First and foremost: The "apocalypse" shown in the movie is crazy one. The climate change may be very bad for people, yes, but historically it was mostly beneficial for the environment. The current "cold age" is abnormally cold, historically it was way way warmer, there was basically no ice on the poles, there was actually even polar forest! What is real problem is overpopulation, globalization (the transport of food around the world is really stupid), ecosystem destruction not short of genocide, production of toxic garbage and other waste. Please stop crying about flooded cities and the end of the civilization. You know, this has happened multiple times in the past and the impact was not that bad. The ruined cities were reused, especially in the Middle East. The oldest cities there have been "recycled" for thousands of years. And they will be recycled in the future as well.The climate change is not the end of the world nor the nature. It is very unpleasant change for most people. But have no doubts that preventing the climate change would save us from overpopulation or new illnesses. It will not. If your city is in the path of destruction it is just simple to move the city than to try to change the nature. So deal with it and focus on more important issues like stopping the globalization that is the actual devil here - it is really outsourcing of the ecosystem destruction. Riding your bike will really not prevent China from apocalyptic destruction of forests in Africa and South America.

I (unfortunately) stumbled on this crapola while I was watching "The History Channel" this morning. My first thought was "What the h%!! is a show about 100 years in the future doing on "The History Channel" in the first place? After I got past that I just sat there amazed at the stuff in the show that passed for facts. The show purported to be following this one person "Lucy" who was born in 2009 for 100 years. But in fact the whole show was just an excuse to try to shove green/liberal propaganda down America's throat. I will give you a couple of examples. In their liberal scenario, Lake Mead has completely dried up. Well I guess there goes Las Vegas. Further the whole northern part of Arizona is covered with solar panels. Was there not even one sane person around that said "Hey, you know what, we could produce much more electricity, at a lower cost, and use less land if we built a nuclear reactor"? To continue my story, this family motors from San Diego to New York City. While passing through Texas and Oklahoma, they notice thousands of people streaming away from Texas and Oklahoma due to water and food shortages. Has anyone noticed people streaming away from the Southwest lately? California, yes, Detroit, yes, any city in New Jersey, yes, but Texas, not so much. So the family arrives in New York City where the father finds work. My first thought was "If the people of Texas and Oklahoma (where there are millions of acres of rich farm land) are suffering a food shortage, who exactly is feeding the 12,000,000 people piled on top of each other in New York City. In fact, since there is now no gasoline, what is propelling the farm tractors in the first place? I mean can you envision a Chevy Volt pulling a plow? In conclusion, this show did not make me mad because it is 100% liberal propaganda, it made me mad because it is poorly done liberal propaganda. Anyone with an education above the 6th grade can see right through this crap.

After seeing this documentary I was left with one single question. If there is a single most important cause for this outcome, what would it be. There is only one understanding this reasonably rational human being can come to. As Lucy states, the human race is collapsing under its own weight. There are just to many of us for this "Blue Marble", we live on to support with out our destroying our home in order to feed, cloth, shelter, etc., such huge numbers.What a sad commentary on our inability to say "NO", to procreation. I, myself, have chosen to not do so. Unfortunately, it might take something like ninety-nine out of a hundred to do the same in 1980, to make a difference by 2015. 2015, being the step over the edge into the abyss year, or close to it, from which this earth will not be able to recover for centuries. We humans are killing the very planet that gave us life in the first place.How sad, when a self aware, sentient, god seeking being, is wondering if a single strand of RNA might be our salvation. Salvation for the human species being six billion dead. But would we just start all over again.

Global warming, flooding, droughts, natural disasters, diseases, over-population, refugees, peak oil, resource wars, why not throw all of these things together centered around a single character and then conclude the movie by saying that we need to create a green and environmental future?This film does not establish a clear relation between each of these problems, it just jumps from one from issue to another, and it can be quite confusing along the way. Besides that, things are centered far too much on America and the life of this fictional character: Lucy. I don't think they mention Africa, South America, The Middle East, or Australia, much or at all. They talk about China and India a little: apparently they declared a resource war against one another, however, they don't go into it that much after that.In addition to this, there have been oil shortages in the world before. See {The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (2006)}. People would import lots of bicycles as the price of gasoline for cars goes up, they would start growing their own food as the price of food goes up, and so on. People wouldn't be senselessly driving in their cars to get super-expensive gas as is implied here. They over-dramatize every issue to a 'worst case scenario', especially the issue of peak oil.How exactly did the population go to 9 billion and then down to 2.7 billion and where exactly were these population changes distributed? In order to support a larger population, such as one that has 9 billion people, you would undoubtedly need advances in agriculture and architecture, so that bigger buildings can be created and so that more food can be produced. Besides that there are things which are limiting factors to the expanse of the population, such as the birth control programs in China and AIDS in Africa.Moving on, was there any good reason that those sea-barriers had to fail? I think they would have made all sorts of precautions to assure that they would work correctly, and they would predict the event before hand so that they could drop the sea-barriers without resistance. Furthermore, if they wanted to construct a modern green city, they most certainly wouldn't do it around New York, when New York is immediately threatened by the floods and diseases. Instead, they would most certainly create the city around Siberia or Canada, because in this future those areas would become warmer and more habitable, so they would make for an ideal place to create a "beacon of hope" for this post-apocalyptic society.One thing that was really disturbing is the communications breakdown, and the idea that the scientific breakthroughs could be lost. One of the people interviewed for this show said "if it is some electronic based thing it could all be lost" considering modern storage capacities, you can store so much data that there is little threat to the ability to successfully store it. Sure a nuclear apocalypse, or a massive raise in the Earth's sea-levels could seriously threaten life and civilization as we know it, however, I do not think it poses much of any threat to digital data or our communications systems.We could easily store all of our scientific breakthroughs/literature/videos/software on a couple of hard-drives and put them in spacecrafts/satellites that would be completely impervious to all Earthly matters, in addition to this these spacecrafts could send radio waves down to Earth. This could form the basis of a communication system used to reconstruct human society after such an apocalyptic event as the one this film depicts.In conclusion, this movie recommends that people change their habits immediately in order to go green, to get solar panels, and wind power. These are things we have probably already heard many times before so this ending segment probably won't be interesting to most people. They actually pose no real solutions to most of the issues presented in this film: natural disasters, over-population, peak oil etc.