles require fuel (There was no way that dual axle truck was electric), and that requires a refinery and petroleum well. All of that has to be maintained by mechanics and engineers, so the farmers can do their job. The idea that everyone needs to become farmers instead of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers has been tried (Cambodia), and it didn't work out so well.

If we were reduced to okra and corn, we would be in horrible shape. Ask the Irish how well an agrarian society that depends on a single crop does if there's a disease that kills plants en mass. It would mean that rice, wheat, beans, fruit trees, root vegetables (onions and carrots), leafy vegetables (cabbage and lettuce), and other edible plants had all died. The animals that relied on all those plants would be dead. All the other inedible which the animals had eaten would be dead. All the insects that had relied on those plants would be dead. All the marine life would also be dead. In other words, we would have died long before corn was the only plant that survived. I can't tell if Mr. Nolan was trying to make a statement about how America loves corn, but it's a terrible crop to grow. Corn depletes nitrogen, uses tons of fertilizer, pesticides, water, and contributes to soil erosion. Almost any other plant would be a better crop.

Suspension of disbelief is required for science fiction. If you can't get past the initial conditions, it makes it more difficult to believe the events which serve to set up the first "pinch" (event that sets up Act 2). Why is leaving Earth a better option than trying to SAVE it. This makes the assumption that another planet will be found which will support life as we know it. Earth is the ONLY planet we have found which can support life.
It's not too hot.
It's not too cold.
It has abundant water.
It has a robust magnetic field.
It has a thick atmosphere.
There is abundant oxygen in the atmosphere.
The Earth is not too large, or too small.
The sun is not too active.
The sun is relatively stable.
The sun is not too large or too small.
This is not to say that the Earth is so unique that it's the only world that supports life.
It is not.
I believe that other planets, similar to Earth, exist. They just aren't as common as people wish they were. With the vast distances between worlds, and the great distances involved, we can NEVER take our home for granted. We are stewards, not owners, lords, or masters of this world. We need to care for what we are given.

Which leads me to my last point.

What makes the characters of the film think they will be able to alter the views of civilization enough to prevent a repeat of the mistakes of the past? What makes the astronauts think they won't take the contamination (blight) with them to another world, and wreck that ecosystem as well? How would you prevent someone from propagating the destructive ideas and policies in a new world? What happens if the only habitable planet you find, already has inhabitants? How do you keep from destroying the place you colonize? None of those fundamental questions, or ethical dilemmas are addressed. You'll have to wait for Act 2.   

Science as entertainment, and the plot holes within

I have been busy writing and editing books. Which means I haven't had time to blog. Not that anyone really misses it. I have been meaning to write on science plot holes within movies (Interstellar, Passengers etc.), but have been eyeballs deep in research for my current novel: MeCTen NOVA. Since I write hard science fiction/fantasy I've had to do a bit of shoring up on my quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, and other related fields.

I  still find time for movie watching, but I find myself in awe of certain issues that crop up in films, and I can't get over how wide the chasm can be.

For example, the movie SUNSHINE: For those who haven't seen this film, it's a very good example of what science fiction can be...right up until the third act. The final act degrades into a horror slasher film, and that's when it jumps the tracks into the land of dumb.

HOWEVER, that's not the issue. The major issue that I have is not the premise that the sun is dying. My issue is with the proposed premise of taking all the fissile matter of Earth, putting it all together, and transporting it by humans to the sun in an attempt to reignite it. Even the most basic understanding of nuclear physics screams "bad idea". Why? Because spontaneous nuclear fusion (the thing that powers atomic bombs and nuclear power plants) occurs when enough nuclear fissionable material accumulates, a reaction will occur. If the reaction is controlled, you can generate enough power to light a city, or destroy it. When it is out of control, you get Chernobyl or Fukushima. A bomb as large as Icarus 2 would cause a meltdown before it was ever loaded onto the spacecraft. Even if they were somehow able to assemble it in space, the radiation would destroy the electronics and kill the crew with lethal radiation levels.

Just one example of some of the articles I have in the pipe.
Hope to see you soon.