This video doesn’t get posted enough–I heard about it months ago but only just now watched it.
They’re cutting down all the trees to burn as fuel.
also FUCK SIERRA CLUB
Also this article by Max Blumenthal that debunks a bunch of shitty astroturfed criticisms about the film https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/07/green-billionaires-planet-of-the-humans/
I’m glad this is getting discussed. It got slammed by libs because it paints a very bleak picture, and unfortunately it seems the hot take in this thread is to simply go nuclear. I could post links to threads showing why that is not a viable solution but it’s too much effort.
Here’s my hot take. It’s hopeless within the context of capitalism and endless economic growth. We can’t capitalism our way out of a capitalist caused catastrophe. All those galaxybrains at futurology with all those expensive solutions are delusional. The only solution is to dismantle the system itself, and that requires everyone understand that fact at a visceral level. If we keep thinking we can engineer our way out with nuclear or even more solar and wind, we are just prolonging the inevitable.
I liked the film! It’s basically one hot take on its own that was too hot to handle for liberals. They were just starting to feel good about things with Obama’s 8 years, electric cars and solar panels. The criticisms of some of the green leaders were perhaps a bit below the belt. Some of the people attacked are trying honestly to do right for the environment and Moore sort of implies theyre all bad. So there were some legitimate criticism of the film.
Anyways, it was good, but it could have gone further with the population control stuff. Of course, it has to be careful to avoid any suggestions that could lead to human rights crimes. I’m talking about “induced demand”. The chapter the film was missing was that for each lane of freeway we add, more people will chose to drive on it until the traffic is the same as it was before. Each innovation that reduces individual consumption also allows more people to consume until we have the same total consumption as before. The film did say something that sounded like a thesis, along the lines of “we need to reduce the overall consumption which is individual consumption times the number of people in the world.” And it sort of implied we need to both reduce individual consumption and slow down our population growth. But it sort of changed the subject there. That’s the hot take we should be thinking about.
I’ve been downvoted here before for bringing this up. But I don’t know how to ignore it. Maybe something along the lines of china’s one child policy wasn’t such a bad idea. Of course, family planning, easy birth control and allowing abortions would go a long way and be the place to start.
