This morning I was watching a documentary about climate change and its impact on agriculture, focused on some dry regions in China. It was about a group of locals -buddhists/taoists in their belief- who tried to combat the increasing temperatures and drought by greening up the desert and sanddunes near their residences.

It was harsh to see them that their faithful praying and temple visits were in vain and eventually the documentary switched to an old man blinking into the camera and realizing that all the predictions and observations made through science were accurate and no kind of praying could help.

Even though they knew they couldn't do much to counter the effects they kept going to the temples, out of tradition I guess. It left a bitter taste in my mouth that they sort of resorted to this 'comfort zone' (?), much like saying "What else am I supposed to do?" and it was sad to watch it happen.

I feel like this could relate to escape tactics various other religious folks seem to pursue, appealing to someone -even if just a fictional character based on mythology- out of insecurity?

Does this make sense or is it all a bit too far out there?

It makes sense. Religion itself is an escape tactic to avoid facing the harshness of reality.

LIFE wrote:This morning I was watching a documentary about climate change and its impact on agriculture, focused on some dry regions in China. It was about a group of locals -buddhists/taoists in their belief- who tried to combat the increasing temperatures and drought by greening up the desert and sanddunes near their residences.

It was harsh to see them that their faithful praying and temple visits were in vain and eventually the documentary switched to an old man blinking into the camera and realizing that all the predictions and observations made through science were accurate and no kind of praying could help.

Even though they knew they couldn't do much to counter the effects they kept going to the temples, out of tradition I guess. It left a bitter taste in my mouth that they sort of resorted to this 'comfort zone' (?), much like saying "What else am I supposed to do?" and it was sad to watch it happen.

I feel like this could relate to escape tactics various other religious folks seem to pursue, appealing to someone -even if just a fictional character based on mythology- out of insecurity?

Does this make sense or is it all a bit too far out there?

It depends on why people were going to the temple. Were they praying, and did they think prayer would lead to environmental changes? Were they going for the sense of community, to perform a comforting ritual, or to meditate? In the cases of the latter three, I don't really see a bitter-taste-in-mouth problem with this.

LIFE wrote:eventually the documentary switched to an old man blinking into the camera and realizing that all the predictions and observations made through science were accurate and no kind of praying could help.

Unless he actually said this (which I think extremely unlikely), you were likely interpreting the image exactly as the documentary maker had programmed you to.

When watching a documentary, I find it very illuminating to think about camera placement. How come the camera is always well placed to anticipate a supposedly spontaneous action, why is there a camera at the destination to film the arrival of the expedition (including camera crew) etc.

A little bit of critical thinking goes a long way.

For eg, wouldn't you expect an elderly buddhist to look uncomfortable and shifty/blinky when you poke a giant camera in his face, no matter what he thought of the environment?

zulumoose wrote:

LIFE wrote:eventually the documentary switched to an old man blinking into the camera and realizing that all the predictions and observations made through science were accurate and no kind of praying could help.

Unless he actually said this (which I think extremely unlikely), you were likely interpreting the image exactly as the documentary maker had programmed you to.

Why is it extremely unlikely? I was paraphrasing a bit because I don't recall it verbatim but the actual message isn't changed.

zulumoose wrote:
When watching a documentary, I find it very illuminating to think about camera placement. How come the camera is always well placed to anticipate a supposedly spontaneous action, why is there a camera at the destination to film the arrival of the expedition (including camera crew) etc.

A little bit of critical thinking goes a long way.

For eg, wouldn't you expect an elderly buddhist to look uncomfortable and shifty/blinky when you poke a giant camera in his face, no matter what he thought of the environment?

Sure, but it wasn't a documentary 'trick' as there was a monologue preceding his conclusion so you could follow his logic throughout. And actually it was a pretty dry and neutral documentary, no dramatic cuts, music, no hyped commentary style.
But yes, one should analyze critically, no objection there.

Nice, too many documentary type films go so far they could be referred to as dramatic art.

You see the same "falling back on ritual superstitious belief" time and again, no matter which pet cult people belong to. God/Buddha/Allah/Krishna didn't intervene and solve the problem? Well, it wasn't meant to be solved, and who are we to question the almighty/spirits/powers-that-be?