-
Leftists Off-Message: Liberal Think Tank Praises Maggie Thatcher
April 11, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Obama’s Gun-Grabbing Judge Nominee Implodes
March 28, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Obama’s Radical, Tasteless Defilement of 9/11
September 9, 2011 | 5 comments
-
Vadum vs Thom Hartmann on Registering the Poor to Vote (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
September 8, 2011 | 3 comments
-
Van Jones To Emcee Center for American Progress 9/11 Event?
September 7, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Inspiration for the new TV series?
* * * * *
The History Channel’s new series “Life After People,” which premieres tonight, could become a new rallying point for today’s environmentalists.
Set in a world after the human race has become extinct, it details how the things that people built will gradually turn to dust. From the History Channel’s website:
In every episode, viewers will witness the epic destruction of iconic structures and buildings, from the Sears Tower, Astrodome, and Chrysler Building to the Sistine Chapel - - allowing viewers to learn how they were built and why they were so significant. Big Ben will stop ticking within days; the International Space Station will plummet to earth within a few short years, while historic objects, like the Declaration of Independence and the mummified remains of King Tutankhamen will remain for decades.
The series will also explore the creatures that might take our place. With humans gone, animals will inherit the places where we once lived. Elephants that escape from the LA zoo will thrive in a region once dominated by their ancestors, the wooly mammoth. Alligators will move into sub-tropical cities like Houston feeding off household pets. Tens of thousands of hogs, domesticated for food, will flourish. In a world without people, new stories of predators, survival and evolution will emerge.
Humans won’t be around forever, and now we can see in detail, for the very first time, the world that will be left behind in Life After People: The Series.
There’s no reason the green movement shouldn’t embrace this death-affirming TV series.
Humans, after all, are a blight on the pristine beauty of the Earth, according to plenty of environmentalists.
Perhaps Al Gore or his spiritual mentor Theodore Kaczynski should have been brought on as technical consultants.
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Matthew Vadum
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/21/life-after-people-save-the-pla
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Julia| 4.21.09 @ 3:25PM
Walk the walk, environmentalists: Step up and off yourselves first.
Daisy| 4.21.09 @ 3:26PM
Do it for the planet.
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 3:47PM
"death affirming TV series"? I can offer a different characterization; after 10,000 years of human civilization, nature is still vibrant and ready to step in.
or
" 19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. "
ruth| 4.21.09 @ 3:55PM
Nice reminder, Tim. Life is ephemeral after all.
Lily| 4.21.09 @ 3:57PM
That series gives me the creeps.
Thomas| 4.21.09 @ 4:01PM
The problem with most environmentalists' reasoning is that they forget that human beings are part of the ecology of the planet, not some invading organism. While it is true that humanity might be extinct in 100 years, we might still be around in a million, or one hundred million years. Only time will tell.
Oh, Tim. You forgot one. "Que sera, sera."
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 4:28PM
Que sera, sera.
sestamibi| 4.21.09 @ 5:13PM
Been there, done that . . . in 1990.
http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0312194331
Tom| 4.21.09 @ 6:24PM
This sounds like an interesting thought experiment to me. How long would the things we've built survive without upkeep and maintenance? What happens when all of our domesticated animals go feral?
We can't be afraid to ask the question.
Pete| 4.21.09 @ 6:31PM
Who cares if you're not there? Silly.
Jo| 4.21.09 @ 6:34PM
Why worry about it? We can't control what happens after we're gone.
Pkane| 4.21.09 @ 7:30PM
First off, why are animals - including "household pets" - spared the ravages of whatever wiped out humanity?
Does the series specifically attribute our supposed demise to "climate change" or some such hysteria?
From a quick scan of the website I didn't notice any glaring Al Gore-ish predictions (but I may have missed something). Unlike Al Gore and friends they do say the scenario is entirely hypothetical.
Clearly, given the political ...um... climate this idea would seem to serve the global warming hysterics. However, if the producers can keep pseudo-science and politics out of it I agree with Tom that it sounds like an interesting thought experiment. After all, if the agenda was to dismiss mankind as a worthless blight on mother earth, why profile our "iconic structures and buildings" and explain "how they were built and why they were so significant?"
Heck, maybe some of us climate change skeptics can imagine the series as a post-rapture scenario, or perhaps we were done in by toxins from
mandated "enviro-friendly" lightbulbs.
Hana Bobanna| 4.22.09 @ 3:37AM
My fondest wish is that Al Gore go first!
Deborah D | 4.22.09 @ 6:39AM
I cracked up when I read your headline, Mr. Vadum. My husband and I look at each other when the previews of that series comes on and say, "What is this? More propaganda?"
Just like Americans should be ashamed of its history (according to our wonderful president). I guess humans should be ashamed of everything we've ever done while we've roamed the Earth. Good grief, environmentalists, give it a rest! I now hate the color green (it used to be my favorite!)
Crusader| 4.22.09 @ 8:46AM
Pete beat me to it; who cares if we're not here.
Although it does raise a philisophical question: Would the Earth really exist if no humans were around to experience it? Kinda like if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?
Thomas| 4.22.09 @ 11:01AM
Actually, I found the show is very interesting. It starts with the area [the terrain] under discussion and runs historically from human settlement and development of the area to an examination of how quickly evidence of human development would disappear should the human species be suddenly wiped out without significant damage to the rest of the ecology. It is a speculative look at the permanece of human construction. This show is a "what if" show, similar to shows speculating on what the world would be like if the Allies had not won WWII, etc.
dan wheeler| 6.18.09 @ 10:24PM
If you wondered what made people vanish in the first place, check out this parody from Quick laugh Productions:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/52b5d34851/the-past-channel-presents-life-after-humans
JL| 9.21.09 @ 12:41PM
Just because the series examines what a world without humans would be like--which in itself is a useful thought as human culture is entirely too cocky about itself--does not mean it serves as an environmentalist platform.
But if we are talking about environmentalism, then I think we should give the vast majority of environmentalists a fair shake. I don't consider myself one personally but I don't think they are interested in having a world without humans. It seems they are, however, interested in having a world where humans do not negatively impact the environment to such an extent that it becomes unsustainable to human life, as well as many other forms of life. Put in those terms, it sounds rather reasonable.
Because, there are undeniably many groups with short term economic motives who have obvious motive to oppose environmentally sound policy making. However, in the long run, if we catastrophically damage the Earth's ecosystems then it is definitely going to harm our economic well being. Go into most university level geology programs and you will find plenty of PhD's who will tell you we are on the verge of witnessing the largest mass extinction episodes of Earth species since the Permian die off. Humans do not live in a vacuum independent of shifts in their surrounding environment and species dying off are not the only changes occurring in Earth's environment that could adversely affect our way of life.
Thus, what is a more economically sound and conservative scenario: one where humans manage our environment in a sustainable fashion that ensures health and safety for both current and future generations, or where we tax and exhaust it to the point where it cannot suitably sustain most, if not all, of our ever increasing population of billions?
I consider myself a moderate--neither too far to the left, or far to the right. I was raised in a Republican house hold. So I am not some liberal nut. However, I don't understand why conservatives in general are opposed to environmental policy. Over the past 8 years they have quite proven they aren't shy about invasive Federal involvement in other areas of American life both foreign and domestic, so why is it that instituting more effective Federal environmental regulations is such a no-no? We stand to benefit from keeping our proverbial back yards free of filth. I really don't expect a reasonable answer to that question from some of the folks here but I think it is a question that deserves to be taken seriously by any serious American.
jojo | 1.11.10 @ 3:01AM
nike outlet
adidas outlet