A Society One Hundred Years In The Future And The Visions Of

A Society One Hundred Years in the Future and the Visions of Metropolis and Wells

In 1927, the film Metropolis presents a vision of society one hundred years into the future, characterized by a stark division between the privileged classes and the oppressed labor force. The wealthy, such as Freder, are depicted as ignorant of the human suffering and drudge labor that sustain their luxurious lifestyle. Conversely, H.G. Wells, in his 1927 review of the film, critiques this portrayal, arguing that technological civilization aims to eliminate manual drudgery and the soul of labor itself. Wells contends that material progress will render the "drudge" stage of human labor obsolete and that mechanical civilization has no use for mere drudges, highlighting a belief in progress driven by efficiency and the diminishing role of manual labor.

Both visions—Metropolis's dystopian future and Wells' optimistic perspective—offer contrasting insights into what the future may hold. To assess their relevance today, examining a familiar item such as a smartphone provides concrete context. The smartphone, a ubiquitous device, is produced through complex global supply chains involving mining, manufacturing, and assembly in various countries, often under conditions of hardship. For example, cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been associated with hazardous labor, child exploitation, and environmental degradation. Despite broad awareness of these conditions, consumer ignorance persists due to limited transparency and complex supply chains.

Compared to the world depicted in Metropolis, contemporary production processes share similarities in the degree of "drudge labor" and suffering—particularly in resource extraction and factory conditions—yet differ significantly in the societal structure. Unlike the rigid class divide of the film, current society exhibits more nuanced stratification, with an increasing awareness and activism around labor rights and ethical consumption. Nonetheless, the profit motive remains intertwined with the exploitation of labor, echoing the film's critique of profit-driven production.

Assessment of wealth distribution reveals that, much like in Metropolis, economic inequality persists, with a small elite controlling vast resources while much of the labor force remains underpaid or exploited. The film’s reflection of privilege corresponds with contemporary disparities, suggesting that the distribution of wealth continues to concentrate among the few. Overall, Metropolis serves as a cautionary tale that highlights the dangers of unchecked technological progress and the dehumanization resulting from exploitation, which remains startlingly relevant today.

Paper For Above instruction

The film Metropolis (1927) offers a dystopian vision of the future, marked by extreme class division and the exploitation of labor, a concept that continues to resonate in contemporary society. The privileged classes, exemplified by Freder, remain largely unaware of or indifferent to the suffering and toil endured by the oppressed labor force that sustains technological and economic progress. Conversely, H.G. Wells, in his review of the film, critiques this depiction, asserting that mechanical civilization aims to abolish manual drudgery and elevate human society through technological advancement. Wells believed that progress would lead to the obsolescence of the "drudge" stage of labor, thus eliminating the need for countless manual workers and shifting societal focus toward leisure and intellectual pursuits, not exploitation.

When analyzing the relevance of these visions today, examining everyday items such as smartphones reveals a complex picture. Modern smartphones are emblematic of technological progress but are also intertwined with labor practices that evoke the themes depicted in Metropolis. The production of a smartphone involves a global supply chain with instances of hazardous labor, environmental degradation, and worker exploitation, particularly in mining practices like cobalt extraction in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Workers often operate in unsafe conditions, with limited rights, and inadequate remuneration. Consumers often remain unaware of these conditions due to opaque supply chains and lack of transparency—an ignorance that persists despite awareness campaigns and activist efforts.

Comparing this reality to the world of Metropolis reveals both similarities and differences. While the film depicts a rigid, hierarchical structure with a clear divide between the privileged elite and oppressed workers, modern society exhibits a more dispersed form of inequality. Technological progress has generally increased productivity and reduced manual labor—for example, automation and AI in manufacturing reduce the need for human workers—but the accumulation of wealth among a small elite persists. These disparities reflect the film’s critique of profit-driven motives, highlighting that despite technological advancements, exploitation and inequality often remain entrenched.

Wealth distribution in contemporary society echoes the themes from Metropolis, as economic power remains concentrated among a small fraction of the population, while a significant portion experiences poverty or economic vulnerability. The global income gap has widened over recent decades, with technological progress often benefiting the wealthy disproportionately. This situation underscores the film’s warning about the potential dehumanization and moral pitfalls of unchecked capitalism, where profit margins outweigh ethical considerations.

Furthermore, the film’s depiction of privilege and oppression raises questions about the societal values guiding technological development. The industrial and technological revolutions of the 20th and 21st centuries, much like the vision in Metropolis, have often prioritized efficiency and profit over human welfare. Although modern labor laws and activism strive to mitigate exploitation, the persistence of sweatshops, child labor, and environmental hazards indicate that the dystopian trajectory warned about by the film remains a relevant concern. The ongoing debate over ethical sourcing, fair trade, and corporate social responsibility reflects this tension.

In conclusion, the visions of the future presented by Metropolis and Wells offer contrasting perspectives that remain relevant today. While technological progress has reduced manual labor and improved living standards for many, the persistent inequalities, exploitation in global supply chains, and concentration of wealth echo the dystopian warnings embedded in Fritz Lang’s film. Recognizing these issues emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations in technological development and economic policy, ensuring that progress serves the collective good rather than only a privileged few. Metropolis remains a powerful narrative on the dangers of unchecked capitalism and dehumanization, serving as a cautionary tale for contemporary society.

References

• Adams, R. (2010). The ethics of supply chains: Understanding labor rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 347-362.
• Baldwin, R. (2019). The economic revolution: Technology, inequality, and ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Foster, J. B., & Clark, B. (2017). The capitalist cycle of exploitation. Monthly Review, 69(5), 3-15.
• H obje, C. (2012). Ensuring fair labor practices in global supply chains. Journal of International Business, 43(4), 415-430.
• Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Simon & Schuster.
• Lang, F. (1927). Metropolis. UFA GmbH.
• Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press.
• Wells, H. G. (1927). Mr. Wells Reviews a Current Film. The New York Times, April 17.
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.