Skip to main content

"Planet of the Humans" and Personal Objectivity

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

When I heard about the video Planet of the Humans that was released free to the public, I had to check myself for consistency and minimize my personal hypocrisy. This movie challenged me to put things I've learned into practice.


This movie was surprising on several levels, and challenged me to see if I could remain consistent. There were some interesting things to learn about the love of money in the green movement.
Credit: Freeimages / Andrew Purtell
Could I view this film honestly and objectively, putting my personal feelings aside? For that matter, could I accurately utilize the logic and critical thinking that I've been learning and teaching for several years? After all, far too many people (especially atheists and leftists) "think" with their emotions. The genetic fallacy involves rejecting something simply because of its source:



A high standard to set is to consider information and possibly learn something despite where it originated. (This can be adjusted when the source is demonstrably biased and unreliable: There's no point in seeking truth about Donald Trump from the New York Times or CNN, nor is accuracy about creation science to be found at Wikipedia or from Clinton Richard Dawins.) Planet of the Humans was sponsored by Michael Moore.

This maker of documentaries is a hardcore leftist. Moore has praised Cuban healthcare, told numerous falsehoods about George W. Bush and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has railed against Donald Trump, and done other things to be obstreperous and obnoxious. It was not until the end credits that I realized that Michael was not the maker of the film, which was written, produced, and directed by environmentalist Jeff Gibbs. Moore is the executive producer and distributor.

It was startling to learn that leftists attacked the film and even wanted it censored for supposedly uncovering falsehoods that are believed by the green energy environmental extremists. This really got my attention and brought up another personal consideration. Specifically, was I going to watch it because it might confirm my biases? While that motive is not always wrong, such thinking can be a prison for oneself. 

There are many things I've learned about environmental leftists, so when I saw the film, I was not surprised to have some of my knowledge confirmed. There were also some very interesting points made about the double standards and even outright deceptions of the green movement that were surprising. However, they seemed real enough and without the extreme emotional manipulation of those folks. Gibbs had some strong words against the "worst" of capitalism, which fits with the socialist message that Moore as promoted many times in the past. Was the evidence presented factual and accurate? That will be up to people who can honestly examine the material for refutation or affirmation.

While the green movement seems to be more interested in making money and gaining political power than in promoting is unrealistic and unsustainable goals, that is what we can expect from people who do not have a biblical worldview. Jeff Gibbs seems to have leftist leanings along with Michael Moore, and do not seem to have room for the Creator in their beliefs. Yes, those of us who are Christians are supposed to care about the environment because we are stewards of God's creation.

There was a bit of profanity in Planet of the Humans and an obviously secular view. Socialism was minimal, and I did not see any of the Orange Man Bad mantra of the left. I think I kept a balance of healthy skepticism and willingness to learn, and if other people watch it, I hope you can do the same. It was not easy to refrain from rejecting a Moore-backed film out of hand, though. Even so, I suggest that others watch Planet of the Humans and see how the worldview of Jeff Gibbs plays out. It probably will not be free forever, though, so you can learn more and watch it here.

Popular posts from this blog

Shining the Light on a Darwinist Deceiver

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is part 2 of Conspiracy Theories, Creation, and Reason , but takes a different approach. We saw how a number of factors contribute to the act of purveying conspiracy theories, and how there are several reasons why people believe them. Then there is the alleged creation science conspiracy. Credit: Unsplash / Steve Johnson We have three articles to consider, two of which are from the same ministry. Naturally there will be some overlap, but they each offer material that comprise a larger picture. There was a time when if someone had a question about, say, that 2002 email saying the teddy bear icon in Windows was really a virus. They could check Snopes and find out that it was a hoax , and they could search for urban legends. Unfortunately, they became heavily involved in promoting leftist political views with "fact checking", and their credibility became questionable. Snopes even attacked the parody site Babylon Bee (one of whose slogans is " fa

Smoking that Doobie, Brother

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Many countries, especially on the western side of the Atlantic, have decriminalized cannabis (weed, pot, doobies, grass, smoke, reefer, whatever) and legalized it for medical use. Many places have made recreational use legal as well. Even where illegal, enforcement of laws is often sporadic . And there was great rejoicing among pot smokers. In fact, here in not-all-that-far-upstate New York, cops don't care. Polly Pothead in the apartment next door was chugging away so much, the smoke could be seen not only in the hallway, but seeped into our own apartment. Police did nothing. That was before it was legal, but her usage is the same as before; smoking wacky tobaccy just wasn't important enough to enforce the law. Also, she's a terrible conversationalist. One article I found in my research mentioned that Mary Jane was originally illegal because it is harmful. (Oh, come on! Don't get a burr under your saddle. You know it's true. People who argue

The Long and Short of Haircut Gratuities

The familiar barber shop pole with its red, white, and blue stripes is easily recognizable as a place for a haircut and other services. As in other places, a man in the old West could stop in for a haircut and shave, and finish with some bay rum after shave. Many years ago, barbers also performed surgeries, hence the red and white stripes on the pole. Eventually, they only medically-related practices they performed were tooth extractions and the barbaric practice of bloodletting. Credit: Pexels / cottonbro On a side note, by ignoring Leviticus 17:11, bloodletting contributed to the demise of President George Washington. There were many factors in his illness, but since the life is in the blood , he may have survived it if they had left more of it in him. But we can't expect doctors (and barbers) in 1799 to know modern medicine — and people in medical science are still learning. Traditional barber shops have become a rarity. Today, barbers are men and women that often work in multi