Film Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore; Documentary directed by Jeff Gibbs

sebsheep

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
11,009
Location
Here
Good documentary, pretty depressing to watch though.
Absolute joke that these companies are allowed to call themselves renewable energy when they are no where close to. Then countries saying they are getting all this energy from renewable sources when they're destroying rainforests and burning them. The amount of outright lying both these groups get away with is ridiculous.
I found out a few things that I was unaware of, mainly due to ignorance I would say, like the way solar panels are made and just how much reliance on fossil fuels there is to create things we then look to use to create renewable energy.
We're going to need major changes in how much energy we consume and the ways we produce it to even stand a chance.
 

sebsheep

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
11,009
Location
Here

Balljy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
3,303
It's pretty much being torn apart by scientists and the media for false information. Some quotes amongst many:

"'n one almost impossibly lazy bit, Gibbs and Zehner visit a concentrated solar plant outside Daggett, California, but are surprised to see that the mirrors are missing. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates. “A solar dead zone.” End scene.

It took me less than a minute on Wikipedia to find out that this array, originally completed in 1985, was deconstructed for replacement in 2014-2015. A new photovoltaic array has been online since 2017.'

'No math is done at any point, no data is shown for grid-total emissions over time, and no scientists are consulted to quantify emissions or compare different scenarios. Some of the information presented comes from Gibbs’ strategy of plying industry trade-show sales reps and environmental advocates with awkward questions on camera, then stringing together quick-cut clips of people admitting to downsides.'


https://arstechnica.com/science/202...rgy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
 

sebsheep

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
11,009
Location
Here
It's pretty much being torn apart by scientists and the media for false information. Some quotes amongst many:

"'n one almost impossibly lazy bit, Gibbs and Zehner visit a concentrated solar plant outside Daggett, California, but are surprised to see that the mirrors are missing. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates. “A solar dead zone.” End scene.

It took me less than a minute on Wikipedia to find out that this array, originally completed in 1985, was deconstructed for replacement in 2014-2015. A new photovoltaic array has been online since 2017.'

'No math is done at any point, no data is shown for grid-total emissions over time, and no scientists are consulted to quantify emissions or compare different scenarios. Some of the information presented comes from Gibbs’ strategy of plying industry trade-show sales reps and environmental advocates with awkward questions on camera, then stringing together quick-cut clips of people admitting to downsides.'


https://arstechnica.com/science/202...rgy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
Yeah that's probably a better critique of it, a few other things I've seen about it seem to suggest that the data they used was about 10 years old as well.
I didn't really take away the idea that they were trying to push on the viewer that fossil fuels were better (probably because I thought that would be just mad) but that we need to be working harder on the renewable things we are doing. If they're using really old footage and data though then it does raise questions about their intentions.
 

Member 39557

Guest
It's pretty much being torn apart by scientists and the media for false information. Some quotes amongst many:

"'n one almost impossibly lazy bit, Gibbs and Zehner visit a concentrated solar plant outside Daggett, California, but are surprised to see that the mirrors are missing. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates. “A solar dead zone.” End scene.

It took me less than a minute on Wikipedia to find out that this array, originally completed in 1985, was deconstructed for replacement in 2014-2015. A new photovoltaic array has been online since 2017.'

'No math is done at any point, no data is shown for grid-total emissions over time, and no scientists are consulted to quantify emissions or compare different scenarios. Some of the information presented comes from Gibbs’ strategy of plying industry trade-show sales reps and environmental advocates with awkward questions on camera, then stringing together quick-cut clips of people admitting to downsides.'


https://arstechnica.com/science/202...rgy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure I've read that Michael Moore was outed before for being economical with the truth to make the point he wants to make in his documentaries.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,444
Supports
Mejbri
Has anyone debunked the core message: that overpopulation and our perpetual growth economical model are the main drivers and changing to renewables won't create any sort of seamless transition?
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Watching the movie now, have gone through about 1 hour. Finding it very good in fact(unfortunately). There is no doubt that Michael Moore frames his movies to make a point, but I think the point and problems in here are presented very well.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure I've read that Michael Moore was outed before for being economical with the truth to make the point he wants to make in his documentaries.
Yes, very much so. He also likes to present anecdotal evidence as representing something bigger. It works when there's merit to his overall point, but this time it's blown up in his face. Worth pointing out, though, that this Gibbs's film rather than Moore's.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Has anyone debunked the core message: that overpopulation and our perpetual growth economical model are the main drivers and changing to renewables won't create any sort of seamless transition?
I don't think anyone has.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I don't think anyone really doubts that? Obviously, things would be better for the environment if half the human population didn't exist. (But not if we still had the 19th century factories: the growth model depends on innovation.) But it's moral quicksand to start talking about population control and you can't question the growth model while half the world is so far behind the other half in terms of wellbeing. So the discussion instead focuses on what we can do within those parameters (like greening the economy).
 

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
Love this; mostly because greens hate it. I already knew most of it, but was surprised the boss of 350.org has his snout in the trough too. Strangely compelling - given I already knew most of the facts! - I guess I was compelled to watch it all on the look out for their mistakes, of which there were few.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Evil somewhat? What would be the point of the environment being there if there weren't people to enjoy it? You think nature appreciates itself?
That's a joke, right? I mean, the environment doesn't exist to serve us; it just 'is', just like humanity. Also, I didn't say that half the human population should be killed or whatever, just that the current population level clearly is a factor in global warming.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
That's a joke, right? I mean, the environment doesn't exist to serve us; it just 'is', just like humanity. Also, I didn't say that half the human population should be killed or whatever, just that the current population level clearly is a factor in global warming.
It isn't just essentially global warming, but all the other myriad of ways we destroy the planet and the species on it. I agree that population control isn't about killing people, but encouraging rationel incentives for people to have less children in countries with exploding populations.
 

The Boy

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
4,317
Supports
Brighton and Hove Albion
Has anyone debunked the core message: that overpopulation and our perpetual growth economical model are the main drivers and changing to renewables won't create any sort of seamless transition?
It isn't just essentially global warming, but all the other myriad of ways we destroy the planet and the species on it. I agree that population control isn't about killing people, but encouraging rationel incentives for people to have less children in countries with exploding populations.
Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.

https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

Consumerism and economic inequality are big problems.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I think there are two aspects here. If there were much fewer people on this world, we wouldn't have nearly the same impact on the environment, and global warming would not present the same kind of issue. I don't think that's up for debate...? To me, that's simply a given; just as it is a given that the population is what it is, and that we won't be getting it down any time soon. (Growth may be slowing down, but there will be no decline for the foreseeable future; and population control is not going to happen.)

So pointing to overpopulation does not offer any kind of solution. It's also no reason to just give, as I agree with @The Boy that our current population level does inevitably need to cause global warming. There are lots of ways we can do much better for the planet and for ourselves, if only we could get to some kind of holistic overhaul of how we produce and consume (energy, food, and other products). I don't see that happening right now and I don't see any impetus for it; we're just doing baby steps, like slowly-slowly-slowly greening the economy (but not even everywhere). But yes, it absolutely is possible.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.

https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

Consumerism and economic inequality are big problems.
Yeah, but obviously the system of consumerism is also becoming more and more widespread. Which is not something I critize. People in developing countries want the same benefits that we enjoy. Which leads to an ever increasing rates of consumers.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
18,444
Supports
Mejbri
Evil somewhat? What would be the point of the environment being there if there weren't people to enjoy it? You think nature appreciates itself?
The very definition of anthropocentric right there. Of course, that's how we've gone about things, though we now know that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. I guess this thinking is kind of like: If a tree falls in the wood and there is no human there to notice it, will it make a sound: yes, it will emit a growl of sadness for not being harvested for an IKEA desk that has been put away in a human's storage unit.

Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.

https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

Consumerism and economic inequality are big problems.
Thanks for the reply. I agree that our way of life is the key driver - but it so happens that our way of life is an ideology that has co-opted and harvested everything in its wake so now it's spread all over the world, directly or indirectly. As @Shamana alludes to - though I'm not sure everyone wants exactly the same. I guess if people were allowed to control their own local regions, countries, natural resources, pieces of land etc. we could say that, but the level of superpower and corporate interference (same thing largely) and exploitation obscures that no end.
 

Mark Pawelek

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,598
Location
Kent, near London
The very definition of anthropocentric right there. Of course, that's how we've gone about things, though we now know that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. I guess this thinking is kind of like: If a tree falls in the wood and there is no human there to notice it, will it make a sound: yes, it will emit a growl of sadness for not being harvested for an IKEA desk that has been put away in a human's storage unit.

Thanks for the reply. I agree that our way of life is the key driver - but it so happens that our way of life is an ideology that has co-opted and harvested everything in its wake so now it's spread all over the world, directly or indirectly. As @Shamana alludes to - though I'm not sure everyone wants exactly the same. I guess if people were allowed to control their own local regions, countries, natural resources, pieces of land etc. we could say that, but the level of superpower and corporate interference (same thing largely) and exploitation obscures that no end.
More a way of surviving than a way of thinking. There you are - projecting your fantasies on to me. Projecting fantasies is - in my experience - the very definition of anthropocentric. Oh, and projecting fantasies = the very definition of supporting renewable energy. So, actually on topic w.r.t. Planet of the Humans.