Instead of using actual science to extrapolate very interesting and political-absent educational decay rates of modern society if people vanished, we get to hear a slanted narrative. It is all man-made pollution-based interruption of the planet's will to reset us back to ground zero, that we so desperately need. The fish just want to swim back upstream and spawn, after-all, and they have to wait until the evil human dams suddenly "burst" from slow gradual erosion of spillways. Sigh... This really could have been neat if it wasn't an extension of the green movement, or if it didn't take up so many eye-rolling assertions. For Example: At about the 25K AH year mark, the earth's orbit has drifted further away from the sun (no reason given) to where there will be an ice age that will last for 100K years. Are we supposed to connect the dots, that this is somehow because humans are no longer on the planet? Some parts are interesting/entertaining though, in an assertive-accepted point of view, but I was really quite stupefied that there was no mention of natural fire to help reset nature's balance. Really? It's all we can do to keep the earth from going up in flames as it is today. A single lightning strike rages hardcore fires across thousands of acres on a regular basis, except now there will be no humans to put it out. By regular basis, I mean more than 17,000 lightning caused fires per year. Seems like that is a factor worth mentioning on what happens when humans are gone.
