An astrophysicist reviews the science of "Avatar".
aintitcool.com
aintitcool.com
I have a few problems with this review, because the author assumes that the Na'vi must follow the same cultural development path as humans.
I argue that our path to our current culture didn't start with writing, but with agriculture. Agriculture, and later city-building, is all about destroying nature to build a new environment better suited to our needs. What if, because of the deeply interconnected nature of Pandora, the Na'vi evolved to include the surrounding nature in their in-group? That would imply that, for a Na'vi, morality would apply to a tree as much as another Na'vi. Clearing forests for crops would be tantamount to mass murder.
The Na'vi culture is definitely a "Noble savage" stereotype, but note that they have a warrior culture. This implies that they must regularly go to war with other tribes, even if they don't show it in the movie. I also object to citing Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate here. His arguments only apply to human cultures.
As for how that could happen to begin with, perhaps a high magnetic flux from the nearby gas giant would favor the development of sensory organs for that medium. Birds are sensitive to the earth's comparatively weak magnetic field (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7268/full/nature0...) and there are several varieties of fish that can generate electricity inside their bodies and use it to communicate (http://www.livescience.com/animals/060602_electric_fish.html). That aspect didn't seem far-fetched to me.
I was more perplexed by the morphology of some animals - for example I wasn't clear on the benefit of 4 front legs, 4 eyes, and gill-type breathing...but it didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the film, which I'm looking forward to seeing again, probably several times. 'see' being the operative word...people complain about the crudity of the dialog, but the win for me is that you could watch it without knowing a word of English and still 'get' the story - which is far easier said than done.
Destroying ? That's some bias there. How about "altering nature".
Humans are part of nature, and changing things around us is natural. Sometimes it is an act of destruction, but building homes and planting crops hardly fits that description.
"Altering"? That's some political correctness there. Looking at what we do, destroying is a far more accurate description.
> Humans are part of nature, and changing things around us is natural.
Using that definition of natural, everything is natural and unnatural has no meaning at all. Makes communicating a point rather hard. Humans are natural and since they build cars, cars must be natural as well?
No.
"Humans are natural and since they build cars, cars must be natural as well?"
As I said, it's natural for people to build things, so building cars is natural.
I simply don't adhere to the PC view that if people do it, it must be anti-nature, unnatural, or bad (though sometimes that happens to be the case).
I don't know about you but I think a house is an improvement over the trees that were here before. A forest can get pretty cold in winter.
That's not saying we should pave the forests - forests are nice, I like having them around. But it's the human desire to have a forest that's meaningful, not the forest itself. If humans want houses more, then it's perfectly acceptable to knock down the trees, turn them into lumber, and build houses with them, and spit-roast the animals over a wood fire in the backyard for the housewarming party.
I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesnakes do not grow rattles for your benefit! I'm afraid that yon astrophysicist knows rather a bit more about physics than about evolutionary biology if the inter-species universal complex adaptations didn't jump out at him.
As for the planetary tree-mind being able to read out human brain networks using its own standardized equipment, who are they kidding?
Yes, the whole plot would have worked without it! The central tree could have been providing a vital nutrient without which the local ecosystem would fail, or something that their women needed to reproduce. There's no reason you need telepathy to ride a horse. The final stampede could have been started by one or more heroes, rather than being magic. And the final body-swap wasn't really necessary (just keep using the old equipment), but it could have been an effect of running the interface for a sufficiently long time (the alien brain gets reprogrammed).
And then it would have been hard science fiction, which would have made a visually-awesome, okay-plot movie into one of the greatest SF movies of all time.
Also, I will accept pretty alien ladies for the sake of plot, but having them cry tears is going too far, and it's not necessary. That really jumped out at me.
Avatar was good, but it could have been so much more if they'd spent five minutes thinking about how to get the plot effect they wanted via science instead of magic.
You should check this out: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php The latest science suggests that evolution is less random than we thought, and that unrelated species often swap genetic information. Inter-species universal complex adaptations may be a bit more plausible than we think.
I'm equally perplexed by his overall point of "genetics is complicated, therefore genetic engineering and capitalism is immoral."
If, early on in the evolution of animals with brains, it was typical for them to communicate through these connections, wouldn't it make sense for all descendant animals to also have this ability? If contact between divergent species was still frequent, and the contact was positive and mutually beneficial, why not communicate through this channel when needed? Spoken language may have been unique to their humanoids. Indeed, spoken language is a bit more odd than directly connecting to the brain of the other.
To me, this is just as unusual or counter to evolution as our ability to use sign language to communicate (albeit primitively) with apes, or give spoken orders to dogs. That is: it isn't.
Edit - Hmm a downvote for an on topic opinion? Would it have been better had I said "Who cares about the details its a freaking movie and you nerds need to get over yourselves?" :)
Sentience isn't an 'event'; it's not like some apes woke up one morning a few million years ago, and just somehow knew to make spears and hunt. It happens slowly, starting with the use of naturally occurring tools, like chimpanzees do with sticks, or certain octopi do with coconut shells. Some birds use rocks as tools.
Tool use evolves up from there, but if we look at our own species as an example, it probably doesn't ever really stop.
The Na'vi are probably more like echoes of human beings at an earlier point in our evolution, with the added property of having an intrinsic physical link to the environment around them. If the ecosystem ties directly into your CNS, you're going to think real hard before engaging in widespread destructive behavior, because you know first-hand how painful the damage is. So things like mining, which gave humans metal, would take the Na'vi longer, because they'd want to find a way to do it that won't cause them a ton of pain.
But they'd get there, and since Cameron is talking about sequels, the next installment may very likely show how contact with humans has pushed the Na'vi on to a more rapid path of technological development.
And your post really doesn't deserve to be downvoted, so it got a +1 from me. Come on, we're discussing the science fiction in a movie. :)
This one does not seem to fit the story as portrayed. Lets put aside the fact that "a better way to live" is likely be highly subjective and assume that they choose to live in tune with nature despite the ability to develop advanced technology.
As long as they remembered this fact, that they deliberated put aside technology, they would have behaved differently towards the humans. They wouldn't have needed the marine to show them how to blind the clearing machines, they would have already known. They surely would have at least debated pulling out the old tech when their soul tree was threatened even if they finally chose not to. And they likely would have approached the humans to try to teach them their ways and show them they were "better", or if they wanted to be isolated they would have had the knowledge to be more effective in driving the humans away which they didn't even seem to try to do until the humans attacked them.
Of course you could assume they forgot, but that seems implausible. A technological civilization that choose to abandon their technology should have little problem making sure that the message of deliberately eschewing technology and why would be passed down. If they didn't their descendants would be likely to start the cycle all over again a few generations. Also, their soul tree would be likely to hold this knowledge if no other method was passed (as I mentioned in a different post, the limits of the trees information storage and transmission are never made explicit, but it seems very likely it would have that particilar piece...)
After the fall of the Roman Empire that part of the world involuntarily fell into a dark age, that is very different from intentionally eschewing technology. And those societies did rediscover most of the lost knowledge and began progressing again.
Presumably a society with advanced technology that did something as drastic as getting rid of all of it would have left behind reasons so that their ancestors would also avoid it, or at least be able to make an informed choice. It would not be hard to ensure that endured (barring a major catastrophe) for many generations.
It could have taken the form of oral histories which can be preserved (at least in general intent, even if details change) for very long stretches, or maintaining writing even if it was restricted to their spiritual leader caste, or even one remaining piece of technology in the form of an extremely durable recording that speaks to them on set anniversaries.
Giving up technology is very different to losing it as a society collapses into a dark age from a combination of corruption, war, and other factors.
Also, the Roman Empire did not have anything to function as an ancestral memory. While it has been mentioned several times before that the limits of the Soul Trees function as an ancestral memory were left vague, it seems likely that something as fundamental as deliberately eschewing technology would show up at least as echoes of an aversion to technology.
Maybe not for them. Since they are so connected via the network, there maybe a higher level of consensus.
They wouldn't have needed the marine to show them how to blind the clearing machines, they would have already known.
Not really. Why would it have been obvious to them that the things on top are what the operator uses to see anything? Even if they had technology as or more advanced, there is no reason to believe it would follow the same paradigm as anything we think of.
Overall, I think the idea that they don't feel the kind separation from the planet that we do is the most plausible reason.
Possible. You might be able say that for them living with technology might be unambiguously better. But when it is said as a simple statement by itself it appears a highly subjective opinion, or at least very dependent on the circumstances.
Not really. Why would it have been obvious to them that the things on top are what the operator uses to see anything?
A good point and a possibility, but the humans had been there for years. If they had had advanced technology of a different kind, that exposure to the humans technology would likely have let them start figuring out how the human's technology worked, even if they avoided it.
Overall, I think the idea that they don't feel the kind separation from the planet that we do is the most plausible reason.
That is certainly a possibility. I find it more likely that they simply were at the bow and error phase of technology and had not yet grown beyond it in any direction more likely.
My trek knowlege is pretty poor, but I want to say this is the history of the Vulcan. They're extremely advanced technologically, but choose to live a simple life. Unlike the Na'vi, however, they don't shoot animals with neurotoxin-covered spears, growl at things that make them angry, or try to fight a war against people with guns using the aforementioned spears.
The Vulcan are one of the most technologically advanced civilizations in The Federation. If the Na'vi were an advanced race that chose to live simply, dealing with the Humans wouldn't have been a problem for them.
It is one of the very few scenarios where a war between different civilizations would be interesting: one where the technologies are so different engagement is almost impossible and you simply can't tell which one is more advanced. I think Starship Troopers explored this idea very well: there were planets humans were not even aware they were bug colonies. All weapons are designed making certain assumptions about their target. If all assumptions are wrong, the weapon is very ineffective. You can't use a torpedo to sink a mountain.
I didn't watch the movie, but from what I saw, I gather human technology can barely function there due to the magnetic fields of the gas giant and/or its moon. It's likely the technology evolved in such a place would be very, very different from ours.
The Vulcans were one of the most technologically advanced civilizations in the Federation, but not any longer, you haven't been keeping up.
On a more metaphorical level, the film seems to explore the contrasts of networked vs hierarchical approaches to social organization mumbles about information ecologies and development strategies
That's odd. I don't think there is substantial proof that winds on Jupiter are caused by planetary rotation. In fact, the atmosphere is part of the same inertial system as the rest of the planet. Here's an article suggesting that the winds are actually generated from within Jupiter's interior: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Jupiters_Massive_Winds_Lik...
Additionally, I see no inherent problem in supersonic winds. How does it preclude a foreign planet from being 'plausible'? If there is a problem, I'd like for somebody to help me identify it.
If the movie ever mentions how long the Na'vi have been around as sentient creatures, I missed it entirely. Even if they would leave the "noble savage" stage much faster than humans did, they certainly would have passed through it and if that happens to be when this movie takes place it is hardly surprising.
Also, the type of information that they could pass around in this fashion is never clearly delineated. The Tree of Souls can clearly move everything there is from one mind to another, but it is never shown that this can be done routinely or without price, so it may be less valuable in terms of developing technology than it would seem at first glance.
It did mention that before Jake Sully, there were five Toruk Maktos since the beginning of known history, and the most recent one was Neytiri's grandfather's grandfather. Based on that, we might expect recorded history to only go about twenty (or twenty-four?) generations back.
They live in this world which is literally founded on an information network. People from the default world enter this other world via technology, and by creating avatars which are remotely controlled. There is a power struggle between those who see the communities as something to exploit, and those who see them as something valuable for their own sake.
The Na'vi culture didn't seem particularly democratic.
More specifically, it is the population's ability to transfer existing information and synthesize new information which lends itself to what we recognize technological progress (you have to have the desire to apply such knowledge too, of course).
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing the Na'vi did not have very large or dense populations. As for their global Gaia network, does the movie explain if it actually transfer chunks of knowledge (memes) or experiential patterns, or is it 'lower level' and works more like sharing emotions?
Interesting point. I had never heard it before (I'd be interested if you have a reference that goes into more detail), but it certainly seem like there is a historical correalation and thinking about it you do seem to need at least a minimum population size (enough to allow people to specialize in careers instead of everyone being generalists with food production their prime concern) to develop advanced technology.
At least offhand, I am not certain how well that causitive factor holds after that threshold has been reached. And that All other things being equal caveat is likely to be of significant importance here. I am speculating, but I would guess that after the minimum threshold is passed than the amount of value the culture places on education and technology itself will likely swamp out size or growth rates in terms of encouraging technological advance. In other words, after the minimum is reached, you would increase technological development faster by affecting the culture of the people than by increasing the population, and that affect is likely to be so great to mask differences in population size.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing the Na'vi did not have very large or dense populations. The total planetary population is never stated but the population for the region the movie focuses on is said to be in the neighborhood of 200,000 very roughly.
As for their global Gaia network, does the movie explain if it actually transfer chunks of knowledge (memes) or experiential patterns, or is it 'lower level' and works more like sharing emotions?
This is ambiguous. At one point it is shown that at least under certain conditions absolutely everything can be shared and transferred, but that was under exceptional circumstances. How it operates under normal conditions is left quite vague.
The movie is well worth seeing if you haven't.
Convergent evolution? Birds, bats, and flying squirrels; sharks, dolphins and penguins; snakes, worms and legless lizards; and so on.
Legs, yes, but if you look at limbs many of the flying creatures had four.
Really, the Na'vi are more similar to humans than humans look to most other species on Earth. You can't make a convergent evolution argument here unless you believe that intelligence somehow requires upright walking and a human-like face, down to the specifics of what facial expressions mean. I consider this highly implausible, even if it makes for a good movie.
Why do the Na'vi look so human? Nostrils in their heads instead of their chests? Only four limbs? Apes are 94% human - but the fully alien Na'vi are sexy. Why? Because they were made for us.
Why do all the animals on the planet only kick the humans out at the end of the movie? Because Eywah now has what she wanted all along: one set of human scientist memories, and one fully-stocked base. Now she can start to trade on her own terms.
While this movie has been knocked as an example of the What these People Need is a Honky trope, I think that's just the surface, the bait. Eywah gets human memes all too well. She knew some handsome young human would fall for her all-too-beautiful native women; it's in all our movies. So she made a nice, attractive native people who fly on dragons and let, well, nature take its course.
She was probably confused as hell that we were all so short, though. That, and Star Trek had led her to believe all atmospheres are the same.
So, we at least know it wasn't AT&T.
If this type of appendage evolved early enough, then all of the descendants with a common ancestry could maintain a common communication link. This would have had to evolve very early to be shared between both plants and animals, but I suppose it's conceivable if you can imagine plants with a nervous system. Another possibility is that there is a strong mechanism for genetic transfer between different species and kingdoms (maybe very flexible retroviruses or unseen genetic engineering), but then you might expect to see more shared features between plants and animals.
The part that I didn't understand why why the Na'vi would always be the "masters" in the link with the other animals (it seemed more peer-to-peer in the link with the trees).
Perhaps because they're best able to hypothesize, in the same way that we train our animals rather than the other way around...although I'm less sure of that when it comes to cats.
I'm less sure of that when it comes to most humans. Their animals seem to train them, not the other way around.
As for the link not being peer-to-peer, it might be as simple as the bigger/more complex nervous system dominating the other one.
You could potentially have motile plants (maybe going directly from free-floating algae to something that swims). But generally, plants are stationary or move passively on Earth because they just don't have the energy. Animals hoover up many times their weight in plants over a year so they can do stuff like intentional motion.
This can't be true: Not all plants are autotrophic, and not all autotrophic organisms are plants.
As for the autotrophic non-plants -- I guess you are referring to algae and some bacteria?
On the other hand, once you have floating mountains, the science has gone out the window.
The information they have access to appears to be someone's entire mind/memories/thoughts/whatever... This would be a HUGE amount of completely unsorted data. Sifting through all of this to find usable information would be very difficult.
The comparison to writing and the internet is false. In both cases, data is (to some degree) indexed. Want to build a robot? Search for "how to build a robot" and you have a good place to get started.
In fact, they only time they show anyone making direct use of the link (as opposed to a spiritual use) is when they ride animals, which is a link with a single animal.
I think that's the only way to understand their ponytail USB cables, and the root-mesh information network. It may be amusing to pretend that it's a hard-SF piece and work out the implications, but it's just not. It's a fantasy piece about the longing for connectedness.
There is (maybe) a secondary theme of viewing an ecosystem as a giant information exchange. But that wasn't explored well.