Okay, so first of all, let me explain why I split this review of Michael Moore's latest movie into two different parts. That was not my original intention, but I found myself writing a lot about it. A hell of a lot, frankly. And this seems justified, because the movie has generated a considerable amount of controversy, as you shall see. Frankly, as my writings on this seemed to go on and on, for pages, it dawned on me that this movie, at the very least, did something that Moore has specifically declared was his intention in making it: it got people to thinking. It reminded me of what felt like the true problem behind all of the catastrophes (not the least of which is the climate change crisis, which is one major aspect of the seeming breakdown that we are facing), and which I will get into shortly.
Firstly, I ended the last blog entry on the movie (more or less), with a quote, and suggested that it was relevant to the topic in more ways than one, and that you would basically have to watch the movie in order to understand what I mean by that. So before going any further, let me, once again, share that quote here.
Firstly, I ended the last blog entry on the movie (more or less), with a quote, and suggested that it was relevant to the topic in more ways than one, and that you would basically have to watch the movie in order to understand what I mean by that. So before going any further, let me, once again, share that quote here.
The quote is from American scientific lawyer and expert on climate change, James Gustave Speth:
I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change.
I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address these problems, but I was wrong.
The top environmental problems are selifshness, greed and apathy, and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation.
And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
- James Gustave Speth
Why would this quote be so relevant after watching the movie, but not for the necessarily obvious reasons that someone might think? Well, to find that out, you have to watch the movie.
So before I go on with my thoughts following my own watching the movie, let me share the link, so you can watch it for yourself. You can view it for free, at least for a limited time (although that time is running out). Here it is:
Okay, so now, I am continuing with this sort of unofficial review, mixed with my own musings on the controversy this film has generated. By now, my assumption is that you have indeed watched the movie. After all, you have been warned.
Has it really been explosive?
Well, here is a quote from solar activist, and noted legendary musician, Neil Young:
“The amount of damage this film tries to create (succeeding in the VERY short term) will ultimately bring light to the real facts, which are turning up everywhere in response to Michael Moore’s new erroneous and headline grabbing TV publicity tour of misinformation. A very damaging film to the human struggle for a better way of living, Moore’s film completely destroys whatever reputation he has earned so far.”
So, why such a reaction?
Well, because Moore obviously goes beyond specific solutions here, and gets down to what, in my opinion, is the central problem behind what we are doing wrong on this planet. And indeed, it goes well beyond just discussions on climate change, and what can be done to curtail it. Yes, I know that environmental activists are very upset at the film, and have taken exception to it. I have watched some video and read some of the responses, and they seem generally and genuinely thought-provoking in their own right. Still, they also do not really approach Moore's main contention here, which is that it is not just our specific activities on this planet that are the problem, and which can be fixed merely by creating what, I believe, Moore proves are basically the illusion of more environmentally responsible "green energy" solutions.
Moore essentially argues that these "green solutions" really are just illusions intended to make us feel better, and to continue on with our damaging lifestyles, but without the guilt. In fact, as Moore argues, they often are almost more damaging than regular energy production. Can we truly fix the environmental problems that we are creating, including the impending, massive climate change catastrophe, simply by relying on our modern technology to create newer, cleaner ways to produce energy? Well, I think that Moore makes a good case that we are basically just fooling ourselves. Most of those alternative energy sources are riddled with major problems in their own right, and do plenty of damage to the environment, with the added hypocrisy of convincing ourselves that we are finally doing something that we can feel good about, being responsible custodians of this planet.
One question asked that Moore's film asked which seems to have captured the quandary is this one: Can machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?
Moore likens these to desperate measures designed to save our way of life, rather than face the reality that it is our very way of life that is, in fact, unsustainable.
The problem that is at the root of this was not exactly a revelation to me. It is one that we actually all have been hearing about for some time and which, if we allow ourselves to really dwell on it, is absolutely terrifying. But Moore does not hesitate in this film.
That is the problem of overpopulation.
I recognized that this was reality, but when it really began to hit home for me was with the writings of the late Daniel Quinn, who is an author I would recommend anyone and everyone to read, and not just for his prognostications on population. He has a very different take on history and how we got here, exactly, and it is worth taking a look.
In any case, I digress. Indeed, though, it was Quinn’s writings that really put this overpopulation crisis into perspective for me, and allowed me to see the crisis for what it actually is, and why it is a threat.
Let me get away from this movie in order to explain precisely why this is the problem that we are now facing. Here, in short, is what it comes down to. Really, it is simple math. Trust me, I am really bad at math, but this math is easy to follow, and this is key to understanding our current dilemma.
About 10,000 years ago is when the event that most scientists credit with being the true origins of our modern global human society: the Agricultural Revolution. It took until about the French Revolution and the time of Napoleon for the world population to reach one billion. So, it took roughly 10,000 years for the human population to reach it's first billion.
But in less than one century, we doubled that. In the interwar years, more or less in between World War I and World War II, we reached two billion. So we managed to do in just over one century what had taken us ten thousands years to reach the first time around, as the world population reached two billion.
Of course, it does not end there. By the time that I was born in 1974, we had doubled that again, in just about half a century. I may not exactly be a spring chicken, but 1974 was really not all that long ago. And we had four billion people in the world. Many experts believe that this was about as much as the Earth could handle, without facing a crisis.
By the year 2000, we had reached about six billion people in population around the world, adding two billion yet again, this time in approximately 25 years.
Surely by now, if you are not already familiar with this, you can see what the problem is, and why it has so many scientists (and others, like me) concerned, right?
As I write this, it is 2020. We are closing in on eight billion people in the world, which we will likely reach within a year or two, if present growth rates continue. Again, it took less time than before. I was 25 years old in 2000, when we reached the six billion mark. We are now on the cusp of reaching the eight billion mark, in 2020. The population growth, in other words, is still accelerating. And it is more than a little alarming.
At this rate, we will reach 10 billion people on this planet during most of our lifetimes. It is not supposed to take that long, especially with this accelerated rate of population growth. And what is perhaps the craziest thing is this: it is still growing at an alarmingly fast rate, despite our knowledge of just how big of a problem this is going to cause somewhere down the line. Frankly, it is hard to imagine that it will even be that far down the road. Again, some people estimated that four billion people in this world is probably more or less the limit of what this planet can really take. We are on the verge of doubling that right now, and the growth rate is not exactly slowing down to a crawl, either.
Is it any wonder that so many human beings would cause such a catastrophe? Scientists have been warning about this for many years now. In fact, you can argue that people have been warned about the possible catastrophe of overpopulation since Thomas Malthus first warned about it hundreds of years ago, back in the 18th century. Scientists have been warning about it ever since, and indeed, climate change is one of the major, and most obvious, symptoms of this. But it is not the only real problem.
Returning to Daniel Quinn, he explained it in terms that are, in fact, rather simple. He basically simplified it to this: the more human mass there is, the less room there is for other biomass. As a rule, this has been pretty much undeniable, and logically, it is hard to imagine it being any other way. The more people there are, the more spread out across the globe they are. And the less room there is for other biomass, which accounts for the massive extinctions of other species that we read or hear about, seemingly every other day.
Meanwhile, Quinn was spot on about another thing, as well. Decades ago, he predicted that there would be more of everything in our modern society. More distractions. There would be more television shows, more movies, more music, more sports, and more things – more of pretty much everything - to keep us very distracted from the impending crisis than ever before. Frankly, it would also be extremely difficult to argue his point in this regard, either. We indeed see more huge distractions than ever before. And let’s face it, many of these things, like the ridiculous Tiger King show that seems to be all the rage for these 15 minutes of it’s fame, are almost shocking in their stupidity. We have no shortage of ridiculous distractions, with endless so-called “reality television” programs that are, frankly, as far removed from reality as anything can get. Yet, let’s face it: the people who actually are keeping up with the Kardashians are not likely keeping up with world news, and are thus either unaware, or seemingly inexplicably indifferent to the impending catastrophe that we are now facing. Perhaps these issues are complex, and lack the entertainment value of their precious shows. At least for now, they do. But there may come a point when these things become unavoidable, even more than the present Covid-19 crisis has become.
The effect of all of this seems quite obvious. Already, people are comparing it to the fictional comedy movie “Idiocracy”, and perhaps with some good reason. We see stupidity running rampant, and it feels like nowhere in the industrialized world is it allowed to run as rampant as it is right here in the United States. Hell, sometimes, it feels like it is encouraged. After all, we have one of those mindless “reality television” stars now literally running the country, and he actually has been fixated on his ratings, blurring the lines between what we perceived as reality, versus what we understand to be entertainment. Indeed, one of the things that I heard some people who were leaning towards Trump back in 2016 saying was that he would be the same crap, but at least he would have entertainment value.
Depends on what you find entertaining, I guess. Personally, he never has done anything for me. When I see his ridiculous fake tan and the trademark miserable expression on his face when it comes on television, I want to turn it off. This was the case well before he ever ran for the White House, and now, it only feels more urgent, this desire to shut this man off. How depressing to have such a transparent moron and narcissist now in charge, officially.
Of course, I digress. So, let me get back to Moore's film, and how and why it became so hugely controversial.
Moore's core argument in this movie is that the reason for the existence of so-called green energy is because billionaires, bankers, and corporations profit from it. And the reason we’re not talking about over-population, consumption, and the suicide of economic growth is that would be bad for business. Cancerous form of capitalism that now rules the world, now hiding under a cover of green.
One by one, all of the myths about alternative clean energy, often referred to as green energy, are stripped away, exposed as basically the frauds that they are. They rely on – Surprise, surprise! – billionaires and corporations, who are essentially just putting on a green front as window dressing to disguise what they are really interested in: the profit motive. That is the only truly green thing that they are interested in. Some of the people attached to the green energy movement, who themselves have long been known as environmentalists, including Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Al Gore, are actually closer to being the disease than the cure.
Clearly, those are some of the main actors of the environmental movement. They are often the most famous names and faces associated with the green movement, with environmentalism. Yet, it seems problematic in many ways, and with good reason. Moore makes clear what those reasons are in this movie. They counter that Moore is just a shameless movie maker trying to build on a reputation for being edgy by selfishly destroying the environmental movement with an outdated movie that harshly criticizes outdated modes of producing so-called cleaner, green energy.
So the question, then, is which one is it? Did Michael Moore and his team make a movie truly designed to wake people up to the hypocrisies and lies behind green energy and technology, as just yet another way for billionaires and elite banks and corporations to cash in? Or did they act in bad faith, as McKibben alleges in a recent piece published in Rolling Stone magazine? Or, perhaps, it the truth somewhere in between?
There are other questions, as well, now. What happens with the environmental movement? After all, this movie served as kind of a bombshell. A lot of the problems that it addressed were things that, whether they are willing to admit it or not, leading environmentalists seemed unwilling to discuss. Indeed, it does then feel like they are trying to hide something, and keep the public in the dark, when they are so reluctant to talk about matters that do not fit the purely optimistic and positive message of how good all of this green technology is.
McKibben suggested that the filmmakers must have done their research of these technologies over a decade ago, because most of it, he implies, is outdated. Yet, that is not really much of an answer to the criticisms that the film clearly brings to light. How sustainable are wind turbines? Can solar panels truly provide an answer in the long-term, or are they more disappointing than anything else? Indeed, in the film, solar panels and electric cars and other aspects of what falls under the umbrella of clean alternative energy technologies. And what about all of the evidence, which this film also reveals, that these technologies rely almost exclusively on the same big polluters that they are supposed to serve as alternatives of to begin with? What about the seeming need to have more traditional energy as more than mere back-up to so much of this clean energy?
Yet, the criticism of this film as being quite outdated is persistent. McKibben did publicly disown burning biomass (trees) as an energy source some time ago, and Moore and the other filmmakers do not make any mention of this. It seems like it should qualify as significant enough for them to mention prominently, but when they do mention it, right at the end during the credits, they basically give themselves credit for pressuring him into it.
Then again, they also make mention that McKibben had given a green award to a major polluter shortly afterward, which would certainly put McKibben’s own rejection of biomass burning as questionable at best. Also, McKibben’s own arguments are a bit flawed. After all, he claims that Michael Moore always punches down, and not up. Really? Attacking the NRA, the Bush White House, and Donald Trump do not qualify as punching up? Taking on major healthcare industry players does not qualify as punching up? A huge corporation like GM, which is how Moore really got started to begin with, is somehow punching down? That sounds like crap to me. I think that McKibben is claiming is something that, to some extent, he admits to himself in his piece: self-pity. He is now being attacked by Moore and his team, and that crosses a line in his book. Of course it would. But does that mean that Moore is punching down, even in this case? After all, however much he claims that all of this is outdated, the fact that so many major polluters and big banks are funding the green energy movement is more than a little troubling, and McKibben does not seem as ready to discuss that, as he is in taking shots at Moore.
Who is to be believed? Where is the truth? After all, some of McKibben’s own arguments seem…well, frankly, a little obviously flawed. I mean, in that Rolling Stone article, he mentions how at first, he was all for burning trees as an energy source, which is something that might indeed sound shocking to environmentalists. He eventually rejected it when he realized that the planting of trees to offset the carbon emissions from burning trees was not working, because the trees would take too much time to grow to make much of a difference. Really? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am not a scientist. But even I could have figured that one out. You clear a forest, then replant trees, and it will take a long time for the forest to look like…well, a forest again. They are not going to be ready right away to offset those carbon emissions, and that is not a minor flaw in his thinking, frankly. That is a major point, because once those bigger trees are gone, they are gone. You can replant trees, sure. But they take time, and as the movie makes clear, time is one luxury that we do not have an abundance of.
And let’s face it: is it not alarming as hell that Breitbart and other conservatives who traditionally have mocked environmentalists and their concern? The fact that they are tacitly promoting the divisions that this movie causes is enough to raise anyone’s eyebrows, is it not? The critics of the movie suggest that many well-meaning people who sympathize with environmentalists will perhaps just throw up their arms in disgust, which is exactly what the big, powerful polluters want. Also, the filmmakers point out a lot of problems, but they really do not offer solutions here. They urge people to question, which is always good, and to reduce. The main challenge seems to be finding a way to deal with the human population explosion is what can be taken as the key question or problem. It impacts the Earth in all sorts of detrimental ways, and not just on climate change. They also point out, with a fair degree of accuracy, that environmentalists too often fail to even mention this glaringly obvious problem at all. But one way or the other, no real solution is offered.
So my own response is mixed. I generally like Michael Moore, and his movies are almost always eye openers. He has taken some shots that were heard, if not quite around the world (and they possibly may have been, for all I know), then certainly around the country. He took aim at GM in Flint Michigan in the eighties, and he then famously took a huge shot at the gun culture of America following the Columbine shootings in the nineties. He blasted George W. Bush and his administration for pursuing the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, and all of the obvious lies that they readily put out there to support their desired war with Iraq. For that matter, I liked some of Moore’s less successful movies, including “Sicko”. That was the one when he took aim at the failed healthcare system in the United States, and dissected the reasons for why it was failing. Also, his more recent movie attacking Donald Trump, and pointing out that Trump was actually symptomatic of some larger ills in the country, was pretty good as well.
This latest movie is a bombshell, however. It does not attack neocons or Trump and his loyal followers. It attacks people who Moore himself would perhaps normally be allied to. He never seemed to hate Al Gore before, and in fact, spoke dreamily about him on the night when, it seemed, at least at first, that he had won the 2000 presidential election. Yet Al Gore does not come across very well in this movie.
Of course, they are all criticizing Moore. In a recent Rolling Stone article, McKibben claimed that Moore’s new movie was essentially “bad journalism”. As if it provides us nothing more to think about. McKibben himself was fairly prominently featured in the film, and given an opportunity to acquit himself of the charges laid against him in the movie, he wrote that Rolling Stone article, basically suggesting that Moore punches down (which I already mentioned sounds ridiculous, for anyone who knows Moore's movies, and who they specifically have targeted), and he claims that the data used in this movie is greatly outdated, and that the green technology has made great advances in the apparently decade or so since much of the data used in this movie was made.
Really? It surely has made strides, and perhaps even significant improvements. But Moore's main argument was that these alternative "green" energy sources still surely primarily rely on fossil fuels and regular energy sources, and they still require a lot of land expansion and biomass, which means that they are still contributing to more pollution, not reducing it. Also, like the others, there is no mention of what Moore is suggesting is central to the real problem: the population explosion. Which is why, to me, these counterarguments to Moore's movie feel false and misleading. It initially gave me pause for thought, and I began to scrutinize the movie. But then, after thinking for a few minutes, it did not feel right that technology would have improved so dramatically in the past decade that now, everything is pure and good, and the alternative energy has put it's reliance on biomass burning and traditionally fossil fuels behind it. And since McKibben, Gore, and Kennedy come across in this movie as particularly disingenuous and intellectually and morally dishonest, why should we expect anything less than that now, when their backs are up against the wall, suddenly and probably unexpectedly?
After all, I asked myself what could they possibly say? And arguments that technology has drastically improved in such a short time span, as well as personal attacks on Moore, sounds like about what could be expected. And no mention of their own contradictory, and frankly hypocritical, enthusiasm to partner with big money corporate entities, but just basically ignoring these charges (and not outright denying them, much less with vehemence, if said charges were completely off base). In other words, there are no real answers from them.
Yes, this film troubled me greatly. I found myself feeling like a fool for believing in green energy with a measure of fair enthusiasm. Perhaps it could indeed preserve, more or less, our way of life, without too much sacrifice, since it seems that many, many people - particularly here in the United States - refuse to compromise even an inch of their traditional conveniences. But that is a lie. Green energy is apparently no more than an illusion. Smoke and mirrors, in order for us to believe what we want to believe to be true, even if it is not true.
That it should be exposed in such a big movie is, frankly, not all that shocking. That it would be Michael Moore doing it, when other movies of his - Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Fahrenheit 11/9 - have specifically taken shots at conservative elites, particularly Republicans. But so be it. Moore says that he is just trying to expose the full truth, and get a conversation going. To try and get the left, particularly environmentalists in this regard, to think about their movement, and see if they can reorganize and get their priorities straight, without the hypocrisy of turning to big corporations to provide convenient illusions posing as real answers. Moore has succeeded in getting this discussion going, and frankly, I believe him more than I believe those he is attacking in this movie. It filled me with despair, admittedly, but it also feels more honest. And at this point in time, again, we do not have the luxury of time to spend fooling ourselves with illusions, or rather, delusions.
Please take a couple of hours to watch this film, if you have not already done so, and see what you think. Also, please feel free to share any thoughts and/or concerns here. I will welcome any comments, including criticisms, and will try and answer speedily.
Take care of yourselves out there!
‘A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal by Bill McKibben, May 1, 2020:
It hurts to be personally attacked in a movie. It hurts more to see a movement divided
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
Here is a link to an article that counters the arguments made by Moore's new movie, and where climate experts are supposedly demanding that it be taken down. Take a look, and make up your own mind about this.
"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.
"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."
Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down by Oliver Millman, April 28, 2020:
Planet of the Humans, which takes aim at the green movement, is ‘full of misinformation’, says one online library
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down
Why "Planet of the Humans," Michael Moore’s new film about green energy, is so controversial by Sophia A. McClennen, May 1, 2020: The documentary, directed by Jeff Gibbs and produced by Moore, is streaming free on YouTube now
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/01/why-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moores-new-film-about-green-energy-is-so-controversial/?fbclid=IwAR1OaLv35EhHxwHauIazjhvlV3iIDxFgpXLrhnebOcr-7E-Y8JjUnAhG1NE
I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change.
I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address these problems, but I was wrong.
The top environmental problems are selifshness, greed and apathy, and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation.
And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
- James Gustave Speth
Why would this quote be so relevant after watching the movie, but not for the necessarily obvious reasons that someone might think? Well, to find that out, you have to watch the movie.
So before I go on with my thoughts following my own watching the movie, let me share the link, so you can watch it for yourself. You can view it for free, at least for a limited time (although that time is running out). Here it is:
************SPOILER ALERT************
************SPOILER ALERT************
************SPOILER ALERT************
Okay, so now, I am continuing with this sort of unofficial review, mixed with my own musings on the controversy this film has generated. By now, my assumption is that you have indeed watched the movie. After all, you have been warned.
Has it really been explosive?
Well, here is a quote from solar activist, and noted legendary musician, Neil Young:
“The amount of damage this film tries to create (succeeding in the VERY short term) will ultimately bring light to the real facts, which are turning up everywhere in response to Michael Moore’s new erroneous and headline grabbing TV publicity tour of misinformation. A very damaging film to the human struggle for a better way of living, Moore’s film completely destroys whatever reputation he has earned so far.”
So, why such a reaction?
Well, because Moore obviously goes beyond specific solutions here, and gets down to what, in my opinion, is the central problem behind what we are doing wrong on this planet. And indeed, it goes well beyond just discussions on climate change, and what can be done to curtail it. Yes, I know that environmental activists are very upset at the film, and have taken exception to it. I have watched some video and read some of the responses, and they seem generally and genuinely thought-provoking in their own right. Still, they also do not really approach Moore's main contention here, which is that it is not just our specific activities on this planet that are the problem, and which can be fixed merely by creating what, I believe, Moore proves are basically the illusion of more environmentally responsible "green energy" solutions.
Moore essentially argues that these "green solutions" really are just illusions intended to make us feel better, and to continue on with our damaging lifestyles, but without the guilt. In fact, as Moore argues, they often are almost more damaging than regular energy production. Can we truly fix the environmental problems that we are creating, including the impending, massive climate change catastrophe, simply by relying on our modern technology to create newer, cleaner ways to produce energy? Well, I think that Moore makes a good case that we are basically just fooling ourselves. Most of those alternative energy sources are riddled with major problems in their own right, and do plenty of damage to the environment, with the added hypocrisy of convincing ourselves that we are finally doing something that we can feel good about, being responsible custodians of this planet.
One question asked that Moore's film asked which seems to have captured the quandary is this one: Can machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?
Moore likens these to desperate measures designed to save our way of life, rather than face the reality that it is our very way of life that is, in fact, unsustainable.
The problem that is at the root of this was not exactly a revelation to me. It is one that we actually all have been hearing about for some time and which, if we allow ourselves to really dwell on it, is absolutely terrifying. But Moore does not hesitate in this film.
That is the problem of overpopulation.
I recognized that this was reality, but when it really began to hit home for me was with the writings of the late Daniel Quinn, who is an author I would recommend anyone and everyone to read, and not just for his prognostications on population. He has a very different take on history and how we got here, exactly, and it is worth taking a look.
In any case, I digress. Indeed, though, it was Quinn’s writings that really put this overpopulation crisis into perspective for me, and allowed me to see the crisis for what it actually is, and why it is a threat.
Let me get away from this movie in order to explain precisely why this is the problem that we are now facing. Here, in short, is what it comes down to. Really, it is simple math. Trust me, I am really bad at math, but this math is easy to follow, and this is key to understanding our current dilemma.
About 10,000 years ago is when the event that most scientists credit with being the true origins of our modern global human society: the Agricultural Revolution. It took until about the French Revolution and the time of Napoleon for the world population to reach one billion. So, it took roughly 10,000 years for the human population to reach it's first billion.
But in less than one century, we doubled that. In the interwar years, more or less in between World War I and World War II, we reached two billion. So we managed to do in just over one century what had taken us ten thousands years to reach the first time around, as the world population reached two billion.
Of course, it does not end there. By the time that I was born in 1974, we had doubled that again, in just about half a century. I may not exactly be a spring chicken, but 1974 was really not all that long ago. And we had four billion people in the world. Many experts believe that this was about as much as the Earth could handle, without facing a crisis.
By the year 2000, we had reached about six billion people in population around the world, adding two billion yet again, this time in approximately 25 years.
Surely by now, if you are not already familiar with this, you can see what the problem is, and why it has so many scientists (and others, like me) concerned, right?
As I write this, it is 2020. We are closing in on eight billion people in the world, which we will likely reach within a year or two, if present growth rates continue. Again, it took less time than before. I was 25 years old in 2000, when we reached the six billion mark. We are now on the cusp of reaching the eight billion mark, in 2020. The population growth, in other words, is still accelerating. And it is more than a little alarming.
At this rate, we will reach 10 billion people on this planet during most of our lifetimes. It is not supposed to take that long, especially with this accelerated rate of population growth. And what is perhaps the craziest thing is this: it is still growing at an alarmingly fast rate, despite our knowledge of just how big of a problem this is going to cause somewhere down the line. Frankly, it is hard to imagine that it will even be that far down the road. Again, some people estimated that four billion people in this world is probably more or less the limit of what this planet can really take. We are on the verge of doubling that right now, and the growth rate is not exactly slowing down to a crawl, either.
Is it any wonder that so many human beings would cause such a catastrophe? Scientists have been warning about this for many years now. In fact, you can argue that people have been warned about the possible catastrophe of overpopulation since Thomas Malthus first warned about it hundreds of years ago, back in the 18th century. Scientists have been warning about it ever since, and indeed, climate change is one of the major, and most obvious, symptoms of this. But it is not the only real problem.
Returning to Daniel Quinn, he explained it in terms that are, in fact, rather simple. He basically simplified it to this: the more human mass there is, the less room there is for other biomass. As a rule, this has been pretty much undeniable, and logically, it is hard to imagine it being any other way. The more people there are, the more spread out across the globe they are. And the less room there is for other biomass, which accounts for the massive extinctions of other species that we read or hear about, seemingly every other day.
Meanwhile, Quinn was spot on about another thing, as well. Decades ago, he predicted that there would be more of everything in our modern society. More distractions. There would be more television shows, more movies, more music, more sports, and more things – more of pretty much everything - to keep us very distracted from the impending crisis than ever before. Frankly, it would also be extremely difficult to argue his point in this regard, either. We indeed see more huge distractions than ever before. And let’s face it, many of these things, like the ridiculous Tiger King show that seems to be all the rage for these 15 minutes of it’s fame, are almost shocking in their stupidity. We have no shortage of ridiculous distractions, with endless so-called “reality television” programs that are, frankly, as far removed from reality as anything can get. Yet, let’s face it: the people who actually are keeping up with the Kardashians are not likely keeping up with world news, and are thus either unaware, or seemingly inexplicably indifferent to the impending catastrophe that we are now facing. Perhaps these issues are complex, and lack the entertainment value of their precious shows. At least for now, they do. But there may come a point when these things become unavoidable, even more than the present Covid-19 crisis has become.
The effect of all of this seems quite obvious. Already, people are comparing it to the fictional comedy movie “Idiocracy”, and perhaps with some good reason. We see stupidity running rampant, and it feels like nowhere in the industrialized world is it allowed to run as rampant as it is right here in the United States. Hell, sometimes, it feels like it is encouraged. After all, we have one of those mindless “reality television” stars now literally running the country, and he actually has been fixated on his ratings, blurring the lines between what we perceived as reality, versus what we understand to be entertainment. Indeed, one of the things that I heard some people who were leaning towards Trump back in 2016 saying was that he would be the same crap, but at least he would have entertainment value.
Depends on what you find entertaining, I guess. Personally, he never has done anything for me. When I see his ridiculous fake tan and the trademark miserable expression on his face when it comes on television, I want to turn it off. This was the case well before he ever ran for the White House, and now, it only feels more urgent, this desire to shut this man off. How depressing to have such a transparent moron and narcissist now in charge, officially.
Of course, I digress. So, let me get back to Moore's film, and how and why it became so hugely controversial.
Moore's core argument in this movie is that the reason for the existence of so-called green energy is because billionaires, bankers, and corporations profit from it. And the reason we’re not talking about over-population, consumption, and the suicide of economic growth is that would be bad for business. Cancerous form of capitalism that now rules the world, now hiding under a cover of green.
One by one, all of the myths about alternative clean energy, often referred to as green energy, are stripped away, exposed as basically the frauds that they are. They rely on – Surprise, surprise! – billionaires and corporations, who are essentially just putting on a green front as window dressing to disguise what they are really interested in: the profit motive. That is the only truly green thing that they are interested in. Some of the people attached to the green energy movement, who themselves have long been known as environmentalists, including Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Al Gore, are actually closer to being the disease than the cure.
Clearly, those are some of the main actors of the environmental movement. They are often the most famous names and faces associated with the green movement, with environmentalism. Yet, it seems problematic in many ways, and with good reason. Moore makes clear what those reasons are in this movie. They counter that Moore is just a shameless movie maker trying to build on a reputation for being edgy by selfishly destroying the environmental movement with an outdated movie that harshly criticizes outdated modes of producing so-called cleaner, green energy.
So the question, then, is which one is it? Did Michael Moore and his team make a movie truly designed to wake people up to the hypocrisies and lies behind green energy and technology, as just yet another way for billionaires and elite banks and corporations to cash in? Or did they act in bad faith, as McKibben alleges in a recent piece published in Rolling Stone magazine? Or, perhaps, it the truth somewhere in between?
There are other questions, as well, now. What happens with the environmental movement? After all, this movie served as kind of a bombshell. A lot of the problems that it addressed were things that, whether they are willing to admit it or not, leading environmentalists seemed unwilling to discuss. Indeed, it does then feel like they are trying to hide something, and keep the public in the dark, when they are so reluctant to talk about matters that do not fit the purely optimistic and positive message of how good all of this green technology is.
McKibben suggested that the filmmakers must have done their research of these technologies over a decade ago, because most of it, he implies, is outdated. Yet, that is not really much of an answer to the criticisms that the film clearly brings to light. How sustainable are wind turbines? Can solar panels truly provide an answer in the long-term, or are they more disappointing than anything else? Indeed, in the film, solar panels and electric cars and other aspects of what falls under the umbrella of clean alternative energy technologies. And what about all of the evidence, which this film also reveals, that these technologies rely almost exclusively on the same big polluters that they are supposed to serve as alternatives of to begin with? What about the seeming need to have more traditional energy as more than mere back-up to so much of this clean energy?
Yet, the criticism of this film as being quite outdated is persistent. McKibben did publicly disown burning biomass (trees) as an energy source some time ago, and Moore and the other filmmakers do not make any mention of this. It seems like it should qualify as significant enough for them to mention prominently, but when they do mention it, right at the end during the credits, they basically give themselves credit for pressuring him into it.
Then again, they also make mention that McKibben had given a green award to a major polluter shortly afterward, which would certainly put McKibben’s own rejection of biomass burning as questionable at best. Also, McKibben’s own arguments are a bit flawed. After all, he claims that Michael Moore always punches down, and not up. Really? Attacking the NRA, the Bush White House, and Donald Trump do not qualify as punching up? Taking on major healthcare industry players does not qualify as punching up? A huge corporation like GM, which is how Moore really got started to begin with, is somehow punching down? That sounds like crap to me. I think that McKibben is claiming is something that, to some extent, he admits to himself in his piece: self-pity. He is now being attacked by Moore and his team, and that crosses a line in his book. Of course it would. But does that mean that Moore is punching down, even in this case? After all, however much he claims that all of this is outdated, the fact that so many major polluters and big banks are funding the green energy movement is more than a little troubling, and McKibben does not seem as ready to discuss that, as he is in taking shots at Moore.
Who is to be believed? Where is the truth? After all, some of McKibben’s own arguments seem…well, frankly, a little obviously flawed. I mean, in that Rolling Stone article, he mentions how at first, he was all for burning trees as an energy source, which is something that might indeed sound shocking to environmentalists. He eventually rejected it when he realized that the planting of trees to offset the carbon emissions from burning trees was not working, because the trees would take too much time to grow to make much of a difference. Really? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am not a scientist. But even I could have figured that one out. You clear a forest, then replant trees, and it will take a long time for the forest to look like…well, a forest again. They are not going to be ready right away to offset those carbon emissions, and that is not a minor flaw in his thinking, frankly. That is a major point, because once those bigger trees are gone, they are gone. You can replant trees, sure. But they take time, and as the movie makes clear, time is one luxury that we do not have an abundance of.
And let’s face it: is it not alarming as hell that Breitbart and other conservatives who traditionally have mocked environmentalists and their concern? The fact that they are tacitly promoting the divisions that this movie causes is enough to raise anyone’s eyebrows, is it not? The critics of the movie suggest that many well-meaning people who sympathize with environmentalists will perhaps just throw up their arms in disgust, which is exactly what the big, powerful polluters want. Also, the filmmakers point out a lot of problems, but they really do not offer solutions here. They urge people to question, which is always good, and to reduce. The main challenge seems to be finding a way to deal with the human population explosion is what can be taken as the key question or problem. It impacts the Earth in all sorts of detrimental ways, and not just on climate change. They also point out, with a fair degree of accuracy, that environmentalists too often fail to even mention this glaringly obvious problem at all. But one way or the other, no real solution is offered.
So my own response is mixed. I generally like Michael Moore, and his movies are almost always eye openers. He has taken some shots that were heard, if not quite around the world (and they possibly may have been, for all I know), then certainly around the country. He took aim at GM in Flint Michigan in the eighties, and he then famously took a huge shot at the gun culture of America following the Columbine shootings in the nineties. He blasted George W. Bush and his administration for pursuing the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq, and all of the obvious lies that they readily put out there to support their desired war with Iraq. For that matter, I liked some of Moore’s less successful movies, including “Sicko”. That was the one when he took aim at the failed healthcare system in the United States, and dissected the reasons for why it was failing. Also, his more recent movie attacking Donald Trump, and pointing out that Trump was actually symptomatic of some larger ills in the country, was pretty good as well.
This latest movie is a bombshell, however. It does not attack neocons or Trump and his loyal followers. It attacks people who Moore himself would perhaps normally be allied to. He never seemed to hate Al Gore before, and in fact, spoke dreamily about him on the night when, it seemed, at least at first, that he had won the 2000 presidential election. Yet Al Gore does not come across very well in this movie.
Of course, they are all criticizing Moore. In a recent Rolling Stone article, McKibben claimed that Moore’s new movie was essentially “bad journalism”. As if it provides us nothing more to think about. McKibben himself was fairly prominently featured in the film, and given an opportunity to acquit himself of the charges laid against him in the movie, he wrote that Rolling Stone article, basically suggesting that Moore punches down (which I already mentioned sounds ridiculous, for anyone who knows Moore's movies, and who they specifically have targeted), and he claims that the data used in this movie is greatly outdated, and that the green technology has made great advances in the apparently decade or so since much of the data used in this movie was made.
Really? It surely has made strides, and perhaps even significant improvements. But Moore's main argument was that these alternative "green" energy sources still surely primarily rely on fossil fuels and regular energy sources, and they still require a lot of land expansion and biomass, which means that they are still contributing to more pollution, not reducing it. Also, like the others, there is no mention of what Moore is suggesting is central to the real problem: the population explosion. Which is why, to me, these counterarguments to Moore's movie feel false and misleading. It initially gave me pause for thought, and I began to scrutinize the movie. But then, after thinking for a few minutes, it did not feel right that technology would have improved so dramatically in the past decade that now, everything is pure and good, and the alternative energy has put it's reliance on biomass burning and traditionally fossil fuels behind it. And since McKibben, Gore, and Kennedy come across in this movie as particularly disingenuous and intellectually and morally dishonest, why should we expect anything less than that now, when their backs are up against the wall, suddenly and probably unexpectedly?
After all, I asked myself what could they possibly say? And arguments that technology has drastically improved in such a short time span, as well as personal attacks on Moore, sounds like about what could be expected. And no mention of their own contradictory, and frankly hypocritical, enthusiasm to partner with big money corporate entities, but just basically ignoring these charges (and not outright denying them, much less with vehemence, if said charges were completely off base). In other words, there are no real answers from them.
Yes, this film troubled me greatly. I found myself feeling like a fool for believing in green energy with a measure of fair enthusiasm. Perhaps it could indeed preserve, more or less, our way of life, without too much sacrifice, since it seems that many, many people - particularly here in the United States - refuse to compromise even an inch of their traditional conveniences. But that is a lie. Green energy is apparently no more than an illusion. Smoke and mirrors, in order for us to believe what we want to believe to be true, even if it is not true.
That it should be exposed in such a big movie is, frankly, not all that shocking. That it would be Michael Moore doing it, when other movies of his - Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Fahrenheit 11/9 - have specifically taken shots at conservative elites, particularly Republicans. But so be it. Moore says that he is just trying to expose the full truth, and get a conversation going. To try and get the left, particularly environmentalists in this regard, to think about their movement, and see if they can reorganize and get their priorities straight, without the hypocrisy of turning to big corporations to provide convenient illusions posing as real answers. Moore has succeeded in getting this discussion going, and frankly, I believe him more than I believe those he is attacking in this movie. It filled me with despair, admittedly, but it also feels more honest. And at this point in time, again, we do not have the luxury of time to spend fooling ourselves with illusions, or rather, delusions.
Please take a couple of hours to watch this film, if you have not already done so, and see what you think. Also, please feel free to share any thoughts and/or concerns here. I will welcome any comments, including criticisms, and will try and answer speedily.
Take care of yourselves out there!
Below are some videos and links about the movie. There are four video, all of which are about the explosive controversy that Moore's movie has created. Below that are links to some articles, including Bill McKibben's response in Rolling Stone magazine. There are two other articles, including one where climate activists are demanding that the movie be taken off of Youtube:
‘A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal by Bill McKibben, May 1, 2020:
It hurts to be personally attacked in a movie. It hurts more to see a movement divided
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
Here is a link to an article that counters the arguments made by Moore's new movie, and where climate experts are supposedly demanding that it be taken down. Take a look, and make up your own mind about this.
"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.
"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."
Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down by Oliver Millman, April 28, 2020:
Planet of the Humans, which takes aim at the green movement, is ‘full of misinformation’, says one online library
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/28/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down
Why "Planet of the Humans," Michael Moore’s new film about green energy, is so controversial by Sophia A. McClennen, May 1, 2020: The documentary, directed by Jeff Gibbs and produced by Moore, is streaming free on YouTube now
https://www.salon.com/2020/05/01/why-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moores-new-film-about-green-energy-is-so-controversial/?fbclid=IwAR1OaLv35EhHxwHauIazjhvlV3iIDxFgpXLrhnebOcr-7E-Y8JjUnAhG1NE
No comments:
Post a Comment