On Contact: Planet Of The Humans

| Resistance Report

In this week’s episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges discusses the criticism and censorship of Michael Moore’s film Planet of the Humans with the director, Jeff Gibbs.

“Perhaps it’s a form of denial to actually instead of understanding the  – this civilization, the industrial civilization, the human species – we’re hitting limits and we’re gonna crash. We’re instead hoping that this fantasy will save us. And as I discovered, and I’m not saying that all environmental leaders are on the take, but one of the things our critics ignore is that the shocking list of things that you when you divest from fossil fuels and you invest in supposedly sustainable, you wind up investing in Big Ag, you wind up investing in mining and banks and all this  – that part of the film was hardly talked about.

YouTube channel: On Contact

Follow us on Facebook: Facebook.com/OnContactRT

Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/rttv/sets/on-contact

  • Alice X

    The Planet of the Humans is an important work.

  • Jeff

    Gibbs has it right except for overpopulation. For example, without artificial fertilizer, for which industrial processes are required, there would only be enough food for one billion people. And overpopulation is not about whether we can feed humans, it’s about so many people, their agriculture, and their infrastructure, that the plants and other animals don’t have enough space.

  • SCM

    This is why I don’t get too worked up about homeless, police killings , or other trivialities. We are headed toward a holocaust and nothing is being done because of capitalism.

    Almost all of the whole green economy is just another profit center for corporate America and billionaires. Something else to sell us and make us feel good about it. “see I’m doing my part for the environment”… barf!

    Then after all the forests and kelp are cut down, solar farms are torn down without rare earth metals to make them and electric cars junked without new sources of lithium we’ll be back to coal and oil (which we never really left anyway while pretending we did and got a pat on the head while making more billions for billionaires).

    You want to solve environmental issues – there are only two ways.

    1. We need less people like billions less who consume at current rates. Get us down to about 500 million should do it.

    2. Or people that live like hunter gatherers did. No industrialization no agriculture. This will naturally kill billions too since our whole population number is a derivative of destroying the planet at a high rate with industrial agriculture/fishing/ranching, high water use so aquifers collapse, mining, and burning fossil fuels.

    Since neither will happen we’ll suffer Holocene extinction. No way around it.

  • SCM

    Well he’s selling hope too it appears. I mean he can’t tell us 90% of us must die or we all die. Not a hot seller.

  • RBluhm

    Is the propensity of humans to resist facing an “inconvenient” truth the reason that Einstein, Twain, Russell and Vonnegut gave up on humanity?

    Is a perpetual motion machine even possible?

  • Nylene13

    Stop eating Meat.

    Become Vegetarians.

    We need organized communities.

    Live where you are.

    Walk everywhere

    Farmers Markets and Community Gardens and Backyard Gardens.

    Wear work clothes. Jeans, Jean Jackets and Bib

    Overhauls. Hemp Cloth.

    End Capitalism. Give the United Nations the power it was created to have.

    We must change the way we live. The Environment must become our Priority-as Bernie said.

  • Nylene13

    Poor people have lots of kids so that some of them will survive.

    Children in poor countries use children for labor.

    The way to stop overpopulation is to end poverty.

    The way to end poverty is to end Capitalism.

  • iowapinko

    Strong, solid and succinct statement, Nylene. Not one word is superfluous or incorrect.

  • Werner Rhein

    Overpopulation is good for capitalism, every new human on this earth is a potential customer and needs goods, including medication.

    Chemical production is very energy intensive.

  • While we look up to CO2 our demise will come from below, the death of the oceans the real reason for the excessive CO2.

  • Jeff

    Lowering population isn’t done by killing people, it’s done by birth control. Gibbs just doesn’t understand this issue, like the vast majority of people. I first spent three days in the Sierra Club library, then read books on it. That’s the only way to know what’s really going on, combined with a gut feeling at seeing people and their crap everywhere to the exclusion of most other life.

  • Jeff

    First, you’re wrong. The only effective way to lower birthrates voluntarily is to educate and empower women, not to give them more money. That’s a leftist lie that was disproved decades ago. The situation in Kerala, India proved that eliminating poverty is not the way to stop overbreeding, because the people in Kerala remained poor even after most women got PhDs and they reached a 100% literacy rate. However, their birthrate dropped to the lowest in India (around 2) from the highest in India.

    Second, even if your assertion were true, it would not be the way to fix the gross overpopulation problem. The twin physical roots of all environmental and ecological harms are overpopulation and overconsumption. If you were to lower birthrates by creating more overconsumers, you would not be fixing those harms.

  • SCM

    I didnt mean to insinuate you must kill people like that Samual L Jackson movie.. Should have said “die off” The left has a huge ethical problem with recognizing this fact is all it is. Anyway I’m doing my part. My wife and I only had one daughter. She’s 29 and has none.

  • SCM

    Having children can not be summed up to “so some will survive” . Come on. There are cultural, religious and other spiritual atmospherics at work here. In addition to your purely economic concerns. For example the Kennedy family. Billionaires and Bobby had 11. The rich oil sheikdoms 9 like Mohammed, the perfect man, had, is desired. Anyway – as we grow we destroy earth and makes no difference in economic systems.

  • sabelmouse

    the first to are. and counterproductive to sustainability.

  • sabelmouse

    imagine NOT destroying so much land/food/resources with war.

  • Nylene13

    The majority of people on Earth are poor. The majority of poor people have lots of kids to help haul water and grow food and help the family survive.

    If poor people were not so poor, they would have less children.

    Economics is everything. Economics is the reason we are destroying the Earth.

    The Capitalist Industrial Military System is the reason we are destroying the Earth.

  • Nylene13

    You are the one who is wrong.

    PhD’s and a 100 percent literacy rate -by themselves-have nothing to do with ending poverty. (and by the way-CUBA has a 100 percent literacy rate!)

    Ending the Capitalist Industrial Military System is how you end poverty.

    A “leftist lie”? There ya go.

    “All biological and ecological harms” are caused by Capitalism, and Capitalism is what causes overpopulation.

    The Rich Capitalists need lots of cheap labor and soldiers to work in their Rich Owned-Capitalist Military Industrial system.

    My “leftist concerns” are for the people and the planet.

    Your rightist views are what causes human overpopulation.

  • Nylene13

    Wrong as usual mouse.

    My veggie garden is doing great. Can’t get any more sustainable than that. Red Bell peppers, Chilies, Chives, Squash, Tomatoes, Herbs, all go great into homemade whole grain tortillas-with a little cheese from my milk goats and some homemade enchilada sauce.

    Beats chewing on a bloody hunk of meat any-day.

  • Jeff

    You’re so lost that you claimed that I said that literacy and education eliminate poverty. I said no such thing. Poverty isn’t the problem regarding ecological and environmental harms. In fact, it’s just the opposite: the less money people have, the less they consume, so the less harm they do. Hunter-gatherers have virtually no possessions, but they certainly wouldn’t consider themselves poor, and these are the only people on Earth who don’t do substantial (or any) environmental or ecological harm by merely existing.

    Capitalism is a mere symptom of a symptom of a symptom, and is very far from being a root cause of environmental and ecological harm. But we’ve had this discussion ad nauseam, and you don’t get it because 1) you don’t even know what capitalism is; and 2) you start your analysis thousands of years after people have been overpopulating and otherwise harming the Earth and everything that lives here.

  • Jeff

    Actually, for me it started with realizing that overpopulation was the most fundamental problem on Earth. I started making a list of problems in freshman high school history class, and by the time I got to the second page I realized that there were so many problems I’d never finish the list, so I started thinking about root causes instead. Overpopulation was the most blatant and obvious one. Later in life I realized that overconsumption is the twin root cause of all environmental and ecological harms.

    But it’s also a total revulsion at seeing people and their stuff everywhere. There is virtually no room for the plants and other animals to live!

  • sabelmouse

    meat is nutrient dense. you don’t need to eat all day.
    where’s the tortilla from?
    and what happens to your goats?

  • John R.

    For years I’ve been reading and trying to share what Chris Hedges offers to a crowd of left of center friends and family. Most of them have little interest and simply don’t want to hear Chris because “he’s too depressing” – really ? To those I ask – what is the upside when protecting the lie, half-truths, illusions and false-hope sold to you by your heroes (be they political or environmental) ?

    In this RT piece he discusses the angry response from people who should know better but never want to be a part of a broader discussion that shines the light of truth on everyone and everything – including their heroes – they apparently are off limits and all consideration and conversation is halted right there.

  • Nylene13

    From corn and wheat flour-that I grind myself. Blue flour is really cool, and I have found easy to grow.

    My goats grow old and die. After long happy lives.

  • Nylene13

    You don’t know what you are talking about.

    First of all there are only a very few gatherer -hunter tribes left in the world, and they mostly gather wild fruits and vegetables, not so much hunt for meat.

    They are able to do this because so far-The Rich Capitalists have not invaded and stolen their LANDS-which the worth of -being virtually PRICELESS-I expect to happen very soon.

    Now if you want to discuss how we are going to get there from here-
    back to environment first sustainable lifestyles-that is a discussion worth having.

    But the FIRST thing that needs to happen-is an end to Capitalism, and THAT will start a decrease in human over-population.

    I am a Radical Environmentalist. I bet YOU still live in a city.

  • Jeff

    Well, we agree that crapitalism must be abolished. But that would only be a baby step and it wouldn’t necessarily fix any environmental or ecological harms. Socialist and communist societies did plenty of harm too. How people move little green pieces of paper around is irrelevant to these issues, to paraphrase Douglas Adams. But at least there could be communist or socialist societies that aren’t based on consuming the Earth like capitalism is, so there’s that.

    As to what the first thing that needs to be done is: that’s the wrong question, because there is no first thing. Modern humans war against the Earth in almost everything they do, so there are many things that need to be and can be done right now. You’re obsessed with economic issues, so you think that capitalism is the main problem. In reality, capitalism only came along thousands of years after humans had already been doing a lot of environmental and ecological damage, and it’s a mere symptom, not a root cause of any of these problems. If you want to identify a “first thing” to be done, it would be refraining from having any children, or at least limit one’s family to one child, because overpopulation is the biggest and most fundamental problem here as I’ve explained numerous times (and to which you’ve never responded to any of the facts that I’ve presented).

    And BTW, what does how many hunter-gatherers remain have to do with what I said about them? That and how often they hunt for meat is totally irrelevant to what we’re discussing here.

  • Nylene13

    Of course there is a first thing. Fukushima is poisoning the Pacific Ocean, of which the poison has now reached Every Corner of !
    Scientists have No Idea how to stop it.

    We may actually NEED a lot of kids- to have some of them survive this destruction of the Pacific Ocean.

    Another issue regarding having kids is this-as My Grandfather used to say-If only Smart People stop having kids-then only Stupid People will have and raise kids!!!
    We have too many stupid people already.

    I was pointing out that the term Hunter -Gatherer is wrong.

    The correct term is Gatherer -Hunter.

    For while the Hunting was dramatic-it was actually the Gathering that fed the early tribes.

    And Women, of course, were the primary Gatherers.

    A distinction you should understand.

    For if that is what you want to get back to-you should know what you are talking about.

  • Jeff

    There is a movie about your grandfather’s theory called Idiocracy. But that’s just a copout, nothing but a lame excuse for contributing to the gross overpopulation problem. You can’t control what other people do, but leading by example is always the right thing to do. Furthermore, both strong government incentives, and education & empowerment of girls and women have been proven to substantially lower birthrates, government incentives such as China and Iran doing the best job. The Earth needs everyone to limit their families to one child, not just certain select people.

    As to the term hunter-gatherer, you are dead wrong. You are the only one I’ve ever seen use the reverse. Not that this matters, it’s a minor detail. But you also obsess on picking one over the other, again you’re wrong. Humans have always eaten animals, the entire 200,000 year history of homo sapiens. My guess is that most hunter-gatherers ate meat once every week or two, because in nature most hunts are unsuccessful. If you don’t eat meat or some animal product, you don’t get vitamin B-12.

  • Nylene13

    Well that is because you don’t read feminist based literature. Humans may or may not have always eaten animals, but what do you think they ate being that most hunts were unsuccessful?

    As I said -The hunting was ‘dramatic’ but it was actually the gathering that fed the tribes.
    Are you talking about 1 child or No children? How many kids do you have?

    As far as B12 goes-you can get that from eating free range chicken eggs. And chickens are great for eating garden bugs and making manure for your garden.

  • Nylene13

    Plenty of room out here in the west.

    If the cattle ranchers would stop filling the wild lands with domestic beef cows, and killing all the coyotes and cougars and wolves. And rounding up our wild horses.

    And if the fracking companies would keep their trucks away. And so on.

    You know how many wolves there are left here in Nevada? NONE. The cattle ranchers have killed them ALL.

    A few years ago a lone wolf came down from Oregon. A cattle rancher promptly shot him.

  • Jeff

    No, there’s actually very little room, even in the west. You’re just reacting to the large expanses of open spaces, but open spaces don’t necessarily or even usually mean healthy ecosystems and habitats. Anywhere there are cattle, which is just about everywhere in the west, the ecosystem is ruined for native plants and animals. Same with agriculture and infrastructure, including roads. The only good habitat left is wilderness, and those areas are tiny relatively.

  • Jeff

    Feminists have no more expertise in these matters than anyone, so you’re right, I don’t read them for these issues. I read people who are experts on the issues, regardless of which gender they happen to be and whether they’re feminist.

    As I said, I estimate that hunter-gatherers eat/ate meat once a week or two. Obviously, they were eating plant foods most of the time, which is what humans should be doing. Unfortunately, eating meat has become an obsession, so most people who eat it do so daily, which is very environmentally & ecologically harmful, in addition to being unhealthy.

    For B-12, I said “animal product[s],”, which include eggs. But eating eggs as a hunter-gatherer is not good, because you’d be killing potential babies that need to grow into adults and breed in order to sustain the species (unless the species is abundant and you’re taking relatively very few eggs). In our society, eating eggs from pastured chickens is one of the least harmful animal products, but I’m interested in the ultimate goal of returning to living as hunter-gatherers thousands of years from now and focusing on expanding consciousness instead of obsessing on the physical/natural world.

  • tomonthebay

    Eating meat was a major factor in the increased brain capacity of evolving hominids.

  • tomonthebay

    Then why is Cuba so poor?

  • Nylene13

    Feminist generally means the person is a woman. And women know more about being women than anyone else.

    Or would you argue that being a Black person does not mean that person knows more about being Black than a White Person?

    We agree on one thing. Eating meat HAS become an obsession for many humans, which IS environmentally and ecologically harmful, in addition to being unhealthy.

    Regarding eggs, you have not said if you live in a city or not.

    I assume this is all theory to you.

    I suspect it is. I don’t see how you can return to a “hunter -gatherer” lifestyle and yet consider placing the physical/natural world Primary-to be “obsessing”.

  • Nylene13

    I think you are agreeing with me.

  • Jeff

    Regardless of whether that’s true, humans have wasted all of that brain capacity by obsessing on intellect, ego, and artificially and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world. That brain capacity could have instead been used to focus on wisdom, empathy, and expanding consciousness. Humans have to a large extent destroyed the planet and much life here, so who cares about their stupid brain capacity?

  • Jeff

    We weren’t discussing being a woman, we were discussing how hunter-gatherers live.

    And BTW 2, by living “modern country,” you do far more ecological harm than I do by living in an urban area. I don’t have a car and rely on public transit, walking, and biking. I buy my organic produce from my local farmers market. Etc. If you want to live in the country, do so naturally, without a car, without roads, and without electricity, like people did before industrial society. Claiming that you’re not doing harm because you live in the country is hypocritical BS.

    I think that I made it quite clear that I live in an urban area.

  • Southern

    Lowering the retirement age?

  • tomonthebay

    China’s “incentives” for lowering birthrate were monstrous.

  • Nylene13

    So when you are a “hunter and gatherer” you will be living in your city condo. Got it.

  • Jeff

    No they weren’t tom, and I’ll bet you don’t even know what they were. You’re swallowing the lies and propaganda of people who don’t want population lowered, mostly because it would cost them money from lost profits, some for religious fanatic reasons, some because they worship themselves and their own species and can’t get enough of them. There were some overzealous local officials, but China’s one-child-family policy was basically a carrot and stick approach, and it was almost all financial incentives, both positive and negative.

    Furthermore, China’s policy was an incredible success. It is estimated that the program prevented 4-500 million births. Considering that overpopulation is the biggest problem on Earth, both for humans and for everything else, there is no moral or ethical reason to denigrate China’s program.

  • Jeff

    Come on Nylene, really? How many times do I have to say that humans returning to living as hunter-gatherers is a very long term goal that won’t be accomplished for thousands of years. All I’m asking people to do now is incrementally change their lives to live more simply and naturally. Incremental change over a long period of time goes a long way.

    And BTW, you show that you’ve lost the argument when you have to resort to silly personal attacks like this. Just discuss the issues; my life is not a valid part of the discussion, despite the fact that I’ve done things like give up my car.

  • tomonthebay

    Easy to be successful with the power of the state enforcing the policy and it was ENFORCED.

  • Jeff

    What is your point? That laws should not be enforced? I’m glad the policy was enforced, and so is the vast majority of the Earth, which BTW is not human.

  • tomonthebay

    Yeah, nothing like forced abortion as human right./snark

  • Jeff

    Another lie. Forced abortion was not part of the policy, those were acts of overzealous local officials and were rare. But of course you human-worshipers seize on anomalies like that to denigrate the policy.

    You and your ilk are lucky that everything not human on this planet can’t vote and enforce their decisions, because humans like you who don’t care about anything but themselves and therefore destroy all other life on Earth would have been eliminated long ago.

  • tomonthebay

    The hell it wasn’t.