Avatar

[Zarathustra]

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".

But that class was specifically defined as: "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." So (as my last post reaffirmed) I'm only talking about those who advocate using less while they use more. That's a subset of people. We all want to use more. But it is a smaller subset of us who judges the rest for wanting more "in the wrong way."

Think of it this way. You can take 3 steps forward and 1 step backwards (i.e. consuming more, but doing so in an "efficient" way), or you can take 2 steps forward, and no steps backward (i.e. also consuming more, but doing so in an "inefficient" way). It's the same damn thing, yet one has moral superiority while the other apparently does not. The difference between 2 steps forward (i.e. 3 - 1) and 2 steps forward (i.e. 2 + 0) is indistinguishable in terms of how much it hurts the environment. But one certainly has the moral high ground, doesn't it? Why is that?

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

The only sense in which this is "better" is if it costs less money. Otherwise, the only person who is "better" is the one who has the least. And that is the road to poverty or stagnation. As long as you are using more than someone else, what right do you have to tell them to use theirs more efficiently? And as long as we all want to use more, "efficiently" doesn't stop the encroachment upon the environment.

A slow destruction of the environment is no less destructive than a fast destruction of the environment. Why should destroying something more slowly make us feel any better? Why is that a source of righteous indignation?

The Hummer user has cause to judge the jet user. The hybrid user has cause to judge the Hummer user. The motorcyclist has cause to judge the hyrid user. But the jet user does not have cause to judge the Hummer user, despite how much sense it makes to us who don't drive Hummers. And if we're all open to the idea of using a private jet, then why does our position farther down the ladder give us any justification to complain about the Hummer driver?

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.

Yes, some things are better than other things. But again, if you are consuming more than before--and intend to consume still more after that--what difference does it make?? More is more. Taking more out of the environment--either efficiently or inefficiently--still takes more out of the environment. The direction of our progress hasn't changed. So it is only a matter of time before A (using more efficiently) and B (using more less efficiently) becomes the same damn thing. So if we're only postponing our damage, in what sense is it better? It's slower, not better.

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.

We all live on previous Indian homeland. America is all one big Na'vi tree. If you don't see Cameron's movie as an indictment of the life which you take for granted, then you weren't watching closely enough. If you don't see your own incrimentally increasing consumption as the demand which causes corporations to "rape" the land, then perhaps you were simply applying the film's logic to other people than yourself.

And that's exactly why the message of the movie so easily becomes our personal battle cry ... even while we contradict it. We always imagine that someone else should pay the price ... and we convince ourselves that we are exempt from this logic because of that one step we take backwards while we're taking three steps forwards.

I'm just content that we're moving forwards at all, despite the dance of contradiction some feel they must take to make themselves feel better while we advance.

[wayfriend]

Think of it this way. You can take 3 steps forward and 1 step backwards (i.e. consuming more, but doing so in an "efficient" way), or you can take 2 steps forward, and no steps backward (i.e. also consuming more, but doing so in an "inefficient" way). It's the same damn thing, yet one has moral superiority while the other apparently does not. The difference between 2 steps forward (i.e. 3 - 1) and 2 steps forward (i.e. 2 + 0) is indistinguishable in terms of how much it hurts the environment. But one certainly has the moral high ground, doesn't it? Why is that?

I don't know anyone who would assert there is a difference. Who has?

A slow destruction of the environment is no less destructive than a fast destruction of the environment. Why should destroying something more slowly make us feel any better? Why is that a source of righteous indignation?

What righteous indignation do you speak of? I continue to find no one in these positions except those you imagine to exist.

However, destroying something more slowly is certainly better than destroying it more rapidly.

Which is certainly sufficient to have someone feel better about trying.

You also appear to deny that a road that begins with merely destroying the environment more slowly will never get better than that. Hopefully, at some point we can make more progress and break even. At some point after that, more progress and the decline can be reversed.

By denying any validity to taking a first step, and disparaging those that try, you only ensure that the end-result will be as useless as you claim it will be. The destination can never be reached if you never let anyone take the first step. And on the basis that the first step doesn't reach the destination, you deny the first step should be made. Now that's the denial of action that leads to certain doom. Not Cameron making movies.

[edit]However much Cameron spent, or destroyed, to make movies, if it goes to the hearts and minds of people so that we can BEGIN, it is an investment well made. Your agenda, it seems, is to make sure that hearts and minds are not won. So that we cannot begin?

But again, if you are consuming more than before--and intend to consume still more after that--what difference does it make??

So you're argument boils down to: why try?

Interesting.

[dANdeLION]

What hypocrisy? What righteous indignation? You guys are in total denial mode! It's like the Clinton years! Anyway, the bible supports you commie libs on hypocrisy; to paraphrase, it says "it doesn't matter if a person preaches the message for false reasons; as long as the message is getting preached". The only thing that should be debated then is whether or not the message itself is truth, or hypocrisy. Oh, and we can debate the movie, too; I really did see it, you know.....

[finn]

It does seem somewhat curious that a site which has attracted people who have enjoyed the tales of a misfit in a bland unforgiving world being tranplanted and fufilled in a wonderous lush world, should crticise a similar tale so vehemently.

Is Donaldson's use of Lord Foul and the fight against his evil a metaphoric indictment of 21st Century living? There are of course so many nuances to the written story, who knows what might be directed at SRD if the Cronicles made it to the screen, but for those who cry "I've seen this before" at least from this site, well of course you have: what is the Land but Pandora, what are the Stonedowners, Woodhelvennin and Ramen but the Na'vi, who is Jake Sully but a crippled man restored, Thomas Covenant ring any bells?

Frankly people can read what they like into pretty much anything; I remember a friend of my Mum's who did it with tea leaves; there were those (who had drunk the tea) who's paranoia was sufficient to believe it too!

[dANdeLION]

It does seem somewhat curious that a site which has attracted people who have enjoyed the tales of a misfit in a bland unforgiving world being tranplanted and fufilled in a wonderous lush world, should crticise a similar tale so vehemently.

It's not curious at all. The Chronicles are excellent, while Avatar is, at best, merely good. The bad guy in the Chronicles isn't me, either, while it just might be me in Avatar.

[wayfriend]

The bad guy in the Chronicles isn't me, either, while it just might be me in Avatar.

But don't we all have an inner despiser? Lord Foul might indeed be you, or I, if we were paired down to only the part of us that despises. Just as we would be Selfridge if we were paired down to only the part of us that is greedy.

[dANdeLION]

Yeah, but if you pare down a person too much, he becomes two-dimensional, which is a main problem with the characters in Avatar. The Despiser, on the other hand, isn't human, but rather, evil absolute, which allows him to be a believable character. Small Soldier boy just didn't do it for me, any more than the corporate asshole in Aliens 2. Having said that, I never could bring myself to like the husband in Mad About You because his CA character has made me hate him forever.

[finn]

It does seem somewhat curious that a site which has attracted people who have enjoyed the tales of a misfit in a bland unforgiving world being tranplanted and fufilled in a wonderous lush world, should crticise a similar tale so vehemently.

It's not curious at all. The Chronicles are excellent, while Avatar is, at best, merely good. The bad guy in the Chronicles isn't me, either, while it just might be me in Avatar.

Perhaps you meant that the it's not curious to you despite it being curious to me????

I don't think the relative merits or values of each of the tales is something that changes the similarities, regardless of your own role in events.....

[dANdeLION]

Don't try to guess what I meant; just read the damn post. I stated things quite clearly.

[finn]

Don't try to guess what I meant; just read the damn post. I stated things quite clearly.

If that were the case it would not have required any suggestion to the contrary, unless of course there is some moderator perogative that allows for telling people what they do and do not find curious. If however that is what you meant, then hey, just lock the damn thread and have done with any further discussion................... You have spoken!

This is the point where an emoticon of gathering clouds and rumbling thunder would be good.

[dANdeLION]

Lock the thread? How gauche. I prefer the subtle touch; if I get annoyed enough, I'll just remove your posts! I'm good at it, too; just ask null!:biggrin:

[Zarathustra]

Think of it this way. You can take 3 steps forward and 1 step backwards (i.e. consuming more, but doing so in an "efficient" way), or you can take 2 steps forward, and no steps backward (i.e. also consuming more, but doing so in an "inefficient" way). It's the same damn thing, yet one has moral superiority while the other apparently does not. The difference between 2 steps forward (i.e. 3 - 1) and 2 steps forward (i.e. 2 + 0) is indistinguishable in terms of how much it hurts the environment. But one certainly has the moral high ground, doesn't it? Why is that?

I don't know anyone who would assert there is a difference. Who has?

You seemed to imply a difference with this question: Do you disagree that it is better to use less resources in order to have what you have than use more? If you were just posing the question hypothetically, and didn't mean to imply that you *do* think it's better to use less resources in order to have what you have, then I suppose we're in agreement. In that case, you and I both agree that there is no reason to use less resources in order to have what you have (as long as a person sees nothing wrong with having more) ... except in as much as it saves you some money. In terms of the environment, the environment doesn't see a difference between you having a little by inefficient means, and you having a lot by efficient means. That's my point. Efficiency for the sake of the environment (instead of your wallet) is a propaganda tool. And in my eyes, that's the lie of "tread lightly."

What righteous indignation do you speak of? I continue to find no one in these positions except those you imagine to exist.

There's no righteous indignation in the environmental movement?? Gore hasn't said that we have a moral imperative to decrease our consumption? Cameron hasn't made a movie about how we're willing to kill the earth goddess in order to have more stuff? I think you're being coy here.

However, destroying something more slowly is certainly better than destroying it more rapidly.

How is that better? A slow death is better than a quick one?

You also appear to deny that a road that begins with merely destroying the environment more slowly will never get better than that.

No, I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if it does get "better" than that, this equates to the reversal of prosperity into the direction of poverty. Decreasing the overall amount of the environment which we consume is the same as recession.

Hopefully, at some point we can make more progress and break even. At some point after that, more progress and the decline can be reversed.

You're hoping for global recession? Really? There is no way to extract useful energy from the environment without increasing the total disorder (i.e. destruction) to the environment. 3rd law of thermodynamics. I think we can make rational decisions regarding how we increase that total disorder, but it's unavoidable nonetheless ... unless you're talking about the Decline of Man.

But again, if you are consuming more than before--and intend to consume still more after that--what difference does it make??

So you're argument boils down to: why try?

Interesting.

No, I'm not arguing against trying to consume less. If that's what you want to do, go for it. But unless you're going to begrudge the rest of us from consuming more, it is pointless to tell us to "conserve" while we consume more.

It does seem somewhat curious that a site which has attracted people who have enjoyed the tales of a misfit in a bland unforgiving world being tranplanted and fufilled in a wonderous lush world, should crticise a similar tale so vehemently.

I don't see the similarity at all. It seems curious to me that people can confuse a "spiritual" battle with one's own inner despiser with a turf war for resources and real estate. The Chronicles are not an environmental manifesto. They are not about capitalists vs the noble savage. They are not political. They don't put the words of former Republican presidents in the mouth of Lord Foul ("shock and awe"). If the Chronicles did any of these things, I'd consider them no better than Terry Brooks' work.

Is Donaldson's use of Lord Foul and the fight against his evil a metaphoric indictment of 21st Century living?

Considering how it was written in the 70s of the 20th century, I don't see how that's possible.

But seriously, if you read Donaldson's essay about epic fantasy, I don't see how this interpretation can be ascribed to the author's intent. If that's what you take away from it, then there's no way I can say you're wrong. I don't thing even Donaldson would say you're wrong. But I don't think that's what he meant.

This story transcends any era. It is truly universal of the human condition, to learn how to have hope in the face our mortality, death, and destruction of beauty ... these unattractive truths which we will never change.

The earth is going to be a fireball one day. How can we cope with that, if we think the environment is an ultimate good in itself?

[wayfriend]

Think of it this way. You can take 3 steps forward and 1 step backwards (i.e. consuming more, but doing so in an "efficient" way), or you can take 2 steps forward, and no steps backward (i.e. also consuming more, but doing so in an "inefficient" way). It's the same damn thing, yet one has moral superiority while the other apparently does not. The difference between 2 steps forward (i.e. 3 - 1) and 2 steps forward (i.e. 2 + 0) is indistinguishable in terms of how much it hurts the environment. But one certainly has the moral high ground, doesn't it? Why is that?

I don't know anyone who would assert there is a difference. Who has?

You seemed to imply a difference with this question: Do you disagree that it is better to use less resources in order to have what you have than use more?

That would be asking, isn't taking 3 steps forward and 1 step backward better than taking 3 steps forward, stop. Many people would see that difference.

What righteous indignation do you speak of? I continue to find no one in these positions except those you imagine to exist.

There's no righteous indignation in the environmental movement??

There's none by Cameron. But I suppose if you want to blame all environmentalists for what a few extremists do ...

However, destroying something more slowly is certainly better than destroying it more rapidly.

How is that better? A slow death is better than a quick one?

A bigger chance of fixing things is better than a smaller one.

You also appear to deny that a road that begins with merely destroying the environment more slowly will never get better than that.

No, I'm not denying that. I'm saying that if it does get "better" than that, this equates to the reversal of prosperity into the direction of poverty.

I think that one doesn't necessitate the other. But you don't have to worry, I don't think anyone would consider it "better" if it did cause poverty.

[Zarathustra]

That would be asking, isn't taking 3 steps forward and 1 step backward better than taking 3 steps forward, stop. Many people would see that difference.

But would those people see anything wrong with taking 4 steps forward? If they would not, then how can 3 steps forward, stop, be in *any* sense bad? That's the point that keeps getting overlooked: as long as we all want to earn more, have more, consume more (i.e. get richer), then there can never be anything wrong with 3 steps forward, stop. Not even relative to 3-1. If 5-1 is okay, then 3-0 is even better!

What righteous indignation do you speak of? I continue to find no one in these positions except those you imagine to exist.

There's no righteous indignation in the environmental movement??

There's none by Cameron. But I suppose if you want to blame all environmentalists for what a few extremists do ...

I read something in Popular Science today that reminded me of this:

Environmentalists Can Be Smug Jerks

The study: "Do Green Products Make Us Better People?" Psychological Science, March 2010.

THE FINDINGS: Sure, getting organic bok choy and phosphate-free toilet-bowl cleaner can make you feel good about yourself, but how good? And does buying green translate into more redeeming behavior overall? Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto conducted three experiments on 305 subjects to find out. It turns out that just being exposed to green products--seeing a TV commercial or walking by an organic store--creates a "halo effect" that makes people more charitable and trusting. But actually buying green products was like getting a license for hypocrisy: After a purchase, the green consumers were more likely to lie and steal.

WHY BOTHER? Mazar points out that more and more consumers are buying green and socially responsible products, which gives them "moral capital" (a.k.a. a superiority complex). But, she says, she wants to learn how to get beyond the smug factor: "How do we educate kids to get to the stage of being more thoughtful about using resources without thinking "I'm so great"? This is ultimately the goal of our research."

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Q.E.D., I say. Not only is there empirical evidence for my hunch, but it's such a problem that it has become the goal of these researches to correct. That's not just an issue with the extremists.

[Cail]

I watched the "Super-Mondo Collector's Extended Mega Edition" on Blu-Ray yesterday.

It still sucks.

It's a beautiful film that actually translates pretty well from IMAX 3-D to home theater. The picture and sound are freaking amazing.

The additional footage adds nothing (of course). The story is still the simple morality play that it was in the theatrical version, and the dialog is still painful.

Hard to believe that the same guy that wrote and directed The Terminator crapped out this mess.

[Cambo]

That would be asking, isn't taking 3 steps forward and 1 step backward better than taking 3 steps forward, stop. Many people would see that difference.

But would those people see anything wrong with taking 4 steps forward? If they would not, then how can 3 steps forward, stop, be in *any* sense bad? That's the point that keeps getting overlooked: as long as we all want to earn more, have more, consume more (i.e. get richer), then there can never be anything wrong with 3 steps forward, stop. Not even relative to 3-1. If 5-1 is okay, then 3-0 is even better!

There's no righteous indignation in the environmental movement??

There's none by Cameron. But I suppose if you want to blame all environmentalists for what a few extremists do ...

I read something in Popular Science today that reminded me of this:

Environmentalists Can Be Smug Jerks

The study: "Do Green Products Make Us Better People?" Psychological Science, March 2010.

THE FINDINGS: Sure, getting organic bok choy and phosphate-free toilet-bowl cleaner can make you feel good about yourself, but how good? And does buying green translate into more redeeming behavior overall? Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong of the University of Toronto conducted three experiments on 305 subjects to find out. It turns out that just being exposed to green products--seeing a TV commercial or walking by an organic store--creates a "halo effect" that makes people more charitable and trusting. But actually buying green products was like getting a license for hypocrisy: After a purchase, the green consumers were more likely to lie and steal.

WHY BOTHER? Mazar points out that more and more consumers are buying green and socially responsible products, which gives them "moral capital" (a.k.a. a superiority complex). But, she says, she wants to learn how to get beyond the smug factor: "How do we educate kids to get to the stage of being more thoughtful about using resources without thinking "I'm so great"? This is ultimately the goal of our research."

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Q.E.D., I say. Not only is there empirical evidence for my hunch, but it's such a problem that it has become the goal of these researches to correct. That's not just an issue with the extremists.

South Park said it years ago with their episode on hybrid cars creating a toxic cloud of "smug" above the town. The smug from South Park collided with the smug from George Clooney's acceptance speech, creating the "perfect storm of smug" and causing San Francisco to "completely disappear up its own asshole."

I've got far more respect for the people who go out and chain themselves to trees (do they do that anymore), etc than the family next door driving a hybrid.

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)? It was as subtle as a sledgehammer, I agree, and I'm a member of Greenpeace

One thing I did like, though, was how the panentheistic deity of the Na'vi was shown to be actually real, ie the entire world was a sentient organism. Been done before, of course, but I thought the execution was cool, those vine thingies being neural pathways and all that.

[dANdeLION]

Keep the comments limited to the movie. The environmental argument burned itself out 5 months ago (good riddance, I say), and Wayfriend isn't even around anymore to defend his stance. If you can't leave it alone, I'll split this thread and send the part of it to the Tank. But I don't want to do that, on account of laziness.

[Cambo]

*Shakes sting out of slapped wrist*

Okey doke. Just can never resist a SP reference. Um, which relates to Avatar in that....they both use animation...and Avatar's animation was better....but SP is better overall....which, er, shows that spending huge amounts of money on expensive 3D technology is all well and good, but at least some of the time could have been invested in finding a good scripwriter rather than adapting Dances with Wolves! Phew!

[dANdeLION]

Dances With Wolves? I thought they stole the script from The Last Samurai!

[Cambo]

Which stole that script from Pocahontas...