Avatar and Naivete

[Zarathustra]

Would "technologically inferior" be an acceptable term, then? What about "weak?" The Na'vi were both weaker and less technologically advanced than the humans. But that doesn't alter the fact that the language still carries a negative connotation. After all, it's a negative judgment. (Though I'm not sure why we're even worrying about a negative connotation for a fictional race.)

They were warned about their weakness, but they were too ignorant to take Sully's warning seriously. They made no efforts to learn about the potential danger from these newcomers to their planet, even though humans clearly had advanced technology. A basic lack of curiousity relevant to the survival of one's society sure seems like incompetance to me. No one is asking them to be prepared for all possible situations that might surpass them. But when someone warns them of a clear and present danger, and yet they're too naive to take it seriously, then it is an issue of incompetance.

Believing that they should have been to my mind is merely reflecting a cultural bias. Anyone less technologically advanced than us is inferior, because we can wipe them out. As if the ability to wipe other cultures out is the only measure of what makes a good culture.

(Hey look, you can make judgments about people's assumptions, too! ) No one here said that technology makes a culture necessarily "good," much less the ability to wipe out other cultures. That's quite a leap to make from someone criticising the Na'vi for being slow to adapt to a new threat.

In terms of Darwinian "survival of the fittest," I think that technology gives a species a clear advantage. Whether or not you think control over your own survival is "good" is up to you. I think it's inherently valuable. But there's nothing inherent about morality. We just make it up.

And speaking of made up moralities . . . we are being sold a morality in this movie. The Na'vi are supposed to be morally superior to the humans. Okay, fine, if you want to judge humans by imaginary standards, go right ahead, Movie Audience. But I think that's perhaps a much more egregious instance of unwarranted judging than to say the Na'vi were incompetant to withstand an alien species. How can we be expected to measure up to an imaginary, fictional ideal?

[wayfriend]

But when someone warns them of a clear and present danger, and yet they're too naive to take it seriously, then it is an issue of incompetance.

Now there's an interesting notion. If I applied that to Global Warming, or Danger of a Depression, Health Care Emergency, I think a lot of people would point out how you can't believe every warning someone wants to inform you of, wouldn't they? I'm sure they don't think being declared incompetent because they don't believe those warnings would be very fair.

"Technologically inferior", yes.

Weak? Only relative to mechanical soldiers. Could you catch a dragon?

In terms of Darwinian "survival of the fittest," I think that technology gives a species a clear advantage.

An advantage at destroying other species, sure. Is that the only way to measure them?

The Na'vi are supposed to be morally superior to the humans.

If this is going to come up again, do you have anything that supports this this time?

The Na'vi were portrayed as the victims of money-hungry, uncaring miners. I would hope that the Na'vi, or anyone else, comes across as better than them. But I see no broader comparison to humanity anywhere. In fact, I thought that the point of the movie was they were just like us.

[Avatar]

Technologically inferior, sure. Weak, no. As WF pointed out, it's only relative to what they were facing.

And I think he makes a good point about the warning too. If the warning had been heeded to no avail, you'd have called them naive for taking it seriously.

The problem with "incompetent" is that it's a value judgement, not an objective standard.

--A

[Cybrweez]

The problem with "incompetent" is that it's a value judgement, not an objective standard.

--A

I don't know, your statement sounds like a value judgement to me.

[hierachy]

Jake Sully learned how to empathise, the end.

[Avatar]

I don't know, your statement sounds like a value judgement to me.

Care to substantiate that?

--A

[Zarathustra]

But when someone warns them of a clear and present danger, and yet they're too naive to take it seriously, then it is an issue of incompetance.

Now there's an interesting notion. If I applied that to Global Warming, or Danger of a Depression, Health Care Emergency, I think a lot of people would point out how you can't believe every warning someone wants to inform you of, wouldn't they? I'm sure they don't think being declared incompetent because they don't believe those warnings would be very fair.

If you can show me the threat of global warming, and there's something I can personally do that will be a net benefit to me and my family, you might have a point. But you refused to present evidence in the other thread when I asked.

As for the "health care emergency," I like my health care. There is no emergency for me (or the other 85% who have health insurance), because I'm self-reliant and don't wait around for my neighbors to take care of me. I agree that we do have a crisis of too many "wait around for my neighbor to take care of me," kind of people in our society. But that's not a health care crisis. It's a personal responsibility crisis. On the other hand, I've been shouting warnings from the rooftop for months about how Obamacare will damage our economy, our liberty, and our HC system, but in this instance I'm the Sully to your Na'vi. If only there was a magical tree goddess to get us out of this jam. I bet if we just love each other and be kind to nature, this problem with work itself out. (No, unfortunately, it requires the very technological advancement that the movie portrays as bad. We don't have trees that will bring us back to life.)

The Na'vi are supposed to be morally superior to the humans.

If this is going to come up again, do you have anything that supports this this time?

The Na'vi were portrayed as the victims of money-hungry, uncaring miners. I would hope that the Na'vi, or anyone else, comes across as better than them.

Why do I have to support it when you already see it yourself? You say, "I would hope that the Na'vi, or anyone else, comes across as better than them," as if it's obvious. Well, I agree. It was obvious.

But I see no broader comparison to humanity anywhere. In fact, I thought that the point of the movie was they were just like us.

How could the Na'vi be just like us when we don't have a society built around magical tree gods and plug-in, hot-swappable interface with literally every lifeform around us? There has never been any human society that lived in such perfect harmony and communication with nature. That's why I've been saying over and over that they are represent the myth of the "noble savage." It's a myth because we're not like that. Savages are just as petty, cruel, selfish, etc. as city folk. Sometimes much much more so.

As for seeing no "broader comparison" . . . you contradict this in your very next breath by saying the movie's point was to portray the Na'vi as "just like us." (I assume you don't mean "us miners.") I think it's pretty blatant that this movie utilizes metaphor for social and moral commentary. That means making broad comparisons to humanity, as opposed to say, Americans in particular (which was also in there). There is nothing uniquely American about humans fighting over raw materials, or one society being more technologically advanced than another. That's been happening throughout our entire history. There's your broader comparison. Clashes of cultures have always happened, and there are usually two responses: those who celebrate the success of the victors, and those who pine away for the loss of the losers (while conveniently forgetting that the losers treated their neighbors exactly the same way until someone stronger came along to displace them at the top . . . hence, the Noble Savage myth).

That's why this discussion belongs in the Tank. The judgmental message of this movie is so clear, it has come to dominate the conversation about the movie, dividing us along clear lines of those who recognize the necessity and worth of technological conquest, and those of us who populate nature with imaginary, quasi-religious value that is so up-side-down that it turns things like survival and Darwinian logic on its head, and makes the victims of history the "good guys." The strong are bad. The weak are good. Let's tell the world we won't use our nukes, and let's tax our use of carbon, so we can achieve the good-through-weakness imaginary ideal of li-ber-al Utopians.

[wayfriend]

If you can show me the threat of global warming, ...

And yet you judge the Na'vi for not falling over apparently rediculous (to them) warnings? Your answer completes the point I was making.

Why do I have to support it when you already see it yourself? You say, "I would hope that the Na'vi, or anyone else, comes across as better than them," as if it's obvious. Well, I agree. It was obvious.

But I am not saying that Na'vi are superior to all humans, or that the movie portrays them as such. As you are.

The Na'vi in the movie were at times irritable, envious, uncharitable, antagonistic, etc. That is not a portrayal of a species superior to humans. That's someone portraying a species that, behind the physical form, is pretty much the same as us.

Furthermore, as victims of aggressive invasion, there's not even a question of moral superiority involved. It's not like it happened because they were morally inferior. Or because they were morally superior. It's not a comment on the Na'vi at all ... only in the aggressive invaders.

Which is why I reject the entire notion that the movie has "sold" anyone the idea that "Na'vi are supposed to be morally superior to the humans" - your words.

How could the Na'vi be just like us when we don't have a society built around magical tree gods and plug-in, hot-swappable interface with literally every lifeform around us?...

Indeed.

You've just spoken what I believe is the primary theme of the movie.

The judgmental message of this movie is so clear

You say that, but from my point of view your one of the few people who sees such a message in the movie. The miners aren't representatives of humanity, just of greed; the Na'vi aren't morally superior, just relatively innocent; it's not strength that is bad, for in the end the Na'vi were protected by strength; Sully didn't sell out his own kind, he realized his own kind included blue aliens as much as the people among who he was born. Etc. Etc.

You have to distory just about every aspect of the movie, and find a twisted interpretation for almost every aspect of it, to see this "judgemental message" that you find.

[Tjol]

There's no terminology issue here.

If incompetent means "When your village is in danger of being overrun by a band of ronin, gunslingers, corporate pirates...take your pick... you're incompetant as a civilisation."

By that definition, every person who ever existed is incompetent.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

Because there is no person who ever existed who who didn't have something that could do them in.

We're not talking about 'something'. It's not like the Navi were faced with kryptonite for the first time.

Which makes the comment, as Tjol now claims he means, meaningless.

Competence is relative, as I tried to point out. I am an incompetent surgent; I am a competent engineer.

I have to say I didn't picture you as an engineer. No one fits into neat categories mind you.

Furthermore, calling into question the competence of someone relative to a task that they do not perform is a waste of time best case, in the worst case it's trying to smear mud on someone through any opportunity available to you. No one would criticize me for being an incompetent surgeon for any just and meaningful reason.

People and groups of people are from time to time confronted with things for which they are not prepared. Labelling them as incompetent in such circumstances indicates a judgement that they should have been prepared.

In this case, declaring that the Na'vi should have been prepared for an invasion from technologically superior aliens makes just about as much sense as declaring that we should be prepared for an invasion from technologically superior aliens.

Believing that they should have been to my mind is merely reflecting a cultural bias. Anyone less technologically advanced than us is inferior, because we can wipe them out. As if the ability to wipe other cultures out is the only measure of what makes a good culture.

Can I say, before even reading all of that, that I'm amazed at the defense that you feel you need to make for fictional beings that don't actually exist. Do you identify with them?

As Sully showed, the Navi were not without the ability to turn away the invaders, they simply lacked the competance culturally to deal with them. They needed a western hero to come show them the way. So comparison to a technologically superior alien invasion is a stretch.

Look at this as a fictional story, for starters, and I think you'll get what I was describing with the story being essentially one of the village in danger, an outsider showing them how to take care of themselves, and then disappearing into the sunset. However, if you're going to take umbrage at someone daring to 'insult' a fictional culture first, it might escape you. Let me know how your campaign for ambassador to Navi goes.

[wayfriend]

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

How polite.

We're not talking about 'something'. It's not like the Navi were faced with kryptonite for the first time.

Weren't they?

I have to say I didn't picture you as an engineer. No one fits into neat categories mind you.

Add an ad hominem; of course.

Can I say, before even reading all of that, that I'm amazed at the defense that you feel you need to make for fictional beings that don't actually exist. Do you identify with them?

More ad hominem, thinly disguised.

No. The answer is no.

However, if you're going to take umbrage at someone daring to 'insult' a fictional culture first, it might escape you. Let me know how your campaign for ambassador to Navi goes.

Please lets not start another fictional story about my taking umbrage at something.

I might have expressed that I found someone's comment ill-considered.

Someone who, it appears, was able to comment on the aliens in the movie without anyone calling their motives or their character into question. Apparently, I don't get to enjoy the same freedom.

Thank you for this post. It is illustrative.

[Avatar]

Ok, ease off. Tjol, let's try to be a little considerate in making posts huh? It's a forum for the exchange of opinions, not for deciding what's right or wrong. Not that I necessarily agree that those were ad hominem, but some of that was unnecessary nonetheless.

--A

[Tjol]

Wayfriend was certianly hostile first, as usual, and plays the victim first as usual. That's closer to being ad hominum.

As far as me not picturing him as an engineer? Not an ad hominum. Just an observation. The way he expresses himself here, it just seems he'd be in a profession that fits that expressed personality. Something more like a teacher, a musician. Then again, engineers have to negotiate as much as we do, and maybe like me this is the place where he allows himself to be a little less diplomatic for once.

But it's not meant as an insult in the slightest, I was just saying that my perception of him from his posts didn't seem to fit with someone who would enjoy working in any kind of engineering.

And I still find it interesting that wayfriend finds the need to take offense on behalf of fictional characters... being that he took insult where none was intended, if he hadn't been set off by his understanding of the word incompetant, he would have read the context it was indicated in, and realised there was no insult in play.

There's no insult intended in that either, just a curiosity as to how someone can be so attached to a fictional character that they could make a knee jerk response to a word so much so that they miss the context.

[Avatar]

I didn't think those were ad hominems. I just didn't like the "Bzzzt. Wrong." comment.

And I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the "he did it first" argument. Doesn't make it ok.

But I didn't think you were trying to be insulting, really I didn't. Just didn't like the tone of the opening.

--A

[wayfriend]

And I still find it interesting that wayfriend finds the need to take offense on behalf of fictional characters...

This is the second time I am telling you that no such thing happened. I disagreed with you; you twist that into "taking offense".

The first time could be an honest mistake; the second time can't be. And there aren't any friendly reasons for pushing something you know is wrong, are there?

As far as me not picturing him as an engineer? Not an ad hominum. Just an observation.

And in any other context could have been taken as such. But in a post with otherwise so much naked agression and offensive material? Ha. You struggle for plausible deniability. You were taking an argument about a movie and making it too personal; deniability rejected.

[sindatur]

Eh...As Production Control and Warehouse Manager in computer companies, I've worked with a great many Software and Hardware engineers, and Wayfriend strikes me as a personality type of engineers I've worked with. I wouldn't think of him as a building engineer, neccessarily, but, definitely as an Engineer in Elctronics field.

*For those with memory of my Accounting position, that was a 7 year diversion in between Operations jobs.*

[Avatar]

C'mon, naked agression is taking it a bit far. Enough now, or get back on topic.

Y'know, Sin, I never pictured you as an accountant.

--A

[Tjol]

Eh...As Production Control and Warehouse Manager in computer companies, I've worked with a great many Software and Hardware engineers, and Wayfriend strikes me as a personality type of engineers I've worked with. I wouldn't think of him as a building engineer, neccessarily, but, definitely as an Engineer in Elctronics field.

*For those with memory of my Accounting position, that was a 7 year diversion in between Operations jobs.*

Electronics is certianly a more creative environment, but I thought it was only the guys at the top that had much opportunity to express themselves.

[sindatur]

Eh...As Production Control and Warehouse Manager in computer companies, I've worked with a great many Software and Hardware engineers, and Wayfriend strikes me as a personality type of engineers I've worked with. I wouldn't think of him as a building engineer, neccessarily, but, definitely as an Engineer in Elctronics field.

*For those with memory of my Accounting position, that was a 7 year diversion in between Operations jobs.*

Electronics is certianly a more creative environment, but I thought it was only the guys at the top that had much opportunity to express themselves.

Eh...the guy at top of Engineering in my current company, engineering reports under Customer Service Mangement (And that Manager was just laid off, because he added nothing, because he didn't direct the actual engineering, so...all the Engineers, most of them SciFi buffs, pretty much are responsible for their own products. Of Course we pretty much follow the lead of our Foreign Mother COmpany)

[Zarathustra]

[Thread resurrected for Cambo]

Z, I haven't read much of this thread, but seems to me your issue with Avatar is you didn't like being preached to on environmental matters (movie quality, or lack thereof, aside)?

No, that's not exactly my position. I have nothing against environmental matters specifically, or even being informed about environmental problems. It would be irrational to simply ignore a potential danger.

So it's not just not just environmental preachiness that bugged me about Avatar--I don't like preachiness in general. And my irritation is magnified when that preachiness comes from somone who is 1000 times more "guilty" than I am when it comes to the subject of his sermon. Cameron consumes and pollutes 1000s of times more than I do. The carbon footprint of making the movie Avatar is larger than I'll ever produce in my lifetime (unless I get rich, too).

So, yeah, I've got an issue with rich people telling me that my desire to want more is the problem with the world, that I'm a bad person for my consumption of resources which they happen to consume at much greater rates. The glorification of poverty as some "closer to nature" ideal, packaged and sold as a consumer product that only makes Cameron richer, really really bugs me. [Almost as much as Donaldson killing 1000s of trees to publish stories about how precious trees are. ]

And it bugs me that less rich people actually buy into it, and believe that there is anything wrong with wanting more. All of us want more. Not a single one of us is voluntarily giving away all our money and worldly possessions to go live in the trees. True poverty is a horror. Prosperity is life. But you won't see that message from animated fairy tales. No, instead we're sold myths about guilt for simply being human.

The earth doesn't care how much carbon is in the air. The only organisms that care about this are humans (mostly Left-leaning ones). There is no Earth Goddess that we must please. We are our own Lawgiver, Enforcer, and Judge. And I say I'm innocent.

[Avatar]

Of what?

It's certainly unfortunate that the people who have the opportunity to tell people this are among the biggest offenders. And I agree with a lot of what you said there. Poverty is hell.

(This may largely be because of the fact that not everybody lives in poverty.)

However, (and I'm not talking about the movie really), given the amount of impact "preachy" stuff like that has, it shouldn't be much concern for you. I don't see people giving up their cars and going to live in the bush or anything.

At best, its only actual effect is to make people aware of the issue. If, as you yourself say, it might be a threat, then it should certainly be considered and discussed.

However, while the earth doesn't give a damn about how much carbon is in the air, there are reasons that we should. Obviously you're talking in the context of the movie there, but don't take the analogy too far.

--A