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

[jesse.]

People say that chopping down a tree isn't bad because it has no emotions. I say that chopping a tree down is just as bad as chopping a human's legs off and leaving him/her to bleed to death.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. I mean really, you think it's wrong to chop down trees? What the hell?

Asimov you fail, thats all I have to say

 

[Imrix]

I adored Avatar. I didn't find the plot particularly original, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a reason cliches are so widely used; in a lot of cases, they work. I don't know, maybe it's because Avatar was actually the first film in this vein I saw, but I found it hugely enjoyable. Yes, even I knew that Jake was going to betray his own race... But it didn't bother me. I was too caught up in HOW things happened to worry about how cliched the events themselves are.

I did, however, find Avatar very original in other ways- although perhaps it's a product of my upbringing that I noticed it at all.

I was raised by parents who were in on the ground floor of second-wave feminism, and both are heavily pagan, so you'll excuse me if I found some things in Avatar very interesting. In terms of gender equality, I found it a very balanced film- far more so than almost anything I've seen, especially considering it's a Hollywood blockbuster. On the human end of things, the cast of major, sympathetic human characters is basically an even split between males and females; Jake, Norm, Trudy and Grace. The villainous main characters are both male, but to be honest that fits. That kind of mechanical callousness is usually a male trait, and it's not always a bad thing- sometimes you just have to make hard choices, and none of them are good.

On the Na'vi end of things, I took special notice how even the gender split among the warriors was, and furthermore how androgynous the Na'vi were. In terms of body build, males and females were much closer than they are traditionally portrayed. Interestingly, Neytira ended up saving Jake's life three times to his one. How many other big films can you think of where the hero goes up against the big villain first, but it's the heroine that both finishes the big bad off, and saves the male lead's life as a final touch to the battle? Heck, how many films, period, have such a thing?

As somebody raised firmly Pagan, I can see a surprisingly accurate portrayal of such a religion in it, too. The all-pervading world-goddess, her neutrality, the idea that all things are borrowed, and must eventually be given back... There are parallels here with more than just Native American cultures; there's a pretty strong Celtic theme as well, and as the old saying goes; when you steal from one source it's plagierism. Steal from five or six, it's research.

I also found the film had a succinct way of, at least partially, sidestepping the "Mighty Whitey" issue, since in this case Jake's inside knowledge of human military structure allowed him to provide the Na'vi with legitimate aid, beyond just being white. But even his whiteness is in question, since it's implied and at times outright stated that Jake is becoming more and more swept up in the Na'vi way of life; he becomes Na'vi in a far deeper sense than just dressing the same, learning the language and adopting the customs. This is, by the way, why I absolutely detest similar films such as The Last Samurai. It's surprising, actually, how many issues, both thematic and otherwise, Avatar sidesteps. It all holds together very well. Check out its JustBugsMe page on TV Tropes if you don't believe me.

For example, to those people wondering why Na'vi bows could penetrate gunship canopies the second time around; pay attention. The first time, they were shooting upwards, from a stationary position, with a bad angle. The second time around they were shooting from Ikran back, at high speed and with a perfect angle. Also, note that they always took the canopy-shots when flying straight at one of the gunships. That means the arrow has the added speed of the Ikran flying towards the gunship, and the speed of the gunship flying towards them, and yes, that does work physics-wise.

To cut a post that could go on even longer short; perhaps Avatar's plot is its weak point, however well-told a version of older stories it may be. But for me, there's far and away enough other strengths to make it a great movie.

 

[sagonas123]

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.

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.

Well, I've only read about the first page of this thread, and it seems everyone is going way overboard with everything. There are many people who don't give a damn about nature, chop everything down and kill everything, and move along their merry way.
And there are others who care deeply about the environment, but to such an extreme as to try and stop me from having bacon for breakfast.

There are extremists to every side.
(On a side note: I do care a lot about the environment and animals etc, and am aspiring to become a biologist to work with animals)

Now then, I just want to say that I liked Avatar a lot, it was a great movie :]
Although many people are reading way too much into this... it's just a movie.
A science FICTION movie, at that. Fiction = fake
It's entertainment. I don't care what you read into it, just no need to go over board.
/end rant

 

[Irridium]

Le snip

Out of curiosity, why did you quote me for that rant?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

So....no-one else thinks that systematically exterminating the planet was probably the best idea?

Or enslaving them and forcing them to mine our minerals for us?


......how depressingly bourgeois of you....

 

[House_Vet]

I adored Avatar. I didn't find the plot particularly original, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There's a reason cliches are so widely used; in a lot of cases, they work. I don't know, maybe it's because Avatar was actually the first film in this vein I saw, but I found it hugely enjoyable. Yes, even I knew that Jake was going to betray his own race... But it didn't bother me. I was too caught up in HOW things happened to worry about how cliched the events themselves are.

I did, however, find Avatar very original in other ways- although perhaps it's a product of my upbringing that I noticed it at all.

I was raised by parents who were in on the ground floor of second-wave feminism, and both are heavily pagan, so you'll excuse me if I found some things in Avatar very interesting. In terms of gender equality, I found it a very balanced film- far more so than almost anything I've seen, especially considering it's a Hollywood blockbuster. On the human end of things, the cast of major, sympathetic human characters is basically an even split between males and females; Jake, Norm, Trudy and Grace. The villainous main characters are both male, but to be honest that fits. That kind of mechanical callousness is usually a male trait, and it's not always a bad thing- sometimes you just have to make hard choices, and none of them are good.

On the Na'vi end of things, I took special notice how even the gender split among the warriors was, and furthermore how androgynous the Na'vi were. In terms of body build, males and females were much closer than they are traditionally portrayed. Interestingly, Neytira ended up saving Jake's life three times to his one. How many other big films can you think of where the hero goes up against the big villain first, but it's the heroine that both finishes the big bad off, and saves the male lead's life as a final touch to the battle? Heck, how many films, period, have such a thing?

As somebody raised firmly Pagan, I can see a surprisingly accurate portrayal of such a religion in it, too. The all-pervading world-goddess, her neutrality, the idea that all things are borrowed, and must eventually be given back... There are parallels here with more than just Native American cultures; there's a pretty strong Celtic theme as well, and as the old saying goes; when you steal from one source it's plagierism. Steal from five or six, it's research.

I also found the film had a succinct way of, at least partially, sidestepping the "Mighty Whitey" issue, since in this case Jake's inside knowledge of human military structure allowed him to provide the Na'vi with legitimate aid, beyond just being white. But even his whiteness is in question, since it's implied and at times outright stated that Jake is becoming more and more swept up in the Na'vi way of life; he becomes Na'vi in a far deeper sense than just dressing the same, learning the language and adopting the customs. This is, by the way, why I absolutely detest similar films such as The Last Samurai. It's surprising, actually, how many issues, both thematic and otherwise, Avatar sidesteps. It all holds together very well. Check out its JustBugsMe page on TV Tropes if you don't believe me.

For example, to those people wondering why Na'vi bows could penetrate gunship canopies the second time around; pay attention. The first time, they were shooting upwards, from a stationary position, with a bad angle. The second time around they were shooting from Ikran back, at high speed and with a perfect angle. Also, note that they always took the canopy-shots when flying straight at one of the gunships. That means the arrow has the added speed of the Ikran flying towards the gunship, and the speed of the gunship flying towards them, and yes, that does work physics-wise.

To cut a post that could go on even longer short; perhaps Avatar's plot is its weak point, however well-told a version of older stories it may be. But for me, there's far and away enough other strengths to make it a great movie.

Quoted for perspective + truth

 

[sagonas123]

Le snip

Out of curiosity, why did you quote me for that rant?

Oh. I meant to put in there somewhere that I agree with your post.
Guess I got carried away XD

 

[NattyMichael]

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

the agent called us paracites didnt he?

and Avatar rules!! XD

 

[Internet Kraken]

1. Yes I am aware of the whole deer situation. Not going to touch on it however.

2. Yes I am aware of the biological deffinition of a 'virus'. I was using as a sort of comparrison.

3. Yes, I am aware of how a virus works. I am also aware of the concept of conservation. However, in the past, human nature has been similar to a virus. We move into an area, use it for all it is worth(mine it, farm it, deforrest it) until it is completely spent, and then move on. Just recently has the idea of conservation been introduced.

4. You defined a virus as something that hijacks a cell for it's own use. Look at New York city. At one point, it was a nice forrest. Now, it has been completely converted into a city, with the inner city(the parts first settled) slowly degrading into slums. We do have many simularities with the virus.

5. Modern human society still carries alot of these trends: look at China, India, Africa, and the Middle East. As for agent Smith, yes he is very hypocritical. But that quote made alot of sense.

1.) So you are just going to conveniently ignore it? That's cool, I guess.

2.) Well it doesn't work as a comparison, for reasons already explained.

3.) A farmer does not get up and abandon his field after one growing season. It has never been like this. A virus only destroys and never seeks to preserve. Throughout history humans have reused and preserved many things. It's just that now we are attempting to do this on a much larger scale.

4.) If we were like a virus, we would have cut down all the trees and then left the area as a barren wasteland. Instead, we built a city on it that has continued to thrive for many of years. A virus does not remain in one place. It consumes all possible resources and then leaves. Humans on the other hand can remain in the same area for lengthy periods of time.

And saying that we are a virus simply because we consumed the resources in the forest makes no sense. Any other animal would do that given the opportunity. Again, going back to my deer example. The deer population has risen so high in some areas that they have consumed far to much of the local fauna to sustain themselves and the other organisms. So by your logic, every animal is a virus.

5.) You can't expect every nation to treat the environment perfectly, especially ones that are still developing. Hell even developed nations still have not found a way to preserve the environment. It's not an easy thing to do, but at least we are working on it. Every society at one point carelessly consumed resources without even considering about the consequences of doing so. But now we are aware of the consequences, and are trying to rectify our mistakes.

Gee, being aware of the consequences of our actions. That alone is enough to prove that humans are not like viruses. That quote has never made sense, and it makes even less sense when you attempt to apply it to modern society.

Sorry, I realize the human race doesn't act entirely like a protein-coated segment of genetic material, but to prevent misinformation:

Viruses do NOT intentionally destroy their hosts: As parasites, the ideal for them is to be tolerated by the host immune system. Many types of viruses function in very different ways on a cellular level, but those which cause severe or fatal damage either have a prodigious mutation rate or an animal reservoir to retreat to when it burns itself out in humans (look up ebola). The deer problem is rather like lemmings: the population peaks, reserves run out, loads die >> fast forward and you get a population trough followed by a peak, rinse and repeat. That's how nature works. We broke the cycle by just going up. And up. Thus, we are essentially unregulated by the normal rules of the evolutionary game.

So we have parallels with parasites, but we aren't the same. However, the truth about viruses is that they make up a massive quantity of the DNA of all living species, as retroviruses insert their DNA into host genome and if the other viral machinery fails... poof - new DNA segment. Pretty cool, but it means that we're largely made up of viral DNA, and the majority of cells in our body, (80%) are bacterial. Makes you think, don't it?

Yes but a virus does not intentionally keep it's host alive. It is the hosts own immune system that prevents that virus from killing it completley. If a hosts immune system is not able to kill the virus, then it will lead to the death of the host.

Or at least that is what I remember from Biology. I could easily be wrong. But I was only trying to prove that humans and viruses operate in completley different manners, so my point still stands.

What did I post five minutes ago? Oh yeah. ALL CREATURES CONSUME ALL RESOURCES AND OVERWHELM ECOSYSTEMS WHEN THEY CROSS NATURAL BORDERS. Cane toads, fire ants, locusts, possoms etc all fall into this category. Humans do not get a bonus virus card just because you want to feel special.

And who helps them cross those natural borders? Ding! Humanity
Cane toads -> used as biological control for roaches in Oz
possums -> source of food (according to wiki)
fire ants -> accidental moving in plants
locusts -> touche(accent) but die out of their own accord - they just peak and trough like the rest of nature, just, really extremely.

It doesn't really matter if humans helped these animals cross their natural borders, since many other natural processes could have done the same.

 

[Eatbrainz]

I was hoping the the humans would glass the planet and turn it into a giant mining station or something.
it really pissed me off that the colonel died as well, he was awesome.

 

[Irridium]

Le snip

Out of curiosity, why did you quote me for that rant?

Oh. I meant to put in there somewhere that I agree with your post.
Guess I got carried away XD

Ah, alright then, no harm done.

It happens to everyone once in a while

 

[BGH122]

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.

Actually, whilst this is certainly correct, the field of regenerative medicine (a recent offshoot of gerontology) has made some giant breakthroughs in negligible senescence (non-aging). The Methuselah Foundation has been a huge part of this movement, run by Aubrey De Grey (the theorist responsible for the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (he explains it better than I could, there's a TED video of his Oxford speech on the matter on the TED YouTube channel)). Whilst the original SENS theory is over-simplistic, it has served as a great base for the Methuselah Foundation, which has in turn made findings such as the link between Rapamycin and longevity (experiments with Rapamycin on mice reveal that sustained low dosages of the immuno-suppressant significantly increases lifespan!).

SENS looks at human senescence from a proactive perspective: rather than reacting to the problems caused by senescence, neural degeneration, atrophy, intra and extracellular interference etc, it looks to keep them from ever occurring. It's quite interesting.

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.

Right! Okay, well that's pretty much my view too. I was arguing against the OP's over-idealised views. I wouldn't call for the extinction of nature, but nor would I consider nature equal to humans. It's useful in respects to that which we can learn from it or pleasure we can derive from it, but it isn't on a par with humanity. I'd hate to live on a totally deforested, barren world, but if we are forced to make such a choice at some point in order to continue humanity then that will be sad, but necessary.

However, I maintain that you cannot hold equal respect/empathy for nature and humanity, yet consider animal experiments acceptable, but human experiments cruel.

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?

I certainly didn't intend to give off any pretence that I know significantly more about veterinary medicine than you. It appears to me that knowledge works in such a way that a person can learn from another with regards to a particular subject even if, as a whole, the learner knows more about the subject than the informer. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that, simply because I know a large amount about thermodynamics, no-one else can ever know anything about the subject that I do not already know.

Unfortunately, I would most certainly call trying to prevent ebola in Gorillas inefficient, unless, of course, it were at a point where it could either transition to humans or seriously affect the Gorilla population as a whole. There is certainly use in preventing the extinction of a species, where it does not negatively affect humanity to do so, because, as you've rightly stated above, we can often learn things from dissection/study of another animal. However, attempting to eradicate animal disease where it poses no threat to a human (for instance, in a single 'tribe' of Gorillas (what is the collective term for Gorillas?)) nor to a species as a whole seems like a far less efficient use of one's skillset than protecting animals which are of direct use to humans, either emotionally or scientifically.

I do hope I've not come off as arrogant or offensive, but I believe that much can be learnt from honest debate and, unfortunately, honest debate tends to offend.

 

[Josdeb]

I might be reading into it too much, but I thought the whole "Cutting down trees is wrong" thing was a little deeper than "Cutting down trees".

I thought the reason cutting down trees was wrong because of the spiritual and emotion ties the Na'vi had with them. The whole movie I associated the Human vs Na'vi fight with the European Settlers vs Australian Aboriginies invasion.

To the Europeans, settling on certain land, fishing, using trees and plants for lumber and hunting the wildlife was just for survival, but in the eyes of the Australian aboringals they were desecrating holy spots, killing thier ancestoral creatures and stealing. The energy tubes around the planet were just a physical representation of the ties to the land which are so important to the Aboriginals.

Actually, after typing this, is basicaly EXACTLY what happened in Avatar.
So yeah, it wasn't so much a case of "We hate trees, grrrr", it was more a cultural misunderstanding impeeded heavily by language barriers and physcial differences

 

[Kamaitachi]

avatar was no more a representation of modern-society than star-wars.

 

[Lullabye]

avatar was no more a representation of modern-society than star-wars.

......point?

 

[Lullabye]

So, am I the only one who thinks that this is not the only option for humanity? I know there are dicks on both sides of the war, but seriously, in the end, it just comes down to doing what you want. I don't get the argument. Also, I doubt they would let such complete batshit gunho assholes be the first to interact with the alien races.
I mean, what if they had bigger guns than us? Then dick head #1 starts shit with'em and we're all screwed then.
I know our governments are incapable and incompetent sometimes, but give them a [sub]little[/sub] credit...

 

[Sach]

Hey, does anyone remember going to the movies to have a good time, rather than analyze it down to a message on society?

...seriously people, I'm well aware there was a message trying to be sent here but I really get tired of people trashing on well put together movies because they analyze it into the ground...

 

[Valiance]

Maybe you'd feel differently when you don't have a house or washing machine or clothing or a computer or food or electricity or running water or a bathtub or a toilet.

I guess humanity really is terrible because they take what they have in their environment and use it to better their lives. Damn, I'm sorry.

I don't see how the OP even relates to the movie at all.

 

[House_Vet]

Actually, whilst this is certainly correct, the field of regenerative medicine (a recent offshoot of gerontology) has made some giant breakthroughs in negligible senescence (non-aging). The Methuselah Foundation has been a huge part of this movement, run by Aubrey De Grey (the theorist responsible for the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (he explains it better than I could, there's a TED video of his Oxford speech on the matter on the TED YouTube channel)). Whilst the original SENS theory is over-simplistic, it has served as a great base for the Methuselah Foundation, which has in turn made findings such as the link between Rapamycin and longevity (experiments with Rapamycin on mice reveal that sustained low dosages of the immuno-suppressant significantly increases lifespan!).

SENS looks at human senescence from a proactive perspective: rather than reacting to the problems caused by senescence, neural degeneration, atrophy, intra and extracellular interference etc, it looks to keep them from ever occurring. It's quite interesting.

I'll have to look at the SENS stuff - sounds really interesting, and everything I've heard has been pretty vague so far so I'll have to give it a look. Of course prolonged life would cause its own subset of problems, most of them social, but still - cool science.

However, I maintain that you cannot hold equal respect/empathy for nature and humanity, yet consider animal experiments acceptable, but human experiments cruel.

You're completely right of course - I'm in a hypocritical position: Supposedly standing for animals' welfare, whilst simultaneously being forced to condone "necessary" experiments - for the time being at least. As far as I'm concerned, animal experiments aren't acceptable, they are more a necessary evil, and I hope we come up with better options soon.

It's an interesting neurological theory that the less intelligent an individual is, the more it suffers - we're able to distract ourselves, meditate, pray and pretend we're not there in stressful situations, whilst say, a fish lacks those mechanisms entirely (as far as we can tell). Thus, the 'it's only a...' argument can't hold up - we actually cause more suffering to less intelligent animals. At the same time, killing/injuring/vivisecting animals at the other end of the intelligence scale (simians or whales for example) is just... wrong.

Human experiments are of course very contentious, and I don't really condone them either: what we really need is better (and cheaper) tissue culture.

I certainly didn't intend to give off any pretence that I know significantly more about veterinary medicine than you. It appears to me that knowledge works in such a way that a person can learn from another with regards to a particular subject even if, as a whole, the learner knows more about the subject than the informer. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that, simply because I know a large amount about thermodynamics, no-one else can ever know anything about the subject that I do not already know.

Unfortunately, I would most certainly call trying to prevent ebola in Gorillas inefficient, unless, of course, it were at a point where it could either transition to humans or seriously affect the Gorilla population as a whole. There is certainly use in preventing the extinction of a species, where it does not negatively affect humanity to do so, because, as you've rightly stated above, we can often learn things from dissection/study of another animal. However, attempting to eradicate animal disease where it poses no threat to a human (for instance, in a single 'tribe' of Gorillas (what is the collective term for Gorillas?)) nor to a species as a whole seems like a far less efficient use of one's skillset than protecting animals which are of direct use to humans, either emotionally or scientifically.

Well, ebola is horrifically dangerous to both humans and Gorillas - it's a zoonotic disease with animal reservoirs and VERY pathogenic. Even though this helps humans too, if it were just the Gorillas I'd still argue for it as their numbers in some places are well below 1000.

The thing for me is that I do invest both emotional and scientific value in those animals which aren't of direct use to us. Scientifically because of knowledge for knowledge's sake and emotionally because I have a personal drive of 'stewardship' if you will. I feel that we should be responsible for the world because we know something of how amazing it is. I feel that we will lose something we will never regain if we allow habitats to be destroyed and animals to go extinct. As a result, the desire for efficiency hold no appeal to me - I appreciate that others may differ.

I do hope I've not come off as arrogant or offensive, but I believe that much can be learnt from honest debate and, unfortunately, honest debate tends to offend.

Sorry - looking back it seems I got on a bit of a rant in the post you were quoting - I accept what you're saying entirely, and hope you won't think I'm too pompous.

 

[Lexodus]

The point of Avatar: if the CG is good, they will watch it.