2

Given the implications of time dilation on the crew of the Endurance mission, why send people at all? TARS and CASE seem more than capable of operating the ships themselves and wouldn't care about how much time was passing for each other or back on Earth. Whoever they chose to rescue could have started Plan B without risking any more crew.

  • I felt that my answer was pretty comprehensive, at least within the constraints of the film script. Is there anything else you'd like to see before considering an acceptance? – Valorum Jul 1 '16 at 21:02
4

According to the original script, the problem is that robots simply aren't reliable. Placing the survival of the entire human race into their hands is both unnecessarily risky (in the sense that they could malfunction) and unnecessarily risk-averse when they're already willing to treat their finest minds as expendable units:

COOPER: You’re taking a risk using ex-military for security. They’re old, their control units are unpredictable ...

WOMAN: Well, that’s what the government could spare.

It should be noted that TARS and CASE apparently performed well above expectation.

  • Yes, and given that the survival of the whole human race is at stake, it makes sense to be willing to sacrifice the lives of explorers if it leads to even a slight increase in the chances the mission will be successful. – Hypnosifl Jul 11 '15 at 19:23
  • 2
    "..the problem is that robots simply aren't reliable" Yes, Mann was a complete.. Oh sorry, you were talking about the hardware. ;) – Andrew Thompson Jul 12 '15 at 3:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.