Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' asks: What if green energy cannot save the planet?

Humans are a product of nature and are part of the earth. We deserve to be alive just as much as a polar bear.

I personally value human life above all else

Humans haven't been a product of nature or a part of natures cycle ever since metalworking was discovered 9000 years ago. Our numbers and damage to the environment were largely kept in check by natural pressures until the 19th century when industrialisation and modern medicine allowed our numbers to soar far past sustainable levels.

Nature never intended for the creation of plastic and for it to be strewn across the oceans, it never intended for oil and coal to be dug out of the earth and burnt on an ever increasing global scale. And why would you value human life above all else? I personally value human life less than all other lifeforms on this planet, simply because we cheapened the value of our own existence by being the prime cause of destruction and the biggest threat to all life on Earth.

If governments had indefinite ability to fund people's existence and people had no interest in socializing, this environmentalist utopia might be achieved. I would make a suggestion that these folks donate all their money to people who would still like electricity and a means to feed their family. Additionally, I am sure none will have children.

"I never thought where the electricity came from" - wow, he was probably one of those telling us that compact florescent light bulbs were going to save us a decade or two ago.

Trouble is, most humans don't really care about the planet, just their own comfortable existence on it.

I personally value human life less than all other lifeforms on this planet,

And yet, you are still here.

A better approach, Gibbs suggests, would be people having fewer children. "Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide," he says.

Rather than kicking ourselves, just accept that we are what we are - a species of animal. All species, when given the opportunity, breed beyond the capacity of their environment's ability to support them. Since we gifted with more self awareness than most animals (with notable exceptions), we should be able to do the sensible thing and reduce population. Yet, even in "advanced" societies such as Japan, the leaders are frightening the public into breeding more. Either people reduce the population or nature will do it for us. This is the way it has always been, and always will be. A pension crisis is mild stuff compared to what mother nature can dish up.

Our numbers and damage to the environment were largely kept in check by natural pressures until the 19th century when industrialisation and modern medicine allowed our numbers to soar far past sustainable levels.

This was one factor, but more important was the conversion of fossil fuel energy to food energy through new fertilizers. With cheaper and abundant food, Capitalism could satisfy one of its critical requirements for growth, ever more people (using ever more energy and resources to make stuff they soon trash).

Before Moore and others questioned the perpetual growth model, even if green-washed, the Limits to Growth group in the 1970 showed us that growth of human population and resource use on a finite planet is impossible. Their research conclusions were attacked but recently there work was revisited and indeed we are tracking just as predicted for a major crash in ecological systems in 2030, as under the logic of capital accumulation, we keep following the business as usual scenario. Below is a link to an article on the revisited work, with graphs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

Yet, even in "advanced" societies such as Japan, the leaders are frightening the public into breeding more. 

This is very misleading. The Japanese birthrate is way below replacement levels and the government policy objective is to simply raise it to 1.8, still below replacement but not by as much. Even if their policies work as planned, they will still result in a smaller population.

Either people reduce the population or nature will do it for us. 

If you ever study demographics, there is a transition that all developed countries have gone through in which they go from high birth rates to low, below replacement level ones. East Asia, North America and europe have already passed into that stage and all the rest of the world except sub Saharan Africa is on track to do so by mid century.

To me, this suggests that focusing on demographics is a red herring, unless you want a vastly intrusive policy like China’s to bring birth rates even further down, which I don’t.

If you ever study demographics, there is a transition that all developed countries have gone through in which they go from high birth rates to low, below replacement level ones. East Asia, North America and europe have already passed into that stage and all the rest of the world except sub Saharan Africa is on track to do so by mid century.

To me, this suggests that focusing on demographics is a red herring,

I don't know how you go from that statement to a red herring.

I am aware one of the reasons the topic is avoided is to avoid the hint of racism and eugenics. Yet the facts need to be discussed honestly.

How can you say it's a red herring when overpopulation is central to just about every impact we have on our environment? Not to say we shouldn't be working on other fixes (conservation, the three Rs, sustainability, tech advances...) but responsible population reduction is doable and guaranteed to be widely effective.

How can you say it's a red herring when overpopulation is central to just about every impact we have on our environment? Not to say we shouldn't be working on other fixes (conservation, the three Rs, sustainability, tech advances...) but responsible population reduction is doable and guaranteed to be widely effective.

I’m saying its a red herring because we are already doing it without any deliberate policy to promote it: when societies develop, their birth rates go way down, and everywhere in the world except sub Saharan Africa is on course to have their populations peak and then decline in the near future.

It's interesting to see Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs advocate population reduction and having less children while they themselves are enjoying the gift of life and consuming resources, something they wish to deny others.

I wonder what thier reaction would have been if they had been on the Titanic with not enough life boats to go round? "OMG! Not enough lifeboats! YOU sink with the ship while I sail to safety!"?

Personally, I'd rather leave the planet in good shape. So we should exhaust every option, or at least look at every option to try to save it.

Not sure if trying to dictate to people about their families is a winner. That veers towards some dodgy politics.

But it's interesting to see Moore take this angle. I guess it's following on from the Flint/Obama debacle. Still, might make a few of his critics pay attention.

I have children, and I think the planet could stand to have less people on it.

My deciding not to have a child or two is not going to make any difference on that though. It would need to be a concerted effort by humankind to make any difference.

Population control is our only salvation. The graph of human population growth over 20,000 years is 100% matched with the curve of C02 emissions. Solar energy is great but makes only a tiny difference. The people denying, rejecting such facts are the ones who would ensure our extinction.

I’m saying its a red herring because we are already doing it without any deliberate policy to promote it: when societies develop, their birth rates go way down, and everywhere in the world except sub Saharan Africa is on course to have their populations peak and then decline in the near future.

It's true that as societies gain more material wealth and share it more, populations grey and decline, partly because pension and other social welfare systems replace the need for a large family. Also, death rates decrease and there is not the same fear for the future, which leads to higher birth rates. But, this gain in material wealth has been driven by overexploitation of the natural world, and especially fossil fuels. We are simply living beyond the carrying capacity of the planet and created a climate emergency. Destabalization leads to higher birthrates in poorer regions and refugee flows, so even if wealthier countries (for now) have population reduction, this is not happening at a global scale. In addition, people in a material abundant nations consume the most, so these countries need to rapidly reduce their populations if they are to live with their nation's carrying capacity and not exploit the rest of the world.

We will either have to reduce human population in an organized way, or this will come about through natural disasters, pandemics and, quite possibly, war.

Watched the film yesterday and it posed interesting questions.

But a little bit of naivety came out with the surprise - genuine I guess - shown by Gibbs et al, that electric cars, solar panels, bio-fuels etc are shock gasp made of minerals that need to be mined.

And that whole process from the mine to the shop requires enormous energy that comes from the now abundant fossil fuel. I'd thought that was all pretty obvious - esp to the learned ones working a lifetime in such worlds. And the additional shock that wind turbines, solar panels etc have a limited life then breakdown, become non-functional, outdated or whatever. Who ever thought that such "marvels" would last indefinitely???

For me the take-away that was strongly put. was that in the end it is we the people who are essentially to blame for much of these 21stC problems. Yes big bad companies, govts, financial houses, exploiters, developers etc etc are the ones to focus on, when in fact it's us humans with our insatiable appetites for more, more and then some more.

Apple doesn't force people to upgrade devices every year, Macdonalds doesn't force people to eat tons of it's products often sourced from environmentally damaging practices, Airlines don't force people to travel in their insanely polluting craft all over the world - and often. In fact most of the exponential growth witnessed in the past few decades in manufacturing, tech, lifestyle habits etc has impacted negatively on the world's natural environment.

That people think it can just go on and on and on while coupled to a population explosion just don't get it - and many of them are green.