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

The Secular Science Industry Propagandizes Same-Sex Attraction

We are told that the peer review process in the secular science industry is a method of providing truth and accuracy, and ensuring correct procedures were followed in submitted papers. That sounds like a mighty good idea, but peer-reviewed papers are often bad,  downright fraudulent, or hoaxes . Homosexual activists passed a peer-reviewed paper in  Science  magazine, but that should not have happened. It was fake science research, and  Science  was embarrassed by the fraudulent tactics. The secular science industry did not seem to learn from this. Assembled with images from Open Clipart After the Science  humiliation and the "We're so sorry if we've caused you any pain, Uncle Albert, and boy, does this hurt the credibility of science itself in the public eye" schtick, the disastrous Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court struck. (That is one reason I believe we're under divine Judgment .) After that ruling, the militant Gaystapo cut loose with harassing peopl

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

Four-Legged Snake in the News Again

Writing about sciency things can be both fascinating and exasperating. The fascinating part is for those of us who like science, but the exasperating part is doing updates. New discoveries are a part of science, especially regarding origins. Darwin's disciples are continually attempting to rewrite history to accommodate observed evidence and still preserve their narrative of atheistic naturalism. Excitement over a supposed four-legged snake fossil slithered back ( which I posted about earlier ) and disputes continue. Tetrapodophis amplectus , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) This whole thing was sensationalized from the get-go to promote fish-to-fool evolution and millions of years. Indeed, some important facts about the fossil were not even discussed. It "sheds light" on evolution. Secularists think it would be (insert mouth click here like Cousin Eddie) really nice, but they still have nothing upon which to base that claim. Mayhaps if they realized that