Avatar

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

You know I'm right of center but I've never understood people who dislike "tread lightly" environmental messages.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend,

You know I'm right of center but I've never understood people who dislike "tread lightly" environmental messages.

So you don't drive a car? On paved roads? Unless you are living like the Na'vi, riding dragons and communing with an earth-goddess, you're exactly the kind of person this movie was criticizing. You're part of the problem, according to the millionaire Cameron. Only people running around half naked in the jungle are guilt-free.

I don't dislike "tread lightly" environmental messages, per se. What I dislike is for rich people to preach to me about using less. Cameron was probably responsible for more electicity use by producing, marketing, and showing this movie than I'll ever use in my lifetime. The waste that goes into making a movie--supporting an entire billion dollar industry of people who do nothing more than entertain us for a couple hours--is just a staggeringly ironic podium to preach to the rest of us how wasteful and harmful and greedy we are.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

So, unless you are living like a monk you can't tell a story that might encourage people to tread lightly on the environment?

We're all hypocrites. I accept that an move on. I've never believed "Hypocracy" should be cause to silence someone telling a good story or giving an important message.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

So, unless you are living like a monk you can't tell a story that might encourage people to tread lightly on the environment?

We're all hypocrites. I accept that an move on. I've never believed "Hypocracy" should be cause to silence someone telling a good story or giving an important message.

If you can't tell a message without being a hypocrite, then perhaps something is wrong with your message.

Speak for yourself. I'm not a hypocrite. If you openly accept that you are one, then how can anyone put worth in what you say? How does anyone know you mean it?

None of us have any intention of treadly lightly on the environment. None of us are going to give up our cars, our TVs, our central air, our computers, etc. In fact, we all want *more.* Every single one of us. This ideology of wanting everyone to use less--but striving every single day of your life for more--is worse than hypocrisy. It's life-denying. It is reality denying. And when that message comes from someone who consumes a 1000 times more than I do, it is propaganda. It is a lie meant to instill guilt and thus foster control. It is evil.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

It sounds like you are saying if I can't tread lightly just tread harder. Is that what you mean?

I do everything I can to minimize my impact on the environment. I recycle. I drive a hybrid. I buy food grown locally or grow it myself. I do try to put my money where my mouth is. However, I'm not willing to lay down and die, which at the end of the day may be what's best for the environment. Therefore, I call myself a hypocrite.

[dANdeLION]

Zarathustra,

It sounds like you are saying if I can't tread lightly just tread harder. Is that what you mean?

I don't read that at all. I guess you're just hearing what you want to, or expect to hear. Is that what you're doing?

[SerScot]

___,

My point is we can do our best to tread lightly and still fail. I simply don't care for the line of thought that says anyone who engages in any hypocracy's opinion is somehow invalid. Everyone does something hypocritical from time to time.

[wayfriend]

Zarathustra's statement about hypocracy is inherently false anyway.

A statement is true or not true, regardless of who makes it. An action is ethical or unethical, regardless of who recommends it.

Zarathustra is unusually preoccupied with attacking messengers, that's all. Discredit the messenger, discredit the message.

If the effect of having made Avatar is a change for the better in the overal global perspective on environmentalism, then that's a net plus in my opinion. Even if Cameron had to burn some carbon now in order to save more carbon later.

Discrediting Cameron goes towards the goal of discrediting environmentalism in general. If you already believe in it, then discrediting Cameron should have no effect on your beliefs. It's the effect on the people who can be swayed away from believing in environmentalism that is the goal of discrediting Cameron. As well as the strengthening of the unbelief of those that don't believe, so that they won't start believing.

[ItisWritten]

If you can't tell a message without being a hypocrite, then perhaps something is wrong with your message.

Hold on. The only hypocrite who should be held up for ridicule is the one who insists that others behave in a certain way but won't do it himself. Does Avatar really spout dogma or is it just your perception? The message is there, true, but it is just Cameron's opinion. Truth be told, those who object to the message still reject it, while the green folk swallowed it whole. Those in the middle will continue to mull it over until they don't know what to think.

You feel strongly about this, but is it the message or the messenger that has you using 'evil' in regards to entertainment?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

If you can't tell a message without being a hypocrite, then perhaps something is wrong with your message.

If a murderer says you shouldn't murder people is there something wrong with his/her message?

[Menolly]

...oy vey...
*retreats from thread again*

[SerScot]

Menolly,

Don't leave... Seriously, contribute to the discussion.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

It sounds like you are saying if I can't tread lightly just tread harder. Is that what you mean?

I do everything I can to minimize my impact on the environment. I recycle. I drive a hybrid. I buy food grown locally or grow it myself. I do try to put my money where my mouth is. However, I'm not willing to lay down and die, which at the end of the day may be what's best for the environment. Therefore, I call myself a hypocrite.

I'm not saying we should aim to harm the environment (i.e. "tread harder" if that's how you're using the term). I'm just saying that even when we drive a hybrid (a feel-good status symbol that is meaningless compared to a bike ... or walking) we are still producing demand for an industry that is mining and "raping" the earth. There is no way around that fact. Raping the earth gently is still "rape." We are having this conversation on computers which require drilling for oil, mining for metals, transporting across continents, and then using them only with the help of electricity (usually coal in the U.S.). There is nothing about this conversation that would meet the criteria, "tread lightly." We are "raping" the planet with every keystroke. You can pat yourself on the back for recycling (I recycle like a mofo too), but you wouldn't have to recycle all that crap if you didn't buy it in the first place.

I'm not condemning anyone for their consumption. I'm just noting the very real fact that we all want *more.* We want more beyond a bare subsistence level of living (i.e. poverty). We work every day of our lives to acquire more property, energy, goods, services, etc. And there is nothing wrong with wanting more than a bare subsistence existence. Hell, there is nothing wrong with wanting to take vacations, to enjoy entertainment, and to try to get rich. But make no mistake--none of that has a damn thing to do with "treading lightly."

And the people who tell us to live this way--whether it's Sheryl Crow telling us to use one square of toilet paper, or Cameron giving us his 100 million dollar version of the same bullshit--they are all consuming at a rate of a 1000 time more than you or I.

I don't believe you do "everything I can to minimize my impact on the environment." You and I both know you *could* live like a monk if you wanted to. And not only do you not want to live like a monk (hell, I wouldn't want to either), but you have to admit that you are working for more than just the ability to give to charity. You are also working to consume more. In that respect, "tread lightly" is just a euphemism for good intentions which none of us have any intention of actually fulfilling. Very few of us ever do any actual "treading." To call it what it is--"driving lightly"--more accurately brings out the pitiful difference between a few miles per gallon we're using to decribe as "everything I can do to minimize."

What if every movie about the equality of humanity was written, directed, and produced by the KKK? Would any of us still talk about the lovely message (even if hypocritical)? What if every single one of us own a slave, but we "treaded" upon him "lightly?" What difference would it make to the slave?

We have to come to grips with the fact that consumption and increasing quality of life are human standards, and although we can be rational and prudent in our pursuit for *more,* there is nothing inherently bad about wanting more. I wish I was as rich as Cameron. But if I were, I wouldn't use that massive wealth to tell everyone who had a fraction of my wealth that they are greedy capitalist pigs who are raping the environment.

Or maybe I would. I hear there's good money in that sort of propaganda.

[wayfriend]

But if I were, I wouldn't use that massive wealth to tell everyone who had a fraction of my wealth that they are greedy capitalist pigs who are raping the environment.

Fortunately, all you need is a computer with internet access to tell everyone who wants to help the environment that they're all just hypocrites whose noble goals are a pointless joke.

There's nothing wrong with trying to have what you want to have, but have it with less cost to the Earth. If you're going to have the "more", why not have it in a way that's better than the status-quo alternative? I notice you steer us away from the non-ludicrous ways of thinking about it, and talk about monks.

And, by the way, you still haven't explained why "treading lightly" isn't in and of itself good. (You've only said that everyone's a hypocrite for talking about it.)

And, failing that, you've only denigrated those who support helping the environment, but not the idea of doing so. You're still attacking the messenger to weaken the message, but the message retains its integrity.

[dANdeLION]

All this makes me wonder if Mel Gibson's latest activities have lessened the message of The Passion Of The Christ. I think it does, because it always has before. I can't count the times I've heard people say they don't go to church because they think christians are a bunch of hypocrites.

[dANdeLION]

I also wonder how we've become earth's rapists. No other planet in the universe has an ecosystem on it (as far as we can tell), and none of those planets appear to be in any danger at all. The fact is we could detonate every nuclear device on the planet and all we'll harm is the life on it. The planet itself will still exist, and the planet, the solar system, and the universe won't even notice. It's like accusing someone of raping an inflatable doll. So when you talk about absurdity, consider that the only accuser of mankind's supposed criminal activity is mankind himself.

[ItisWritten]

I also wonder how we've become earth's rapists. No other planet in the universe has an ecosystem on it (as far as we can tell), and none of those planets appear to be in any danger at all. The fact is we could detonate every nuclear device on the planet and all we'll harm is the life on it. The planet itself will still exist, and the planet, the solar system, and the universe won't even notice. It's like accusing someone of raping an inflatable doll. So when you talk about absurdity, consider that the only accuser of mankind's supposed criminal activity is mankind himself.

"Raping the earth" is just a term for green extremists. There is no raping the earth; it just laughs at your efforts.

The life of the land is, of course, what they mean. They use "earth" simply to widen the effort (and add self-importance to what they say). But to cheapen the message by attacking how they say it is another diversion.

And who else is going to accuse mankind? Klingons?

[Zarathustra]

Fortunately, all you need is a computer with internet access to tell everyone who wants to help the environment that they're all just hypocrites whose noble goals are a pointless joke.

I'm not the one calling everyone hypocrites. That was Serscot.

There's nothing wrong with trying to have what you want to have, but have it with less cost to the Earth. If you're going to have the "more", why not have it in a way that's better than the status-quo alternative?

If there is nothing wrong with wanting more, then there is nothing wrong with wanting more in an non-efficient way vs an efficient way ... because you could always circumvent that quandary by simply refraining from using more in the first place. For instance, why should I drive a hybrid if there is nothing wrong with wanting a private jet? If there is nothing wrong with a private jet, then there is certainly nothing wrong with a Hummer. A Hummer is orders of magnitude more efficient than a private jet ... and yet, who wouldn't want a private jet?!? Would any of us turn down a life of luxury if it were offered to us? Of course not. We could all live like monks right now if we were serious about using less.

Using similar logic ... what good is an efficient house if we're still using more electricity than an inefficient, but smaller house? We all want bigger homes and wouldn't criticize each other for this desire. But yet even though we consume more, we still feel like it makes sense to tell others to use less? No, it doesn't make sense.

I notice you steer us away from the non-ludicrous ways of thinking about it, and talk about monks.

What's ludicrous about living like a monk? Only our own greed and aversion to discomfort makes this seem ludicrous. If living like a monk is "ludicrous," then so is the idea of treading lightly while constantly striving for more. That's my point.

And, by the way, you still haven't explained why "treading lightly" isn't in and of itself good. (You've only said that everyone's a hypocrite for talking about it.)

I don't need to explain why treading lightly isn't good, because I never said it isn't good. I'm not arguing against people who want to reduce their consumption. I'm arguing against people who are increasing their consumption, while telling everyone else to use less.

And, failing that, you've only denigrated those who support helping the environment, but not the idea of doing so. You're still attacking the messenger to weaken the message, but the message retains its integrity.

What good is a message that 99% of us have no intention of following? That's a message that doesn't need me to denigrate ... we all denigrate it with our own actions.

I'm not denigrating those who support helping the environment. I'm calling out the hypocrisy of claiming you want to help the environment while you have every intention of consuming more of it.

[danlo]

(this is feeling a leetle 'Tank"-ish, ahem )

[wayfriend]

Fortunately, all you need is a computer with internet access to tell everyone who wants to help the environment that they're all just hypocrites whose noble goals are a pointless joke.

I'm not the one calling everyone hypocrites. That was Serscot.

Actually, you called a whole class of people "worse than hypocrites" and "life-deniers".

There's nothing wrong with trying to have what you want to have, but have it with less cost to the Earth. If you're going to have the "more", why not have it in a way that's better than the status-quo alternative?

If there is nothing wrong with wanting more, then there is nothing wrong with wanting more in an non-efficient way vs an efficient way ...

Do you disagree that it is better to use less resources in order to have what you have than use more?

I don't know why you need to change the argument from better vs worse, which is all it needs to be, to an argument about right vs wrong. Some things are better than other things, even though none of them are wrong.

Cameron's message, as far as I can tell, is its bad to destroy someones home because you want the rock under it. You've declared that the message is that we should consume less and thereby rape the earth less. But it's no where in the movie I saw, that's for sure.

So we have another case of making up your opponents argument that you just happen to then shred. Pretty darn convenient. But utterly unimpressive.

I'm not denigrating those who support helping the environment. I'm calling out the hypocrisy of claiming you want to help the environment while you have every intention of consuming more of it.

I have a hard time reading that after hearing you say you're not calling anyone a hypocrite. It sure sounds like it. Repeatedly.