A film poster showing rows of neatly arranged body bags with the tagline, “dying makes all the difference in the world,” captures attention. Caitlin Cronenberg’s debut feature film, Humane, stands out as it is deeply rooted in our current ecological struggles, avoiding sensationalism. Many may argue that our helplessness regarding environmental issues might eventually justify extreme measures. Humane explores such measures – it’s a darkly humorous take on a futuristic world where a lethal logic is devised to tackle an apocalyptic crisis. After a severe ecological disaster, global leaders take drastic steps: Every nation is required to reduce its population by 20 percent. In North America, citizens are encouraged to volunteer for euthanasia. Although this policy aims to prevent human extinction, financial incentives suggest it’s primarily aimed at the less affluent.
The subjects of population control and euthanasia are challenging to address, but Cronenberg’s film is the latest addition to a creative tradition exploring these themes. Humane places audiences in a stark world of wealth disparities. While some city residents line up for water under makeshift foil umbrellas to shield them from deadly UV rays, the York family enjoys a lavish meal at their Gothic mansion. The luxurious dinner ends with a startling announcement from patriarch Charles (played by Peter Gallagher): he and his wife, Dawn (Uni Park), have volunteered for euthanasia and plan to die that very night. When Dawn vanishes and enforcers demand a second body to complete their records, the York siblings must decide who will make the ultimate sacrifice.
Much of their outrage stems from their belief that they should be exempt from making such a choice. The family accepts the euthanasia policy as a solution only if they aren’t subjected to it. This attitude aligns with what climate psychologist Sally Weintrobe describes as “neoliberal exceptionalism,” which allows some to feel entitled to privileged resources and lifestyles regardless of the cost. When the siblings must choose who will die, this exceptionalism results in self-serving justifications disguised as logical reasoning. Consequently, three siblings agree that their adopted brother Noah should die due to his past struggles with alcoholism. His misfortune is seen by others as a missed chance they seek to exploit. The 18th-century theory of Malthusianism, which posited that unchecked population growth would surpass the ability to sustain it, is often cited as an early critique of overpopulation, despite its debated merits.
However, Jonathan Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal,” suggesting the wealthy could alleviate the poor’s hardships by consuming their children, predates Malthusianism by over 50 years. An earlier 17th-century play, The Old Law, features a duke imposing mandatory euthanasia for men over 80 and women over 60. The concept of voluntary or mandatory euthanasia later appeared in ’70s films like Soylent Green (1973), based on the novel Make Room! Make Room!, and Logan’s Run (1976), based on the novel of the same name. More recently, American satirist Christopher Buckley explored this idea in his 2007 novel Boomsday.
The 2022 film Plan 75 by Japanese director Chie Hayakawa bears the most interesting comparison to Humane. In Plan 75, citizens over a certain age can choose voluntary euthanasia to support an economy burdened by an aging population. There is a financial incentive: while Humane offers $250,000 to aid surviving family members, Plan 75 offers a meager ¥100,000 (around CA$900/US$650). In Hayakawa’s film, the government encourages euthanasia applications by appealing to civic duty, which is absent among the York siblings in Humane. When Charles announces his decision to enlist, his son Jared (Jay Baruchel) questions why he’d do so given his financial stability. Charles then points out the nearly inevitable mandating of euthanasia in the near future, but Jared seems convinced that their family will not be affected. The audience is led to infer that Jared’s governmental ties have assured him of this. However, collectors’ officer Bob (a standout performance by Enrico Colantoni) disrupts this feeling of safety. In Humane, Bob questions what the world will be like once all principled people have sacrificed themselves for the greater good. In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, Cronenberg expressed uncertainty about her film’s world should all the “righteous” leave. Yet she hoped that in this hypothetical scenario, such examples would inspire others to be less selfish. Surprisingly optimistic for a Cronenberg.
It’s even more so if we consider Weintrobe’s suggestion that exceptionalism contributes significantly to environmental damage. Humane prompts us to ponder whether it’s feasible to depend on governments and authorities for rational guidance in extreme situations, or if we must personally embody greater compassion to improve our world and communities. Journalist Simon Lewsen, writing for The Walrus, notes Humane’s take on “Liberal Proceduralism,” which legitimizes any act with proper documentation. Linking this to Weintrobe’s idea, drastic solutions become sanctioned alongside “deserving” exceptions. It logically follows that some are exempt from sacrificing for community issues. In Humane’s “Enlisters of the Week” infomercial, the smiling faces of the newly deceased are shown. However, the display of power and procedural abuses suggests not all go willingly, and many who do are prompted by the financial desperation of their families. These themes resonate in Canada not only due to climate crisis concerns but also in light of the ongoing debate about medical assistance in dying (MAID). The Guardian notes Canada has one of the world’s highest euthanasia rates, with calls to broaden access prompting worries if dying with dignity seems more achievable than living with dignity given a lack of social support and healthcare investment.