Was Nausicaä Right to Destroy the Monolith? From '2001: A Space Odyssey' to the Manga Version of 'AKIRA' and 'Princess Mononoke'

1. A Coincidence That Started with a "Monolith"

I was talking with ChatGPT about a certain writer on note.

It seems that person has been writing for about twenty years. Each piece of writing is densely packed with everything they have thought about up to that point. At first glance, it is rich, but the arguments are so tightly coupled that it is difficult for a third party to extract just one part and reuse it as a component for another discussion. That is why ChatGPT described their writing as a "monolith."

Of course, in this case, "monolith" is a term from IT architecture. It meant a "monolithic architecture" where functions are tightly coupled into one massive system.

However, my associations flew in a different direction from there.

When I think of a monolith, the first thing that comes to mind is Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey."

And the moment I thought of "2001: A Space Odyssey," another black object floated into my mind. It was the black slab that continues to carve letters, found in the Crypt of Shuwa at the end of Hayao Miyazaki's manga version of "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind."

They are similar.

They are too blatantly similar.

If you look into it, there are already points made that associate the Crypt of Shuwa or its "Master" with "2001: A Space Odyssey." There are also interpretations that read the Crypt and the Garden as an archive of an old civilization. Therefore, the idea itself that "the Crypt of Shuwa is a monolith" is not novel. (e-Tsurezuregusa)

Even so, what is strange is that this homology has not really taken root as a major critical axis for comparison.

Moreover, in a later interview, Miyazaki himself mentioned the option of ending the manga version of "Nausicaä" by having it go to an "incomprehensible place," like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "AKIRA," and stated that he chose to avoid that. In a quote circulated as a 2001 interview included in "The Place Where the Wind Returns," Miyazaki explicitly cites "2001" and "AKIRA" as reference points for the ending. (Gyakushu no Jamila)

If so, perhaps we can properly place this homology, which may have gone unspoken because it was too obvious, into a critical position.

When we do that, the ending of the manga version of "Nausicaä" appears not as a simple "hymn to life" or "environmental philosophy," but as a quite powerful answer to the question raised by 20th-century science fiction: "Who decides the evolution of humanity?"

And when I think that far, another question arises.

Was Nausicaä really right to destroy the Crypt of Shuwa?

2. The Monolith of "2001: A Space Odyssey" Does Not Answer

First, it is dangerous to understand the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a simple "human evolution device."

At the beginning of the film, a monolith appears before the apes, and subsequently, the ability to use bones as tools is acquired. However, those tools are also weapons. Intelligence, technology, civilization, and violence are not separated from the beginning.

Kubrick himself explained that in the film version, he depicted the monolith as having a "catalytic" effect on the apes. On the other hand, he also stated that Arthur C. Clarke's novel version explains the function of the monolith much more explicitly than the film. (Kubrick Archive)

This difference is significant.

The film '2001' intentionally leaves things that could be explained unexplained.

Kubrick conceived of '2001' as an essentially nonverbal experience and refused to pin down its 'message' in words. Regarding the transformation into the Star Child, he also stated that it should be received on a mythical and psychological level rather than through any specific literal explanation.(Vadeker)

Therefore, whether the monolith is good for humanity or not cannot be determined by watching the film alone.

Is it salvation?

Is it evolution?

Is it domestication?

Is it an experiment?

Is it the intervention of a higher intelligence that humans cannot understand?

The film does not answer.

Humanity changes from apes to humans, and from humans to something else entirely. However, the film does not explicitly present the proposition that 'moving to the next stage is good.'

'2001' depicts evolution.

But it reserves the meaning of that evolution.

This is the starting point.

3 The Manga Version of 'AKIRA'—Politics Remain Even After Transcendence

The next important work is Katsuhiro Otomo's manga version of 'AKIRA.' Here, it is necessary to focus specifically on the manga version, not the film version.

The film version of 'AKIRA' was released in 1988, but the manga version continued long after. The manga features multiple political, religious, and military entities that were significantly reduced in the film, such as Lady Miyako and her religious community, the Great Tokyo Empire after the collapse, the military, and foreign powers. The serialization of the manga continued throughout the 1980s, and the final sixth volume was published in 1993. Kodansha itself positions 'AKIRA' as a long-term work that began in 1982.(Kodansha)

What is important is that Otomo did not make psychic power a 'philosophical answer about the world.'

The powers of Akira and Tetsuo appear to be something beyond humanity.

However, there is no single sage who explains what that is.

The state attempts to deal with it.

The military also mobilizes.

Religion also emerges.

Scientists also try to understand it.

Foreign powers also intervene.

However, no single entity can control the whole.

Even when a transcendental event occurs, power, faith, military, urban life, friendship, and violence still remain around it.

Ultimately, the meaning of the world is not explained either.

Kaneda and his friends remain on the side of the destroyed world.

In this respect, the manga version of 'AKIRA' is surprisingly close to '2001'.

Transcendence presents itself.

However, it does not confine it to a single explanation.

4 The Crypt of Shuwa talks more than the monolith

The manga version of 'Nausicaä' proceeds in a different direction from there.

Unlike the monolith, the Crypt of Shuwa talks a great deal.

Why the world ended up in its current state.

What the Sea of Corruption is.

How current humans were created.

What kind of humans are scheduled to live after the polluted world is purified.

What the old civilization has preserved.

The Crypt explains not only the past of the world but also its future.

Herein lies the decisive difference from '2001'.

The Monolith remains silent as an Other that is incomprehensible to humans.

The Crypt of Shuwa, as an intelligence created by humans themselves, declares, 'I know the meaning of the world.'

In other words, the Crypt is not simply a villainous version of the Monolith.

It is a device where humans attempted to occupy the position of the Monolith.

Humans grasp the entirety of life, design the environment, design humans themselves, and even design the society of the distant future.

And they force future generations to accept that plan as the 'correct future'.

There is a clear intellectualism and design-oriented philosophy here.

Intelligence can understand the world.

If it can be understood, it can be designed.

If it can be designed, a better future can be created.

The Crypt of Shuwa executes that logic to the extreme.

In the process of drawing the manga version of 'Nausicaä', Miyazaki came to deny the very act of understanding the Sea of Corruption as an 'ecosystem with a purpose'. In a 1994 interview, he explicitly stated that even if humans can begin to create artificial ecosystems, they cannot predict what will happen afterward or determine the final state. He believed that the Sea of Corruption, which began artificially, had changed into its own unique ecosystem beyond the intentions of its designers. (Nausicaä Net)

Herein lies the ideological strength of the manga version of 'Nausicaä'.

It is not bad because it is artificial.

It is not bad because it is science.

Nausicaä herself observes the mechanisms of the Sea of Corruption and uses that knowledge.

The problem is deriving the 'right to determine the future' directly from knowledge.

Knowing the world.

Therefore, one may design the world.

One understands life.

Therefore, one may predefine future life.

Nausicaä says "no" to that leap.

In this sense, I believe the manga version of Nausicaä is one of Hayao Miyazaki's ideological high points.

5 Before that, there is the "Garden"

However, if you only look at the Crypt of Shuwa, you miss half of the structure of the final act.

On the way to the Crypt, there is a "Garden".

There, the flora, fauna, music, literature, and art of the old world are preserved. The reading that if the Crypt is an archive of science, technology, and life design, then the Garden is an archive of culture and beauty, already exists.(e-Tsurezuregusa)

And there, Kushana's brothers are present.

They have stepped down from war and power struggles and have been absorbed into the Garden.

What is interesting is that they were not tempted because they were ignorant.

It is quite the opposite.

Because they have acquired a high level of education as royalty, they can understand the value of the music and art of the old world.

Education itself keeps them in the Garden.

Nausicaä also understands the beauty of the Garden.

However, she does not stay there.

Considering this composition, the Garden and the Crypt are in two stages.

The Garden makes people withdraw from reality through beauty.

The Crypt makes people submit to future planning through knowledge.

If the garden is a place that tempts you by saying, 'Everything beautiful is here; there is no need to return to the conflicts outside,' then the crypt is a place that demands, 'All meaning in the world can be explained; you should leave the future to us.'

Neutralization through culture and design through intelligence.

Nausicaä rejects both.

When including all of this, the scope of the final act of the 'Nausicaä' manga is quite broad.

6. However, was Nausicaä really right to destroy the crypt?

Here, I would like to step away from the moral superiority that the story grants to Nausicaä's side.

Let us view the Crypt of Shuwa not as a villain, but as a long-term operational system.

The old civilization failed.

As a result of developing advanced science and technology, they rendered the Earth's environment uninhabitable for humans.

However, the old civilization did not simply perish.

Recognizing their failure, they initiated a massive restoration project.

Let us assign version numbers for convenience.

The combination of Humanity 1.0 and Environment 1.0 collapsed.

Therefore, the old civilization created Environment 2.0, the Sea of Corruption, to purify the environment.

They created Humanity 2.0, which is to say Nausicaä and her people, who could survive in that polluted environment.

Furthermore, they left behind in the crypt the technology and designs for Environment 3.0, intended for after the long-term purification is complete, as well as for Humanity 3.0, or for re-adapting current humanity to live there.

We are currently in the middle of a massive migration.

Moreover, this system is not a short-term desk plan.

For at least a thousand years, the Sea of Corruption has actually been continuing to change the environment. Miyazaki himself states as an important conclusion of the work that, despite the Sea of Corruption being started artificially, it grew into a unique ecosystem that exceeded the designers' expectations. (Nausicaä Net)

Of course, there are problems with the design philosophy of the crypt.

Treating currently living humans as an 'intermediate stage'.

Having past humans determine the desirable human form of the future.

Believing that one can predict the future of life.

That is something that can be criticized.

However, it does not immediately follow from that that 'therefore, it is acceptable to completely destroy the crypt'.

Here, the question is inverted.

Assuming past humans have no right to design the future, do current humans have the right to destroy the options for the future?

This is a separate issue.

7 Do not break a system that is running

If we use IT as an analogy, the danger of Nausicaä's actions becomes easier to see.

The crypt is certainly a massive legacy monolith.

Its design philosophy is also outdated.

It is centralized.

It does not grant current users sufficient authority to change specifications.

However, it is currently operational.

Furthermore, it contains the data, technology, and backups necessary for future migration.

In this situation, the first thing a normal system administrator thinks is not:

'I don't like this design philosophy, so let's destroy the production environment.'

That is not it.

First, do not touch a system that is running.

Investigate.

Back up the data.

Check dependencies.

Preserve existing data.

Consider the feasibility of migrating to a new environment.

Create a state that allows for rollback.

Replace incrementally if necessary.

That is the standard procedure.

However, Nausicaä destroys not only the control plane of the old civilization but also the future migration assets.

Metaphorically speaking,

because she cannot trust the design philosophy of the legacy monolith, she drops the production database, the backups, and the migration scripts all at once.

She is doing something quite extreme.

Moreover, the civilization that built the crypt is criticized for 'not being able to fully predict the future.'

If so, the same criticism must be directed at Nausicaä.

Can Nausicaä predict the future after the destruction of the crypt?

She cannot.

Using Miyazaki's own logic, life, ecosystems, and the future cannot be predicted.

If that is the case,

'The future designed by the crypt cannot be trusted'

is not the only conclusion; there is more.

The judgment that "life will find a way even if the crypt is lost"

should also be considered untrustworthy.

There is a strange asymmetry here.

The impossibility of predicting the future is used as a critique against the crypt.

However, the same uncertainty is not sufficiently applied to Nausicaä's own irreversible decision.

8. To what extent should the current generation decide the future?

This issue is not a simple case of "nature versus science."

Rather, it becomes a problem of intergenerational ethics.

In the crypt, the past generation decides the future.

Nausicaä rejects that.

That much is understandable.

But Nausicaä, from the position of the current generation, eliminates future options.

In other words,

- Future control by the past generation

is being replaced by,

- Future control by the current generation,

and the question arises as to whether this is all she is doing.

Future generations that do not yet exist cannot express their opinions on current decisions.

This is a problem that also appears in climate policy, natural resources, nuclear waste, genetic modification, and massive infrastructure.

Should the current generation be allowed to maximize only their own interests?

Conversely, to what extent should we sacrifice the people of the present for the sake of future generations that do not yet exist?

Neither is easy to answer.

What is important here is that there is no need to resort to extreme eschatology.

There is uncertainty in future forecasting.

That is precisely why the question becomes how many options we should leave open.

The most dangerous thing about an uncertain future is not just attempting to design it completely.

It is also dangerous to irreversibly eliminate the options for the future themselves.

If the design philosophy of the Crypt is wrong, perhaps it should be shut down.

Perhaps it should be separated from political power.

Perhaps only the data should be preserved.

Perhaps only the technology to adapt current humanity to a clean world could be extracted.

It is also possible to postpone the choice to future generations while keeping the eggs of the new humanity preserved.

At least logically, there are many options between destruction and submission.

However, the manga version of 'Nausicaä' hardly considers any of them.

As the climax of the story,

・Whether to follow the Crypt.

・Whether to destroy the Crypt.

It forces the choice into these two options.

Through this dramatic simplification, Nausicaä's decision becomes beautiful.

At the same time, it becomes dangerous as a philosophy.

9 Is It Enough to Simply Affirm Current Life?

Nausicaä's choice is extremely strong from an existentialist perspective.

She chooses the life that is actually living now over abstract 'future humanity'.

She chooses life that is actually existing—despite being dirty, suffering, and killing one another—over a designed, perfect form.

This is understandable.

I myself place considerable importance on an existentialist view of humanity.

Even so, I feel compelled to raise an objection here.

The fact that what currently exists has priority is not the same as saying that people in the present are allowed to destroy the options for the future.

Protecting concrete, present life.

I understand that.

But is it acceptable to destroy the possibilities of the future on the grounds that 'present life is the only real thing'?

The manga version of Nausicaä does not sufficiently answer this question.

In fact, it creates this problem precisely because it answered too much.

10 Did the Manga Version of Nausicaä Talk Too Much About Philosophy?

Here, I would like to consider not just the content, but the manga expression itself.

The manga version of Nausicaä is a work with a very strong philosophy.

Especially toward the end, that philosophy is articulated quite explicitly.

The Master of the Garden speaks.

Selm speaks.

The Crypt speaks.

Nausicaä answers.

A significant amount of world-building and the philosophical judgments regarding it are presented through dialogue and monologues.

Of course, the manga version of 'Nausicaä' also contains a great number of iconic scenes that do not rely on words.

The scenery of the Sea of Decay.

The swarms of Ohmu.

The relationship between Ohma and Nausicaä.

Kushana's transformation.

Scenes that rely solely on character expressions and landscapes are also powerful.

Therefore, it is unfair to dismiss it simply as an 'expository manga'.

However, it should be fairly acknowledged that, at least in the final stages, the ratio of expository dialogue is high.

Being at the highest point of ideological achievement is not the same as being the pinnacle of manga expression.

As a point of comparison, it is easy to understand if we consider Hitoshi Iwaaki's manga version of 'Parasyte'.

Here, too, we are focusing only on the manga version, not the film or anime adaptations.

The manga version of 'Parasyte' also deals with major issues such as anthropocentrism, predation, ecosystems, species, intelligence, emotion, and good and evil.

However, it does not present a single final theory regarding these topics.

How Reiko Tamura changes.

How the relationship between Shinichi and Migi changes.

How Shinichi deals with Gotou.

What Uragami reveals at the end.

The ideology is embedded within the events and the changes in the characters.

The reader is forced to think.

However, a final lecture stating, 'Therefore, this is what life is,' does not begin.

The manga version of 'Nausicaä' verbalizes its philosophy and provides an answer.

The manga version of 'Parasyte' puts its philosophy into action within the story and leaves an answer behind.

This difference is not so much about the depth of the philosophical content as it is about the method of implementation within the medium.

In that sense, one could argue that 'Parasyte' is superior in terms of its perfection as a manga.

The manga version of 'Nausicaä' pushed its philosophy to the limit.

As a trade-off, the manga itself took on the burden of explaining that philosophy.

11 '2001' Left Questions, 'Nausicaä' Provided Answers

Returning to this point, the difference from '2001: A Space Odyssey' becomes even clearer.

Kubrick stated regarding the difference between film and novels that novels, being a linguistic medium, inevitably become explanatory. In the film version, he cut the explanations and left it as a visual experience.(Kubrick Archive)

It could be said that Miyazaki moved in the opposite direction with the manga version of 'Nausicaä'.

He explains what '2001' did not explain.

Where the monolith remained silent, he made the Crypt speak.

And where Bowman did not destroy the monolith, Nausicaä destroys the Crypt.

'2001' ends with,

'Humanity may become something else. We do not know what that means.'

The manga version of 'Nausicaä' ends with,

'We will not follow an intelligence that designs the future of humanity.'

It ends with a declaration of independence.

I answer.

This decision has value.

It is because it visualized intellectualism and constructivism in their most extreme forms, and then rejected them.

However, at the same time, that answer became open to refutation.

This is both a weakness of the work and its strength as a work of philosophy.

If you say nothing, you cannot be refuted.

The manga version of Nausicaä said it clearly.

And so, we too can ask,

"But is that really correct?"

as a question.

12 Was Princess Mononoke an Ideological Retreat?

The manga version of Nausicaä concluded in 1994.

Miyazaki frankly stated at the time that he had not designed the ending from the beginning. He also mentioned that as he drew toward the deadlines, he came to understand the meaning of what he had drawn afterward.(Nausicaä Net)

Then, in 1997, Princess Mononoke was released.

Here, Miyazaki took a method quite different from the manga version of Nausicaä.

There is also conflict in Princess Mononoke.

The forest and Irontown.

San and Lady Eboshi.

The gods and humans.

Central authority and regional armed forces.

Workers, the sick, women, samurai, hunters.

However, there is no 'Master of the Crypt' to explain the whole truth of the world.

It is not as if any one person holds the correct answer.

In an interview at the time of the film's release, Miyazaki himself stated that he started 'Princess Mononoke' from the premise that 'those destroying the forest are not villains.' (Nausicaa Net)

There, one cannot choose a single 'correct side'.

Lady Eboshi destroys the forest.

But Irontown is also a place for human life.

San protects the forest.

But she rejects human society as it is.

Ashitaka does not resolve the conflict by destroying one side or the other.

And in the end, the Great Forest Spirit dies.

The dense forest of the gods does not return to how it was.

Irontown is also destroyed.

But the world itself does not end.

Different greenery grows.

Humans begin to rebuild.

San remains in the forest.

Ashitaka remains on the side of human society.

The two do not become one.

Here, the work...

"This is what a correct world looks like."

It does not say that.

It simply says,

"Live."

It only says that.

13 It was not a compromise, but a shift from principles to history

Compared to the manga version of Nausicaä, Princess Mononoke might appear to be a compromise.

There is no decision like blowing up the crypt.

It does not speak of grand principles regarding the world.

It does not provide a final solution to the conflict between nature and civilization.

However, this is not necessarily an ideological retreat.

First, the medium is different.

If the lengthy ideological dialogue from the final stages of the Nausicaä manga were transferred directly to a theatrical animation, the work would become a series of explanatory lines.

In manga, readers can reread at their own pace.

In film, time continues to flow.

The methods for implementing the same ideas are different.

Second, there is a more important possibility.

When Miyazaki himself attempted to depict a realistic historical world once more, perhaps he realized that the kind of principled solution found in the Nausicaä manga could not hold true.

History has no master of the crypt.

There are multiple subjects.

Each has a partial legitimacy.

Each makes mistakes.

Each uses violence.

Even so, completely erasing someone does not make the world right.

Princess Mononoke did not judge history by correct principles, but depicted the process by which history changes irreversibly.

God is dead.

The forest has changed.

Human society has also changed.

We can no longer return to the world as it was before.

However, there is no blueprint for what comes next either.

We live in that state.

In this sense, it can be considered that Princess Mononoke did not become ideologically weaker than the manga version of Nausicaä, but rather moved from principles to history.

14 Returning to AKIRA, and returning to 2001

When viewed this way, the relationships between the works become interesting.

2001: A Space Odyssey left a question behind.

The manga version of AKIRA also, while depicting transcendent power, left behind the military, the state, religion, international society, and human relationships, and did not present a final solution.

The manga version of Nausicaä, in contrast, provided a strong answer.

It rejected the intelligence that designs the future.

However, that rejection itself can become a form of future control by the current generation.

And in Princess Mononoke, Miyazaki returns once again to the side of "not deciding".

This is not a simple circle.

The meaning is different precisely because we have already pushed the principles to their limits in the manga version of 'Nausicaä'.

In '2001', it is reserved because the meaning of transcendence is unknown.

In the manga version of 'AKIRA', it is reserved because multiple subjects cannot fully process transcendence.

In 'Princess Mononoke', it is reserved because there is no single final solution to history itself.

Even though the 'lack of an answer' is the same, the reasons differ.

15 Miyazaki Hayao's Ideological Peak and His Peak as a Work

I consider the manga version of 'Nausicaä' to be Miyazaki Hayao's ideological peak.

It is unique even among Miyazaki's works for how thoroughly it thinks through life, nature, artificiality, the future, design, and the concepts of purity and impurity.

There is also significance in the fact that he went as far as the decision to destroy the crypt.

He did not escape into ambiguity.

That is precisely why one can argue against it.

However, if asked for his overall peak as a work, I would choose 'Princess Mononoke'.

In the manga version of 'Nausicaä', the ideology sometimes pushes aside the manga expression.

In 'Princess Mononoke', the ideology moves within the screen.

There is a forest.

There is iron.

There are the sick.

Women are working.

Samurai are attacking.

The god gets angry.

Humans fire.

The Great Forest Spirit dies.

The forest changes.

They rebuild Irontown.

That series of irreversible changes itself becomes the philosophy.

The catchphrase 'Live.' does not end as a mere life lesson.

Live in a world with no final solution, a world that cannot return to what it was.

The entire film turns that single sentence into imagery.

16 Something harder than destroying a monolith

In the end, we return to the initial question.

The slab in the Crypt of Shuwa resembles the monolith from '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

However, the important difference between the two is not their design.

The monolith remains silent.

The Crypt speaks.

'2001' leaves a question regarding the next stage of humanity.

The manga version of 'Nausicaä' rejects the designed next stage.

This rejection is strong as a critique of intellectualism and designism.

Just because intelligence is superior does not mean one gains the right to own the future.

I think that is correct.

However, one more question remains.

If we cannot own the future, do we not also lack the right to destroy the options for the future?

The Master of the Tomb decided the future.

Nausicaä also decided the future by destroying the Tomb.

In that sense, the two are not as far apart as one might think.

Perhaps the reason '2001' remains unsettling even after more than half a century is that it did not answer this question.

And perhaps the reason the manga version of 'Nausicaä' remains interesting today is, conversely, because it did answer it.

Because it provided an answer, we can argue against it.

By arguing against it, 'Princess Mononoke,' released three years later, can be seen in a different light.

Miyazaki passed judgment on the future in the manga version of 'Nausicaä'.

In 'Princess Mononoke,' he did not pass judgment on the future.

In principle, this might look like a step backward.

However, regarding history, that might be the more correct approach.

It is possible to destroy a monolith.

What is more difficult is to continue living in a world where no single monolith to be destroyed exists.