Planet of the humans; Hope or pragmatism?

A beardy fellow I know, who is often seen in these parts out running in his yellow pyjamas, brought this film by Michael Moore to my attention. I watched it with my wife and we were both affected by it in different ways, we came to different conclusions. The next day I found this article in the Guardian.


I now notice other articles have appeared in the Guardian perhaps reflecting the seriousness of this subject to us, but I  haven’t read the others, and I’m all fired up and ready to go.


Graham Readfearn’s main issue with the film appears to be that it is very out of date, perhaps 10 years out of date, and that alternative energy technology has moved on far enough in the mean time to make Moore’s claims unwarranted. Readfearn does not deal with the allegation that big business is making mega money from “alternative technologies” and that the real motive is to offer new investment ponies and not to save the planet.


The rift that is likely to open up in the green movement here might be seen as corrupt verses pure, right verses wrong, science verses fairy people, but I am going to leave all that aside. To me the offence caused by the film is that it attempts to massacre the hopes of the green movement.


If there is no free fuel, and along with that, free food, then everything that has been improved in the last 200 years is in jeopardy. Aid to the third world, social security in the west, right down to me not needing to keep an armed guard over the veggies on my allotment.


Moore’s claim, that I followed, emotionally, before I saw his film, is that you can’t have infinite resource on a finite planet, that you can’t make something out of nothing. My wife commented the lack of women interviewed in the film, but it was a women scientist who pointed out that when we use technology to get out of a problem of scale, the result is an exponential increase in the scale leading us to an exponentially bigger problem. These were the words that spoke most strongly to me.


I can understand the revulsion that will be felt among those who have devoted their lives to solving this problem, I don’t believe the corruption is of their souls, rather their science or logic. I think people want to believe too hard in the offers of science and technology, they are bamboozled by the maths, but it takes an idiot like me to see through the haze to the simplicity of pure logic.


There is, and always will be, a limit to our wealth.


Alternative technologies may help us to eke out a little more, but, if climate science is to be believed, (and the alternative technology lobby would struggle now to argue), any further investment in cement infrastructure will mean more debt to be repaid in our carbon deficit. The same would apply to the solar panels despite the greater efficiency that has been achieved in the last 10 years.


So the conclusion is the same as where I started my blog; humans are spoiling the planet, and it is still all we have. The sad fact is that the clever people who have been trying to find a tech fix have been corrupted by the cleverer people who are trying to protect their status quo. We are a ship bound for hell and the devil is on the bridge. Perhaps, just perhaps, the realisation of this will help us to change course, but it won’t be easy, and we won’t find our way back to El Dorado, if we were ever even there. But yes we should all see Michael Moore’s film and we should not leap to conclusions, but we should understand that we are being fooled.

Published by Schnark

Best you see

4 thoughts on “Planet of the humans; Hope or pragmatism?

  1. I always get bummed out when I see trees cut down. In Michael Moore’s film lots of trees were already cut and being put into incinerators to create the superheated steam necessary for the turbines to generate electricity. Our planet can’t afford losing any more trees. There are 7.5 billion consumers on this planet. If there were only 3 billion I wouldn’t be watching a Michael Moore movie. If 7.5 billion people want the standard of living enjoyed in the United States it is not sustainable. For us to live as we do then billions don’t. We take, they suffer.
    I don’t like having thoughts like that but I do.
    in Michael Moore’s film there was a lady standing on the shore of Lake Superior. As she talked you could see the tears build, a break in her voice and a sad flush emerge on her face. She struggled for composure. I had the same lump in my throat. She loved that lake and it was killing her seeing it polluted and slowly dying before her eyes.
    Michael Moore is but the messenger. As always, the messenger will be shot but there is no denying the harm and destruction humans have done to mother earth … and will continue to do.
    The deaths corona virus bring are nothing in comparison to what greedy corporations, over population, increasing CO2 levels, warming seas, melting ice caps, and greed will bring.
    I am one of those consumers. I don’t see my kids or my grand children enjoying the world I had.
    I will enjoy the trees as long as I can before some biomass energy corporation denudes the earth. After that I don’t wanna be around anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. We are already in a marginal world, one I’m not sure I want to inhabit. The lock down allows locals to claim ownership of the few untainted corners left, and leaves me only to Penge, and neighbouring suburbs that I can reach on my bike. This gives only a glimmer of what it must be like to be born unfortunate in a land where war or disease is a real issue and borders are an inescapable reality.

      The big issue as I see isn’t the actual burning of trees, that is a hideous symptom of bad land use.

      The issue is how the land should be shared.

      It should be divided into categories.

      1, Nature;
      Habitat for wild animals and plants, carbon sink. Very few people should live here and they should be very closely in tune with nature. Sadly if this is to work it will probably need to be enforced militarily. (By who?).

      2, Food production for humans;

      3, Human habitat and leisure;
      This needs to including housing, gardens, and parks if they are put to lawn, and also golf courses and recreation grounds.

      I am not clever enough to work out what the proportions should be, but it is very clear to me that Biofuels have no part. With the worlds population as it is and climate so unstable we cannot afford any land for fuel production and should not surrender any wild land to the other categories.

      I will leave that to the boffins, but expect that our leaders will not, or cannot listen. Democracy has failed us.

      Save your soul. If you give up you are doomed, that nasty little man with red hot poker will have his way with you. Do what you can for your small corner of the world, and do what you can to hold others to account. Don’t be one of the officers on the Titanic that fought to be first in the lifeboat and sat there crying and gibbering, watching the rest drown.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at
Get started
%d bloggers like this: