The point of Avatar, why empathy is important and why humans are like cancer

[Cortheya]

Humans sort of are like cancer - described as such by a certain Agent.........

We feel no empathy whatsoever to other animals because we are not like them.

We feel some empathy towards them, but not as much as for humans

Read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".... Empathy is to be human. We are not a cancer. Human nature is to extend outward, reach for the stars. Someone above said that we are far too complex to generalize and I thoroughly agree.

 

[cieply]

the whole whing

The problem with avatar is not the emathy. It's poorly driven story.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.165497.4360891

Just an example of how things could've be done to make this an epic film. there is no problem with empathy.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Humans sort of are like cancer - described as such by a certain Agent.........

We feel no empathy whatsoever to other animals because we are not like them.

We feel some empathy towards them, but not as much as for humans

I actually feel more empathy towards animals than I do most humans. A dog is a dog, and you can like the dog, and you can befriend the dog. But a human is an arsehole and a manipulatitive, territorial, social monster, whilst at the same time giving the apperance of being likable. It's just odd that way.

Also, humans are not a cancer, we are a wonderful, amazing species that has achieved SO much in little over 2,000 years of "modern" civilisation. The problem we have is the downfalls of our own sucess. We evolved to be TOO PERFECT. We can now survive anything because our brain allows us to work out ways to change our enviorment. We do not have the nature factor of population control through epedemics, winters and predators, and we have overpopulated as a result

 

[Socius]

Thank you! I am glad to see that some people see the same as me, but this is not a cause that needs more tounges to speak it, even if your is wrapped in silver, what this cause needs is action. and fast, or else (quoting from avatar) "the humans have killed their mother" <- that is going to happen, and don't sit around waiting for "Change!!!" if you want things to change, help out!

 

[Spitfire175]

The thing I find even more amusing is that that speech was doubly wrong. Humans are perfectly capable of maintaining their environments, and animals are perfectly capable of draining them entirely. Anyone who thinks humans are the only ones that can change ecosystems aren't aware of Australia's rabbit problem, or cats in the Galapagos.

Or, lets say the locust swarms in Northern Africa. They are actually a natural part of the ecosystem, but the devastation is absolute. We humans just are s bit more efficient when shaping our environment. And shaping it isn't always for the worse. How many other species plant new trees?

 

[murphy7801]

You are the type of person that annoys me you blindly spit out out half baked ideas loosely based science and think what you say is important. If you care this much go become a sciencist how can help the world ! not a internet whinner who probally makes no difference buts says we should.

 

[murphy7801]

The thing I find even more amusing is that that speech was doubly wrong. Humans are perfectly capable of maintaining their environments, and animals are perfectly capable of draining them entirely. Anyone who thinks humans are the only ones that can change ecosystems aren't aware of Australia's rabbit problem, or cats in the Galapagos.

Or, lets say the locust swarms in Northern Africa. They are actually a natural part of the ecosystem, but the devastation is absolute. We humans just are s bit more efficient when shaping our environment. And shaping it isn't always for the worse. How many other species plant new trees?

Quite few species plant new trees by eatting there seeds and excreating them.

 

[nickdon1]

To say that all humans cut down forests to live lives of luxury is simply not true. A small segment of the human population hires a desperate part of the population to cut down trees so that small segment can live like kings.

 

[martin's a madman]

No empathy for me thanks, I'm still full from all that pretentious moral high ground we have assigned ourselves even though it is natural for us to use any animal we have the ability to make our lives better I had for lunch.

 

[Ryuk2]

You can't make a movie just about the graphics technology. The plot was bad and unoriginal, but ok, if that's not the point, then lets look at the characters.
All characters (and i mean ALL) were bad. Humans were the biggest jerks in the universe, the main character was stupid (really stupid), main character learns everything fast and gets better than the blue people (Why? Is he some kind of fast learning superhuman?) and blue people were kind of a disappointment.
See, they don't have a connection to the forest, they have a plug to make the forest their slave. They take a beast, put a plug in it and that beast is their. They were jerks too, they didn't listen to the human, they didn't give him a chance to tell what's going on.
I kind of liked it, but I'm never going to see it again.

 

[HeartAttackBob]

I find it slightly ironic that the original poster named herself Asimov, which I assume refers to Issac Asimov, a prolific science fiction writer who was famous for stories regarding artificial life (robotics) and human colonization of space.

I have only one other idea to contribute that was not better stated by Penn & Teller or Korolev.

Perspective: Hubble Ultra Deep Field images
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg&feature=player_embedded

Honestly, you think making footballs from a cow is some tragic waste of a great and wonderful entity of importance?

 

[House_Vet]

Really? So you mean that our understanding of anatomy, physiology... hell, all biological sciences is in some kind of vacuum away from nature? That sounds like a pretty damn big impact on human knowledge to me. And yes, these things do matter to us. You want to beat viruses? Look at how famine can be avoided? **** yes you should ask a tree/animal/non-human because we did not pull these ideas out of nowhere.

This misses the point. Certainly we can learn things about nature from nature, but were that organism to no longer exist, were we to destroy everything which is of no immediate benefit to us (as is suggested by the OP) then this knowledge would be obsolete.

Umm, perhaps I'm being obsolete, but ask anyone in medicine, particularly in the study of infectious disease if we'll ever "win" against viruses and bacteria and they'll tell you an emphatic no. Our muscles will remain muscles etc etc etc. We're still made of the same stuff, albeit with slightly different antigens.

I am not saying that nature is without value, certainly useful chemical knowledge can be extracted from nature that would be very hard to study otherwise, but the OP is against this very exploitation of nature for human gain. Your argument and his cannot coincide, for in order to feel equal empathy to nature as one would feel to humans nearly all the scientific knowledge gained by exploiting nature (killing and dissecting, animal trials etc) would be impossible to achieve. You cannot simultaneously claim to consider yourself equal to nature, or at least in hold nature in loving esteem equal to that of humanity and be okay with experimenting ruthlessly upon it in a manner that would not be acceptable if conducted upon a human. This appears to defeat your post.

I wouldn't pretend to claim that my argument and the thread's author's coincide. What I would say is that the species dissected/experimented upon should benefit from the research by the creation of new drugs etc. What matters to the individual is that suffering is minimized and quality of life is as good as possible. We need to conduct animal experiments for the moment. You seem to be arguing that if we feel empathy for a creature we then have to obey that feeling above all else. This is not the case: you simply weigh it against the other ethical factors in the problem.

There is great value in nature, or my life is being utterly wasted.

Untrue, veterinary medicine does not exist in order to keep nature buzzing. For the main part it exists in order to keep those animals which provide use to humanity alive: farm animals, pets, zoo animals etc. This provides use to humanity as a whole. If you choose to use your skills in an inefficient manner, acting as if nature has equal importance to humanity, then that is your own decision, but your skillset is not inherently useless.

I love the fact that you know more about my profession than I do . You've taken my post a little too seriously: I wouldn't for a second consider my skillset useless. Vet Med exists for all the reasons above and it is left up to us how to apply our skills after we have been taught them. We exist not only to care for companion or farm animals but also to educate people about animals, including wild ones. We can also go into public health where (because we know about animal models) we tend to know a good deal more about zoonotic disease than your average medic. I wouldn't call trying to prevent ebola in Gorillas inefficient. Perhaps you'd call the great apes a special case?

Oh, BTW: A vet can operate/do emergency surgery or procedures on any vertebrate animal. Guess what? We're vertebrate animals. A medic is liable to be prosecuted if they so much as inject a sheep in order to put it down. Weird huh?

 

[Toasty]

We do have empathy for other animals that aren't cute.

Lots of species are protected by law, and there are people always working to make sure animals have comfortable lives.

There are forest preserves that protect many animals and plants, and on some people are forbidden by law to enter. Does everyone listen to the law? No, but without forest preserves, the endagered species list, many species of animals and many forests/jungles would be gone today.

Many important people today and in history have put nature conservation at the top of their list. Teddy Roosevelt enacted some of the U.S.'s first nature preserves. And even in the modern era, high political figures campaign for enviornmental protection.

Sadly most people don't care, which really makes me want to cry.

But my point is that there are people who don't care about animals or nature, but there are also those who do. And they are working as hard as they can to preserve it.
Yes. and also, We as humans are naturally omnivors(sp) eating animals is naural and there ar many oher carnivors and omnivors in the world. On the other hand some of our species live excessive lifetyles which cause the unecessary destruction ofplants, animals and habitats.
Avatar is only a movie, its aim being to make money. I think the OP is overreacting.

Not all humans are like cancer. Most people are, but there is a crapload of people who give a damn and are trying to help.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Avatar hey? Isn't that the movie with the Blue people and the spy sent to get the blue people and then the spy goes good and all humans are terrible people that want to destroy the blue people?

I think I saw that a few months from now...

 

[pirateninj4]

Yea some of this post is quite on the money. We do not live in balance with this planet. Our single goal of living against the rules of nature that govern EVERY other ecosystem on Earth have ensured that we will probably run out of natural resources, that the poverty gap between rich and poor will expand dramatically and that eventually yes, there will be wars fought over clean drinkable water that will end up on our front doors.

Sadly, it comes down to the fact that we are no longer under the law of Survival of the Fittest. Anyone can breed and their spawn will survive, no matter how stupid, sick or broken it is. Our over population causes famine because our food supply must constantly grow behind the rate at which we increase our numbers. Also, the percentage of people who have no access to clean water, quality food and shelter continues to remain scarily high, despite all the modern miracles of present day mass-agriculture. We're no closer to solving world hunger than we were 100 years ago, but here's something to look forward to: We're a lot closer to blowing ourselves up than we were 100 years ago.

 

[CptCamoPants]

What is the potential for an animal to save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives, or create something new? Close to nada
What is that potential for one human? Pretty damn high.
That's why human life is valued more than an animal's.

 

[ultimateownage]

We are like a cancer, a natural part of the system that has grown out of control and is beginning to kill the system that gave birth to it.

JESUS CHRIST GUYS RUN! AGENT SMITH HAS MADE IT ON THE INTERNET!

*EDIT*

What is the potential for an animal to save hundreds, maybe thousands of lives, or create something new? Close to nada
What is that potential for one human? Pretty damn high.
That's why human life is valued more than an animal's.

This is true, but most of the cures we invent have been made from natural recourses, snake antivenom is just us putting venom into a sheep and taking the anti toxins.

 

[Skeleon]

We love dogs and cats as pets because they like us and (for the most part) won't hurt us. Some people say that eating a dog is horrible (some cultures do that). When I ask them why, they simply answer "because it's a dog". Eating a dog is no worse than eating a pig or a cow. They are all living creatures.

That's the only thing I agree with.
I don't think that should stop us from eating a cow or a dog, though.
Probably not the point you were trying to make.

We are like a cancer, a natural part of the system that has grown out of control and is beginning to kill the system that gave birth to it.

That only makes sense if you believe nature has some objective point that humanity is screwing with.