Show me how. Where's the evidence not that the pairing of technology and bad guys is more than coincidential, which could easily fit with e.g. Cameron being a hippy pushover, but that technology is evil inherently as demonstrated by the movie?
It's only coincidence. The evidence in the movie, as Cameron presents it, is not credible, as far as proving that technology is "evil". IF Cameron meant to discredit technology with Avatar and its evil and (coincidentally) pro-technology bad guys, he failed.
Topologist Predicts New Form of Matter
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I think Cameron succeeded in doing what Lucas had tried and failed to do in SW episode 6: he created an environmentalist sympathy in the audience. Pretty much that's all Cameron seemed to be trying for as regards the antagonism. As Betruger points out, there is nothing in the movie that portrays technology as evil.
If you don't get that the humans were totally raping the land and didn't care about the consequences to others, then you're hopeless. Think about the scene where the boss is justifying stealing someone's home out from under them, all for a buck. Humanity is not going to die if these eco-rapists don't mine the closest, richest vein of ore. They can pick another. They chose to destroy the homes of the protagonists because they're soulless apes.
Cameron went to fantastical lengths to portray Pandora as the most beautiful place he could imagine, and the rapists as eco-terrorists who only cared about turning the largest profit with the least amount of work. If you didn't end up siding with the natives, you have serious moral incapacity and should not be allowed around animals, small children, or weapons of any kind.
If you don't get that the humans were totally raping the land and didn't care about the consequences to others, then you're hopeless. Think about the scene where the boss is justifying stealing someone's home out from under them, all for a buck. Humanity is not going to die if these eco-rapists don't mine the closest, richest vein of ore. They can pick another. They chose to destroy the homes of the protagonists because they're soulless apes.
Cameron went to fantastical lengths to portray Pandora as the most beautiful place he could imagine, and the rapists as eco-terrorists who only cared about turning the largest profit with the least amount of work. If you didn't end up siding with the natives, you have serious moral incapacity and should not be allowed around animals, small children, or weapons of any kind.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Hatred of technology is implicit in environmentalist sympathy. Not the way it has to be, but that is the way it is.GIThruster wrote:I think Cameron succeeded in doing what Lucas had tried and failed to do in SW episode 6: he created an environmentalist sympathy in the audience. Pretty much that's all Cameron seemed to be trying for as regards the antagonism. As Betruger points out, there is nothing in the movie that portrays technology as evil.
Go hunt up some of the Avatar backstory that didn't make it into the film. Specifically the authorized sources, such as this and this. Both of which touch on the tech-hatred I referenced above. Unobtanium was critical to the power infrastructure of a Bladerunner-crowded Earth. Without it, billions of our own die.GIThruster wrote:If you don't get that the humans were totally raping the land and didn't care about the consequences to others, then you're hopeless. Think about the scene where the boss is justifying stealing someone's home out from under them, all for a buck. Humanity is not going to die if these eco-rapists don't mine the closest, richest vein of ore. They can pick another. They chose to destroy the homes of the protagonists because they're soulless apes.
Zero sum game, survival, your people or mine?
Sucks to be you.
As the movie intended. It is an ode to the myth of the noble savage, who lives a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. Red in tooth and claw. Propagandists back to Jean Jacques Rousseau have been trying to peddle that BS as elevating, "Avatar" is merely the latest release in a long line of drivel. The artificial interventions of human civilization are the greatest mercies ever created. An opera in support of the glories of uncivilized savagery shorn of those mercies is unworthy of even my contempt.GIThruster wrote:Cameron went to fantastical lengths to portray Pandora as the most beautiful place he could imagine, and the rapists as eco-terrorists who only cared about turning the largest profit with the least amount of work. If you didn't end up siding with the natives,
Our first loyalty is to our own. Those who threaten our own are to be stopped, or destroyed. The Na'vi kicked humans off Pandora, and we need that ore. The "stopped" option has just failed.GIThruster wrote:you have serious moral incapacity and should not be allowed around animals, small children, or weapons of any kind.
Again. Sucks to be you. Welcome to "destroyed."
Vae Victis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Why do I have this terrible sense that I was just scolded by a 12 year old?
No, hatred of technology, what philosophers of technology like myself call "technological pessimism" is in no way intrinsic to environmentalism.
If you assume environmentalism means technological pessimism, then you get all the dopey assumptions that go with, like that Cameron is teaching that technology is bad. There is nothing in the film that says this and we know Cameron is a superb communicator. If he had wanted to say it, he would have said it and he did not. Fact is, it's pretty hard to even make sense of the position Cameron is anti-tech, when his gone native hero carries a rifle and grenades into battle and it's because of them he defeats his enemy.
There is no reason to "hunt backstory". I'm quite capable of getting the message in the film and that is the discussion. There is nothing in the story that "billions will die" if the greedy corporation exec doesn't get his ore. No one is going to die, they're just not going to turn as much profit. Cameron devoted an entire scene to showing the issue is not NEED, but GREED. They could easily have gone to another dig site.
Why make up nonsense just to cut down one of history's most brilliant film-makers? And c'mon. . . those mech suits were just totally amazing. The fight with the weavi-cat thing? That was as good as when Predator picks up an Alien by the tail, and swings him through a stone pillar (though I don't think that was Cameron) and when Ripply fights the Alien Queen in a loader suit. . .totally awesome!
No, hatred of technology, what philosophers of technology like myself call "technological pessimism" is in no way intrinsic to environmentalism.
If you assume environmentalism means technological pessimism, then you get all the dopey assumptions that go with, like that Cameron is teaching that technology is bad. There is nothing in the film that says this and we know Cameron is a superb communicator. If he had wanted to say it, he would have said it and he did not. Fact is, it's pretty hard to even make sense of the position Cameron is anti-tech, when his gone native hero carries a rifle and grenades into battle and it's because of them he defeats his enemy.
There is no reason to "hunt backstory". I'm quite capable of getting the message in the film and that is the discussion. There is nothing in the story that "billions will die" if the greedy corporation exec doesn't get his ore. No one is going to die, they're just not going to turn as much profit. Cameron devoted an entire scene to showing the issue is not NEED, but GREED. They could easily have gone to another dig site.
Why make up nonsense just to cut down one of history's most brilliant film-makers? And c'mon. . . those mech suits were just totally amazing. The fight with the weavi-cat thing? That was as good as when Predator picks up an Alien by the tail, and swings him through a stone pillar (though I don't think that was Cameron) and when Ripply fights the Alien Queen in a loader suit. . .totally awesome!
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:Why do I have this terrible sense that I was just scolded by a 12 year old?
I'm about 3x that age.
In terms of dictionary definitions, no technological pessimism is not inherent to environmentalism. In terms of actual praxis, yes, it is.GIThruster wrote:No, hatred of technology, what philosophers of technology like myself call "technological pessimism" is in no way intrinsic to environmentalism.
There's nothing wrong with the "victim" using the "victimizer's" tools to defeat the victimizer. Standard trope these days.GIThruster wrote:Fact is, it's pretty hard to even make sense of the position Cameron is anti-tech, when his gone native hero carries a rifle and grenades into battle and it's because of them he defeats his enemy.
(Shrug) Its a standard progression in Poliwood. Note how Lucas purged the un-fluffy "Han shoots first" part from Ep4.GIThruster wrote:Why make up nonsense just to cut down one of history's most brilliant film-makers?
Impressive FX, yes. But we both knew we were going to see that when we walked into the theatre.GIThruster wrote:And c'mon. . . those mech suits were just totally amazing. The fight with the weavi-cat thing? That was as good as when Predator picks up an Alien by the tail, and swings him through a stone pillar (though I don't think that was Cameron) and when Ripply fights the Alien Queen in a loader suit. . .totally awesome!
Vae Victis
If you don't end up siding with the natives, it may be that you see the "natives" are cartoon people who don't deserve compassion in anything more than a notional sense. IOW Cameron's is a straw man. The noble savage myth here isn't even propaganda to the benefit of any actual people; it doesn't work as propaganda because those savages don't actually exist. The whole thing is made up, it's a deus ex from A to Z.djolds1 wrote:As the movie intended. It is an ode to the myth of the noble savage, who lives a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. Red in tooth and claw. Propagandists back to Jean Jacques Rousseau have been trying to peddle that BS as elevating, "Avatar" is merely the latest release in a long line of drivel. The artificial interventions of human civilization are the greatest mercies ever created. An opera in support of the glories of uncivilized savagery shorn of those mercies is unworthy of even my contempt.GIThruster wrote:Cameron went to fantastical lengths to portray Pandora as the most beautiful place he could imagine, and the rapists as eco-terrorists who only cared about turning the largest profit with the least amount of work. If you didn't end up siding with the natives,
And then technology isn't the cause for the savages' woes, even in this deus ex.
I gotta say I'm on the "don't like avatar" side.
It's the same theme that's been played over and over and over for the last few decades in movie theaters:
Capitalism is evil
Capitalism exploits people
Capitalism does no good
The military is evil
The military is brutal
The military will do whatever they want to accomplish their goals
Western Civilization is evil
We shouldn't try to change native cultures (despite the fact that 99.99% of them are brutal and disgusting, practicing things like child sacrifice, wife beating, rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
Etc, etc, etc.
It's the same theme that's been played over and over and over for the last few decades in movie theaters:
Capitalism is evil
Capitalism exploits people
Capitalism does no good
The military is evil
The military is brutal
The military will do whatever they want to accomplish their goals
Western Civilization is evil
We shouldn't try to change native cultures (despite the fact that 99.99% of them are brutal and disgusting, practicing things like child sacrifice, wife beating, rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
Etc, etc, etc.
A separate matter from whether Avatar credibly discredits technology.mdeminico wrote:I gotta say I'm on the "don't like avatar" side.
Which don't appear in the movie because they don't exist in the movie's universe because that universe is completely made up. Doesn't anyone else find it nonsensical to argue real life values and issues based on a story that's not merely fiction (as e.g. one of Shakespeare's plays) but very implausible scifi?rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
Why didn't Kurzweil, instead of condemning Avatar, use the subtle mistakes (if Cameron's intent was indeed to discredit technology by pitting it against nature) in Avatar to support his argument that tech and nature are both good, that proper information (i.e. education) is necessary to keep both in check (i.e. avoid "Dangerous Futures"), etc?
Maybe because Kurzweil fell for it and knee jerked just like the other (naively tree hugging) side knee jerks when some mirror equivalent of Avatar happens.
You have to be willing to engage in some level of willing suspension of disbelief just to stay in the theatre through the entire movie. I.e. you have to credit the savages with some notional level of "existence." But even then, the movie is little more than an ode to how the "pure, balanced, close to nature" savages lead a superior form of life.Betruger wrote:If you don't end up siding with the natives, it may be that you see the "natives" are cartoon people who don't deserve compassion in anything more than a notional sense. IOW Cameron's is a straw man. The noble savage myth here isn't even propaganda to the benefit of any actual people; it doesn't work as propaganda because those savages don't actually exist. The whole thing is made up, it's a deus ex from A to Z.djolds1 wrote:As the movie intended. It is an ode to the myth of the noble savage, who lives a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. Red in tooth and claw. Propagandists back to Jean Jacques Rousseau have been trying to peddle that BS as elevating, "Avatar" is merely the latest release in a long line of drivel. The artificial interventions of human civilization are the greatest mercies ever created. An opera in support of the glories of uncivilized savagery shorn of those mercies is unworthy of even my contempt.
No. But it is the evil/corrupting tool of the oppressor. Standard Green and Multikulti trope for the last 25 years.Betruger wrote:And then technology isn't the cause for the savages' woes, even in this deus ex.
Vae Victis
No, because even implausible movies inspire real world reactions. Movies change the way we think about the world.Betruger wrote:A separate matter from whether Avatar credibly discredits technology.mdeminico wrote:I gotta say I'm on the "don't like avatar" side.
Which don't appear in the movie because they don't exist in the movie's universe because that universe is completely made up. Doesn't anyone else find it nonsensical to argue real life values and issues based on a story that's not merely fiction (as e.g. one of Shakespeare's plays) but very implausible scifi?rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
Honestly, can you tell me as a dude who's an engineer/scientist, you can watch movies like Iron Man, Tucker, October Sky, Aviator, Star Trek, or any other movies like that, and not be inspired to go create something?
Um, because Cameron's intent wasn't to support that argument, and any debate trying to "justify" the "evil" things portrayed in that movie would be willingly submitting yourself to be below Cameron and his points, as if you're saying "he's got a point, but here's why it's ok that this happened..." He doesn't have a point, he's a crackpot with an agenda that's failing to tell the whole story.Betruger wrote:Why didn't Kurzweil, instead of condemning Avatar, use the subtle mistakes (if Cameron's intent was indeed to discredit technology by pitting it against nature) in Avatar to support his argument that tech and nature are both good, that proper information (i.e. education) is necessary to keep both in check (i.e. avoid "Dangerous Futures"), etc?
Maybe because Kurzweil fell for it and knee jerked just like the other (naively tree hugging) side knee jerks when some mirror equivalent of Avatar happens.
It's his movie, he can do that. But I can also refuse to see it, or support it, and I can also choose to slam the movie as the piece of crap propaganda I think it is
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
i used to think the universe was shaped like a donut. then i thought it was shaped like a coffee cup. then a breakfast sandwich. i know, silly, right? but you see then i saw this movie and realized i was just standing on a gigantic breakfast table. and that really was a donut. and that really was a coffee cup. etc. "honey i shrunk the kids" i think it was called.mdeminico wrote:No, because even implausible movies inspire real world reactions. Movies change the way we think about the world.Betruger wrote:A separate matter from whether Avatar credibly discredits technology.mdeminico wrote:I gotta say I'm on the "don't like avatar" side.
Which don't appear in the movie because they don't exist in the movie's universe because that universe is completely made up. Doesn't anyone else find it nonsensical to argue real life values and issues based on a story that's not merely fiction (as e.g. one of Shakespeare's plays) but very implausible scifi?rape, and any other number of things, all conveniently left out of this movie)
It is safe to assume that terra-forming is a technology that would be hated by environmentalists. This demonstrates that manipulating nature by technology is limited to less than the planetary scale. I.e., you can build fusion reactors but don't try to create a beautiful atmosphere for humanity.
Environmentalism is a scale-dependent, subjective world view and has no claim to be elevated to a science, yet we see many, many universities placing "Environmental" into their departmental names. A political statement on our present irrational era.
An implicit hatred (and fear-fueled incomprehension) of technology is part and parcel of environmentalism, whether you like it or not.
Environmentalism is a scale-dependent, subjective world view and has no claim to be elevated to a science, yet we see many, many universities placing "Environmental" into their departmental names. A political statement on our present irrational era.
An implicit hatred (and fear-fueled incomprehension) of technology is part and parcel of environmentalism, whether you like it or not.
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
no it is not.icarus wrote:It is safe to assume that terra-forming is a technology that would be hated by environmentalists.
no it does not.This demonstrates that manipulating nature by technology is limited to less than the planetary scale. I.e., you can build fusion reactors but don't try to create a beautiful atmosphere for humanity.
no it is not.Environmentalism is a scale-dependent,
subjective world view
no it is not.
besides, of course, being scientific in every wayand has no claim to be elevated to a science,
finally, a true statement!yet we see many, many universities placing "Environmental" into their departmental names.
how is it a political statement? - it is wholly scientific. it's as much a political statement as the earth is round - which i will grant you there was a time where you would have been shot for saying that. and when were we ever rational?A political statement on our present irrational era.
again, categorically false.An implicit hatred (and fear-fueled incomprehension) of technology is part and parcel of environmentalism, whether you like it or not.