The 11th Hour

After watching the film "The 11th Hour" and being unable to find any solid criticism of it on the internet, I've been motivated to write my own; which in turn inspired me to re-activate my blog. It just seriously bothered me that I couldn't find anyone saying what I was thinking on the matter, so here goes.



First, for a bit information. For those of you who don't know, the 11th Hour is a documentary glimpse into the mind of a certain sect of the environment movement. It is a presentation which showcases the beauty of the earth, the way mankind is destroying it, and then presents ideas on how to fix this problem.

However they commit all sorts of philosophical blunders, lazy thinking, and logical errors in the process of justifying their concerns. They propose the following ideological and philosophical claims without any evidence or argumentation whatsoever:

• Nature is a divine entity.
• Nature has rights.
• Western Civilization's way of looking at property is immoral.
• Consumerism is the American way of life.
• Consumption and Materialism is the central tenet of American existence, eclipsing all other schools of thoughts and priorities in life.

Many of these ideas are an attack on the entire established culture of the West and boils down our priorities in life rather insultingly to simple interest in possessions; ignoring our values of free speech, thought, opinion, family, friends, experience, discussion, etc. etc. etc.

The film is very praising towards nature and demeaning towards humanity. It tries to place the blame of the destruction of the planet solely on the shortcomings of humanity, failing to recognize that we were destined to exist as a product of this environment and evolution. Furthermore, it mocks the splendor of humanity while talking up the beauty of nature. The film isn't very humanistic at all.

To make matters worse, many of the arguments or methods of presentation of evidence are simply emotional and circumstantial. I find it disturbing that many of the reviews I read said the exact opposite of this film. Some examples include...

• The claim that nature's processes of construction are somehow superior to mankind's because they're less noisy or disruptive. The film contrasts the difference in making Kevlar in a factory and a spider making webs. The two have absolutely nothing in common; one you swat out of the way with your hand and the other stops bullets (or at least lessens their impact).
  
• It is argued that nowadays humanity derives all information from media as opposed to other traditional sources; one of which named is the earth itself. What knowledge was given to us from the earth in the past? I certainly do not remember gaia speaking to me.
• When giving "evidence" that the amount of natural disasters that are occurring is increasing as a result of global climate change, the film simply shows media footage covering disasters for emotional appeal. Instead of trying to bombard us with fearful images why don't they come up with some concrete data on how much the incidence of disasters is rising and then present that? I understand that scary words and panicked music makes for better theatrics, but if we're trying to convince people can't we employ more sophisticated tactics than pre-election political advertisements?
• Very little evidence is presented in the film. The few graphs and charts they show are poorly labeled and explained. There are many jumps in logic throughout the movie to save the passive listener the trouble of actually thinking for themself.
• At one point the film is critical of how much TV Americans watch...while they are watching a TV displaying that very film.

Long story short, it's an interesting movie and certainly worth watching, but be prepared to gag on the eastern mysticism, western guilt, and just plain poor arguments you'll find therein. If you manage to wade through the philosophical crap and ignore the idiotic statements many of the figures make in the film, you just might find something worth knowing buried amongst the clear propaganda.