4 ms·

‘Green’ billionaires behind suppression of ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary

32 points by Forbo 6y ago

jokethrowaway 6y ago
Appalling. A similar thing happened to Cassie Jaye (with Red Pill) a former feminist who decided to make a documentary on men's right activists and ended up recognising men have problems to.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  People didn't think it was a very good film?
sprusemoose 6y ago
might give it some eyeballs tonight
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I am completely ignorant on costs and viability of green energy tech, but given the massive failure (by first world standards - load shedding is the norm in many developing countries) of the California energy grid now requiring forced blackouts, it does seem like someone was writing checks that they couldn’t cash. Governments getting heavy handed tends to backfire, but we refuse to learn this lesson.
makx 6y ago
People who have money and a stake in green energy have the motivation and means to actively fight against the movie, while part-time volunteer activists don't. That doesn't make the content of the film any more accurate [1], nor does it mean that the technologies put forward by profiteers of green energy less valid. This article too seems to cherry-pick problems without comparing the size to alternatives (which it doesn't offer). It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do. it's mostly a collective action problem. while I certainly can (and do) choose to limit my meat consumption, I need a car to get to work. there are no buses that go from my home to the office, and there are very few jobs within walking/biking distance of my home that match my skillset. I do commute in a small, fuel-efficient hatchback, but this exposes me to increased risk of death or serious injury in an accident with the much heavier vehicles that other drivers typically choose in my area. the increased driving enjoyment of the lighter vehicle makes it worth the risk for me, but I can't really fault people who choose the safer (ie heavier and less efficient) vehicles for themselves and their families.
  - makx 6y ago
    It seems like you're already trying to change your consumption, which is all I'm hoping (and arguing) for. (Surely, there's always ways we could all do more like reduce the use of single-use plastic, or communicate the problem to more people in our communities, or financially support those who try to combat the issue. But like I said, it seems you (and me ;-) ) are already ahead of the curve here).
- Forbo 6y ago
  >Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks No, they just continue to produce them, all while influencing policy that could curtail that consumption. I'm not saying that the individual is blameless, I'm saying that the average Joe's sphere of influence is orders of magnitude smaller than that of any billionaire. Edit: Thank you for the link, it does give a bit of a palette cleanser.
  - makx 6y ago
    They produce them for the average Joe. They don't force anyone to buy their products. And if they would stop producing the products, what would happen? As long as people buy, someone else would produce them. And, yes, a billionaire would have more power to change the world, if just buy giving them the ability to run a massive media campaign to change peoples minds. Yet here we are in this very article blaming them for using their financial power to try and influence the public opinion.
aaron695 6y ago
I watched it because it I was told it was an alternative to the environmental fundamentalist. After watching, which was painful, I thought is was more dribble from the environment fundamentalist. I guess as an outsider it's all the one cult but from within there are these factions where not following the most extreme version is sacrament.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Being told that your ideas are horrible and ill conceived is not censorship - it is more free speech. And Planet of the Humans certainly qualifies with the moving the goal post nonsense of fear mongering about landfill usage of mixed fiberglass turbine blades.

32 points by Forbo 6y ago

Appalling. A similar thing happened to Cassie Jaye (with Red Pill) a former feminist who decided to make a documentary on men's right activists and ended up recognising men have problems to.

XMPPwocky 6y ago
People didn't think it was a very good film?

sprusemoose 6y ago

might give it some eyeballs tonight

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

I am completely ignorant on costs and viability of green energy tech, but given the massive failure (by first world standards - load shedding is the norm in many developing countries) of the California energy grid now requiring forced blackouts, it does seem like someone was writing checks that they couldn’t cash. Governments getting heavy handed tends to backfire, but we refuse to learn this lesson.

makx 6y ago

People who have money and a stake in green energy have the motivation and means to actively fight against the movie, while part-time volunteer activists don't. That doesn't make the content of the film any more accurate [1], nor does it mean that the technologies put forward by profiteers of green energy less valid. This article too seems to cherry-pick problems without comparing the size to alternatives (which it doesn't offer). It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U

leetcrew 6y ago
> It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do. it's mostly a collective action problem. while I certainly can (and do) choose to limit my meat consumption, I need a car to get to work. there are no buses that go from my home to the office, and there are very few jobs within walking/biking distance of my home that match my skillset. I do commute in a small, fuel-efficient hatchback, but this exposes me to increased risk of death or serious injury in an accident with the much heavier vehicles that other drivers typically choose in my area. the increased driving enjoyment of the lighter vehicle makes it worth the risk for me, but I can't really fault people who choose the safer (ie heavier and less efficient) vehicles for themselves and their families.
- makx 6y ago
  It seems like you're already trying to change your consumption, which is all I'm hoping (and arguing) for. (Surely, there's always ways we could all do more like reduce the use of single-use plastic, or communicate the problem to more people in our communities, or financially support those who try to combat the issue. But like I said, it seems you (and me ;-) ) are already ahead of the curve here).
Forbo 6y ago
>Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks No, they just continue to produce them, all while influencing policy that could curtail that consumption. I'm not saying that the individual is blameless, I'm saying that the average Joe's sphere of influence is orders of magnitude smaller than that of any billionaire. Edit: Thank you for the link, it does give a bit of a palette cleanser.
- makx 6y ago
  They produce them for the average Joe. They don't force anyone to buy their products. And if they would stop producing the products, what would happen? As long as people buy, someone else would produce them. And, yes, a billionaire would have more power to change the world, if just buy giving them the ability to run a massive media campaign to change peoples minds. Yet here we are in this very article blaming them for using their financial power to try and influence the public opinion.

aaron695 6y ago

I watched it because it I was told it was an alternative to the environmental fundamentalist. After watching, which was painful, I thought is was more dribble from the environment fundamentalist. I guess as an outsider it's all the one cult but from within there are these factions where not following the most extreme version is sacrament.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Being told that your ideas are horrible and ill conceived is not censorship - it is more free speech. And Planet of the Humans certainly qualifies with the moving the goal post nonsense of fear mongering about landfill usage of mixed fiberglass turbine blades.