Connected

2013 ,    »  -   64 Comments
545
7.80
12345678910
Ratings: 7.80/10 from 99 users.
Storyline
Connected

For our own individual sanity, the huge lesson for us is to learn how to reconnect. The bigger question is if it's possible for economic growth to continue indefinitely without destroying the planet? Anybody who thinks that it's crazy to say we can do without growth the onus is on them to prove that we can live with it. If you fast forward and think what future generations will be ashamed of, one of the things will be how we allowed poverty to exist on this planet for so long when we could have easily end it.

But the world is changing... for the first time you're not only getting the voice of the possibly elected, selected or self-selected few at the top. The world isn't painted in that simplistic way it used to be.

Paul Maple is a freelance filmmaker and he's been making short films for some years now and he wanted to make a longer film about some of the issues that concern him, his family and the wider world. Can we build a fair economy? Can we create a sustainable future? Can ordinary people influence society? What kind of future are we going to create for the next generation?

He and his family decided to pack up their house and live in a caravan for a year to travel across Europe and ask those questions. What they found was many people working with dedicated passion to improve lives in their own communities and beyond. This film has been his family's life for the last four years. They're not a big production company with big resources... it's just them, finding the time between school runs to make something that they truly believe in.

They, like many others, want to be the part of the biggest movement on Earth, the movement for change. In this film they have looked at issues that they believe are key to shaping our collective future, the first of which is strategic change. Personally they've always been frustrated by government decisions that they have felt powerless to influence.

More great documentaries

64 Comments / User Reviews

  1. DarkSpirit

    Some wise comments in there. Ask yourself "Who am I" and "Where am I going" everyday. Perhaps politicians should substituted their desire to be "re-elected" with a desire to be "remembered". What kids want most is not the latest toy, but to spend quality time with their parents. It only takes $60 billion a year to cure poverty.

  2. Justin Lesniewski

    highlights the belief of 'normal' people that any other way/economy/social structure is impossible/ludicrous/anarchy--- documentaries like this raise our awareness, and prepares us to challenge them by asking, how can we live THIS way? Not a fan of the intro though, I like my non fiction pretty traditional

    this will be known as the throw-away generation, I think. Ultimately influenced by the grubby baby boomers and long living industrial age business men.

    Another thing said is that perhaps our future generations will accuse us most vehemently for allowing poverty to exist at all, and I fully agree, with the power we have as a race, we spend all that energy on consumerism and hedonism.

  3. Justin Lesniewski

    nothing really New here though for veterans of utopia/dystopia docs

  4. Horst Manure

    The 1% of the 1% control the world they decide on when to have war and fund it, governments cant govern due to the amount of vested interest and then we need to get rid of ALL religion ..so dream on..
    When it is more important to fund a 1 jet fighter at $135k an hour while flying then to help the poor we have a long way to go..read War is a Racket ,on google

  5. a_no_n

    Anybody who thinks that it's crazy to say we can do without growth the onus is on them to prove that we can live with it.

    I'm sorry but that is a complete misunderstanding of the burden of proof!
    Considering humans have lived with growth since day 1, and the documentary is going against established opinion by claiming we can live without growth, the onus is actually on the documentary to prove what it's claiming!

    Blimey, hardly even through the first paragraph and already i've found a pretty glaring error in the authors understanding of one of the most basic of scientific concepts...that really doesn't bode well for the rest of the doc.

  6. FrothyBeer

    Nonsense, that is merely your opinion based upon your lifetime of being bombarded with "growth, money, growth, money, success, me, more, more, more" messaging. Humans developed in perfect equilibrium with nature and the new and recent artificial growth mantra is destroying the very thing that allowed us to even exist in the first place. Money did not create a single thing - it is merely a context within which modern human activity is being framed, and it's killing us.

  7. ChiefW4

    Actually, it seems you're talking only from a 21st century opinion. If you look at the population of the world BEFORE the Industrial revolution, you'll see, for the longest time, there were roughly 500 million people. Even AFTER the discovery of the Americas by European civilization en masse (I say this because, as most well educated people in the world are now aware the Scandinavians, or more specifically, the Danes discovered North America as much as 1000 years before the rest of Europe. They just didn't settle it in big enough numbers), the population stayed pretty steady at around 1 billion. It's been these last 60 years are so which are destroying the earth, destroying the world and its resources through overpopulation.

    The biggest problem I had with the video was NOT the line you didn't like (in fact, I rather liked that one), but rather the belief that feeding the poor will somehow end our hunger problems. The problem with that is, if you FEED the poor and infirmed, you simply increase the size of your problem.

    Even during the 2nd millennium we had the poor and hungry. The problem with feeding them is they will then increase the number of people asking for handouts. Humans, at least to date, have proven themselves incapable of multiplying so long as they have food to do so. The only thing which has EVER kept the population in check has been hunger and poverty. Sadly, VERY sadly, I see it as a necessity.

    Consider the greatest increase in the standard of living in the history of the human race was in the decades following the black death, where food suddenly was plentiful because such a large percentage of the world's population was wiped out in a couple of decades. As we're seeing in the western world, the opposite of such a disease in the form of antibiotics which have been able to stop HUGE pandemics which would have reduced our population down to a more palatable, sustainable size, are stopped because our medicine has become TOO good. Of course, now we're down to a truly scary level (for some) of antibiotics which still work. The viruses and pathogens are evolving to the point of being resistant to all but our very last antibiotic.

    Until we are ready to patch our bleeding hearts, and are ready to bring the human population down to roughly a billion, once again (which, FWIW, would result in a HUGE realignment of wealth--it would definitely TRULY allow us to feed everyone, clothe everyone, and lead to a level or prosperity for the middle class our world has never before seen, but it would also require some form of artificial population control--something like what they had in China). The real question, as I see it, is just how exactly do we bring the population of humans down to that level again, and do so fairly.

    As a final note, I suggest you look at the population graph for homo sapiens in our short 200,000 years on the earth. Our DNA records prove beyond any doubt, at one point, during the last Ice Age, our numbers plummeted down to a only a few thousand humans remaining. When the next Ice Age comes (and it will... our earth has always recycled itself thusly), it will be interesting to see just how low the world population will go.

    In any case, enough said...

  8. Pepe Alvarado

    I'd substitute "remembered" with "loved" or "admired"..... The world still remembers the Genghis Khan's, Napoleon's, Stalin's and Hitler's... :p

  9. DarkSpirit

    Sure, I guess what the guy meant is, "how would you like to be remembered"?

  10. Janeen Clark

    you are very incorrect. infinite growth cannot exist with finite resources. you will need four earths to meet the needs of the planet in 10 years if we continue the infinite growth utopia.

  11. Paul Gloor

    Problem with change is societies are conservative and people are fearful. Change is coming, whether we want it or not.

  12. a_no_n

    um...no i'm not, google the burden of proof. the onus is on the claimant not the establishment, that's basic science 101, deal with it.

    I personally don't doubt that infinite growth is impossible. but however you feel about it doesn't change what the burden of proof means, or give you the right to redefine it however it suits you.

  13. a_no_n

    ok, the first mistake you've made is that actually it was the Greenlanders that discovered Vinland, not the Danes.
    the second mistake in your assumptions is the overpopulation myth.
    If we were all happy to live like the Japaneese, the entire population of the earth could fit easily in Texas...For this reason the overpopulation theory is utter nonsense.

    So let me get this straight...in your mind it;s better to not feed the poor, and to just scrape their corpses from the sidewalk than it is to pay a tiny fraction of your income toward stopping that from happening?

    Does it not strike you as odd, that the countries with the best welfare are the countries with the least social problems? Does that little fact not disprove your rather hateful ideology?

    You say hunger and poverty is sad, but the rest of your comment seems to revel in its existence...you seem to think that hunger and poverty is something that should be enforced on the unworthy rather than battled against...I presume you've never had to worry about where your next meal is coming from...people who say such awful things are usually the farthest removed from that existence and i don't imagine you're any different.

    would you volunteer to be one of the cleansed? Or is your outlook less about the survival of humanity and more about your own personal comfort and wellbeing?

    ugh...i can actually taste vomit in my mouth after reading your little hate speech...you are a truely vile creature...if we purge anyone it should be crazies like you, not people unfortunate enough to not be born into a rich family.

  14. a_no_n

    i see...so we developed perfectly with nature and equilibrium...so the black death was just a figment of my imagination was it?

  15. FrothyBeer

    Superbugs FTW.

  16. a_no_n

    they certainly win out against crank theories like yours.

  17. FrothyBeer

    You're of the belief that it's ok to kill all "germs?"

  18. a_no_n

    No, i just disagree with the ridiculous notion that we evolved "perfectly and in harmony with nature".

  19. FrothyBeer

    So in the name of semantics and positive contribution, what would you say happened the last few million years?

  20. a_no_n

    We evolved. That's it...no new age garbage.
    If we evolved perfectly then we wouldn't get bad backs, we wouldn't die of diseases, we wouldn't fall off cliffs or get cold at night.

    Bullsh1t is not a positive contribution!

  21. jerrymack

    policies should drive polls, not vice versa.

  22. FrothyBeer

    So you think humans can create a better human?

  23. DeckHazen

    Where does political power lie? people or politicians? wrong question - it lies with the people who buy the politicians.

    this video is completely naive - give it a miss

  24. David Faubion

    I agree with, praise and thank you for your retort to ChiefW4, below. However, in your dialog with Janeen above us here,I would cite Kerala (a southwest, semi-autonomous province of India) as a developed culture that has, for several decades proven that a society can have zero poverty, low infant mortality, high life expectancy, high literacy, high voter turnout in democracy, a medium-low standard in living but with little depression etc. Kerala's economic growth fluctuates around zero; they reuse everything; their culture is based on three principles: artistry, compassion and thrift. I just spoke with an exchange student from Kerala at my university (CSUEB, multicultural heaven); Sandep of Kerala reports that his homeland is the same as it was decades ago: an idyllic, tropical utopia. His family did jump from Kerala to work in the oil fields of Kuwatt, so they could send Sandep to "diversity central" where he now sings Kerala's praises in that fun Southwest Asian-Brit lilt, the cartoon-talk of the East.

  25. Toy Pupanbai

    Where is Prof. Joad, when you need him?

  26. Toy Pupanbai

    China has problems with insufficient clean water, pollution generally and soil deterioration..

  27. Douglas Ferguson

    I believe as this video presents that change will come from the people. But many of the other premises are flawed. Take poverty, can it be stopped by forced redistribution of product? No, poverty is caused by war and lack of property rights. Dumping goods in these lawless countries will not save the poor. And tearing down the Institutions that made modern society productive and fairly safe and recreating some technocrat's utopia is more likely to cause Armageddon.
    Modern societies should be proud and thankful of the institutions in their evolving society. The influential in the poor lawless societies must accept these institutions that make safe and productive societies for the benefit of their people instead of being greedy and uncaring. Modern society can provide help them but they must change if they want to have a safe productive country. Unless you believe modern society should just go in and take over to enforce change so they can feed the poor and heal the sick. Personally I do not think that war is the best method of change.

  28. johnBas5

    Oh no, see, horrible disasters striking us is being in equilibrium with nature.

  29. johnBas5

    Selection pressures on populations of living things can create slowly by multiple generations create more adjusted, evolved descendants of those living things. Evolution!

  30. johnBas5

    It's also about the claim and what the claim holds.
    Saying some process that needs a resource will grow infinitely poses some very real physical problems at some point. Makes the infinite growth an extraordinary claim thus the burden of proof falls on the infinite growth proponent.

  31. NX2

    At first glance i would say you are correct, the way the above quoted sentence is formulated implies a misunderstanding.
    A better formulation could be: ...the onus is on them to prove that we cannot live without it.

    However, there's another way to break this down.
    claim = it's crazy to say we can do without growth
    = we cannot live without growth
    = we can live with it.
    And since the claim lies with the person/ anybody who says: "...it's crazy...", the sentence is actually correct.

    Or am i making a mistake?

  32. NX2

    i'd go for 'safe sustainable country' instead of 'safe productive country'.

  33. NX2

    I totally agree that change is coming, whether we want it or not.
    Though societies can also be progressive and people also hopeful. There's always a dynamic between both sides.

  34. Douglas Ferguson

    I understand your concerns of going beyond the safe limits of production. I agree that development should not be done carelessly causing serious damage to populations of wildlife and people. But the word "sustainable" is subjective but mainly means to me some static balanced system. "Sustainable" is romanticized because it sounds safe, I did watch the video and totally disagree with some of the "experts" in the film. To me "sustainable" means a system of oppressing people to keep them poor, illiterate and without advancement in their class well the elite keep their royal position. I know that you do not agree with this way of treating people and you also do not agree with my understanding of "sustainability". But my study of "sustainable" societies have found that they were and are the most brutal and corrupt societies ever known to mankind. Though our understanding of the world is different I know we both agree that discussion of ideas is important to understanding ourselves, others and what is happening around us and where to go from here.

  35. johnBas5

    We can through artificial means now with gene therapy.

  36. a_no_n

    Wiki says it's survival depends mostly on it's extensive ex-Pat population sending money back home. And in 2013 it had a 10% rise in GDP...so i'm afraid your facts aren't entirely correct.

  37. a_no_n

    is that not what all of human history has been striving for?

    Anyway we already do. Humans live on average twice, sometimes three times as long as their ancestors.

  38. Pehr Blomkvist

    I guess the definition of "sustainable" is open to discussion. In my view what you seem to be aiming for above is more in line with Plato's argument for a "stable" society. Plato argues that all change are of evil and the perfect society is defined by a lack of change at all cost. Such a society is run by the "enlightened" dictator and you are born and dies in your predisposition "class". No movement between classes are allowed. It has been the favorite line of argument for many oppressors since it gives them the "moral" ground for doing the hell they want and keep everyone in their place with whatever means possible (for the total discussion see Karl Poppers, The Open Society and its Enemies). In a world defined by fast growth and fast growth has been found not to be in line with sustainability it can easily be argued that you would tend to find sustainable societies among those adopting Plato's views on stability.

  39. Pehr Blomkvist

    Of cause there are different scientific traditions and scientists love to argue the superiority of their selected method. However according to the dominant paradigm (often called hypothesis deductivism) it is not possible to prove a theory and hence no burden of proof to prove your opposing theory. It is only required that you disprove whatever theory you are attacking. The evidence disproving the theory of endless growth (especially fast growth in line with the 2-3 % yearly that we today need to keep people employed) is today being provided by a large body of scientists and the evidence seem to be piling up year by year. What you argue above seem therefore to be more judicial than scientific method.

  40. David Faubion

    Exactly: growth within our means is the key; that is what, in a large part, defines an entity with the viable trait of striving for and attaining a relative homeostasis in which metabolism of the species is in balance with the inputs of the ecology that surrounds it. In reality, it is impossible to unplug the economy of species from the ecology in which the species is set. But homo sapiens is often, as anthropologist, Clifford Geertz wrote, "... a species not in direct connection with reality; culture is its adaptation to its ecological niche." In social science, culture refers to everything humans make, which includes our quasi-visible sociopolitical structures, institutions, ideologies and so forth. Thank you for the additional example of a slow-to-no-growth economy. One has to be endeared to the Trobriand yam and banana frond exchanges; it evokes a parody of our system of commodities as an unintentional comedy about our complex system, whilst the Trobriand's is a simple system that works likely for every Trobriand.

  41. NX2

    Not that i mind, but there's no need to assume what i agree upon :)
    You seem to understand my initial intention with the (subjective) word 'sustainable', though you offer me a new perspective which i haven't even considered. Nor have i studied sustainable societies. So, i don't know if i agree or not with your view.
    Or should i think along the lines of what Pehr Blomkvist mentioned in the comment below?

    I agree with your last sentence.

  42. NX2

    As a side note on the stance that a theory cannot be proven, i think it's possible to conclude the same from the view that post-structuralism offers. At least nothing can be proven in terms of 'absolute'.

  43. Pehr Blomkvist

    I think that the important points are two.

    1, We can not be required to prove an alternative (since totally proving anything is not possible any way) to earn the right to declare a theory wanting.

    2, Any alternative we come up with will in itself have faults and errors and we must recognize that being humble on that issue is a virtue.

    On another sidenote, I think, it is important to recognize that there is a big difference between the physical and social sciences were social sciences are dominated by extremes while the physical regresses to the mean. The importance as well as implications of that single piece of knowledge can not, IMHO, be overstated. It is the main explanation why we can on one hand send rockets into space while on the other we still dont have a clue about next weeks price of stock.

  44. Douglas Ferguson

    Hello Mr. Blomkvist: Thank you for the dialogue though I could not quite make out your presentation of Plato's concept of a stable society. I have skimmed Plato's and Socrates' social concepts presented by others and I find that in this matter their concepts of government are limited in scope. This is understandable since much has happened since they have passed on. I found reading about Karl Poppers interesting. Though I am having a hard time understand your points. Take your last sentence, first your mentioning fast growth societies then you change gears and mention sustainable societies adopting Plato's views. I am missing the connection. It could be just me I do not know. :-P

  45. Douglas Ferguson

    Dear NX2: You seem to be argumentative. The only things that I assumed about you was that you cared about others well-being as a decent person. Of course you could be a complete a*shole but I would rather assume that you are not.
    I do not expect you to agree or disagree with me but just to consider what I wrote; though it is really sparsely presented. Possibly in your research you can offer some authors, historical societies and even present current events for me to consider.
    My last statement really is about how individually and socially our understanding of what is around us should evolve. It is a statement that life is dynamic and we need to be aware. This statement is opposed to many philosophies especially religious ones. I am glad that we can agree on that statement. Are we really agreed on that statement?

  46. Douglas Ferguson

    I think I understand your last point better now though it took me some time.
    Your sentence and this movie gave me a thought, this thought is not the point you were making in your sentence. That thought that I have is that many people are becoming phobic about the changes around them. People have an irrational fear of the change that occurs in a productive society, therefore they want a stable society. Arguments that growth will lead to collapse when the physical limits of the earth are reached. People believe that we are reaching those limits. Personally I find this irrational because the earth is no where near it limits. Not that I think that modern societies goal is to reach those limits. Civilization is not near it's limits in growth or efficiency. But people have got themselves into phobic frenzy the sky is falling just like the children's tale of chicken little. But many will think that I am just one of those blind people that do not admit that modern civilization has no clothes. Such is life.

  47. Pehr Blomkvist

    Hello Mr. Ferguson, sorry if my way of expressing the point was confusing. Perhaps if I try it another way it might be better.

    A) You say in your post that you in your experience have found what you call "sustainable" (agreed that our definitions might not be the same) is authoritarian, repressive and so on.

    B) Plato's view of the perfect state is one that does not change - is stable, frozen in time if you will. Plato's view have been used, built on and developed by authoritarian regimes to justify them staying in power.

    C) In a world were the norm for a free, democratic society have been focus on high growth and change it would be more likely that you would find authoritarian regimes looking at those countries that have lower growth, since they want to be frozen in time (resist change) they don´t take part of the growth.

    So I was wondering if perhaps you were not looking at states/cultures that shared a few characteristics .of a sustainable culture (for example lower use of fossil fuels and slower growth) but in reality was looking at authoritarian cultures implementing a version of Plato "stable" state.

  48. Pehr Blomkvist

    I think your point is valid in such that it is a feasible theory.

    However It could also be argued that what people want is change. So if they are so scared of change why do they want more of it? I don´t think anyone who seriously argued that we shift towards sustainability is afraid of change. If they are they don't understand how much change it means.

    As for the limit point. I agree with you, we have not reached the limit of this planet (used correctly) and/or of how much resources we can produce given improving technology. However all research, as well as many other events, such as economic crashes clearly shows that we are using too much of some resources over too short a time. We need to work on our efficiency and our understanding and not letting all efficiency gains transform into groth. Instead efficiency must also be used to cut back outtake in some areas.

    Hopefully we can also increase it in others but it is very dangerous for us to take that for granted.

  49. Douglas Ferguson

    Thanks this clarified your ideas for me. I must confess that I really do not know of any culture/states that are stable, even based on the Plato's authoritarian model you present, but there are many that are sustainable. Sustainable societies do not have to be stable to survive.

    Many times fortune tellers predict the end of civilization by developing models. Models can be used to help see trends but always become skewed as more time passes and new events come into play. Therefore only a dynamic society with robust institutions that adapt to changes in it's environment can survive. Stable societies will fail because they can not adapt. The culture of a stable society will discourage solutions to problems that develop because it will upset the society. But of course semantics is important in this discussion. You see I understand a stable society to be similar to an American soap opera. You could watch it 10 years ago and then watch it today and would not miss what was going on if it was still on. You say that Plato thought this as a perfect society. And I thought he was smart. LOL
    You present a sustainable society with limited growth. But because industry wants to compete to limit growth the government must own the industry or regulated till industry leaves to go to a state that allows growth. This cripples revenue the state needs to support it's people. Meanwhile, other world states without this policy become stronger and will possibly decide to take over the weak backward sustainable country and develop it's resources. This simple scenario has been repeated throughout history. I just can not visualize a sustainable state that limits growth. I need to be enlightened how can a growth limiting sustainable society work?
    Notice I am not excluding a growth enhancing sustainable society, I know it sounds like an oxymoron idea but I think that this works. A state that promotes competition, innovation and responsible use of resources especially to protect wildlife and human life can be sustainable. Just because an economy grows does not by necessity make it destructive. Maybe this is some unattainable utopia and I am naive, but everyone can dream.

  50. Douglas Ferguson

    Thank you for your thoughtful discussion.

  51. NX2

    Do you mean argumentative to be in a negative way? If so, i apologise for coming across as such. i only wanted to point out that you said: "I know that...you also do not agree with my understanding of 'sustainability'.", and i tried to give you a reason why that isn't necessarily so. That's all.

    A genuine thank you, for assuming i'm not an a***hole, though i might appear fixated at this point. (yes, i know, all in one sentence)
    Apparently you would like me to research, and discus with you the perception of sustainable societies. While that seems worthwhile to do, i have to prioritise. So, i probably will not discus it. Sorry if that is a let down. I do take your perception in consideration though.

    And to answer your last question, yes, i have the impression we can agree on that statement.

  52. Maxime

    People have to stop thinking we are destroying the "PLANET" the planet is just fiiiiiiiiine. We are destroying ourself!!!!! The planet is gonna be alright we she will have wipe us out. Climat change come on Seriously people stop saying we destroy the planet. We don't have this power yet. Again we are destroying us and the planet is gonna be just fine. The problem with planet Earth is that we selfish humans live on it.

  53. Douglas Ferguson

    Hi Mr. Blomkvist: Talk about change. The psyche of society seems all dooms day coming. End of world scenarios presented in the media and though schools has created the end of the world phobia. Fear can be used to promote change that would not be allowed otherwise. An example the irrational fear caused by 911 has given the NSA and google the moral right to spy on everyone.
    Arguments of the planets limits showing up in economic crashes is a stretch of logic. What does fraudulent loaning and selling of asset backed securities and other criminal economic activity have to do with the planets limits?
    All this talk of global warming is unrealistic like we can stabilize the planet's environment. How much can we stop global warming living in a log cabin while China has just started polluting and pumping CO2.
    And you do realize that one big volcanic blast would dwarf all mankind's pollution and CO2 emissions. And of course the Sun is the largest cause of global warming ever. What are we going to do about that?
    I agree that the planet is warming right now but did you know historically we are still in an ice age. In other words the climate is always changing we just need to adapt. Let us not be like the Dodo scientists in the Antarctica and have to get rescued from ice well studying global warming because they could not notice the obvious.
    This global warming issue is a political smoke screen headline used to promote wealth redistribution. With certain groups skimming much of the wealth in the process. It is all about greed. Just look at some of the promoters for an understanding of this. In Canada we have a big GW promoter and environmentalist who is really an opportunist and self promoter, his name is David Suzuki. He has a very extravagant lifestyle and is supported by corporate interests (use this article by Vivian Krause in FP April 19,2012 as a starting point).
    Even stating this I agree with you that we should not take the environment, the economy, or anything for granted. We need to be thankful and always try to do what is right.

  54. NX2

    It is of course possible that propaganda-wise, both sides are being played by the same interest group. I'm not saying it is, but possible.

  55. Mc Engma

    To whom it may concern
    My name is Nicholas Grevas and I'm a poet and a father! Once again the real danger in our lives is missed on this terrible rumor that carbon levels are gonna end life on earth! If all of our life here on earth plants and animals both land and sea are made of carbon how will more of what were made of hurt us! The answer is it will not if anything the plants will have more fuel to grow bigger if we just leave them be! Now stop confusing the issue yes we must change our fuel source and we must do it now but for a much graver danger then supposed "climate change" which the sun has over 1,000 times the influence then carbon ever could hope to influence climate! The real danger is that we have an unsustainable fuel source and we also have over 200 nuclear power plants running off of unstable isotopes instead of stable isotopes! So what happens when we run out of oil and it's not economically viable to even send the workers to get one more drop of oil out of the ground! Then there's no fuel for the engineers and many personnel to get to work to cool these isotopes and all the reactors in the world fail and explode all at once! We need to put these dangerous isotopes on a rocket and send them into space before its too late and the elite sit in thier underground bunkers hoping to return to the surface but my guess is they won't be able to ever and only subterranean life will be on earth after that moment! Please work with me to replace our reactors immediately with safer stable nuclear reactors such as thorium reactors! We only have a few years left if that then the auto purge happens wether we are prepared or not! This is real the earth will be full of radioactive waste and fallout if we do not act now in replacing our "stone age" technologies we must say to hell with our contracts regarding uranium and plutonium use and disposal and rid ourselves of this impending doom! Let us not be a victim of our own short sightedness and clumsy greed! Thank you for your time and I hope you all will change your mission to give us more time to fight over all of our issues for if we fail we will not have time to argue any point at all!
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas grevas

  56. Douglas Ferguson

    Sometimes in order to corner a market or deflate prices for commodities to be processed to get a higher return companies do use focused propaganda. Focused on the competitor not them. It is really amazing the litigation and other methods used to get that unfair advantage.

  57. a_no_n

    oh don't get me wrong, i'm not here blowing my trumpet for infinite growth, by it's name it's impossible because nothing is or can be infinite.
    I'm just saying that the idea of a world without any growth at all is...pretty much what we've been living with for the last ten years, it's not nice.

  58. a_no_n

    sure it is...if you completely change what the word equilibrium means.

  59. johnBas5

    That's curious. I have recently bought a new computer that reduces my energy needs.
    I'm having negative growth in that sense and the new computer is much faster and capable which makes this kind of without any growth very nice.
    About what things are you talking when you say world without growth?

  60. johnBas5

    It's an equilibrium, just not a very cosy rainbow and lollipops one for us mere humans.

  61. Ilona Randall

    I agree, the planet will renew itself after we're gone but I think what most people mean by destroying the planet is what you said - we're destroying ourselves - but also we're taking down a lot of other species with us, animal and plants. We're causing places to become infertile, polluted and so on when we could already be using so much alternatives. But money is always holding us down, if there's no profit, who cares?

  62. Pehr Blomkvist

    I can not say that I agree with all you are saying but I don´t want to through it all out either. Referring back to facts (witch of cause can be argued) there are plenty of people worried about the state of our western economies, the seeming ineffectiveness of previous growth strategies, growing inequality and so on. That paired with a rapidly approaching planet population maximum have at least me wondering how this might play out. You seem to rather lightheartedly ignore such concerns. I hope you are right but I think you are taking serious concerns and political issues, with perhaps, a too easy step. Anyway I hope to live as long as 2050 and, if so, will have the luxury of knowing first hand what happened. Of cause I wish the same for you.

  63. jillzzzz

    People connection, awareness, unity, Knowledge, compassion, meaningful relationships. Great video!

  64. Xen

    The primary thesis is flawed. This documentary puts forth testable claims that have been debunked. The right brain left brain hypothesis is a myth and has been thoroughly debunked. This is bad observation, bad science and was so frustrating that I couldn't finish watching it. Disappointing...

Leave a comment / review: