@TaZsa
suffering, don't watch the last few minutes. It's one of the most heartbreaking scenes I've witnessed in my life.

for some reason human suffering is less traumatic for me to watch. I have been unable to watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfish_(film) and I tried to watch Tiger King. That lasted about 5 minutes, when the snow leopard showed up in the back of a hot van in Florida. I can't.

@CB Coronavirus pandemic 'will cause famine of biblical proportions'

265 million...just a drop in the bucket.

The world is facing widespread famine “of biblical proportions” because of the coronavirus pandemic, the chief of the UN’s food relief agency has warned, with a short time to act before hundreds of millions starve.

More than 30 countries in the developing world could experience widespread famine, and in 10 of those countries there are already more than 1 million people on the brink of starvation, said David Beasley, executive director of the World Food Programme.

“We are not talking about people going to bed hungry,” he told the Guardian in an interview. “We are talking about extreme conditions, emergency status – people literally marching to the brink of starvation. If we don’t get food to people, people will die.”

the world cannot sustain everyone in the world living like an American. The choice is stark - we have only two choices - reduce consumption or reduce population. There are no other options.

The second takeaway is that the capitalists have capitalized the environmentalists and are now usurping their messaging and spreading misleading reports about 'free', 'clean' and 'sustainable' energy.

For myself, the solution lies in the following (for a start):
1. Legally constrain rapacious global capitalism. There are hundreds of multinational corporations that have more wealth and power than 3/4 of the world's nations.
2. Socialize ALL natural resources - globally. The world's air and water are socialized so control over how it is used/abused should also be socialized.
3. Balance energy production AND consumption with matching carbon sinks/credits to reflect true environmental costs.

If that fails then be prepared for the great 'culling' - either natural or man made.

@Cassiodorus
I guess the decimation of whole forests all over the planet for biomass plants was what blew my mind. I had know idea how pervasive these plants are and how many trees they are cutting down. And for what? A very short term gain.

Otherwise, your analysis is spot on. Thank you, that actually helprf me to pull things together in a less emotional way. I left it sobbing. Wtf do they think they are doing.

The overall argument of "Planet of the Humans" loses me. A lot of energy in the film, though, is used to dispel the notion that "green capitalism" is going to save us from the dilemma presented to the world by un-green capitalism, and that in fact "green capitalism" is merely the public face of un-green capitalism, and nothing more. This is valuable stuff, because a ton of people believe that green capitalism will save us and that we ought to worship the ground trod by Elon Musk or Bill McKibben or Al Gore or Michael Bloomberg, current owner of the Sierra Club and probable owner of the Biden for President campaign, et cetera. There's a lot there, over an hour and forty minutes, to indict those people with. Good. We need our phony heroes to go away.

But then, deep into the picture, the focus shifts to population. Well, okay, population. What do you want to do? Kill everyone off with a manufactured pandemic, not COVID-19 but something inspired by it? Could happen. I suppose war will kill off a few billions quickly too. But none of those measures are likely to encourage any sort of genuinely green society, so no. Anything else really looks like an exercise in too little, too late. We are, in short, stuck with all 7.8 billion of us, at least for the time being. Sure, give everyone birth control and such. End patriarchy. Just those two things will do a lot of good. If that's what counts as "population control," I'm good with it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here.

Later in the film the narrator asks us to question capitalism. It then goes back to its regularly scheduled indictment of individual capitalists, before saying toward the end that "we humans" are the problem. It's so disappointing to see a film like this end on some yawningly old ground. Not all humans are equally the problem. But saying so is bad for liberal guilt or something, I don't know. What needed investigation at that point in the film was a discussion of how productive consumption could be reduced. As Foster, Clark, and York point out in their big book "The Ecological Rift," most consumption is productive consumption. Specifically, a lot of what counts as "ecological footprint" are production methods which regard the environment as an endless supply of "natural resources" as well as an endless waste-sink. That's bad.

The film also doesn't want to say certain things about very recent improvements in solar power generation. Those exist. No doubt this omission will be the focus of rants by those on the side of capitalist technology -- "hey we can do it better now!" We should regard such rants as sales pitches, and ask the ranters if they can show us anything on offer that's any better than Everglades real estate.

In short, ending capitalism becomes a sort of obvious subtext to the whole movie that is never explored in any detail. Victor Wallis had a piece in the journal Capitalism Nature Socialism in 1997 called "Ecological Socialism and Human Needs," in which he suggests that with a union of free producers the world could do without a whole lot of unnecessary professions. Here's how I discuss it in "Climate Change Mitigation in Fantasy and Reality":

Replacing capitalist class society with a classless union of free producers, then, would allow world-society to phase out the markets for a vast array of professions
(and thus also their maintenance through a hypertrophied fossil-fuel energy
economy). Wallis’ laundry-list of unnecessary capitalist services suggests across-the-
board elimination of advertising, insurance, accounting, banking, a number of hypertrophied military and police ‘services’ (49). Eliminating the ‘markets’ for such services would greatly reduce the world-society’s overall energy needs.

So that would be a place to start NOT suggested in this movie.