Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
- phuketrichard
- Expatriate
- Posts: 16880
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:17 pm
- Reputation: 5782
- Location: Atlantis
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
I, for sure dont have the answers, but i do know that the more people talk about it, the more they demand the truth and dont buy the corporate line.......Alex wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:37 pmEnough time to do what, exactly? The world is overpopulated, which is correctly identified as the main problem, and there's no way to "mitigate" this. How do you propose we cut the world's population let's say in half and keep it at that level? Not even COVID-19 is deadly enough to help with that.phuketrichard wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 2:11 pm I for one, still believe mankind has time, IF enough of us can wake up the doubting Thomas's
Realizing that we have a real problem doesn't necessarily mean that it will be solved. Maybe that's what needs to sink in.
than again,
Many agree its already to late ( a fucked way to think but to each their own) so, just keep doing what ur doing, keep buying, keep polluting, keep trying to fill the void with more more more
back in 2008 they founded the 350 movement which stands for 350 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide, which has been identified as the safe upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.
Unfortunately last may we were at 415!!!
someone asked on Michael's podcast;
"what can i do now?"
you can't reverse what has been done but you can try and stop moving the directions things are going. Just look at the air quality since the pandemic started> skies are clear, animals are coming back, the sea is looking better....
Buy a piece and land and do noting with it>>>
suggest ur friends, relatives, etc watch the movie
Stop using plastic's
set ur air con at 28
walk, if ur only going less than 2 miles
Have a vasectomy
am sure there a hundred other things one can add.
Think about the world you want to leave ur kids.
In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. HST
- tightenupvolume1
- Expatriate
- Posts: 2059
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:29 pm
- Reputation: 880
- Location: london
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
I sent the film to a friend who is an environmental journalist to ask his opinion this is his reply to me.
The issue that seems to be causing most controversy is its attack on renewable energy. Mainstream env'lsts say it's outdated (renewables are getting better fast) and a recycling of anti-renewables arguments made by climate deniers and "the right"). Both of these criticisms are half true.
But they're only half true. Renewable energy, in fact all energy, and in fact all of human consumption, has environmental impacts, and the film is quite right in pointing out that renewables are not environmentally cost free - and also not entirely effective.
And what I find hilarious about the angry reactions from mainstream environmentalists and the renewables industry is that they are reacting EXACTLY as the oil or coal or forestry or automotive industries did when environmentalist filmmakers made attack movies on them.
Because the film is exactly right in seeing that renewables are big business, just as much as any other, and that the motives and business behaviour of renewable investors and builders are no different from those in "non-green" industries, and that mainstream environmentalists have indeed been co-opted into supporting renewables and turning a blind eye to many of their environmental impacts.
The film makes this point most vividly for biomass energy (aka tree-burning), but it's true for the other renewables too.
So that is, if you like, the film's "tactical" point: renewables aren't all they're cracked up to be. But it is also making a deeper "strategic" point that, as a bit of an eco-pessimist, I both agree with and disagree.
And this is that the fundamental problem of sustainability is that there are too many humans who are consuming, or if not yet then desperately want to, too much - too much stuff, too much air, too much water, too much land, too much biomass, too much everything. And in so doing we are unbalancing the world and threatening its, and our own, future.
This is obviously a "deep green" argument, it's saying that the answers can't be just cosmetic (which is what it is criticising renewables for). Rather we need a deeper reappraisal of what we're about. That Rachel Carson quote at the very end of the film said it very well - something about the need for us to seek mastery over ourselves.
I agree with this.
As an aside, this part of the film's argument has sparked an interesting counter-attack. I've read one greenie saying that a group of white men highlighting over-population is racist. And I can absolutely see this becoming a key narrative in the woke left's reaction to the film - we can all ignore it because the makers are white supremacists. It's boring and stupid, as well as false, but there you go, that's the world we're living in.
Back to the main argument and on to where I disagree. I think the film identified "capitalism" as the source of all our problems. But for me the issue is deeper and is actually about culture. i.e. what do all of us want to have and to achieve in our lives, as per the Rachel Carson quote I mentioned above.
It's fashionable left-wing orthodoxy to conflate culture and capitalism - i.e. we are all greedy for more and more stuff because capitalism makes us so. I think that's wrong, and also very very dangerous, because if you abolish markets you end up with tyranny, but without having made any change to people's desire to consume. The proof of this is in the experience of the Soviet Union, which combined a police state with horrific environmental destruction - for example they destroyed the Aral Sea to get water for agriculture, and virtually wiped out northern whale populations because the whalers were set productivity targets that meant they killed whales even when they couldn't process them.
In conclusion, and to be a bit more optimistic, what I think the film missed out is that, though all technologies are imperfect, it is possible to increase eco-efficiency substantially and indeed this is happening. e.g. the UK has something like doubled its GDP while halving its greenhouse gas emissions. And there are exciting new technologies that will help us to continue to live comfortable lives with much lower environmental impacts - e.g. nanotechnology, graphene, biotechnology, nuclear fusion.
The problem is whether technologies like these can grow faster than a rising population wanting to consume more. I think that for much of the world the answer is more no than yes, which is why large parts of the global south are seeing such widespread destruction of wild habitats and industrialisation. We in the north went through these changes decades or even centuries ago - our equivalent of orang utans were wiped out long ago.
We'll get there in the end, IMO, but before then we are going to trigger 3 degrees or so of global warming, we are going to destroy most wild habitats in Asia, Africa and South America. The whole world is going to be dominated by humans. Even very large steps towards decarbonisation in countries like the UK are going to make very little difference globally. Tiny steps towards rewilding of habitats even less so. But I'll be happy if we do our bit as a country; there's nothing else we realistically can achieve.
The issue that seems to be causing most controversy is its attack on renewable energy. Mainstream env'lsts say it's outdated (renewables are getting better fast) and a recycling of anti-renewables arguments made by climate deniers and "the right"). Both of these criticisms are half true.
But they're only half true. Renewable energy, in fact all energy, and in fact all of human consumption, has environmental impacts, and the film is quite right in pointing out that renewables are not environmentally cost free - and also not entirely effective.
And what I find hilarious about the angry reactions from mainstream environmentalists and the renewables industry is that they are reacting EXACTLY as the oil or coal or forestry or automotive industries did when environmentalist filmmakers made attack movies on them.
Because the film is exactly right in seeing that renewables are big business, just as much as any other, and that the motives and business behaviour of renewable investors and builders are no different from those in "non-green" industries, and that mainstream environmentalists have indeed been co-opted into supporting renewables and turning a blind eye to many of their environmental impacts.
The film makes this point most vividly for biomass energy (aka tree-burning), but it's true for the other renewables too.
So that is, if you like, the film's "tactical" point: renewables aren't all they're cracked up to be. But it is also making a deeper "strategic" point that, as a bit of an eco-pessimist, I both agree with and disagree.
And this is that the fundamental problem of sustainability is that there are too many humans who are consuming, or if not yet then desperately want to, too much - too much stuff, too much air, too much water, too much land, too much biomass, too much everything. And in so doing we are unbalancing the world and threatening its, and our own, future.
This is obviously a "deep green" argument, it's saying that the answers can't be just cosmetic (which is what it is criticising renewables for). Rather we need a deeper reappraisal of what we're about. That Rachel Carson quote at the very end of the film said it very well - something about the need for us to seek mastery over ourselves.
I agree with this.
As an aside, this part of the film's argument has sparked an interesting counter-attack. I've read one greenie saying that a group of white men highlighting over-population is racist. And I can absolutely see this becoming a key narrative in the woke left's reaction to the film - we can all ignore it because the makers are white supremacists. It's boring and stupid, as well as false, but there you go, that's the world we're living in.
Back to the main argument and on to where I disagree. I think the film identified "capitalism" as the source of all our problems. But for me the issue is deeper and is actually about culture. i.e. what do all of us want to have and to achieve in our lives, as per the Rachel Carson quote I mentioned above.
It's fashionable left-wing orthodoxy to conflate culture and capitalism - i.e. we are all greedy for more and more stuff because capitalism makes us so. I think that's wrong, and also very very dangerous, because if you abolish markets you end up with tyranny, but without having made any change to people's desire to consume. The proof of this is in the experience of the Soviet Union, which combined a police state with horrific environmental destruction - for example they destroyed the Aral Sea to get water for agriculture, and virtually wiped out northern whale populations because the whalers were set productivity targets that meant they killed whales even when they couldn't process them.
In conclusion, and to be a bit more optimistic, what I think the film missed out is that, though all technologies are imperfect, it is possible to increase eco-efficiency substantially and indeed this is happening. e.g. the UK has something like doubled its GDP while halving its greenhouse gas emissions. And there are exciting new technologies that will help us to continue to live comfortable lives with much lower environmental impacts - e.g. nanotechnology, graphene, biotechnology, nuclear fusion.
The problem is whether technologies like these can grow faster than a rising population wanting to consume more. I think that for much of the world the answer is more no than yes, which is why large parts of the global south are seeing such widespread destruction of wild habitats and industrialisation. We in the north went through these changes decades or even centuries ago - our equivalent of orang utans were wiped out long ago.
We'll get there in the end, IMO, but before then we are going to trigger 3 degrees or so of global warming, we are going to destroy most wild habitats in Asia, Africa and South America. The whole world is going to be dominated by humans. Even very large steps towards decarbonisation in countries like the UK are going to make very little difference globally. Tiny steps towards rewilding of habitats even less so. But I'll be happy if we do our bit as a country; there's nothing else we realistically can achieve.
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
Michael More's new release "Planet of the Humans" documentary is just propaganda. Michael More should practice what he preaches and do with Less. Much less.
- Clutch Cargo
- Expatriate
- Posts: 7744
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:09 pm
- Reputation: 6003
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
Marty, your posts are really sounding like a broken record now with the anti Michael Moore diatribe.
The point is well and truly made and has polluted this topic. Not only that, this anti MM rhetoric continued on the Kim Jong Un topic on which I had to clean up a bunch of the off topic posts. I suggest desisting from any more lest it is just trolling.
- Bitte_Kein_Lexus
- Expatriate
- Posts: 4421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 7:32 pm
- Reputation: 1325
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
Haven't watched it yet, but no demographer worth his salt expects world population to go over 11 billion. It's a lot more than now, but not that far away. As mentioned, women want control over their future and we'll stabilize and even fall after 10-11B. Hans Rosling used to have a nice video explaining it.phuketrichard wrote:Problem being, everyone, ( especially the poor and disadvantaged) want more
so the only real solution, which wont ever happen is
population control
The Alaskan Eskimos had it correct
They knew they had limited resources and could only feed xx number so when the population reached that point, the oldest would walk off into the sunset when a new baby was born..
Currently mankind believes we have unlimited resources, which just is not true.
Marty, what are u 11?
The thing about Inuit leaving old people to die is a bit misleading too. I guess I'll have to watch it myself, but the doom and gloom documentaries are rarely true. Population is an issue, but the larger one is our culture of always needing new things, new models, planned obsolescence and so on. Renewable energy isn't all bad (and we a know there's a carbon footprint to getting the raw materials needed for solar panels, it's nothing new), so I find it ludicrous that he'd even go after all of it.
Last edited by Bitte_Kein_Lexus on Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ex Bitteeinbit/LexusSchmexus
- Clutch Cargo
- Expatriate
- Posts: 7744
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:09 pm
- Reputation: 6003
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
I watched it last night. Very interesting but found it really depressing too. The exploitation and being sold a pup with green energy..
Made me think why some of the pro nuclear power voices seem to be louder lately. But then think of Chernobyl, Fukishima, Three Mile Island et al. And then there's that issue of disposing of nuclear waste..
Made me think why some of the pro nuclear power voices seem to be louder lately. But then think of Chernobyl, Fukishima, Three Mile Island et al. And then there's that issue of disposing of nuclear waste..
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
I know an Ex-Navy guy that's real pro nuclear. He's been on nuke ships. Sure you can make a military reactor or a military anything safe. A Navy reactor is not a commercial reactor, but I dont totally object to nuclear. Retire the old ones though.
Thanks BKL, I'm downloading Rosling videos now. Lets see if theres more science and less drama on this topic!
Thanks BKL, I'm downloading Rosling videos now. Lets see if theres more science and less drama on this topic!
- Jerry Atrick
- Expatriate
- Posts: 5452
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 4:19 pm
- Reputation: 3061
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
Nuclear is the cleanest and safest and cheapest way to make power for the future.clutchcargo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:17 pm I watched it last night. Very interesting but found it really depressing too. The exploitation and being sold a pup with green energy..
Made me think why some of the pro nuclear power voices seem to be louder lately. But then think of Chernobyl, Fukishima, Three Mile Island et al. And then there's that issue of disposing of nuclear waste..
Sadly, most existing nuclear facilities are dangerous, inefficient 1950's technology that states cannot afford to decommission. The same types of plants that have caused all major issues in Japan, Belarus, the UK and the USA.
Thorium based reactors literally cannot achieve meltdown and do not have the long term contamination of uranium reactors. They are the future of clean energy, but try selling that to a population full of polarized, poorly educated dingbats...
- newkidontheblock
- Expatriate
- Posts: 4466
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 3:51 am
- Reputation: 1554
Re: Michael Moore Releases ‘Planet Of The Humans’ Documentary For Free On Eve Of Earth Day
An interesting idea, based on 1960s technology (vs. 1950s for standard nuclear reactors.Jerry Atrick wrote:Thorium based reactors literally cannot achieve meltdown and do not have the long term contamination of uranium reactors. They are the future of clean energy, but try selling that to a population full of polarized, poorly educated dingbats...
But very difficult to start up the reaction to convert thorium to uranium and vice versa with a recommendations to use nuclear bombs.
In addition, it does not produce a tremendous amount of energy, just barely enough to keep the reaction going.
And of course the waste. A good chunk of it requires 300 years to decay to background radiation, and depending on the material combination used, ends up as a radioactive liquid that requires storage in a glass container.
I am not a nuclear physicist.
Once personal fusion reactors are developed (aka Mr. Fusion in every De Lorean car) the world’s energy problems will cease to exist.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 4 Replies
- 1845 Views
-
Last post by AndyKK
-
- 240 Replies
- 57294 Views
-
Last post by xandreu
-
- 26 Replies
- 5293 Views
-
Last post by cabron
-
- 3 Replies
- 2112 Views
-
Last post by Clutch Cargo
-
- 1 Replies
- 1056 Views
-
Last post by Random Dude
-
- 10 Replies
- 3699 Views
-
Last post by Marty
-
- 3 Replies
- 330 Views
-
Last post by ItWasntMe
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 216 guests