Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Technology Themes in James Cameron's Avatar
ThousandStars writes "'The anti-technological aspect [in James Cameron's Avatar] is strange because the movie is among most technically sophisticated ever: it uses a crazy 2D and 3D camera, harnesses the most advanced computer animation techniques imaginable, and has apparently improved the state-of-the-art when it comes to cinema. But Avatar’s story argues that technology is bad. Humans destroyed their home world through environmental disaster and use military might to annihilate the locals and steal their resources.' The question is two-fold: why have a technically sophisticated, anti-technical movie, and why are we drawn to it? Part of the answer lies in Neal Stephenson's Turn On, Tune In, Veg Out."
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Same argument isn't it.
I think mankind in general is a teen currently, sometimes self destructive, sometimes moody, sometimes passed out cold on someones couch or throwing up in wake of a hangover. Like teens, future is an unknown. Sometimes teens fail to live long enough to grow up, but mostly they do and then look back to their wild years in wonder.
I personally prefer the Avatar review by the inimitable Dr. Zero: The Suicide Fantasy
I would summarize his article, but frankly I could never do it justice. Click through and read. It's fantastic.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Agreed. I don't think it was anti-technology, but rather all about using your resources wisely. The scene where they asked for forgiveness when they had to kill a predator basically laid it all out. They understood that there were necessities, but they would do them as needed to survive. They also didn't mock the offworlders for what they knew. They complained that their 'cup was already full', meaning they were inflexible about learning a new way.
Given their native capabilities to network with other animals and plants, store memories, travel quickly via land and air, and easy accessibility to huge stores of food due to native flora and fauna, it's not surprising that they weren't technologically advanced. They simply didn't need it.
I had a distaste for the movie prior to seeing it, but that was because whenever I asked someone who had been raving about it for details on the plot, they could only tell me how "pretty" or "awesome" everything was. I didn't make fun of it (because how can I make fun of it if I haven't seen the source material outside of a 90 second trailer?) but I was vocal in my disinterest in it simply because no one I knew could give me two sentences worth of story description.
This weekend, when my wife and I needed to get out for a little bit, we gambled and saw it. To my surprise, I didn't hate it. In fact I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say it's the best movie of the year or going to sweep the Academy Awards like I've heard from some, but it was very well done.
Don't get me wrong, I still criticize the movie. Specifically the design of some of the wildlife (some of the designs just seemed to vary from impractical to unnecessary). There were some things that just seemed "alien for the sake of alien".
Yes, it's a "going native" film like Dances with Wolves (even Cameron said that was part of his inspiration) but it really does stand on it's own.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Packs of wolves and bears don't leave you alone there, either, as Jake found out. They leave you alone if they don't know you're there, you're smart enough to stay out of their areas, not piss them off, etc.
The Na'vi aren't peaceful people. They're warriors. Living in harmony with nature, in the real world, means that sometimes you eat a bit of nature, and sometimes it eats you. The movie did not portray a Disney-esqe vision. We know things in their own environment think they're tasty, and we know this is not the first "time of great sorrow", and the last wasn't that long ago. IMO, it's an amazingly beautiful vision of a world, but hardly an Eden.
I don't know anything about PKD, but from the movie it's fair to assume people who aren't healthy don't become full members of the tribe. I found it an interesting concept. Which is better, a society that requires everyone to be productive, or a society (like ours) that encourages people to be unproductive (living on welfare, begging on the streets, living in their parents' basements until they're 35...). Neither is perfect. Our society has a tremendous surplus, so we can accommodate a lot of unproductive people. Societies that can't, don't. I didn't get the impression the Na'vi don't have enough to go around, and they simply didn't address your point at all. I suppose when they need "modern" medicine, they do the same thing we do when we need 22nd century medicine.
We're supposed to believe that the whole planet evolved that way. The Na'vi consider it magic, but it's actually supposed to be highly advanced biology. So yes, the Na'vi are low-tech, because they don't have a clue how any of it works.
Objected. "Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you. There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it. Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar. The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium.
This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.
Yes. Now, do you think that these capabilities evolved naturally? Or that the entire planet was something designed? I mean, what evolutionary pressure could possibly drive an animal to having a built-in "make me your mind-slave" link?
That's easy. The sex drive. It's already pretty close. Some people will already do anything their partner asks, and that's just for the promise of future sex.
Couple that with a neural interface, and every guy I know is a goner.
John
As a kid, I "slummed" an entire summer with homeless fisherman on a local pier. For the most part I learned how "having" was not a replacement for the ability to orient oneself with one's environment. I learned how to make a bait-catcher rig, spot and make my own bait, keep my bait alive, and make enough money on the fish I caught to fish the next day. I also learned that if you want to fish with bait, you have to make your own bait. These were all life-lessons I have never read in a book, and have since proved invaluable.
It's sometimes shocking to me how much of life is lost via the conveniences of modern technology, not to mention the loss of character that results from lack of experience.
-Oz
did you see the movie? different species are able to link up and communicate through the hair nerve bundle thingy (official term!). unless there was some strong selective pressure to keep those links intact across the species, they would have lost the ability quickly. considering how few of the wild animals connected to the blue guys, i doubt it could have stuck around as a trait (unless of course the links were used extensively within each species, something I don't remember seeing but it's entirely possible.)
/genetics major
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Well actually I can provide an example of some unintended results of genetic modification. The extinction of monarch butterflies in certain areas where a genetically modified corn that produced pollen that kills corn borer worms. The pollen was getting onto fields of milkweed that the monarch butterfly used as breeding ground and the pollen was poison to the borer worms and the larvae of the butterfly accidentally. However I worked for a company that was genetically modifying plants and it's really hard to get unexpected results from genes once you have identified what they do in the original organism. Side affects like the monarch problem however are harder to predict.
Why bother
i'm glad you brought up corn. i work in a molecular biology lab at a major university. we study maize in my lab, so I know a thing or two about it. extinction isn't the proper term for loss of a species from a particular area. disappearance is more like it.
you must be referring to Bt corn. i can believe that pollen could do what you describe, but at the same time I know that it could have been prevented with the proper promoter on the Bt gene. there's no need for pollen to express the peptide pesticide. fortunately, corn pollen is absurdly massive compared to most other pollen, and doesn't fly far.
what I was really asking about was the irresponsible use of transgenics. you say you work for a company involved with them. have you seen the amount of paperwork needed to even get transgenic seed? the amount of regulation surrounding transgenics is enormous, and I have never really heard of a biologically-irresponsible use in the field (not that it's impossible).
transgenics will save this planet, mark my words.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.