War, historically, has been a great way to kill off second (and subsequent) born males, at a time when property was given entirely to the first born male. Think the Crusades. Or if you have an excess of males because of sex-selective abortion/infanticide, that can lead to violence. So I perfectly buy the orchestration of violence to thin the herd.
As to whether the film may actually side with Harris? It certainly would be extreme utilitarianism, basically that the suffering of the masses is maximizing of the well being of the whole, that the alternative is destruction. That would jibe with the sushi scene and what I claimed as bourgeois activism, the developed world gets rich off carbon fuels, devastates the world in the process, and then demands that everyone cease carbon, preventing the other countries from developing. On the other hand, if India and China develop on carbon to our levels, the world ends. It is actually a difficult problem. This is where a more nuanced parable might succeed compared to what we get. As it is, as a socialist, while I can accept a relatively fixed quantity of goods, I do not accept that a distinctly unequal distribution is an essential component of balance.