I agree with that. It's unfortunate that the movie attempts to illustrate this emotional drive to achieve with something that puts others in danger. If the protagonist had only been risking himself, it would have gotten the message across far better.
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.
> It's strange to see everyone hold up this movie as an argument against this sort of testing.
Interesting viewpoint! It seems to me that the genetic testing was nothing more than a convenient proxy for measuring actual performance. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and by actually performing, Vincent proved that the proxy was (in many ways) flawed.
> either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price
The whole story is about emotion vs. reason, about whether or not the human spirit can be neatly quantified, categorized and filed away, and about the complex trade-offs involved. I think it's more likely that the writers were aware of this aspect of the plot, and gave us that much more food for thought...
The risk to the rest of the crew is never discussed, and is implied to lightly that most people don't even notice it. (For examples, see the other replies I'm getting.)
The tradeoffs are never discussed, and the protagonist never so much as acknowledges that his pursuit of his dreams might cause harm to others.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this pudding isn't eaten until Vincent's mission returns safely. When the movie ends, he has not come close to proving his performance for that.
You're committing the same mistake that is expressly argued against in the story. The story is directly criticises rationality taken too far; it's advocating a triumph of will to achieve. Who are you to say that the mission is more likely to fail without someone with that will to succeed, and instead with yet another rationalist who will lose hope when their models tell them it won't work out? Who will give up the swim when they see no way back to shore?
Teams generally work better with a mix of different people, rather than uniformity. I'd be willing to bet that if the scenario was real, the mix would work better.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocating the inclusion of people with fatal heart defects on space missions just to satisfy a goal of improved diversity.
There are a lot of people out there who want to become astronauts and are rejected because they're not healthy enough. The reaction is almost always "that sucks for you, maybe you could go into something related to space so you're at least still doing something related to your dream," not "NASA sucks, they're building weaker teams by excluding people they think aren't healthy enough for space travel."
It's particularly unfortunate because it would have been so easy to fix. The risk to others is unnecessary to anything the movie is saying. That it wasn't fixed says to me that either the writers couldn't be bothered to think things through, or they believe that personal ambition is worth any price, even the lives of people who don't consent. Neither alternative is very attractive.