Imagine a world with burned forests, little drinkable water, and air so polluted it is unsafe to breathe.

We only have one earth. If we continue the way we are going, this is the “progress” that we have created. This doesn’t seem like progress at all, does it?

Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have progressed a lot. Today we have sophisticated medicines that allow us to live longer. The manufacturing industry has transformed itself into a more effective and productive system. However, these gains have also caused major environmental issues such as deforestation, which will eventually lead to the depletion of vital resources like oxygen, food, and drinking water.

Surviving Progress is a mesmerizing 2012 Canadian documentary directed by Harold Crooks and Mathieu Roy, based on the book, A Short History of Progress. The film takes on the challenging role of posing and answering the question: what is progress? For the sci-fi, science, history, and documentary lovers out there, this is a must see.

Viewers are taken to different parts of the world — to China, Brazil, and other countries — to see how so-called “progress” affects people in negative ways. We hear opinions on what the solution should be; to find this solution, the filmmakers interview a range of people, from authors to psychologists and scientists, even economists.

The film was my first interaction with the negative aspects of progress, like overpopulation and deforestation, and I was fascinated. In our day and age, children and teenagers are taught that progress is positive. For me, watching the film was unsettling, yet it was intriguing to learn that everything isn’t as good as the media and world leaders make it seem.

In China, we visit a local tour guide and the Director of the China Association of International Studies. The movie dragged on throughout the tour, but improved drastically in the interview with the director. The definite highlight of that trip was hearing the director of CAIS express his view on China’s economy, where he explained that for China to regain financial security, they must industrialize and “progress.”

We are then taken to Brazil, where the crisis is natural resources. Unfortunately, Brazil has fallen into a trap that the banks set up. Because the Amazon rainforest is rich in resources, banks have said that if Brazil “sells their rights to the Amazon, they won’t go bankrupt,” explained Michael Hudson, a former Wall Street economist. Their loans must be repaid or else their rights will be taken away. Therefore the Brazilian government is cutting down the rainforest. The problem is that the Amazon is known as the lungs of the world. By cutting down the rainforest, we are choking our airways.

As the film nears the end, Ronald Wright (the author of A Short History of Progress), finishes on the note that humans are an experiment nature has conducted. The experiment is testing whether we can get out of this kill-or-be-killed mindset, which has led us to do questionable things like burn down forests or strip away people’s lives for money and power. And if we do not prove that we can take control of our destiny and change our behavior, then we will have failed. Clear and simple.

The movie had some major plusses. For the most part, the interviewees were eager to share their thoughts, and I was impressed by the way that the producers choose to present ideas. The various topics were all linked — one topic led to the next interviewee’s idea or about the movie’s overall attitude toward progress. What also grabbed my attention was that some of the interviewees did not have anything to do with the topic at hand, but they were in the film because they gave background information. The music and the images set the right kind of mood, too. But this film also has faults. Parts of the movie do drag on a bit. The images are fine, but they sometimes become overwhelming.

I feel this film deserves 4 out of 5 stars. The interviews were great, the music gave it a unique effect and there was so much information. I praise Surviving Progress for its ability to turn on my 12-year-old mind and really engage me, but I would not recommend this movie to anyone younger than 12 because of its sophisticated language and hard topics. It is refreshing to know that even though I am personally not the most save-the-Earth kind of person, there are still ways I can change how I handle certain situations and how we treat our home.

If you have the choice to see the movie, it’s definitely worth your time. It completely opened my eyes to these major problems, and it will open your eyes, too.