The film Planet of the Humans got a lot of fire by the environmental movement, especially because it discredited and presented a lot of misinformation and outdated information about renewable energy. Today, I won’t go into the technical details of this matter since 1. I already addressed one aspect on the first post of this blog and 2. You can find a lot of articles or YouTube videos debunking the misinformation in this film.
Today, I want to discuss the latter half of the film, which focuses more on the social issues it raises.
In the first half of the film, they mention that we are reaching the planet's limits (or planetary boundaries if you want the academic term, Rockstöm,2009) which is a VERY TRUE point. However, it portrays renewable energy as a futile attempt. So I ask, should we give up? Because to me, at the halfway point in the film, this is the message I got from them. Indeed, there is no more of the Earth. This is a great point. So, what DO we do? In a way I feel they should have made an entire documentary about this particular topic because it is the more pressing issue. The populations in many parts of Asia and Africa are going to increase and become more prosperous soon. Imagine how much they would consume; we don't have enough resources for all of that. So, what do we do? I agree renewable energy is not the best and only way. But what then?
One of the main points this film swings to is the fact that no matter the shift to more environmentally friendly technology, like renewables, the human population growth and our ever-growing consumption patterns will always lead to more environmental degradation. This is, well, a valid point. Our consumption patterns will indeed lead to more resources and energy being needed. We see this in nature that if there’s no balancing force to keep population in check, there will be a population crash. Let’s take a hypothetical example, if there’s a lot of deer grazing in the savannah, the initial abundance of food will cause the population to increase. Eventually the deer will exhaust all the grazing areas when the population reaches a critical point. Past this point, which is now a tipping point (or point of no return), the population will crash because the resources are not sufficient to support such a large deer population. This will (hopefully) allow the vegetation to grow back and with time, support a larger deer population. And the cycle continues. This is a prime example of a feedback loop in nature. And we too mustn’t forget that this feedback loop applies to us. Now if we introduce a new factor into the equation - a predator. This predator will keep the population of deer in check so that they don’t increase too much so the vegetation wouldn’t be depleted. The vegetation, deer and predator population keep each other in check in this negative feedback loop.
This is of course a simple feedback loop and in reality, there’s a lot more factors to consider. The same can be said for our system. A simple visualisation shows that we are the deer, and the vegetation is the resources - the oil, gas, food, metals, water, trees etc. If we over-extract our resources, EVEN renewable resources, there will be a point where a large population cannot be sustained. Now add to that the added complexity of the inequality of this distribution and you end up in the complicated mess that we find ourselves in. We’ve always been competing for resources to keep ourselves affluent. Why do you think colonial powers colonised? Resources! So, they can trade them and send back the money home. Western European powers were crazy about spice trade. But was it so they could use them in their cuisine? Nonsense! A simple look into their current cuisine will say a lot. It was all about the control of resources for the betterment of lives back home, and yes, wars were fought for control of these resources. Even today when it comes to fossil fuels, the same can be said. So yes, the film does make a good point when it comes to population growth and consumerism.
HOWEVER
The thing which irks me is they use the argument of inevitable population growth as a sort of scapegoat. Since the world’s population will increase we will consume more and inevitably get closer to the destruction of the resources which sustain our civilisation. This is the pessimistic narrative they present in the film. “We will eventually reach the end so why bother with all these technological marvels to save us?”. They mention that we are creating all these technological solutions as a means of avoiding or delaying that inevitable end. That to find these new ways, whether is greener oil or to solar panel ourselves into the future is “frankly delusional”. There is a section in the film around 49 minutes which is super, super interesting to me. They go over our human mindset and the “denial of death”. One of them quotes Albert Camus - “There is only one liberty, to come to terms with death, thereafter anything is possible”.
I think it’s EXTREMELY crucial to deconstruct these couple minutes of the film because it forms the crux of one of the messages they want to present. I feel that, discrediting the environmental movement aside, they’re showing that we as humanity need to accept the eventual death of our civilisation as we know it. When we look at that in such a lens, then no matter what tech marvels well pull out, we will reach that end. What I’m getting from this is a very nihilistic perspective. A “It doesn’t matter in the end, so why bother” sort of message.
All this is surprising to me considering the latter part of the quote of Albert Camus - “thereafter, anything is possible”. Anything IS possible! So let us focus on that!
We are not being delusional, we are thinking, building SCENARIOS on how we envision the world can be a better, more cleaner and more equal place. Technology will help us get there, but of course we will need to change mindsets, behaviors and paradigms. Sure, our population will increase, sure the consumption will increase when impoverished parts of the world become more affluent. We WILL use more resources. But then the whole point which needs to be addressed is, HOW do we not exhaust these resources at an incredible pace? What are the alternatives we could use? How can we keep resources circulating in this system without wasting them at the end of their lives? How can we change the rules and regulations of our system? How can we teach the next generation new ideas and behaviour to cope with changes? The film could have answered these questions, but instead decided to present a pessimistic and frankly nihilistic point of view.
So, let’s come to terms with an eventual end of civilisation but at the same time, let’s make our time here a great one. Let’s find ways to move towards a life which is more sustainable in the long run, where our resources are not fought for but fairly circulated, where our energy is cleaner and where our lives are fairer no matter where we are born.
Have you watched Planet of the Humans? Any controversial thoughts? Anything you’d like to add? Please let us know!
Comments