planet of the humans

spatchco

just watched this doc on youtube i see that some people are trying to have it taken down as it shows the green agenda is not all what it is supposed to be check it out some eye openers

nelly17

If its to be believed the whole green agenda is probably the biggest con in human history

spatchco

well this doc would leave a bad taste in ones mouth

masculinist

is this made by michael moore ? when i saw the name i expected some sort of sensationalist propaganda. I'd love to hear it isn't but its what ive come to expect...

nelly17

masculinist wrote: »

is this made by michael moore ? when i saw the name i expected some sort of sensationalist propaganda. I'd love to hear it isn't but its what ive come to expect...

Executive Producer I think so you need to bare this in mind when watching it, it definately has an agenda but does raise some interestiung points - especially about Al Gore and his green credentials

pixelburp

mod: moved from Television

Thelonious Monk

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

It sounds like it's sensationalist nonsense. It's good news for people who are unwilling to make any changes for the good of the planet though and think it's all just rosy.

Silentcorner

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down

It sounds like it's sensationalist nonsense. It's good news for people who are unwilling to make any changes for the good of the planet though and think it's all just rosy.

You clearly didn't watch the documentary....it was very depressing.

It did expose the charletans in the green energy sector though...that probably explains The Guardians reaction.

Thelonious Monk

Silentcorner wrote: »

You clearly didn't watch the documentary....it was very depressing.

It did expose the charletans in the green energy sector though...that probably explains The Guardians reaction.

I read a good bit about it. MM docs tend to go to town on certain agendas though in quite a hammy way, I couldn't get through 10 minutes of the farenheit 911 one.

Silentcorner

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I read a good bit about it. MM docs tend to go to town on certain agendas though in quite a hammy way, I couldn't get through 10 minutes of the farenheit 911 one.

I do find them an interesting watch, and of course you are spot on...be careful how much you swallow.

After this one though I had to forget about it...I've enough to be dealing with this pandemic!

biko

It's available on his youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

statesaver

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I read a good bit about it. MM docs tend to go to town on certain agendas though in quite a hammy way, I couldn't get through 10 minutes of the farenheit 911 one.

So you read other peoples options and form your option based on their options without actually watching ? Fuk me , but i hate people who do ****e like that

KyussB

Wow, climate scientists calling for censorship. That is completely inexcusable, and self defeating.

The makers of the documentary (haven't watched it yet) aren't wrong that economic/population growth are the root of the problem, but I would argue that tackling those issues is even farther beyond the overton window, than getting started on infrastructural retrofitting for minimizing our contribution to climate change (which needs to be done anyway).

What they are talking about is a complete change into a whole different type of economic system, that is not compatible with the present one (the present one depends upon economic growth continuing forever) - which is just not realistic politically, right now - first we have to use the strengths of the current economic system, to minimize our emissions, as that's far more politically palatable.

AllGunsBlazing

The main takeaways from this film are that the environmental movement has been hijacked by big business and that overpopulation and rampant demand for resources to sustain our continuing growth is what's destroying the planet.

The thorny part is that all attempts to combat climate change are doomed unless the overpopulation question is addressed.


Oh, and it's NOT a Michael Moore directed film.

ILoveYourVibes

Over population will address itself with better contraception.

littlevillage

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Over population will address itself with better contraception.

As resources get scarce eg. clean water, clean air, arable land... due to pollution and climate changes... expect a dramatic rise is
famines, wars and diseases (maybe pandemics like we currently have) and THEY will address the over population.

silverharp

Havnt seen it, but they didn't mention nuclear. I'd be more interested in their reason behind that.

whisky_galore

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Over population will address itself with better contraception.

Not with people too ignorant or unwilling to use it.

threeball

silverharp wrote: »

Havnt seen it, but they didn't mention nuclear. I'd be more interested in their reason behind that.

It seemed more like a propaganda video for the coal industry with alot of bad maths thrown in for good measure. Yes there are issues like biomass and there certainly shouldnt be solar farms when we have millions of acres of roofspace but theres alot of positive stories going on too. They love to look at the carbon footprint of a turbine but not the footprint of a refinery, pipeline, oil tanker or the other associated infrastructure required.

Guy:Incognito

So, is it full of misinformation as is being claimed?

iebamm2580

Nothing new overpopulation being a major problem, but mention it to some folk and await a barrage of insults, assumptions on your person etc.

riffmongous

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Nothing new overpopulation being a major problem, but mention it to some folk and await a barrage of insults, assumptions on your person etc.

Mostly because the people who propose it never address the unequal environmental stresses due to the different populations across the globe, as if every person uses the same resources

iebamm2580

riffmongous wrote: »

Mostly because the people who propose it never address the unequal environmental stresses due to the different populations across the globe, as if every person uses the same resources

Point still stands that too many people are on the planet.

threeball

riffmongous wrote: »

Mostly because the people who propose it never address the unequal environmental stresses due to the different populations across the globe, as if every person uses the same resources

Yes but large proportion of those undeveloped countries are beavering away to become the next consumer society, just look at China. Its been said that if we all lived like Americans the world could support approximately 1bn people so we're not far off that tipping point when you consider that Europe, Japan, Australia aren't too far off the states in terms of consumption and China quickly coming in the rear view mirror.

Whether we like it or not its the nettle that must be grasped. Governments cannot constantly push the pyramid scheme of a higher birth rate to financially carry the older generation. The work they do during their life should be more than sufficient to generate the funds to see them through were managed properly by governments.

In general the poorer countries have the higher birthrates. They must be incentivised along with ourselves to have 2 kids and no more. Plus we need to deal with our pollution and environmental damage on top.

Thelonious Monk

The poorer countries have lots of kids but an EU or USA citizen would consume consume as much as probably 100 people in Bangladesh or somewhere. What I find is people from rich countries just say blah blah it's overpopulation I'm not changing anything, and of course overpopulation needs to be addressed, but even so we all need to consume way less and live more efficiently.

2u2me

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So, is it full of misinformation as is being claimed?

...

statesaver wrote: »

So you read other peoples options and form your option based on their options without actually watching ? Fuk me , but i hate people who do ****e like that

+1

Pa ElGrande

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

The main takeaways from this film are that the environmental movement has been hijacked by big business and that overpopulation and rampant demand for resources to sustain our continuing growth is what's destroying the planet.

The thorny part is that all attempts to combat climate change are doomed unless the overpopulation question is addressed.
...

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Over population will address itself with better contraception.

littlevillage wrote: »

As resources get scarce eg. clean water, clean air, arable land... due to pollution and climate changes... expect a dramatic rise is
famines, wars and diseases (maybe pandemics like we currently have) and THEY will address the over population.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Nothing new overpopulation being a major problem, but mention it to some folk and await a barrage of insults, assumptions on your person etc.

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Point still stands that too many people are on the planet.

The logical outcome of the sentiments expressed above were bought upon our ancestors during the 19th century.

The long shadow of Malthus

Britain’s Poor Law of 1834, which attempted to ensure that the very poor were not helped except in workhouses, and that conditions in workhouses were not better than the worst in the outside world, was based explicitly on Malthusian ideas — that too much charity only encouraged breeding, especially illegitimacy, or “bastardy”. The Irish potato famine of the 1840s was made infinitely worse by Malthusian prejudice shared by the British politicians in positions of power. The Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, was motivated by “a Malthusian fear about the long-term effect of relief”, according to a biographer. The Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Charles Trevelyan, had been a pupil of Malthus at the East India Company College: famine, he thought, was an “effective mechanism for reducing surplus population” and a “direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence” sent to teach the “selfish, perverse and turbulent” Irish a lesson. Trevelyan added: “Supreme Wisdom has educed permanent good out of transient evil.”

source

I have outlined in previous posts the green movement is made of several identifiable groups that can be coloured along a spectrum of green from the dark green Malthusians whose view this film espouses, the dollar green interests who this film attacks, the Avocados (green on the outside, turns brown when opened and exposed to air) and the light greens.


Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated. He believed charity and laws to help the poor were a major cause of the problem and it was necessary to reduce population through rules and regulations. People who advocate this view that the world is over populated use the fear of imminent catastrophe regarding the pseudo-scientific notion of global warming along with such other threats as pollution, poverty, and biological pandemics to coral people into their belief system and the implications behind this politics are totally frightening and disturbing.

These people have spent a good deal of time finessing the vocabulary and language looking for the precise reasons that could inflame a multiplicity of conflicting circumstances into a searing conflagration whereby individual dissenters of their plan would be made to seem unforgivably nationalistic, greedy, selfish, reckless, and unethical should they reject worldwide collectivism, a one world governance established to help save man against himself. In this dystopian future called sustainable development you have no property rights and you are only allowed minimal materialism combined with obedience to the state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

If you want to claim the world is overpopulated how do you know and what are you doing about it? Are you arguing against the laws of physics to reach a perfect state of balance indefinitely? That will never happen and is impossible since everything fluctuates within cycles from seasons to birth rates.

drake70

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

If you want to claim the world is overpopulated how do you know and what are you doing about it? Are you arguing against the laws of physics to reach a perfect state of balance indefinitely? That will never happen and is impossible since everything fluctuates within cycles from seasons to birth rates.

Very interesting video. Has changed my perceptions of population, poverty and carbon emissions.

Thanks

Donald Trump

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The poorer countries have lots of kids but an EU or USA citizen would consume consume as much as probably 100 people in Bangladesh or somewhere. What I find is people from rich countries just say blah blah it's overpopulation I'm not changing anything, and of course overpopulation needs to be addressed, but even so we all need to consume way less and live more efficiently.

The individuals in those countries (lets dismiss your example of Bangladesh, with a birthrate of 2.01 v Ireland at 1.86, in favour of Mali or Nigeria where the birthrate would be closer to 6) want access to the same things are EU or US citizens.


They will never have it while their birthrates remain high. Ideally they should have access to it. But it's just a less severe example of the "Margaret Cash" effect (as it is officially called by the UN ...... allegedly). Having many children obviously limits the resources the parents can provide to each one for education etc. Having one child, maybe the poor parents can put that child through school. Having 10 kids.....well maybe there is no point trying.



You also need to take into the account the age that women have children too. This is very important in terms of population growth

begbysback

Does this mean i can now throw plastic in the black bin?

Pa ElGrande

Here is a transcript of the video Planet of the humans and here is a review from August 2019 from the first viewing at a film festival.