Jim Cameron has done it again with a visual masterpiece to follow his original box-office smash hit, but there is a significant problem with both of these movies. They propagate a dangerous myth that might lead to the destruction of our biosphere. 2/17
I will aim to avoid any spoilers, but reader-beware, if you have not seen the sequel yet, this thread might shed light on things you don't want to know before you see it.
That said, let's get on with saving the planet from Jim Cameron. 3/17
That said, let's get on with saving the planet from Jim Cameron. 3/17
Jim, who has become increasingly extreme in his views (creating vegan propaganda movies and claiming that testosterone is 'toxic'), is using his movies to push his conversationalist agenda. 4/17
Yes, we should be worried about our biosphere and, therefore, about our impact on the biosphere, but Mr. Cameron has decided that the problem has to do with some humans being evil and others being spiritual or, even, noble. 5/17
In Avatar 2 we learn that the SKY PEOPLE (people of earth) do not believe in "The Great Balance" that the Na'vi people live in with their natural surroundings. 6/17
The Na'vi, inspired by a dream Jim had once, appears to be inspired by various 'indigenous' peoples (their language is heavily based on the Maori language.
(I have put 'indigenous' in quotes because Africa is the only continent with indigenous people.) 7/17
(I have put 'indigenous' in quotes because Africa is the only continent with indigenous people.) 7/17
This "Great Balance" is an extension of the Nobel Savage, a concept that suggests an idealized version of primitive humankind. It suggests that humans are innately good when they are not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization. 8/17
It is essential to accurately understand problems in order to fix them. 9/17
The idea that 'indigenous' peoples were innately good and lived in balance with nature, as perpetuated by Jim Cameron and others, denies the truth and hinders our ability to understand and address environmental issues fully.
So when did the 'problem' begin? 10/17
So when did the 'problem' begin? 10/17
When did we start damaging our biosphere and natural resources faster than they could recover? The last 100 years have been devastating. But so was the industrial revolution. Or how about the deforestation of ancient Europe?
Or perhaps it started even earlier. 11/17
Or perhaps it started even earlier. 11/17
Out on a hunting trip with the Hadza people in East Africa, we stumbled upon a hornbill nest. Hornbill mothers seal themselves into holes in trees, leaving a small hole for the father to feed her through. 12/17
The Hadza chief saw the next, scaled the tree, broke it open, and then proceeded to kill, cook and eat the mother and chicks.
I asked him later if it ever occurred to him that they could leave some of the nests so that the chicks would grow up and have more chicks. 13/17
I asked him later if it ever occurred to him that they could leave some of the nests so that the chicks would grow up and have more chicks. 13/17
He looked at me, confused, and told me that they would never do that because (a) he needed to feed his people and (b) someone else would kill and eat them if he didn't. 14/17
Humans do not live in The Great Balance, and we started becoming a problem for our biosphere hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years ago. Its amazing capacity for innovation may well be our undoing unless we learn to use it to save our environment. 15/17
And to do that, we need to understand the problem and stop pushing warm-and-fussy, politically correct feel-good memes. 16/17
If you really want to understand human migration and impact -- to really grok the problem and therefore develop solutions -- I highly recommend the book Megafauna by @BazEdmeades
amazon.com/Megafauna-Firs… 17/17
amazon.com/Megafauna-Firs… 17/17
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
