Aftermath: Population Zero

Aftermath: Population Zero

2008, Science  -   230 Comments
Ratings: 7.87/10 from 60 users.

Aftermath: Population ZeroImagine if one minute from now, every single person on Earth disappeared. All 6.6 billion of us. What would happen to the world without humans?

How long would it be before our nuclear power plants erupted, skyscrapers crumbled and satellites dropped from the sky?

What would become of the household pets and farm animals? And could an ecosystem plagued with years of pollution ever recover?

Similar to the History Channel's special Life After People (recommended), Aftermath features what scientists and others speculate the earth, animal life, and plant life might be like if humanity no longer existed, as well as the effect that humanity's disappearance would have on the artifacts of civilization.

More great documentaries

230 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Why are animals exempt from a horrible nuclear radiation death like us humans? Whoever thinks that there's a Paradise beyond nuclear disasters is delusional. Every living thing would be dead and gone!!

  2. You mean to tell me my Chihuahuas won't make it past 1 year?????

  3. I thought this was interesting. I saw a lot of comments about 'why start off without humans' or 'this is just fear inspiring, not educational' but I think both statements are without basis. There are millions of supposed 'end of days' that could be, this wasn't another, how the world ends' things, it was a 'how the world can recover' ones and it was not supposed to be fear inspiring, you're obviously easily scared (no offense) it was intended to express how wild the world would be without humans. this is hypothetical and meant to be humbling. Humans have done a great deal, but we cannot compare to what nature has done and can do. And that's not 'fear propaganda' but fact and inspirational. We are, first and foremost, animals; part of nature, and to consider ourselves superior is foolish. Recognize the beauty and efficacy, not to mention power, of nature and respect it. because human conceitedness may one day be our own downfall or it may simply drive us from natural happiness. Or, maybe you guys can't simply enjoy a hypothetical and educational intrigue which may be the only reason this was made.

  4. Dicky Awkins will yell at god and say 'this is bad soince', and ee will tork bout mamals and fosils and stuff.

  5. What a load o American BULLS*IT! All nuclear power-plants will automatically shut-down If there's no-one left In control.Don't take my word for It-check It out for yourselves! This Is a Piss-poor copy of a BBC Documentary called - 'LIFE AFTER HUMANS'.

    1. Erm... yes that is correct. However unless the cooling systems continue to function the decay heat will still cause meltdown in the core as well as in the spent fuel rods. When the tsunami hit the Fukushima Daichi plant, all operating reactors shut down immediately, but meltdown occurred in at least 3 because the cooling systems stopped as they are powered by the nuclear generated electricity also, compounded by the fact the emergency diesel generators (which had fuel enough for 48hrs only incidentally) were swamped and rendered non-functional.

      So emergency power systems would kick in at reactor shutdown and grid failure, which would last as long as the diesel in the emergency generators - between 48hrs to a week in nearly all cases. After that, reactor popping is inevitable.

  6. When Mother Earth is ready she'll shake mankind like a bad case of the flees

  7. ....Seems the world is better off without us, it would be lovely to be that last person here, a thousand years after no one, just to see what our world truly is. Silence, just the sounds of birds chirping and wolves howling, a truly quiet world, WOW!

    1. yes, would be really something to see . I have the same dream

    2. whats really crazy is we chose to be destructive ..the native americans the aborigines the cultures we consider uncivilized dont destroy their own environment

  8. It turns out that earth can go along very nicely without us. The hardest part of the special is probably in the first 15 minutes, when pet owners confront what likely will happen to their dogs (thankfully, the show follows those dogs who break out of their houses, and the prognosis for them to survive as scavengers is good). As the fictional days and weeks tick by, the process of nature’s reclaiming the planet becomes less grim and more fascinating.

    The impact of the lack of people will be noticed right away, as most power grids shut down around the planet. The one holdout: Hoover Dam, whose hydro power lights up the American Southwest. Scientists say the dam can continue to operate on its own for months, maybe years, keeping the Vegas Strip alight. Only the eventual accumulation of quagga mussels, an invasive species, in the cooling pipes of the power plant–currently being cleaned by humans–will shut down the dam.

    Elsewhere, critters and plants will have their run of Manhattan and every other previously “civilized” spot. Inventive photography shows bears clambering out of subway stations, and vines pulling down brownstones, then skyscrapers. It may not be a surprise when the Eiffel Tower and Space Needle meet their eventual fates, but the scenes nonetheless provide a pleasant sting of shock. Life After People is humbling, yet exhilarating.

    1. When the financial meltdown hit, people abandoned their homes in Lehigh Acres, FL (and other neighborhoods near Fort Myers, FL) and left their pets inside to starve to death. It was against the law to break into the homes to save them - but the folks at animal control got the cops and did it. House to abandoned house. A renter living next to me left their cat locked in the house next to mine. The property manager came over a week later and it escaped. Last summer I fed an adult female cat for 3 months and it was finally rescued by someone (I couldn't afford to take it on because I was saving another one). I met the previous owner and he really didn't seem like the type to do something like that.

      Some people in the USA are not mentally or emotionally well at all.

  9. The very notion is deliciously ghoulish: What happens to earth if – or when – people suddenly vanished? The History Channel presents a dramatic, fascinating what-if scenario, part science fiction and part true natural science. Welcome to Earth, Population: 0 is the catchy tagline, Life After People’s 94 minutes are so gripping you nearly forget while you watch that you, yourself, will be gone too.

    1. whats more ghoulish people disappear or we keep polluting the planet destroying species tainting water supplies until we live on a planet were we are the only life form other than bacteria and we live in biospheres because the earth can no longer support life,if we dont change that is a definite future

    2. And how about that fracking already...

    3. The earth will always be able to support life.

      There are plants growing around Chernobyl that have adapted to the heavy metals, isotopes and gamma radiation, and which may even produce new compounds useful for cancer patients receiving radiation or chemo therapy. New organisms and bacteria have evolved that feed on plastic and other industrial pollutants.

      We've been altering the environment for thirty thousand years, to say for better or worse is not even knowable. The idea that we are going to destroy the planet is based on a need to feel special. As we 'destroy' the planet, there are a billion adaptations occuring among all the species and even the smallest splitting cells, some of which will succeed, some of which will fail.

      Life will always find a niche

  10. Much like the anti-human agenda of PETA. I cannot fathom such deep self-loathing. Maybe a form of mental ilness...

    1. do u think we are some kinda blessing to this planet or what? who brainwashed u so well?

    2. We are both a blessing and a curse. . .We are here to stay indefinently -- we are both good and not good. The thing about humans is that we vary from person to person.

  11. Personally I love this doc and always watch it whenever it comes on TV. To everyone saying stuff like "how in the world would humans just disappear", one of the first things it says is "how it happens doesn't matter"... because it doesn't, it's a thought experiment. And I think it's a great one, because it's just says what would happen to the best of our knowledge. Everything doesn't have to have an agenda.

    1. I agree. It was just a very interesting and well thought out "what if" scenario. I enjoyed it!!

    2. There are 18+ energetic and/or physical toxins impacting the human body in the USA as of 2014. There is definitely an agenda... it's just that no body really wants to admit to it's scope and direction.

  12. I don't understand why so many people here think that this documentary is anti-human. Actually it is just a fantasy what could happen when just one species disappears and it could be ants, elephants, dogs, some kind of bacteria or whatever instead, nobody kills humans and not everything is rosy after humans are gone, for instance pets die. Don't be so selfish and imagine yourself being that important so you have to be in the centre of every fantasy movie. What if there was a film about strange life form that could happen on other planets, would it still be against humans because homo sapiens is not the main character? Get over it and enjoy the documentary.

  13. Excellent Documentary. Love the narrator's voice. I find it very relaxing to watch and could keep it on all day. Gawd...we humans, are so

  14. It's all idle speculation with a sprinkling of educated guessing. Entertaining none the less, and a healthy reminder against overestimating the human effect on the biosphere and our ability to control it.

    I watched this primarily for the reactor popping CGI - very nicely done I think.

    Cheers TDF!

  15. Moral of this documentary story... life goes on, even after humanity had been eradicated or vanished forever.

    As for the radiation people are freaking out over, some of you people are oversimplifying and don't give Nature, other species and the ecosystem enough credit for their abilities to evolve and adapt to changes. Evolution doesn't stop because a few poisons. Shoot... there are whole ecosystems and thousands of species of animals that live hundred thousandths feet deep in the ocean(s) that live off on radiation, various types of acids and so called other poisons we humans tend to want to take credit for creating or discovering them. Life is like energy... it can't be destroyed, only change.

    1. Look up chernobyl documentary shows how the wolfs and animals are thriving.

    2. True...but Chernobyl was taken offline (as much as was possible) and then encased in a sarcophagus - twice - by humans. I doubt wolves or any other species native to the region would be faring as well had it not been for this human intervention.

  16. After watching the life after people documentary first, this one missed out a detail in it's power loss section at the start. The lights of Vegas would actually continue for much longer than other places in the world due to the fact that the Hoover dam is a largely automated system.

    1. Life After People is a knockoff.

  17. only thing i did not like is the over simplified nuclear catastrophe, they did not take it into consideration at all. i personally think that so much radiation being released along with the entire worlds nuclear arsenal not being mentioned, which would after so many millenia, would most likely have either detonated from heat or natural activity and i do not think there would be such a positive outlook for the rest of the species. 400 nuclear powerplants spewing radiation all over and no mention of the poisoning of animals or harmful mutation. who cares about the statue of liberty standing or the eiffel tower. mot likely scenario is nuclear ecocide to a full extinction level event of the multicellular organisms on the surface and those that require it as food. people are so negligent of the fact that nuclear energy is the biggest mistake of our entire existence, even a documentary trying to erase us from the face of the earth can't comprehend the seriousness of its effects and wants to see the earth in a reversible state of catastrophe for life. slightly pathetic imo

    1. Thanks for bringing that up! It's always left out of this type of program, and books,too, for that matter -- even post apocalyptic books. We are hanging by a thread, and with the onset of any big power grid problems (solar flares, etc.), much less social upheaval and chaos, causing breakdown of infrastructure, those 400 nuclear power plants, not to mention who knows how many other structures housing radioactive stuff that needs constant cooling and attention, are gonna blow. Uranium has a half life of something like 4.4 billion years, which is about when our sun is due to go out, giving whatever monstrosities, if any, left on the planet, simply no hope. It is insane. Insane.

    2. in 3.5 billion years are sun is not due to go out it is due to get bigger engulfing mercury and Venus and putting earth the closes plant to the sun then 6 billion years after that the sun will go in to the red dwarf phase growing 40% and engulfing the earth then in about a 100 million years it will collapse and turn in to a white dwarf from there it will slowly cool until it reaches just above absolute zero. also uranium 235 the stuff they use in plants has a half life of only about 705 million years plenty of time for the earth to revert back to it's original state plus nukes don't just go off its not like dynamite were you just light the fuse and run away neutrons have to be sent in to the uranium or plutonium at a certain rate to cause a nuclear explosion and the resulting fallout which is about only 10% of the original energy in the bomb. and in the rare likely hood that a bomb were to leak massive amounts of radiation in to the air all these bombs are stored under ground surround by dirt which if you didn't know is a great absorbent of radiation. so in summary nuclear reactions will not destroy the earth in case in some crazy turn of events every single one of us where to disappear at the exact same time why would you care any way you would be dead while this is happening.

    3. Have you ever read James Axel's Deathlands series!:))

  18. Painfully accurate portrait of the dire specifics of the nature of our species. Even our best intentions are limited by our vision of what the future will be like, or so egocentric, that we truly believe that as long as the earth exists, we will be on it. Because there's gotta be someone in charge, and clearly, that is us!
    Long after humanity is gone, provided we don't take the entire planet with us, life will go on. Even then, there is much we do not know about the cosmos, and the universe.
    One thing is certain of humanity: we are NOT essential to the rest of what we do know of life. We are absolutely disposable, and replaceable, most probably.
    Maybe it is for another species to evolve as we have, and wow the Creator by doing a far better...or worse...job of things than we humans have...

    1. And you are? We were made from the Earth and to the Earth we shall return! We're idiots, our greed has destroyed us. If we could, we'd destroy this Earth too. Squander, holier than thou, me, me, me! What a waste! I'm just sick about it, all the frickin' time! It's not going to get better. Not as long as you have Bundys and Dahmers running around. But that's another subject. Though, it is the one thing that ruins this world. It's mayhem! Created, beauty...... can't walk down the street in broad daylight ......................................... Hot in Arizona

  19. This just points out the painfully obvious. What if humans disappeared? whoa cool, yeah. Watch everything man once built fade away. See how the animal thrives in whats left of our modern carcases(what we left behind). No **** huh? it so obvious its painful. I guess the editor's into some hardcore pessimist porn.

    1. The POINT is to see what would happen, see what will happen. The point is NOT to be a donkey's posterior about it.

    2. yeah, glorious isn't it?

    3. Clearly, you're missing something along the way!

    4. Speak for yourself, many don't see the documentary as pessimistic. Most of the changes benefited the majority of Earth's species.

  20. Loved it, but just how in the world would all humans just disappear, people have bunkers and underground safe-houses all over the place to take shelter in and survive because many believe that the end times are actually close at hand. I live in a town called Sudbury, On. It is home of one of the worlds most extensive and at one time the deepest underground mining operations. There is a large source of water there as well with the Neutrino Observatory, which is a Huge pool of water designed to slow down Neutrino's for observation. In any case Humans completely disappearing is a near impossibility to me. Having them no longer able to inhabit the surface of the earth, now that's a total possibility. A reality show about survival strategies in the face of disastrous odds, be it nuclear, chemical, environmental or biological on a massive, global, (Human extinction) type scale would be something I would watch because it is totally possible. Just listen to the news, two asteroids flew by earth in the last week within 14 000 km and we still didn't see them coming. Luckily they were small.

  21. This assumes that people will just disappear into thin air. Wouldn't it be more of a decline or disaster? Mildly interesting anyway.

    1. Within the twinkling of an eye, like a thief in the night!

  22. This was a good watch. I don;t understand why even a nice "what if" piece is attacked by ignorant creationists and climate deniers. Man HAS made an impact on his environment. Get over it. Your fears drive you to make idiotic comments in your desperation to believe in a 4000 year old worldwide Christian fantasyland where man has no impact on the weather or forests or oceans. Too bad it is just a fantasy.

  23. It's really one of the best films, recently.

  24. there seem to be a lot of complaints here about the anti-human tone taken by some areas in this film. I sympathize with your complaints but I think you are missing the point. Yes, there is an editorial slant here. But the CONTENT of the documentary is well-researched, well rounded, and (except for the part about everyone spontaneously disappearing,) rather plausible scientifically. And as far as man having a big effect on the landscape (which is undeniable), it is by no means clear from the content of this film that that effect was a bad effect. What is, is. If we were to disappear, there would be upheavals. Whether that means that humans are bad or not is almost beside the point. IMHO

    1. I concur. The not so obvious for some, is, that the tone of the documentary is predicated on the subject, as outlined by its Title: "Aftermath: Population Zero".
      The subject deals with the hypothetical countdown of what would happen immediately following the demise or sudden disappearance of humans from the planet Earth.
      It is difficult for some to imagine a world that could possibly suffer, then slowly recover, and go on, without us.
      This is a stark revelation, or should be, to the fragile, egocentric, and rather dismally narcissistic view our species has had since forever, and this will not likely change for many.

  25. God... what a cr@ppy doco... wasted too much time on trivial stupid things like starving dogs that was repeated over and over and over...
    Only needed to mention the animals for 2 mins then move on to some INTERESTING facts. Waste of time this doco..

    1. Clearly you're not a pet owner otherwise you'd have some kind of interest into what would happen to your dog/cat if you suddenly disappeared. The fact of the matter is is that something like 1/3 of the population have pets and most of them care about them. This is a TV show that must appeal to a wide audience. It's not a college textbook.

  26. 7.04 billion... and still counting

    1. 7.2 billion and still counting... 250,000 added (after deaths) every single day...

  27. Nat Geo was better when i was a kid. The ones with the intro music and globe animation with lines of longitude and latitude at the beginning. They did a lot of nature vids and also videos of places around the world, which i remembered liking. Now it seems that they are just jumping on any bandwagon topic and running with it. the production and presentation have changed with the times (way too Hollywood now), but i'm not sure if that is a good thing.

    1. They do come up with the goods sometimes. Not sure how they manage to make bad ones though as the magazine is still ace. :)

    2. i agree with you there. same as before, the mag has some of the best photos around that is for sure.

  28. NO DOUBT THAT NATURE IS AWESOME! but the crappy propaganda concerning CO2 and the so called man-made global warming commentary throughout the doco was weak and infantile..I sure wish the people who put out these type of documentaries would do some serious research before making false claims. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU! Just another Al and IPCC WET DREAM!!

    1. Perhaps instead of behaving as childishly as those you chide, you would do better, instead, to share your wisdom and knowledge of the subject. If you are so wise in these matters of which others are so stupid, then you are aware that with such wisdom, comes responsibility.
      Admittedly, I am not an expert or very knowledgeable about the environment. I am beginning to become more curious. I only wish that those like you who speak or write as though you know something that I do not, would be less smug and berating, and willing to be more edifying and enlightening.
      Your behavior and tone makes me question the validity of what you think you are so very certain you know.

  29. boy nat-geo is going down the tubes fast..contrails turn into clowds? B.S no they dont..Im not even going to waist my time writing about the many statements that are in thing i will say..we have buildings in some parts of the world that are over 4,000 years old..100 years and the buildings are gone? much B.S

    1. I wondered about that, I didn't think it would just turn into a cloud. But good poiht, the pyramids still exist and many other buildings and monuments

    2. There are no 'buildings' that are 4,000 years old that have survived without human upkeep. Structures like the pyramids in Egypt will survive longer because of the dry climate they live in but without regular repair and paint, modern structures will deteriorate fairly quickly. Water is a very powerful solvent. Structures like the Golden Gate Bridge are constantly being painted. Full-time paint crews give it a complete repainting on average of 4 times per year.

  30. Is there some reason why you people at Top Documentary don't take these useless documentaries off.. What a waste of time to think I found something to watch that sounds interesting. Just to find its been removed. But not totally now has it??? Sheesh!

    1. You People.

      Perhaps you ought to develop your own site that features documentaries which appeal only to you.

      I find that those who frequently employ the two-bit, "You People" are not to be taken too seriously in the first place. Like Ann Romney, for example. I believe she used those words lately.

      Using 'You People' is like saying, "You Betcha."

      Or like shady salesmen who point and wink at you, as if their recognition or nod of approval means anything at all.

  31. i like population zero
    (id bet you never went past high school in your education (business classes do not count

  32. Is This Planet means US, Europe and Japan????????? You talked nothing about Asia, Australia, Africa and Latin America. This may not be the reality though if humans disappear.....

  33. Las Vagas is powered by the Hoover Dam. Its 9 auto Gen will function for up to 2 years after humans vanish, not 10mins like this stupid US Doc says it will, causing Las Vagus to lose its lights. It seems to me that what ever the US makes they have to make it more Horrifying, hype it up to limits where only children are interested, whilst the adults go else where for a more in-depth doc.

    The US Docs also put things in to place that never happened pr will not happen, seems they don't like to research the theory or history first.

    I can understand French, German and Chinese, these countries inc Britain can do really good Documentaries, I think why, as these countries are so interconnected with other countries, they have to get things right. Also its all to do with other countries age to, as in people who are running the countries, how long they have been there as with age, even on a country or global scale, knowledge improves.

    Maybe the US don't have money for its Documentaries? Maybe the US don't care what others think of them if they add some spice to history or futuristic Docs that did not or would not happen?

    What ever the case maybe, I find watching US Doc like watching sitting in a school class room whilst the teacher goes on and on, never asking for suggestions and or opinions. Sorry about this, but after watching so many US Docs on here, I am so tired of them being always the same, no matter their subject.

    Also what’s with the music playing all the way from the start to the end, even during interviews with guests, that’s so rude.

  34. Sort of interesting.. Pretty badly presented though; much repetition, both in sequences and narration - often typical of American documentaries (I said 'often'!)

  35. This is complete bull****.

    1. i.e., it's fiction!

  36. I don't think I have ever watched and listened to more anti-human propaganda in a single sitting. It's one thing to discuss and theorize the inevitable reclamation of space by plant and animal life, or the natural deterioration of our cities and man made structures once humans could not be there to maintain them. That part is very interesting to watch. It is another thing entirely to depict and promote a glowing, rosy and borderline giddy description of just how ducky everything would be after all those nasty human beings "were finally out of the way". It's hard not to at times hear the Tony Soprano smile on the face of the narrator. The not-so-subtle assertion made in this film is that man's attempt to adapt and mold his environment to ensure his survival was not a mark of his superior intelligence, nor is it a matter of him affirming his place as a living being on this planet. No, it portrays us all as outsiders that have no natural place on this world...that the things we do to live, advance our society and promote the survival of our species is a crime - that our presence itself is an event that is somehow outside the bounds of nature, and that living our lives is destroying nature (as if such a thing were even possible). If someone wants to pleasure themselves at the thought of how lovely the world would be once the only sentient life that could comprehend mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, architecture, engineering, medicine, literature is replaced by mindless animals - have at it.

    1. I must say, you appear to be looking for hardline misanthropy where it's barely there; I'll grant you it wasn't perfectly objective, but if you've never seen any greater 'anti-human propaganda' you've clearly been fortunate to miss a lot of really bad documentaries (except for this one, which I'll admit ground my gears for other reasons!)

    2. Ahhh, I should clarify. Unlike other movies, I sat through the entire program. Usually the moment I sense some kind of anti-mankind twist, I just change the channel. In this case, I was so damn tired after putting the kids to bed and was interested in the idea that I ended up watching the whole thing. I'll admit that this film wasn't as hardcore as Al Gore's movie in terms of propaganda, but in that case I could only take it for a few minutes before giving it up. :D

  37. Interesting documentary. I like the narrator's voice and it's good to know that camels and birds will be taking over the world after we are gone. :)

  38. This is pure depopulation propaganda. I think it's funny how man thinks it's responsible for correcting nature hence the depopulation agenda (vaccines, war, drugs, big pharma, codex alimentarius, ect).

    1. Yet 250,000 new humans are added daily, after deaths... "the depopulation agenda" is doing a terrible, terrible job.

  39. Nice little piece of misanthrope porno. Love the David Blaine adenoidal commentary.. very now. Personally can't wait to 'get out of the way' and watch it all happen from the uh, astral plane. Packs of wild dogs and elephants roaming a springcleaned globe. Gotta be more interesting than this layer of slime we've become, for all our 'intelligence'.

  40. bull **** warming a the gov can tax and steal ur earnings. well done lemmings if uve swallowed this ****!

  41. Ahh more apocalyptic fuel for the 2012 fire. You can count on it from the history channel. I wonder if they'll go back to Hitler marathons in 2013? But I digress.

    Kind of an interesting thought to ponder nonetheless; what the world would be like if you suddenly took man out of the equation. How life goes on, how long it would take all of our environmental manipulation to fall apart, etc.

    Remember - water, volcanoes and asteroids have all the real fun - not us.

  42. Just goes to show that whatever damage we do, it will be corrected by nature, one day......Great watch

  43. good food for thought re: what kind of foot-print do we wish to leave future generations (of any animal or species - 'all our relations') or consider the remote possibility that 'some' humans survive, do we have a responsibility to even 'consider' what kind of future we leave for these future generations? It is not often spoken about, but this I think is the idea behind opposition to recent past and current environmental policies. A Q we must soon answer globally - do we live only for the present? - or do we also have some responsibility to the future? How we answer decides the next wave of films :) - peace

  44. You know what, whoever puts this documentary down as misanthropic is clearly missing something big.
    Wild spaces are disappearing at a record rate and the air, land and sea is just getting dirtier and dirtier because of human activity, that is not human-hating,it's fact, we all have to face the consequences for the actions of those people that think it's OK to ignore the human right to safe, clean environment, if your going to gloss over the fact that people are making the world dirty or ignore that other people have the right to a clean environment, then YOU are the one causing other people harm, YOU are the one making the world dirty, YOU are the one denying our right to not breath smoke every day, who's the misanthrope now?!

    1. You sound like one of the Agenda 21 loons.

  45. Lol, I have not watched it yet but I believe humans are the worst thing that ever happened to earth and all other species trying to survive on it.

    China skins up to 100,000.000 animals <<>> daily. Not that I think it should matter what the animals are (NO LIFE deserves this) these numbers represent large numbers of dogs & cats included. These poor creatures live life cramped in a wire cage, intentionally left out in the elemets to thicken the coat and it's reported they suffer long periods w/o food or water. They never know 1 ounce of love or compassion only to suffer one of the intentionally cruellest deaths imaginable. After skinning they are thrown in a heap of others and death takes as long as 10 minutes in pain you can't even imaging.

    1. why do people like you believe much compassion should be given to animals like dogs and cats etc, what about the cows, chicken, sheep, goat, why not make a loud shout for them too?Because Dogs and cats are cuter? or even smarter than other animals? That is as if saying We should protect and be compassionate to Intelligent and attractive people where else those that are weak,ugly, suffer from mental retardation should not be given that kind of consideration? I am not saying that is wrong to show certain sense of humanity towards animals but the word COMPASSION should directed to humans beings to the starving and disease stricken people in Africa, the homeless man just around street or even just to a friend that have gone through a bad misfortune. Many modern western slaughter pens conditions are just has bad as those in China or not worse, one of the reason that lead to mad cow disease outbreak that happen in the 80s in Uk and US is due to lack of hygiene in farms and the feeding garbage waste meat products to the cows.

    2. I think your number 100.000,000 is an extreme over exageration, if the did that just by themselves in 1 day, then including the rest of the world we'd be the only animals lefts on this planet in a matter of weeks, get your facts straight my friend, and as for the skinning while alive and thrown in a "heap" with other skinned but live animals, makes you sound even more i*iotic, your probably some s*upid vegan activist that doesn't know anything but thinks they are right all the time, get your facts right before you speak

  46. Who ever wrote this is a self hating human..... This documentary explains that the earth would be better of with out us, and our time spent on earth has only caused havic and polution.

    1. well, its true, were like a virus as agent Smith would say

    2. What good have we done?Would not the earth be better without us,thats not self hateing its fact.

    3. The Earth might, but Mars wont.

    4. you didn't spell pollution right..... and your comments are painful to read

  47. Grime isn't it.

  48. I think this documentary is a joke. How could buildings collapse in mere 30 years just because they're concrete and supposedly vulnerable, this documentary seems to be done without much research.

  49. This was a st*pid whatever you want to call it.Mans foot print would take much much longer to disapear than it has showed.Not sure about chemicles and radiation but we find things thousands of years old that at the time were not stored the way we do some things now.We can protect things and I bet 100 thousand years from now they would still be the way they were left.Things open to the elements of nature will dissapear just I think longer than they said.Guess they thought it would be more interesting.And we all now we hurt this planet more than all other animals put togeather.If we were smart and made it here we could start caring and develope better tecnology and mabe we can stop the damage if we could stop killing each other and stop destroying the world with depleted urainium and all the man made deseases.People want population control so they can do as much damage as they can,insead of using there brains.There is almost 7 billion people and the 1 persent will fail once we no forsure thats whats going on.Right now mabe 10 persent of us now but it growing.

    1. you should really learn how to spell! You sound uneducated

    2. I am a bit tired of these grammar comments. How many times did you have to check your phrase to make sure it had no mistakes? To make sure no one would catch you with errors? "You", should have been written with a capital and you missed a period at the end of your statement but who cares?
      What if someone is using English as a second language, does that make them uneducated or does that make them smarter than average? What if someone does not have a college or university education? Does that make them uneducated or educated by life's experiences instead of books?
      Let's be open to all cultures and level of education. This is a worldy site, something i was reminded of myself yesterday with my stupid comment on Thanksgiving.

      ps. If you find a mistake or two here, well i am French and speak a bit of Spanish too, and have no more than High School education in regular class.

  50. This a twilight zone episode not a documentary.

  51. I'm not sure of the real message or purpose of this documentary. I mean who cares what would happen if there was no people.However, the message can be one of these points:
    1-The earth may struggle without human, but it will survive(no need to be worry)
    2-even with no human, the bad impacts of the civilization will still for awhile. So, be sure you shutdown all the nuclear generators and factories before you disappear.
    3-be sure the doors of homes, farms and zoos are opined, so the inside animals can easily make it to the freedom. 4-In short, every creatures on the earth will be glad you disappear, so please human finish :P

  52. that cellphone is so old

  53. Interesting and enjoyable. The last line in the documentary: "All we had to do was get out of the way."

    I would caution viewers to not take the message literally, as in, "Gee, this documentary sure opened my eyes. Kill all the humans!"

    That's the wrong interpretation. It's better to see the documentary as a thought experiment. How can you "get out of the way" without dying?

    Never for one second think that you as a human being are inherently a bad thing. All living things have a right to live. Even a--holes.

  54. Could have done without the whole segment on zoo animals in the suburbs. I stopped watching at that point because I couldn't take the silly and the boring.

  55. That was mediocre. What's with all the sepia? Like life after humans won't have full spectrum sunlight? And all the music was designed to make it seem ominous and tense. Some things are tense, but whatever. The narrator was obnoxious. The ideas about nuclear waste were interesting though.

  56. What about the pyramids...?? would they have vanished to?? and the great wall?... the pyramids are made of solid rock... in a very dry place... it would take hundreds of thousand, if not millions of years to erode with only the wind and the sand at work... perhaps it would be covered in sand... and just stay there for eternity... anyone?

  57. I think I've seen this before.... LIFE AFTER PEOPLE???? HISTORY CHANNEL?

    1. Saw that. This is the same thing done by a different studio. Different content and everything.

  58. what about the zombies???

  59. did they downplay the affects of disintegrating nuclear power plants? I sort of thought the radiation would last hundreds of years and make the world uninhabitable.

    1. I agree, the power plants would have destroyed absolutely all life for decades. The mutations would live on for thousands of years. And there are literally hundreds of power plants around the world and storage facilities. One storage facility could kill all life within 100 miles, 500 miles would be irradiated and lfe would be deformed. I mean yea... after a while it will slowly heal, but not in the time frame theyve suggested.
      But then again, there wouldnt be much of a documentry if that had happened!
      I also thought that the dam breaking was very unrealistic. Dams gets stronger with age. Possibly some of the gates might rust and break. but i dont think that would cause the large scale destruction of the entire dam! And anyway, if that was a plaussibility then why would the hoover dam not have broken? There was far for pressure after the first dam failing, then the increase of water from the mountains on the first one.
      But a good documentry anyway. never knew stainless steel lasted that long! Should use it to build more structures! Then they will truly last forever!

    2. Well, things wouldn't always have to be as expected. In Ukraine, where the Chernobyl reactor exploded the whole area was contaminated. Lots of people died and got serious problems due to the fallout and radiation. But in abandoned towns nature takes over and animals in the woods are doing really great. Deer, birds and others do not seem to have too much trouble. And it's just about 25 years ago...

    3. it´s clouds of radiation... not a nuclear winter ... clouds tend to dissipate quickly ... maybe the surrounding areas would be affected for a few decades... but eventually life would take over, has the heavy particles sunk under ground. But I agree that they didn´t quite take the point to the depth it deserved

  60. Stays a very good documentairy. ALready seen it 3 times now xD Sometimes I wish, it was like this again, nature rules.

  61. who cares what would happen if there was no people?

    1. It's interesting and says a lot about our existence.

  62. Is ending a comment with "ha ha" code for "ha"ven't "ha"d the experience of holding a high school diploma?

    1. Margie "Global Genocide" Miller... I think they are laughing because they find something funny, Miss Population Control. haha!

      I don't think you realize your the brainwashed that beat the old mantra born of the eugenicist militant elites...

      You live under the false assumption that 'global warming' is the problem, and we need to cull the herd. CO2 is the problem, the very thing that plants breath. You believe in the Global Carbon Tax swindle, forced population control, UN.

      We are instead living in an era of the big lie. Agenda driven global warming propaganda, constant self perpetuating warfare, self inflicted false flag operations, biowarfare, eco-terrorism, preparations for controlled global financial collapse, global genocide, and subsequent Global Governance. And don't worry, the herd will be culled, just know... you are the herd. But in your case, they will more likely treat you like a domestic cow as you chant "I want to be a hamburger!"

      You are being used.

    2. Oh yeah, I remember you. You are the other guy who ends his posts with "ha ha" but you couldn't spell this two letter word correctly ("hah hah"--- your rendition). Gads. I could insert a comment about our educational system, but your example (actually, your entire post) did the job for me.
      You must have me confused with someone else (no surprise there) because I have never believed or bought into global warming. And genocide? That's exactly counter to my posts.The fact that you even bring up that word give me chillls.
      There are plenty of reasons we need to slow population growth. If you had read my posts, you might have learned something. Furthermore, if you want to know more about big lies, read about fluoridation, GMOs, Monsanto, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, HAARP, Bilderberg, Bohemiam Grove, why we have never ending wars, 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the illuminati and the truth behind vaccines for starters. I am very aware of biowarfare. I wrote my dissertation on Lyme disease. Included in it was the truth behind the Plum Island lab off the mainland. These issues/topics and everything you list are not occuring randomly. They are planned.
      Couldn't respond to your second sentence because, well, it is not a sentence and it makes no sense. Your last two sentences make no sense, either. Written under the influence or are you a child?
      Write back whatever you like but I am not wasting any more of my time responding to people who cannot read and/or write. Let's stop taking up space and allow people to address the documentary. That goes to you, too, Dufus (why in the world would you pick that name for yourself, anyway? Never mind, I think I know).

    3. Apparently, you need editing also. 1. GAVE you chills. 2. Which mainland is the Plum Island lab off the coast of? 3. And he clearly spells his name as dufas. All you had to do for that one was copy it down. Or maybe you meant to say doofus? Maybe you should think yourself before trying to put people down on your high horse which is turning out to be more of a midget burro.


      Jeez Margie, I never would have thought for a second from your posts you where so aware of the lies being festered on the population of our planet. Yet you are aware and would get behind global population control, and all that means.

      Your position on population control was quite clear, and strikes me as a polite organized orderly extermination proposition - Albeit a little naive.

      Eugenics, Population Control and Global Totalitarianism which is needed to go along with this goal, irrespective of the systems of state, both developed and developing countries, in the end it is all about a body count. Soft kill or hard.

      Understand population control is all about killing you. That is you Margie, and your two sons. A little length of bone and a dissertation on Lyme disease does not get you in the club my dear.

    5. I Thought you were different, nah, you only read into anything what you want to. In your own way, your no different than any agenda driven elitist wanna-be----

    6. Oh, didn't like my comment about your "ha ha"? Struck a cord, did I? I have to admit that it was presumed that anyone who ended their post with a "ha ha" must be a kid. Who'd have thought a 70 year old (and let's not forget facetious---the be all of excuses for idiocy) would write something so trite..

    7. Ending with "Ha ha" ??? You have the wrong person................

    8. Margie is going to suggest euthanasia next... Watch out Mr. Duck! I like your handle by the way, has a sense of humor.

      HA HA!

      Margie is a brainwashed dimm wit. She is a victim of "The Club of Rome" type intellectual propaganda disseminated to impressionable students and politicians. She has no clue she has ingested this type of subtel coercion of anti humanism, sold to appeal to her yuppy type selfishness/personality issue of a better life for herself and for those not deservedly murdered off in a soft or hard kill manner.

      Margie seems to be birthed from the same steaming pile of compost as White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century.

      They plan on offing her... it is called population control.

      Lets just call Margie "St Vitus' Dance" Miller a Neo-Malthusian. A pessimist who has rejected the idea that America and humanity as a whole can progress through ingenuity, industry and economic growth. Instead, in her posts she sees humankind as a cancer upon the earth.

      Margie lead by example... Go kill yourself, and take your spawn with you. It always sounds so mean to encourage people to kill themselves, but kinda of funny though ...Ha Ha!

    9. As far as my "dufas_duck" handle. that was given to me by a 4th grade class of school kids for helping them with a class project, writing and illustrating a book. Dufas_duck was the title of the book that is similar to the childrens book " The Ugly Duckling"... The kids did 100 percent of the writing and art work, my role was just editor/art director and showing them how to do layout and binding of the printed pages. It was fun for everyone.

      'Mr Dufas_duck' is my official class moniker. I am rather proud of the honor the kids bestowed upon me.

  63. I liked seeing nature rebound, but this was a stupid concept---humans will never just "disappear" all at one time. I just wanted to see if the nuclear damage would totally destroy all life on earth--guess not! I'd give it a 5 out of 10.

    1. The vast majority of life that has existed on earth is now extinct, some of which were some of our closest relatives. All it would take would be some really nasty virus, maybe something as deadly as rabies and as contagious as the common cold. We still have almost no consensus concerning the extinction of the mega-fauna at the end of the Pleistocene.

  64. Until we can stop the leaders of the world from their destructive natures our lives will be at their hands. Sending our children to die for their egos and greed. It's been the same since the begining of time. Only then will they get the message that someone doesn't always need to be in chrage of it all for happiness and peace and the evolution of its people.

  65. sorry i found this so boring and pathetic what happens when humans are gone "not much really buisiness as usual for the animals" thats it !

  66. All this after humans is very basic! The real point of the argument is who is left to care? With some of man's works at thousands of years old and still quite evident I find the author is far too eager to wash away mans foot print.

    1. I got the distinct impression they didn't like people at all, didn't you? ;-)

  67. be optimist.. live longer.. destroy some more.. so gain more time to do in hell.. Karma. Crime and punishment. Pay back. Nothing comes from nothing. Quantum theory.Etc

  68. This kind of thinking must not become the mentality to do even biger crimes against nature. The statment that nature will take care of everything when we all die (be realistic) is so corupting & evil.

  69. We have created a Amazing world? Yeah, for our wicked, half cooked and what that we call great Knowledge.
    You need not post this here but send few copy's by post to the few who really knows The God, knows his great blessing and punishments but do things against him and fooling people by telling them that they believe in God but pray the Satan in private.
    Creating Under ground bunker for few and Amazing Zoo for animals.

    1. Do you really think that people like that will get away? God has his way of doing things. He gives the wicked time to repent.
      Like Johnny Cash sings, Tell that long-tongued liar , You can run on for a long time, but sooner or later God will cut you down . Psalm 37

    2. (you bin watchin the sons...)

  70. This should be renamed to " The hope of the Wicked" because that is what the Satanists hope for because the have a self-loathing for themselves and for the rest of humanity.

    I agree that people don't deserve the blessings of the earth brings . But The creator of the Universe isn't like that. He always gives us another chance."The earth is the Lord's and the fullness there of, the world and they that dwell therein.God is on a mission to save man, not destroy him.
    John 3:17

    1. You say the Earth is the lord's, if he even existed why would a mere mortal, a small insignificant carbon unit be classed as god for the entire incomprehensible universe. Your gods mission is to destroy all unless we intervene. Threats from outer space, from Earth itself, from all religion, your god is already trying to annihilate the universe by speeding up all the galaxies. And do not forget father time, if the universe is finite entropy will rule.

    2. Well, actually Mr. Razor, that's correct. Everything is toast; a new Heavens and earth is predicted (after some pretty unhappy events in the Book of Revelation).

      I think I've read in the Bible where it says that even the heavens (the universe) is growing old like a garment and will one day be rolled up like a scroll before it reaches ultimate "entropy". Where I don't know the exact details, I trust the architect.

    3. Sorry, You have it backwards. God is the one that is going to intervene after man has messed up the world with is violent wars, conventional and nuclear and after man has totally disregard Gods warning that "not all knowledge is good" in other words, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should try it, for example, the recent trends in bioengineering, not only of plants but the mixing of human and animal DNA. What ever happens with that, do you really think that God will take the blame on that?
      Or what about the asteroid belt? Right now everything is running like clock work bu if scientific man starts poking at asteroids because he THINKS (too much) they are coming for his home planet knock them off course with a bomb and of course what ever goes up must come down or even strip mining the moon. Will there be consequences? What do you think God is going to say about that?
      Can you honestly blame God for all of societies environmental and social problems?

    4. I always ask people to show me this maker. All they ever show me is his work.

    5. @ AndyA121: Just curious as to how many actual "Satanists" there really are in the world...I've seen people--such as you just did--refer to others as "Satanists" but it seems they're actually referring to people who don't hold the same beliefs as themselves.

      But I don't recall actually hearing or seeing any one refer to themselves as a "Satanist". So...what are "Satanists?" Is there some type of religion or other belief system involved? or is it just your way of demonizing "the other"? (pun intended).

  71. Reading the comments I've noticed lots of people saying "humans destroy everything so they deserve to go extinct" I understand what they are saying but maybe they are not aware that humans have a tendency of mistaking their culture with whole of human culture; There are many others that didn't (or don't ) destroy their environment.
    How many years could the Innuit survived with their ancestral culture? and Sioux? Celts?
    Don't confuse industrial civilization with human nature because they are completely different, in fact so different that we act as humans out of it and as mere robots inside it every weekday from 8 to 5.

    1. I think native people's "oneness" with nature has been highly romanticied. I think they hunted things to extinction, and used up resources foolishly just like we're doing now. Their impact was just less do to lower numbers. 10 thousand can do a lot less damage than 10 million. But, It's a mute point anway. I haven't found many native people that wouldn't kill the last of a spiecies just to eat it even when they didn't have to in this part of the world at least.

    2. I wouldn't think that a white shark would spare the last seal but sharks have been around for millions of years and, if it wasn't for humans, will problably live that long or more.
      Primitive cultures are not treehuggers but they have to live according to some ecological laws. We in the other hand have created an artificial parallel world, feeding ourselves with petrol and using petrol to destroy environments at a terrible pace.
      We're pretty fecked, our huge population owes its size to fossil fuels and when it runs out, billions of people will perish. We think that we are detached from nature but nature will catch up with us sooner or later.
      I only hope we deal with it before nature does.

    3. C_and_N, you are right to point out that native people’s “oneness” with nature has been highly romanticized. If we look at indigenous or First Nations philosophy on First Nations’ terms, “oneness” with nature is nonsensical as many indigenous philosophies do not draw the same type of distinction between “nature” and “culture” as do European based philosophies. If we look at the concept in European terms, saying First Nations people are “one” with “nature” at best denies us culture, and at worst has implications that indigenous peoples are animalistic or inhuman.
      Your statement that “10 thousand can do a lot less damage than 10 million” is problematic, however. You appear to be making two false assumptions. First you appear to be comparing historical indigenous populations with modern industrialized populations, and secondly you are underestimating the devastating the impact of European diseases and genocide on indigenous populations, and therefore estimating an artificially low number. In North America, for instance, it is now estimated that First Nations populations were comparable to population densities for Europe of the same time period (with the exception of the North, where the environment could not support high population densities).
      Overall First Nations philosophies tended (and still tend) to stress respect for the land, direct observation with the environment, forethought for the future, and relationships based on values of equality (both between humans and between humans, ‘nature’, and the spiritual world. This is reflected in our oral traditions, our cosmologies, our artistic expressions and our languages. These philosophies are markedly different from dominant European philosophies of the time of contact, which promoted domination over ‘nature’. While not all indigenous cultures are homogenous, and some groups and individuals did not live up to philosophical ideals of equality and respect for ‘nature’, it is safe to make an argument that respect for the land and its non-human inhabitants was more hegemonic in First Nations societies than European societies at the time of contact.
      Miguel Arias raises a good point about not confusing industrial ‘civilization’ with human nature. Philosophies which draw a sharp distinction between ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ and promote ‘human’ domination over ‘nature’ are not universal, they developed out of specific historical and cultural circumstances and it is possible to change if we are willing to change them. I would add that even in ‘western’ industrialized societies these philosophies have not gone unchallenged. Just as there have been indigenous people who do not live up to ideals of respect for non-human life, there have been Europeans who challenge the dominant philosophies of their own societies.
      In regards to your last sentence, how many ‘native’ people do you actually know personally in order to make a statement about their attitudes regarding conservation? I know many ‘native’ people who value conservation highly and can cite multiple historical examples of conservation practices in First Nations societies. Your statement doesn’t ring true to me as a First Nations person with knowledge of my own tradition ant those of other indigenous people.

    4. Just think of Easter Island. It used to be abundant with wildlife, and now there is nothing but grass. The people which used to live there completely used up its resources until there was nothing left, and then died out themselves. There are many examples of this in various cultures throughout history - the problem now is that instead of an island, we are using up the resources of a planet.

    5. it won't let me reply to your comment below, so I'm posting here. The word 'primitive' is quite derogatory, also comparing non-'western' cultures to animals has a long history in being used as justification for racist beliefs. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is not your intent to reference the possible racist connotation of the word, but regardless of your personal intent the word will bear that meaning for many people. Your point is good, however you may want to consider words which don't have derogatory and arguably racist connotations as this may detract from the argument you are trying to make.

    6. Point taken, I know is a loaded word but is also the right word to use. Primitive comes from latin Primus meaning first or early, so Primitive society means original, first, early societies, so is not me who needs to change the word but people to change their concept of what primitive means : )
      About comparing animals to primitive societies, I don't have any problem with it since I don't think being compared to an animal is in any way derogatory. In fact my message could be read as "we westerners are not animals enough"
      Thanks for the comments anyway, I'd hate to be regarded as racist.
      Edit: after reading your reply I notice the word "indigenous" which I like more than primitive, English is not my first language and sometimes I have to use "not quite the right word" so I don't spend hours writing few lines :)

    7. Thanks for clarifying what you meant by 'primitive'. I agree work needs to be done to alter people's ideas rather than just the use of words; sometimes it is just easier to use words like 'indigenous'. I completely agree that being compared to animals is not inherently derogatory, but unfortunately it is loaded for people of color in a North American context. I definitely don't see you personally as racist.

  72. For all those who posted comments advocating that the earth would be better off without humans, I can only say one thing. It is your philosophy that is the problem. If the earth is utterly destroyed by man, then it is your negativity and self-hate that dooms us. If the earth is to have a better future we need people who are optimistic; who have a positive vision for the future and can see the value of working hard towards that vision. We need people value themselves and those around them. They are the ones who can see a more secure planet. They are the ones who don't see setbacks as a reason to give up. These are the people we need to go forward.

    Our perception of ourselves becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If the majority of mankind foresees doom and gloom, he will get exactly that. If your not willing to help then at least keep your misery to yourself. Don't drag the rest of us down to self destruction with you.

    1. Pure wisdom, like fresh air. Thanks!

    2. dont be so childish and naieve. its not about being positive or negative you idiot. yours or my beliefs or utterly unimportant and have no effect whatsoever on the universe. To think otherwise is pure new age egotistical fantasy. Humans are not important and neither is either our survival or our extinction. We are just simple plants.

    3. Childish, naive and Idiot? Brilliant and mature opening argument.

      New age fantasy? If you had ever read any of my posts you would know that I am the farthest thing from a new age guru.

      You are correct about one thing. The earth does not care whether one species survives or not. It is an inanimate object that exists no matter what happens. But I care. I care about my family and friends and the people around me. I don't don't care for the whiny misanthropes, who wish harm to them and believe that they should all be dead. If that me makes me childish, naive and an be it. I'm left believing, however, that you may be one of those misanthropes who leans a little more towards angry instead of whiny.

      Positive people are refreshing, cheerful and fun to be around and they get things done. Negative people are dour, angry and a drain on those around them and they usually accomplish nothing because they prefer to wallow in self pity.


    4. I agree we're not important but I sure hope I'm more than a plant. If not, what's the point?

    5. Actually, we're animals, not plants.

    6. In my mind we are energy as much as plants and animals are.
      We are animated energy.

  73. not a great loss for this planet.

  74. Good documentary I liked it

  75. Good to know the old girl heals herself, the critters thrive, the whales are having a ball, forests eat the cities, bring it on! humans deserve extinction - perhaps the 'higher lifeform' that set us up as an experiment will realize their mistake in giving us the 'greed' gene and start again.

    1. yeah we're greedy and pretentious, but as if the 'critters' you describe are any better? they kill and modify the environment to their own purposes too. we just have the knowledge to do it more.

    2. Why not lead by example and off yourself?

  76. really good

  77. The only way All the people would disappear if if they used "Neutron Bomb" on the general populus. But then again many people will have lived though it because there are places in the underground such as subways, and some buildings that have parking lots, and floors underground and of course there are the D.U.M.B.S. that the elites have built of themselves so I doubt that anyone would be "alone" isolated, but not alone.

  78. has anyone thought about what it would be like to be the last guy on Earth... I thought it might be pretty cool, not so sure anymore....

  79. Preprogramming us for extinction. Those behind such preprogramming are the very and only ones wreaking destruction on life. The option is simple: extinguish them or everyone and everything else shall be extinguished. Should be a no-brainer but few have woken up.

    1. War and genocide. That's the way to go. Lock and load.

  80. I would like to add that we need to be careful with this type of documentary as it leaves the viewer with a negative view toward humanity. It is human nature to devalue anything that is in abundance. For example, once abundant buffalo were decimated to near extinction for mere entertainment. Today, crimes by and against humanity are becoming more and more heinous. Are we becoming less caring and more crass due to our abundance? I am of the belief that we need to value all of humanity but for the sake of balance and harmony on this planet, we also need to slow human population growth or the quality of ALL life on this planet will be in jeopardy. Before bringing into existence another human, we need to put our egos aside and think in terms of what kind of future awaits this additional person and his/her impact (immediate and future in terms of expoential growth) on our shared planet.

    1. actually the buffalo were killed to exterminate indigenous populations and roll the esoteric adgenda forward

    2. What are you talking about? All the buffalo were indigenous. There was no esoteric agenda. They were killed by white folk for sport and entertainment because they were plentiful and an easy target, no other reason.

    3. Margiemiller, I think you have it wrong. The buffalo, along with other abundant natural resources in the Americas, were used to extinction for economic reasons, on the biblical premise that all life was created to serve man (presumably meaning European man); therefore, no care need be taken to conserve or preserve it. Apparently, sustainable agriculture was not part of God's plan.

    4. Check your history, "crimes by and against humanity are becoming more and more heinous" is not quite true. There have been whole civilizations wiped out in the long ago past because of power, bigotry, religion, wealth, land...

      Before the white man even came to America, plains Indians set fire to the grasses in order to stampede buffalo into ravines and canyons. While the white man was also guilty of slaughter, there is enough guilt to go around.

      I am confused about part of your thought process though. You state that one viewing documentaries such as this will lead to a negative view of humanity then describe how awful humanity is....

      i agree that something has to be done to curtail human population, but, I fear that some will institute more aggressive means to reach that goal... This has been done before and most likely, someone will try it again...

    5. I agree and it is sickening how many people have been slaughtered in the name of religion alone. My comments on humanity were coming from the level of the individual.There is less caring and more fear, a depersonalization and I posed the possibility that this could be a casualty of a burgeoning population. I do not know. We can only draw upon history and past experiences. For example: I remember, as a child, being instructed by my mother when we walked across a sidewalk in downtown Seattle (around 1955) that it was considered impolite to NOT say hello to approaching strangers. I was told to look everyone in the eye, smile, and say hello. Today, mothers have to instruct their children to not talk to strangers. They drive them to the bus stop and I have seen them sit in their cars watching as their child boards the bus out of some perceived/real? fear. My mother said that the scariest thing she ever heard in the news as a child was the Lindenberg baby kidnapping. Pretty tame in comparison to what's happening today. You could argue that there is more crime because there are more people. I have one thing to say about that. There are more "sick" people. I have worked the ICU for over 30 years. It used to consist mostly of old people with failing hearts. Now, the majority of my patients are young and many are suffering with mental illness. I could go on and on but have to stop somewhere...
      Please point out to me where I wrote that humanity is awful. I wrote that the documentary left the viewer feeling this way and that I felt the message of the documentary was that the planet would be better off without us. I do not agree with this view yet I am aware of the association between overcrowding and quality of life. Sounds like you agree that an unchecked population on a planet with finite resources is a recipe for disaster. By the same token, I am mindful that as with every controversy, there are extremists like Ted Turner, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and Kissinger. .
      Oh, the indians. I am aware of how they herded buffalo over cliffs, etc. They did, however, use most or every part of the buffalo they killed. They did not kill for the joy of killing; the buffalo was sustanence (food, shelter, clothing) and their very survival depended upon this animal. Anyway, my point there had nothing to do with which race is superior; my point was that "modern" people have a tendency to devalue anything that is plentiful and visa versa. My question/hypothesis is: Are we devaluing each other due to our vast numbers? I think you would agree that being viewed as nothing more than a "consumer" by corporate America is disparaging, to say the least.

  81. ah my dream of disgusting free creatures(BTW includes me too).
    but will never happen and the jungle and animals will never ever get there freedom from man

  82. Okay, I think all viewers get that the planet will be much better off after we become extinct. In the meantime, it is implied that we can expect quality of life to diminish until human life can no longer be sustained. A more relevant documentary would address the solution, population control. Nobody will touch this, though, despite the fact that every planetary problem is directly a result of overpopulation and finite resources. This film left me feeling that we humans are too stupid, too selfish and too short sighted to see the results of overbreeding.

    1. Lead by example Margie... go kill yourself. I love these greenly types, they only want to kill YOUR kids when they talk population control. haha....

    2. Gough,
      "Learn to read before YOU breed".
      You obviously didn't even read my two entries. Let me try to make it easier for you to understand. Life begins with conception. It is not possible to kill something that has not been conceived. The resources on this planet are limited. Go back to 5th grade and read again (if you made it that far) about expoential growth. Perhaps you can have someone read to you.

    3. Margie, all I read from your comments is you accusing peope of not having a degree or being uneducated ..that is not cool .
      before you critizise my English ..well it`s not my language.

    4. I just said the same thing then scrolled down to see your comment hahah

    5. The reply button on many of you posts is not available, most likely because the moderator limits the number of replies to any given post, so I have to reply out of context.

      My remark to you about religious left was being facetious. The vast majority of people that I have personally talked to that are engaged in some, [..make that any] agenda were from the left and they voiced their opinions and at times acted on those opinions with the fervor of a born again Christian declaring the Apocalypse is coming now. Nine times out of ten, any solution to whatever the popular crisis of the day is usually issued for everyone else to adhere to except themselves. As with the born again Christians, everyone else is going to perish but they are going to be saved. The wealthy, the Hollywood types, the bankers, the politicians, all have stated that they want the general population to get used to a lower living standard and not to expect too much in their lives, yet, don't dare to suggest that these upper downgrade themselves... sacrilege.

      But, we are speaking about population control. There have been comments about you taking pills to kill yourself or jump off a cliff. These quips were posted for the reasons stated above. Do practice what you preach ? Have you had your tubes tied ?? Do you insist that any partner that you may have be sterilized ?? Do you require sterilization of all your friends ?? Of those that had/have children, would you force them to have their children to be sterilized just after puberty and then force them to be sterilized themselves ??

      I facetiously stated that you would be a cheerleader for war because war is a rapid method of pruning excess population. Ted Turner, owner of TNT and TCM cable networks, who wants to bring down the population to 500,000,000 people was a supporter of Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who discussed ways of eliminating 90% of the word's population by distributing deadly viruses while, of coarse, there be vaccines available for him and chosen elites. There are many more people with the same type of plans and if allowed, would not be not be bashful about putting them into force. There are some that believe this has already been tried on a smaller scale based on some disease outbreaks that have occurred in the past.

      Population control is not new.

      Confucius (551 – 479 BC) wrote that, “excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife.”

      Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) observed that, “[a large increase in population would bring] certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil.”

      Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) predicted, “When every province of the world so teems with inhabitants that they can neither subsist where they are nor remove themselves elsewhere… the world will purge itself in one or another of these three ways floods, plague and famine.”

      Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834), who wrote when the human population was at 900 million. He attempted to theorize humanity’s growth pattern, observing, “Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.”

      Like many things relative, population is relative to one's concept of their surroundings....

      It is down to who do you want to get rid of....??

    6. Dufus,
      A few quick comments because I really need to get back to studying for an exam. First off, you make too many assumptions and you make huge self-serving leaps to come to your conclusions. I never wrote of sterilization. However, I would think a better educated public voluntarily choose smaller families. I am 61 years old (well past child bearing age) and I have two sons, one is an attorney and one is a police officer. One son has limited the size of his family to two children and the other son has limited the size of his family to one. Both sons and their wives can well afford larger famlies but my sons know that this planet is finite and taxed (figuratively and literally). Both sons are mountaineers who appreciate an occasional rendevous with solitude and the availability of places that are not packed with humanity. I think most people feel this way. To be honest, if I was of child bearing age today, I would probably choose to have no children, but that is a choice, my choice, an educated choice. I would not ask this of others but too many don't think before bringing another human being into existence. Starting a family is a huge responsibility, and it should be regarded as a privilege. I am a nurse practitioner and an ICU RN. So many people I see are not prepared for parenthood and their children suffer the consequences. Others make fine parents but it is my observation that the majority of these parents choose to create smaller families. So, it's not just about numbers, it's about quality of life.
      As for the quotes you provided, I regard those men as visionaries. It does not take a modern day scientist to see where expoential growth leads. It took 123 years for the world population to increase by 1 billion in the early 1900s; it is now projected to increase from 7 billion to 8 billion over the next 14 years (2025) and this is despite a reduction (albeit slight) in growth rate!
      I have enjoyed the exchange with you, keep thinking and researching! Gotta go now, the horse trailer is waiting and time to head out to the mountains.

    7. It is too bad that you didn't understand the main jist of my post to you. It could be as you suggested that I am uneducated.

      That being said, there are people out in the world that will take any agenda, including including yours, several steps beyond what you deem appropriate.

      I might suggest that you do a little more investigation, there may be some surprises for you...

    8. I agree that people have a tendency to take good concepts to the extreme thereby destroying them. In that vein, I am suprised you didn't accuse me of advocating for abortion. Thank you for that but for the record, I am against it. I won't repeat myself but you should know where I stand regarding the sanctity of life after reading my posts.
      You wrote that I don't understand your main message... Let's see, you encouraged me to kill myself, you accused me of loving war so more people would die and you accused me of being a religious zealot and a member of the radical left. All in the spirit of facetiousness, of course! :)
      No hard feelings, I realize you are probably quite young and still learning. Keep up the studying but remember to temper your arguments a little!
      I wish you the best in life.

  83. Can't help but think, what if the nuclear stuff goes up like it does in this film and we are all still around!!!

    This Doc clearly pointed out to me that Nuclear Energy is NOT safe to use and we should seek alternatives NOW.

    We need to control the population. 1 Child per couple for the next 10 generations should do the trick... and two fingers up to all the capitalists who want us to remain consumers.

  84. Nazi style propaganda film.
    Loved the vilification of CO2.
    Only "Der ewige CO2" causes metal to rust ;D
    And it brings buidings down in 100 years...scary...
    ..wait some of them are as old already.

    1. Nonsense. The film wasn't perfectly realistic, but it wasn't propaganda. Comparing this to Nazi films is simply horse sh*t.

  85. This movie is all lies. You KNOW the animals will throw the party of the century 30 minutes after we're gone.

    1. Napoleon say: Animal Kegger!

  86. This planet belongs to ants, what do they care if all humans vanish?

    1. Mother Nature won't care if we vanish, she's used to it.

    2. I just looked around my "new" office to see if I could find any "ants" yet, and it took only a freeking 5 seconds! Boy, I dislike them in my house. Our neighbor died last year with his door open one night (he must have known he was dying), and of course even then the first thing to find him were the ants----so I was told.

  87. Excellent documentary! Bravo! I found myself cheering for the animals and plants and other forms of Nature that continued on after the destruction we humans have wrought. There are many points, of course, especially that we have done so many negative things here, and that our hubris can vanish quickly among the growing vines. And we can, of course, change and learn to live with Nature instead of egoically continuing to try to subdue Her. But then, that's the nature of the ego: (1) objectify, (2) control, (3) destroy. However, then there is our higher nature, as witness Ghandi, Mohammad, Jesus, and (more recently) Adi Da Samraj.

    1. And where will you be?

  88. After everyone is gone, who cares........

  89. Well, I enjoyed it. A hate yourself fantasy film. A "what if we kill off all the people on the planet" type watch. Kind of getting us use to global extermination. Wet dream fantasy for Global Warming/Global Carbon Tax crowd. A go kill yourself film, kind of fun.

    If you liked this movie, watch The Road.

    1. Shouldn't they read The Road?

    2. You can do both.

    3. Sure, read it, brilliant. The Road is a 2006 novel by American writer Cormac McCarthy. The movie, inspired by the book, is as devastatingly powerful. Directed by John Hillcoat. With Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Kodi Smit- McPhee, Robert Duvall. That was what I was talking about Navy Nerd.

      Now lets all go kill ourselves...weeeeeeee

  90. its retarded even after people ahhhhhhh

  91. If your 10 years old you might like this

    1. Haha yeah pretty much. I initially thought this documentary was a complete waste of time and money - but about 5mins into it I changed my mind. So pointless, but if you're reeeeeeally bored one could watch this fully. Then again, if you're on this site because you're bored out of your mind I don't know why you'd choose this one over any of the others.


  92. Thanks people, You've saved me from watching this one.

  93. @ Taktix: Do you know there totally is a doc on that subject? I'm sorry I cant remember what it's called but I'm sure someone on here will know it.

    1. How about 'life after people' that was recommended in the in the written introduction, above the video?

    2. Maybe it's this one I've seen.. on Onkalo undergrounds in Finland.

    3. @ Taktix- Onkalo , Thats the one. Brilliant doc. , a real eye opener.

  94. ppl worm up planet oo come on hahaha pathetic!

  95. There should be a documentary on a future society in 50 000 years that is researching treasures of past civilizations and end up digging and finding strange caves with signs of "Do not enter - Nuclear wastes" and oooops, the language of that civilization isn't English anymore nor any other languages from the Nato / UN that disappeared because of some major events though a few communities survived. And they unearth those special boxes and canisters and they are irradiated fast enough they start swearing .. "bunch of fu*** prehistoric idiots, they must have had uncontrollable political economy that gave them technical progress and then death."

  96. This seems to be concentrating on the plight of animals. There's no doubt that they would suffer, but I find little use in a documentary detailing their plight.

  97. Right... A few average humans left. Let's StNarcissus and I and we have to figure out a way to put out some nuclear fusions or filter water of its radioactive elements without dying. And I hope StNarcissus is a beautiful tall lady cause we'd have to try to repopulate.

  98. I don't find these types of documentaries amusing/entertaining/educational at all. It stimulates the fear response, creates a subconcious stress as well. Not cool. How many freaking times do I have to hear about a hypothetical end of the world? ENOUGH!!!
    The world is billions of years old, and anything us puny humans do is insignificant in comparison.

    Let us live now, in this moment, and enjoy it; look at all we have in our great age. One cannot live in a never ending climate of fear, and I grow weary of it. Collapse, rapture, 2012, or asteroid collision, I refuse to participate in this pointless speculation any longer.

    The Earth will not end in our lifetimes. You can thank me later, on your 90th b-day.

    1. I tend to agree with you, all this bl00dy man made global warming BS. as in this doc, Al Gore sponsored maybe??

    2. Sponsored by someone; it is too persistent to convince me otherwise.

    3. And the band played on...

  99. There probably already are Earths without humans.

  100. What would happen to the Earth without humans?? It would be able to breathe once again. We humans are a repulsive species, and little by little we are tearing mother nature to shreds. Just like the human body, the Earth has an ability to heal itself, however if we fail to treat the wound, it will become infected, spread rapidly, deteriorate, and expire. Time is ticking, what will we do?

    1. If you hate yourself THAT much i have some pills i can send you...

    2. lead by example... kill yourself.

    3. The Earth has been around for 4 billion years and the homo sapiens for 200 000 ago. The Earth witnessed much more intense cosmological events in 4b years than with our 200 years of industrial revolution like some major impacts for instance that could have left a spheric ball that's been revolving for a while around the Earth.

      We're not doing anything to the Earth. We act as evolution pressure on the biological system. It can wipe us anytime.

      Enjoy while you can. Don't feel bad about the Earth... but, save the humankind or should I say, say yourself cause they're ain't no way you're saving the humankind...

    4. Ahhhh, the Religious left... You and Barbera can walk off any cliff of your choosing.....

      I bet you are one of the cheer leaders during war times. Think of all those people being knock off and feeding mother earth. Happy, happy, happy...

    5. Dufus,
      You don't seem to understand that it is not possible to destroy something that has not been conceived. Understand this: If our population continues to grow expoentially and unchecked as it has, the US (not to mention the entire planet) will no longer be capable of sustaining its burgeoning population. Quality of water, food, air and quality of life will suffer. It doesn't have to be that way. Smaller families. BTW, you are wrong on both counts. Certainly not religious and certainly not leftist.

    6. I agree. It would be nice if, through education, people would come to the realization that reduction in population would lilghten the load on the planet and provide for a better quality of life for all living things. It would be nice if this change came about voluntarily. But, we still have major sects of society who believe it is their responsibility to propogate and populate as much as possible.

    7. Actually, I am 70 years old, other wise known as a 'war baby' by some in our society. I did not accuse you of anything other than the facetious comments that I admitted to, all the rest was questions. One major problem with posting is that no one can read what a person is saying like one can during face to face conversations.

      While escalating populations can eventually lead to economical problems, declining populations can also disrupt society to a great degree.

      The reason for the facetiousness is that every one with a population control agenda with the exception of you has come down on the side of some Hitleresc type of solution to the problem. At least you do approach the problem in a more 'humane' way than all the others that I have come across both in person and in postings at different sites.

  101. Well as it seems we have reached our peak in development and our brains cannot evolve no more and that means that we have reached our peak in evolution so that would mean we have hit the evolutionary cull de sac ,so if any of the story unrolls the way its described in this documentary I don't think this planet will miss us much nor will anything else . So if it is to happen let the planet be cleaned of us ,the planet its self is a self correcting system so everything will eventually recover from all that has happen and will be a new start from zero ,but without us!

    1. You're scaring me. Where will you be?

    2. If some humans did show signs of evolving, there would be a group of scientist grabbing them and putting them in some laboratory and begin studying them like lab rats and that would be the end of human evolution.....

    3. Had to reply to your latest email here, as it was not possible to reply beneath your entry.
      First off, you should be more careful when writing. Imagine how it feels to open your email and see a note from someone you don't recognize recommending you kill yourself. You cannot convey facetiousness in a posting, you should know that. I gave you slack because I figured you were some young kid who didn't know better. But you're 70---come on!
      Why are you bringing up declining populations this late in the game? That is one issue I believe will never come to fruition on this planet!

    4. Dude, check it out. Your first three sentences said the exact same thing 3 different ways, well, actually, its not broken into 3 sentences, so, the fist 3 statements before the first comma. I'm not being a grammar nazi, it was funny, and I had to re-read it to be sure I saw what I thought I did. :)

  102. In fact this would be way more interesting if there say, 10 people left or something. All the events described would still occur and it would be a story you could engage with more as you could envision being one of the last humans.

  103. Looking forward to watching this but I'm irritated by the fictional premise. Why begin the scenario with everyone vanishing instead of something which is actually possible or likely getting rid of all of us? It just makes it unnecessarily silly from the beginning.

    1. Because the point is not only showing the course of nature, but also our direct impact on it. :P If there is whatever calamity, it will impact other things and that wasn't what they were looking for. Besides, this way the film has a more timeless value, technology will change, and there's a bajillion ways the natural world could get rid of us... and life on earth as a whole. Not the point.

    2. Or maybe the programme makers decided that was a better option than showing Joe and Jolene Average, with clumps of hair missing, slumped on the ground and spewing their last, as their ex-pet, Fido and his chums, circle them, growling and regarding them with murderous eyes. :D

    3. I agree with you a 100%! I could elaborate by why bother. This doc isn't going to change anything no matter who watches it. Like a nurse once told me at the Va Hospital, "We don't tell you when your going to die just how". Even if "Science" up's the avg. life span to 1000, years in 1000 years and one day it's over. And it is still over. I for one think there is a lot more to it but i just got back from swimming and am too tired to go into it. (But it's not heaven or Hell), i watched this thing 5 maybe 10 minutes.