Editing Castle in the Sky (section)

=== Roles of nature and technology ===

''Castle in the Sky'' contains a strong theme of [[environmentalism]], questioning humanity's relationship with nature and the role of technology.{{sfn|Odell|Le Blanc|2009|pp=20–21}} McCarthy interprets the giant tree of Laputa as a "metaphor for the reviving and life-giving power of nature."{{sfn|McCarthy|2002|p=98}} However, in contrast with the more optimistic conclusions of Miyazaki's previous works, Napier notes that the film ends with an "unsettling view" of the castle flying away, suggesting that humanity may not deserve to exist in the natural world.{{sfn|Napier|2018|p=94}} Literary scholar Anthony Lioi interprets Laputa as an ecological [[utopia]] that demonstrates the peace that can be established between nature and advanced technology, but also serves as a criticism of modernity when "[the] peace is shattered by human violence."{{sfn|Lioi|2010}} Lioi notes that this outlook differs from dominant Western ideas, eschewing the extremes of [[capitalism]] and [[industrialism]], as well as radical environmentalism and [[conservationism]].{{sfn|Lioi|2010}}

[[File:Laputa Castle in the Sky, screencap 2.jpg |thumb|While Laputa's giant tree is seen as a metaphor for the restorative capability of the natural world, its underside is a symbol of the immorality of modernity.{{sfn|Lioi|2010}} |alt=The flying castle Laputa, with the giant tree on top and weapons system underneath]]

Critics note the philosophical ambiguity of the castle; while Laputa initially appears to be an ideal union of nature and technology, it is later revealed to have a much harsher and more oppressive underside;{{sfn|McCarthy|2002|p=98}} Napier writes that Laputa is "deeply paradoxical".{{sfn|Napier|2018|p=98}} Laputa itself takes direct inspiration from the [[Laputa|island of the same name]] from ''[[Gulliver's Travels]]'' (1726),{{sfnm|1a1=Miyazaki|1y=2009|1p=252|2a1=Napier|2y=2018|2p=88}} and film scholar Cristina Cardia claims that, like its namesake, the island is introduced with benign intentions but is ultimately "exploited for perverse ends, in this case war."{{sfn|Cardia|2018|p=14}} Lioi argues that Laputa is used as a means to comment on the ethics of contemporary culture,{{sfn|Lioi|2010}} based on Ildney Cavalcanti's observation that such a utopia also "must contain an overtly dystopian element, such that the implicit critique in utopian discourse becomes explicit."<ref>{{harvnb|Cavalcanti|2004}}, cited in {{harvnb|Lioi|2010}}.</ref> However, he interprets the ultimate destruction of the castle's weapons as a demonstration that "violence is not the heart of the city", and that the dystopic elements of modernity can be healed.{{sfn|Lioi|2010}}

The film also presents an ambiguous view on the usage of technology.{{sfn|Odell|Le Blanc|2009|p=21}} The robots from Laputa provide an example of this view, as they are introduced in the film as a violent force capable of extreme destruction. However, when the protagonists next meet a robot, it is entirely peaceful, tending to the gardens and fauna on Laputa.{{sfn|Napier|2018|p=95}} Lioi argues that the robots, as a representation of Laputan technology, are caretakers by default and only become destructive in response to human brutality.{{sfn|Lioi|2010}} McCarthy argues that "this is not a comment on technology but on man's inability to use it wisely."{{sfn|McCarthy|2002|p=95}} Odell and Le Blanc conclude that "technology{{nbsp}}... is not necessarily a bad thing, but we must consider how it's used and to what extent."{{sfn|Odell|Le Blanc|2009|p=21}} The duality of nature and technology is further explored in Miyazaki's later film ''[[Princess Mononoke]]'' (1997).{{sfn|Odell|Le Blanc|2009|p=21}}