Aftermath: Population Zero

I have a theory on why this is so ... because this isn't a documentary, it's a fantasy ... a fantasy by people who decry extinction, but in reality long for the extinction of one species. It's not hard to figure out which group they belong to and what their ultimate goal is.

There is no doubt, from the beginning of this "documentary" that there is a definite bias here. The film claims to be about man's impact on the world but it is really just a film about how man has damaged it, and despite our constant chaos, the Earth will thrive if it weren't for us. This was obviously written by a Green Freak and me, being a man who refuses to buy into the corporate and political lie that is the Green Movement, finds this film condescending, ugly, and unremarkable. It has hard to show an impact when the film continues to show recycled stock footage of the same forests and fields over and over. They overgrown landmarks of man look like late 90s video game graphics and the overall look of the film is just ugly. It tries to persuade its viewers into thinking it's a smart hypothetical by showing the chaos that will ensue immediately after man disappears. However, this is quickly drowned out by the narrator's condescending tone and downbeat morality. I hated this doc. It is certainly no Planet Earth.

One of the worst people bashing inaccurate and fictional so-called documentaries I have ever seen.

I sure hope people don't believe the garbage they spew out of this one.

I will give it that the CG in it was pretty cool, in that it was similar to "I am Legend" in the effects on NYC and was equal in educational value.

It would of been nice to see effects on more of the world than its narrow focus on North America and Europe.

I do not recommend this to anyone, if you are looking to learn something, look elsewhere.

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.

Being aired on NATGEO, "Aftermath Population Zero" it must be factual, right???. Wrong!!! I first noticed that there was no mention of water expanding when frozen, causing concrete cracks to expand. Then they said that the cracks exposed the re-bar in the concrete to carbon dioxide, causing the re-bar to rust. ??? Excuse me, but air consists of only 0.038% carbon dioxide, but oxygen is about 20.95%. Rust is ferrous oxide. The oxygen in the air is going to contribute 500 times more to the rusting process than carbon dioxide. Then I remembered having heard "carbon dioxide" several times before the concrete part, and noticed "carbon dioxide" continuing to be mentioned again and again. It was then that I suspected that this was more an example of poor science and propaganda than factual. I lost interest, but do not recall any mention of plant-life absorbing carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen.