Planet of the Humans - Amazing new doco from Michael Moore

I have never met Moore, but I know Gibbs, his son lived with my daughter for a couple of years and I talked to him twice. He was a pretty level headed guy, I have no idea how he put up with Moore in the years he kind of went overboard. Moore originally made some good movies, they were relevant, but it all went chaos after that. I quit watching anything he made, and felt sorry for Gibbs having to put up with him. Although, maybe Gibbs got the same chaotic way, I haven't seen him in many years, and meeting the guy and talking to him two times is not a good way of judging character. He could have been ACTING normal, after all he is in film making.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I watched most of this and yeah there are some real snakes in the world , cheating lying corrupt monsters . Wolves in sheeps clothings . If I'd have done the interviews around 1.09 mark I'd have made them sweat more than that throwing in some accusations too . It's subtly done though , just the looks on their faces being asked hard questions says it .

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

10% of the population own 90% of the wealth....those sick Money Mopngers should be the causality factor in these BS DOCUMENTARYS.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Does he practise what he preaches or is it another case of celeb telling the poor and little people to do what they're told whilst flying all over the world, flying to collects hats or sending private planes to get this item or that?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

www.theguardian.com...

"A letter written by Josh Fox, who made the documentary Gasland, and signed by various scientists and activists, has urged the removal of “shockingly misleading and absurd” film for making false claims about renewable energy. Planet of the Humans “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy, the letter states, pointing out that these alternatives are now cheaper to run than fossil fuels such as coal."

Apparently a lot of people aren't happy about the doc.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I’m wondering if he’s read The Overstory. Best-written book I’ve ever read. Harrowing tale of man’s ability to not see. And Nature’s to not care....

Half way through and the topic of depopulation is the mainstay, so essentially Bill Fu**in Gates...

originally posted by: stosh64
The Orangutan's at the end, in the one dead tree left standing and being chased in the ditch, were heartbreaking...

Really ? ..........( Gets Punched In the Face for Actually Saying that )....................

a reply to: Dwoodward85

Lol of course their immediate reaction is to want it banned... if you cannot win an argument legitimately you simply silence your opponent, it's authoritarian leftism 101. Anyhow, lets take a brief look at that article.

Planet of the Humans “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy, the letter states, pointing out that these alternatives are now cheaper to run than fossil fuels such as coal.

This statement is so biased and so misleading it's not even funny. First of all it's hilarious they would attempt to paint Moore and Gibbs as fossil fuel lobbyists when they are the complete opposite of that. Secondly, this idea that energy produced by green tech is cheaper has not been proven in a robust way, and I only see evidence that it's a lie. The places which have a higher reliance on green tech almost always have much higher energy prices. The government in Australia has been telling us for years how green tech is going to make energy cleaner and cheaper, we just need to keep adding more of it to the grid, yet our energy prices have been rising for many years and the grid has only become more unstable as a result, with more blackouts and brownouts occurring, especially in the areas with the higher reliance on wind and solar.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Over 40% of the electricity generated in South Australia comes from renewable sources[14] but it seems they have more blackouts and brownouts than any other state. It has also been reported that some places in South Australia have the highest electricity prices in the world[15]. This is why I find it highly disingenuous when some environmentalists try to claim new green tech is now more cost effective than methods such as coal or nuclear power generation.

On a private scale something like a solar panel can can save you money in the long term, but when a large-scale and reliable source of power is required it becomes less cost effective due to all the equipment required to generate any substantial amount of power. Moreover it becomes a problem to actually generate and store enough stable power for a modern society to function because the efficiency of fossil fuels and nuclear fission is much higher and you get much higher energy output.
...
As far as I can see right now, solar tech still needs to become better at producing energy at a lower price before it will become a truly cost effective solution, until then this idea that green tech costs less really is a form of propaganda.

Dissecting the Global Warming and Energy Issues in Australia

Michael Mann, a climate scientist and signatory to Fox’s letter, said the film includes “various distortions, half-truths and lies” and that the filmmakers “have done a grave disservice to us and the planet by promoting climate change inactivist tropes and talking points.” The film’s makers did not respond to questions over whether it will be pulled down.

I love how anything they disagree with is simply a "talking point"... no it's a valid argument based on the reality of the situation, which you are willfully choosing to ignore because you treat global warming like a religion, which prevents you from having a rational perspective on the topic, all you can do is throw out personal attacks and call for it to be banned, because you're too useless to do anything else.

While electric cars often require fossil fuel-generated energy to produce them and provide the electricity to fuel them, research has shown they still emit less greenhouse gas and air pollutants over their lifetime than a standard petrol or diesel car.

This is a very simplified description of the situation. The time it takes for an electric vehicle to offset the emissions of its production depends on the energy mix being used. If the energy being used to charge the car is 90% coal or oil then it can take up to 2 decades before the car is actually beneficial for the environment. Furthermore, this argument still ignores the fact that EV's are much harder to dispose of or recycle, and require a lot more toxic materials for their production.

One of the solutions they propose to our energy problems is more green tech like solar and wind, along with more electric vehicles (EV's). Just because a vehicle is electric doesn't automatically make it better for the environment though. This video attempts to debunk the myth EV's are worse for the environment, but I think what it really does is highlight how important it is to consider the way the electricity was generated, if your EV is powered by coal then there's really no difference.

EV's release more emissions during manufacturing due to the batteries; in the video they show that it takes 2 to 5 years before that difference is offset by the reduced emissions of the EV. However in a state such as West Virginia where 93% of the electricity is generated from coal plants, it can take up to 17 years before that difference is offset, meaning it wont be beneficial to the environment unless you drive the same EV for more than 17 years in that state.

Dissecting the Global Warming and Energy Issues in Australia

i heard the distro company pulled their support for it because it goes full malthusian eco-fascist

so it's pretty cool to see it being so warmly received here on good ol ATS, not telling in any way...

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: FauxMulder

Its a very.. "Interesting" topic..

And, the same MO we see in a lot of other areas too..

Ill have to watch this one. In general, I dig the concept of solar/wind/etc. but the manufacturing process (batteries...) is troublesome.

Really though, these subjects in the main narrative definitely have an air of being "anti-human." All while delegitimizing those of us that care about it, but dont buy into the propaganda.

Id like to see nuclear tech get down to the household or decentralized level, but.. Im hesitant to wish for anything more advanced at this stage. Things that tend to be very effective/efficient in energy production also tend to be very effective as weapons platforms.

Mini-Nuclear Reactors Are Coming, and They Could Reinvent the Energy Industry
youtu.be...


We have the know how to produce Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, but because they do not produce material that can be used to produce Nuclear bombs they are not backed by TPTB. youtu.be...

Great show
I am quite surprised at the content, it being a M Moore film, but maybe this is what happens when you give an honest man a camera.

a reply to: continuousThunder

Perhaps instead of going by what you heard, give it a watch and form your own opinion. You've also been an ATS member since 2013 so your generalization applies to yourself... this thread states my opinion about the documentary and doesn't represent everyone on ATS. But I agree people on ATS are probably more likely to agree with the documentary because we have the ability to think for ourselves.

a reply to: 727Sky

Some good vids there

I do believe that nuclear tech is something that can provide what we need, even on a mass scale.

I think its weaponization potential might be fully realized, and there are plenty of platforms that are extremely promising.

The issue is still public perception, accessibility, as well as actual adoption and implementation of the technology. Its never as easy as something simply being better, sadly. Even just financially, there are vast sums of money on the line.

Maybe we will see it happen, maybe we wont. But, I definitely feel that its an area that still has incredible potential without the hypothetical "need" for more advanced processes or tech.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm about a third of the way through right now. So far, actually not bad for a Michael Moore doc. But I just can't stand how every environmentalist puts off that vibe of 'humans bad. Must eliminate humans'. Maybe it's just me but that's how they come off.

Yeah I totally agree and I really hate the Human self-loathing movement. If you think we are plague or a virus by all means eliminate your self first so you set a good example.

I plan to watch this, but if I start to get the guilt it gets turned off. I like many of us do the best with the options we have to create and live in a sustainable world yet I am guessing this is a bit of lie the documentary exposes?

originally posted by: abeverage

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm about a third of the way through right now. So far, actually not bad for a Michael Moore doc. But I just can't stand how every environmentalist puts off that vibe of 'humans bad. Must eliminate humans'. Maybe it's just me but that's how they come off.

I plan to watch this, but if I start to get the guilt it gets turned off. I like many of us do the best with the options we have to create and live in a sustainable world yet I am guessing this is a bit of lie the documentary exposes?

It does that. I am like you and usually will turn things off if I get that vibe. While this does kinda lead one down that path it doesn't outright promote anything about humans being bad / population controls or anything like that. There is some good info in there that makes it well worth the watch.

Lmao...dude straight up said Environmental Activists are delusional 😂😂

100% True, and majority of those idiots are Liberals, just shows how #ed in the head they are.

Damn ! Hands down the best hour & a bit of doco. I've watched in a long time. I threw up in my throat a little at the " animal fat " clip & admittedly shed a few at the end for the orangutans & couldn't help but think if they could've expressed into words what was etched in their eyes & obvious in their confused faces , it would've been " Why ? what did we do to deserve this ? " Worse still is I feel helpless having no answers except knowing it will get a lot worse before better due to the evil marriage with big business. I bet I wasn't alone at wanting to kick the TV at Al Gore's head level with his utterly pith weak answers to some straight up questions on his selling of his soul !?
Was hoping they would've got into more about the processes involved with Bio fuels. From South Australia & get hungry whenever following a Council Garbage truck that runs on that stuff as they always smell like fish & chips shop !
Oh also that present day look at the field of mirrors that reflected to tower was jaw dropping wasn't it ? I vividly remember being keenly interested in this exact " new tech " at the time & I'm sure it was around this time that they were touting they were on track to getting the size of the "mirror" down to match box size for same gain.
Maybe that was solar panels I'm confused with but either way......WTF happened there ?
Great post OP

Fact of the matter is, the film highlighted the real primary problem facing our species, and that is, there are just too damn many of us alive on the planet all wanting an equal level of developed-nation lifestyle. Earth does not have the resources for our species to achieve this kind of sustainability. To do so would require the extractable resources of three earths, and seeing as there is only one earth we can use, and that we don't live in a solar system that can provide the level of resources for our needs. I think we can reasonably agree that our options are limited, and for the good of our species (even if in individual terms each of us actually care about the longevity of our species?) the most simplistic solution that answers the problems the fastest is a global human cull. The issue is, who is going to acknowledge it, let alone accept it?

I see it, because I have always been a realist, and it is very uncomfortable being one. I know that I am not alone in this. I believe many of you 'see it'. Many of you equally look at things just as objectively and dispassionately as I do, knowing that what one looks at is utterly horrifying and ultimately, inescapable. The simple understanding is, living a developed and technological nation lifestyle can only be sustainable when the population is small. When that small population cannot consume resources faster than the earth can provide. If you reduce the earth's human population, by corollary you reduce the problems. It's not rocket science, it is basic intuition of what creates and feeds the problems. You can be dammed sure that this understanding has been 'think tanked' for decades by so-called experts of analysis and futurologists. They will have looked for the most benign way to bring about a cull of the required proportions, but even so, it will have considerable physical and psychological consequences.

Clearly, they cannot cull billions of people in the same instance or even over a short period of time. The logistics of the cull itself and the clean up of the bodies would be immense. I am certainly of the opinion that it will be brought about during a time when free societies have been shut down to a particular level and governments and corporations have become ever more draconian and tyrannical, as they will need to gain as great a control of people's free movement as much as they can.

They will have think tanked who they are going to allow to live, the type of people and experts of industries they will need, doctors, scientists, engineers, etc, and of course many others who will be needed. The cull will be slow, and proceed over decades, and it will be hidden within natural disasters and human catastrophes. It will become perceivable, because you won't be able to hide the fact that the death rate has overtaken the birth rate by many magnitudes.

Of course, many will simply be unable to integrate the scenario into their personality, their mind just won't be able to process it. They will be like many Jews in Europe during the 1930s and 40s, who refused to accept the stories circulating about how the Nazis were treating them, and how their culture had been earmarked for mass industrial extermination. They will refuse even right up to the point of their death.

Fact is, when the rationale is fuelled by a belief so desperate and strong as the survival of our species, those with the power will do anything to ensure it. We must never fool ourselves into believing that it would never happen, or that it will never be thought about as an option.

We are certainly not going to migrate to another planet, just not feasible or economically practicable.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Thats certainly the narrative that has been hummed in the background for decades. Consider me rather unconvinced though.

I would, however, agree with the general premise of it according to totally inefficient use of resources, on a per capita basis or more generally. Notably, a problem that will persist and grow regardless of population numbers, potentiated by the drive to constantly grow profits of even the largest corporations.