Whether technology is a killer or a better world has always been a philosophical topic of global discussion. In the long run, the advantages of technological progress have always outweighed the disadvantages. Take nuclear weapons as an example. Isn't it because of the foundation of nuclear technology that nuclear power generation can be realized? This logic also applies to the judgment of the film. The issues that everyone cares about most about privacy, differences in personal lifestyles, etc. will be solved one by one due to the changes of the times. Similar to the destruction of the environment by the birth of trains, the annihilation of human nature by the industrial flow... all these have been discussed extensively and are no longer important? The important thing is that technology will not stagnate due to human opposition, it will not. It is precisely because human consciousness lags behind the level of science and technology that there is controversy. Similar to the horse-drawn carriage era, the automobile era cannot be understood, and the agricultural era cannot understand industrial civilization...everything is left to time. This may seem false, but it is true. If there must be an answer, then my point of view is that the release of accompanying technology should cooperate with corresponding legal constraints, for example, the rules and regulations on the handling of privacy issues by technology. The logic of artificial intelligence genetic engineering is similar. The film amplifies the drawbacks of technology's exposure to personal privacy, but lacks in-depth thinking to solve the problem. So happy people drag the two BOSE off the altar, and then? The problem still exists, and other companies can pick up the technology and apply it widely. So after watching the film, there is a sense of powerlessness...
View more about The Circle reviews
