WMN: t3_2r7f0g_t1_cnd7gfe

[TITLE]

CMV: Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right.

[Curious_Miner]

Recently, I stumbled upon [this](http://i.imgur.com/MEgVf.jpg) after a discussion of Avatar with a friend. [ (Not from the movie, but from here) ](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=sa7rmohv1hmgymf4xdu8cait&page=27#660) It summed up my feelings about the movie quite well. Throughout human history, conquerors with superior technology have succeeded over less capable and less innovative cultures. It's ruthless, yes, but the reality is conquered cultures were less capable than the victors. Therefor it is in the best interest of cultures to strive for innovation, invention, progress, technology, and science. Not only does this secure survivability, but also increases standard of living. Colonel Quaritch, as well as the other miners, were there to extract resources which benefited this endeavor. They were striving to better their abilities through use of the metal under the tree the Na'vi inhabited. Arguably, Colonel Quaritch **COULD** have massacred the residents of Hometree. It was well within his ability and means. Instead, a chance to evacuate is given, and Quaritches forces **target Hometree itself, not the Na'vi** The fleet do not gun down the fleeing residents, nor do they pursue. Their goal was the resources under the tree, and not the extermination of the people. Next, Quaritch ceases hostilities against the Na'vi until Jake assembles a massive force around the headquarters. Quaritch **COULD** have met them in battle, but instead what does he do? Tries to avoid direct bloodshed by taking out a cultural symbol, thus potentially avoiding loss of life among both Na'vi and Human. The culture of the Na'vi could have ended up like the Native Americans. Conquered, but preserved through merciful reservations granted by the victors. Instead they opted for resistance, and I'm interested to see what the sequel holds for them. In the mean time, I feel Colonel Quaritch's actions were rational, reasonable, justifiable, and the correct course of action. My friend disagreed, and I'm more than open for discussion to better understand the opposing view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[PineappleSlices]

Your argument holds some water if you consider the Na'vi to be the dominant species on Pandora, but they aren't. The Hometrees are. The Na'vi are just one of the many symbiotic lifeforms that the trees use as part of their biological functions, sort of like a far more elaborate version of our own native gut bacteria. So with this in mind, the use of the avatars takes on a far more sinister tone. It isn't an attempt at diplomacy, rather it's turning a sapient creature's own biological processes against itself in an attempt to gain the land. It's roughly equivalent to germ warfare, or deliberately inducing cancer. The invasion of Pandora was an outright war from the start, and Quaritch switching to an all-out offensive was merely a change in tactics.

[EdmoundDantes]

Right by what metric? The Na'vi clearly value harmony with nature and traditionalism over colonialism and exploitation. From their perspective, the humans are clearly in the wrong. The humans are only 'right' if we consider conquest and colonialism as the measures of a civilizations success, which arguably are shitty measures given that they are at odds with most of nature (what other animals mine? What other animals detonate nukes?), not to mention threaten the life of humanity itself. Think of the Matrix, when Smith compares humanity to a virus, spreading like wildfire and killing everything it touches, including the very biosphere that makes humanity even possible. Would you say this is "right"? Is it a great success when a virus wipes out it's host, killing itself in the process? A fire that burns fast and bright is great to look at, but it won't keep you warm throughout the winter. As for Quaritch's actions themselves, well, guy was working with what he had. It's worth mentioning that he was a mercenary, not a soldier, and that the army that took down Hometree was a re-fitted mining op, not a professional army. Given what he had to work with, I'd say he did okay. The issue isn't with him, but rather his superiors as well as the larger human society that make his actions necessary. And also, on that quote specifically, I think it's worth noting that this is Quaritch justifying his actions after they've already began. He didn't come to Pandora to further human civilization; he came because it was his job. His superiors didn't start mining on Pandora because they want to further civilization; they did it because they wanted to make money (it was a corporation if I recall). Humanities' forays into space weren't done as voyages of discovery or to bring civilization to the galaxy; it was done because earth was running out of space/resources (if I recall correctly the hero mentions at one point that Earth is a shit hole). Quaritch killed a lot of aliens, burned down some forest, and they decided to justify it after the fact as bringing the light of civilization into the cosmos. He didn't decide to bring civilization to space and figured the best way to do it was to blow shit up

[electricmink]

Problem: Pandora clearly is the product of a much higher level of tech than the humans possess. You don't think even for a moment that this supeorganism of a planet with its direct neural interfaces in nearly every organism - something that could never evolve - was anything other than designed, do you? And unobtanium is clearly not a natural substance, else it would be found someplace other than Pandora and wouldn't be so clearly tailored to one incredibly useful task.... Sure, the Na'vi are probably not the originators of this extreme bioengineering/biosphere engineering/tailored element producing technology, but they are an integral part of it and ultimately use it to whip the human invaders' collective ass. The fact that Quaritch is too boneheaded stupid to recognize that he was the caveman here trying to loot shinies from a truly advanced tech puts him (and pretty much every other human involved in this operation) entirely in the wrong at every stage of the game.

[perpetual_motion]

[STA-CITE]>something that could never evolve [END-CITE]Hard to say. Seems to me that small changes in the initial conditions and environmental factors can fundamentally change the outcome of evolution. I don't think we're in a position to say what could or couldn't evolve. In any case, as far as in "in universe" dynamics are concerned (which is the framework OP is talking about), it's obvious this isn't intended. Maybe a fun fan theory.

[electricmink]

Answer me this - what possible selection pressure could select for such a thing across practically every species on the planet? Especially when it allows one species to coopt the will of and command members of other species and drive them into situations where they endanger themselves?

[NuclearStudent]

It's pretty damn likely. Consider dogs-we order them to go kill themselves all the time. We breed them for this. Because of this, dogs are some of the most successful species alive today. Humanity has done this to many, many species. We rode horses into battles where they were constantly killed. Despite this, and because of this demand for war-horses, horses were far more common and successful than they would ordinarily be. Despite humans *neutering* cats and removing their capability to reproduce, we spread cats across the world like wildfire.

[electricmink]

[STA-CITE]>....we breed them for this.... [END-CITE]My point exactly.

[NuclearStudent]

The Navi natives have been raising war animals for an unknown length of time. They are clearly domesticated. The most likely possibility is that the war animals have been thriving under the Navi for so long they evolved better mechanisms to work better with their Navi masters and become more likely to be selected for breeding.

[perpetual_motion]

Again hard to say, but not immediately impossible. Let's say some rudimentary connections existed very early that were somehow important to survival (I'm sure we can imagine reasons for these connections being important in the right conditions). Similar to rudimentary neurological connections. So these connections became a common trait among successful species and life diverged outward from there. And the connections increased in complexity as they would. Etc. And, it's not that some species command the will of other species really... and that never happened in the movie. Just - perhaps - that the danger sensed by one is then sensed in the other (we can see how this would be advantageous is lots of circumstances). And this causes them to take action. It doesn't have to be against their will.

[electricmink]

The possibility of such an evolution occurring is inconceivably remote, while the odds of such a feature being something built as part of a worldwide system are infinitely higher. It'd be like stumbling on to a species with easily interchangable parts ("Sorry your hand got bruised - here, borrow mine for a few days!") or squirrels that shit working microchips. Pandora pretty much *has* to be an artifact of advanced tech - it's the only scenario that makes sense.

[Inelukie]

The sole reason why I disliked Quaritchs side was because he is dumb as a brick. A true meathead, leading a multi-billion expedition? How could that fail?... The whole point of this undertaking was not to subjugate the Na'vi. They were supposed to generate profits. Losing your whole operation is pretty bad for your profits. Large operations like this are risk averse for a reason. Fighting is a risk you don't have to take. While these minerals were deemed worthy of exploitions, I can not imagine any company in our world who would not spend money to find other stuff to sell from that world. In this case, the Hometree or whatever it was had the capabilities to "store" "souls". Now ask yourself: If you had the choice between cool rocks which make your fancy chair fly or true immortality: What do you think is worth more money? For me this whole story was about arrogance, ignorance and greed. They had the chance to earn so much more money, to mutually benefit from this encounter. Instead they played their simple-minded scheme and lost. If you want to be the strong and awesome conquerer, you shouldn't be so dumb about it, you actually lose. That's pretty damn embarassing.

[Curious_Miner]

∆ [STA-CITE]> In this case, the Hometree or whatever it was had the capabilities to "store" "souls". Now ask yourself: If you had the choice between cool rocks which make your fancy chair fly or true immortality: What do you think is worth more money? [END-CITE]I... I confess, that did not occur to me either. Yes, that capability would be MOST beneficial. In this regard, yes, Colonel Quaritch ALSO failed to acknowledge this capability and the benefit Humanity could derive from it.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Inelukie. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Inelukie)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[Inelukie]

Thanks for the delta!

[DBHT14]

I would say despite the appearances a better comparison is the Zulu wars in southern Africa. Just like then Quartich saw an enemy which did not conform to what he thought an effective force looked like, causing his plans to be based on false assumptions. Quartich believed that yhe enemy lacked command and control because he thought them the same as technologicahl development which we saw to be demonstrably false. He was being economic with force out of humanitarian concerns but because he would not consider that more would be required. And just as against the Zulu an invading force was annihilated by a well planned and well controlled enemy force.

[NuclearStudent]

Quaritch was an idiot. He had no idea how obscenely valuable the native biological computer/trees were. When that biologist lady was dying, the aliens just put her into her Avatar body. Presumably, you could keep doing that forever. Unobtanium was worth 50 grand a kilo; how much is immortality worth? I'm not talking about spiritual value; I'm talking about all the filthy rich millionaires and billionaires who are willing to pony up their fortunes to extend their lifetimes, and all the Einsteins, Erdos, and Stephen Hawkings who die before they're done inventing new technologies for us. Let's not even talk about the revolution in computer processing we could have by growing our own "Hometrees" loaded with data processing software.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

I think that, especially in the context the film establishes trying to emotionally invest you in the plight of the Na'vi, the actions of the corporation and the soldiers are- as you mentioned- much like those of the invading forces who drove the Native Americans into reservations. At that point it becomes a much larger discussion of the morality of those actions, and what rights the conquering forces had to do what they did. In the broad sense of European explorers conquering the Americas, it wasn't just smaller North American tribes that were destroyed... between the Spanish and the French and the Portuguese and all the nations which came rushing to the New World, there was the destruction of countless tribal cultures, including major ones like the Aztecs. Just because these cultures where technologically superior, does that given them the de facto right to take over, enslave, and destroy a "lesser" culture for not having progressed far enough in terms of warfare to fight back? In the context of a science fiction universe, I would contrast the actions of the society in Avatar to that in Star Trek. Starfleet has a fairly strict policy about non-interference in lesser cultures. Their Prime Directive is to leave these alien worlds to develop on their own as they would until they become space fairing as well and can more evenly have diplomatic relations. In Avatar, perhaps its a more cynical and arguably more realistic situation where the corporations come in with their might and try to reap the bounty from the world regardless of the native's desires... but does that justify them? If an alien race were to descend onto Earth, our home planet, and start mining out cities headless of our protests, would it make it any more right?

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>If an alien race were to descend onto Earth, our home planet, and start mining out cities headless of our protests, would it make it any more right? [END-CITE]Thank you for this, this is the heart of the argument. For me, it comes down to what is right, and what will actually happen. If an alien race descends, at our current level of tech, we're screwed. At that point, what does "right" matter to Humanity? We will be conquered. It doesn't matter if its "right". To protect ourselves, we MUST always push towards innovation. To do any less is suicide. If Humanity grew comfortable with ourselves, if we said "Hey, what we have now is great, there's no need to develop further." Then yes, I would cheer for those conquering aliens. I would WANT them to take over the Earth, because at that point, Humanity no longer deserves it. If we try our hardest, and STILL get conquered, then at least we tried our hardest, and we might be able to preserve ourselves much like some tribes of Native Americans. It sucks, but **that's the reality**. [STA-CITE]>Just because these cultures where technologically superior, does that given them the de facto right to take over, enslave, and destroy a "lesser" culture for not having progressed far enough in terms of warfare to fight back? [END-CITE]Not enslave and destroy, but certainly take over. It is the right and progression that superior advanced cultures advance further, and to treat their conquered peoples with respect, should the defeated choose to accept it. If the defeated do not chose, that's when destruction becomes acceptable. That is how the overall global society has operated, and on a galactic scale, how I anticipate a galactic society should operate.

[brutalboonie]

Clearly you've never been to a Native American reservation. Based on your initial comments I think it's safe to say you have a faulty understanding of how they came to be as well. That aside, doesn't the above comment you just made kind of end your argument with your friend? What difference does it make if Colonel Quaritch was, by your definition of the word, "right"? The Na'vi fought him off and the humans - who were in that case a technologically superior alien race descending on them - got kicked out. They tried their hardest and didn't get conquered. By your own words again, the Na'vi deserved to keep their planet. Quaritch's motives are irrelevant. Who cares what COULD have happened because in this case that didn't become the reality. Your bigger point seemed to be that if smarter aliens came along, we as humans should just look at them and be like "Wow, they really got it going on. We should roll over and hop on reservations where we will face extreme levels of poverty and every other bad thing society has to offer but the rest of the world will be better off because we conceded to the aliens and their much better ideas of what should and should not be considered valuable." I'm failing to see the logic.

[perpetual_motion]

[STA-CITE]> It is the right and progression that superior advanced cultures advance further [END-CITE]You're going to need to support this. Where does this "right" come from exactly? [STA-CITE]>That is how the overall global society has operated [END-CITE]That doesn't make it right, obviously. That's like saying murder is right because people have killed each other to get ahead too.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> At that point, what does "right" matter to Humanity? [END-CITE]For me, we are all dead anyways. Individually, we are only going to live to about 80 years old so I might as well use the time I want to, that is "right", rather than filled with personal regret. [STA-CITE]> It is the right and progression that superior advanced cultures advance further, and to treat their conquered peoples with respect, should the defeated choose to accept it. [END-CITE]You seem to be saying "might makes right". But this is clearly wrong, on a individual basis (You wouldn't complain if someone stole your wallet?) and on a national level (Its effectively stealing on a wider-scale).

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>You seem to be saying "might makes right". But this is clearly wrong, on a individual basis (You wouldn't complain if someone stole your wallet?) and on a national level (Its effectively stealing on a wider-scale). [END-CITE]I do not see the parallel on the individual basis. If someone took my wallet, I am part of a society which would seek to punish that robber, through means of force. Forcibly arresting and detaining. In the end here, Might makes Right. Nationally, the ruling bodies today are mainly republics or democracy, because violent revolution (Or threat thereof) of the masses make it so. From an observational standpoint, Might may not "make right", but Might makes Reality.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> In the end here, Might makes Right [END-CITE]Until he or his friends get revenge - so in the end here, Might makes Right? [STA-CITE]> Might may not "make right", but Might makes Reality. [END-CITE]"Might makes Reality" is different from your View ("Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right." )

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>"Might makes Reality" is different from your View ("Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right." ) [END-CITE]I apologize, I didn't explain myself fully. "Might makes Reality" to me is true, and I believe that the "best" course of action is to react and live based on reality. I feel doing so would result in the greatest good for an individual as well as a society. By this logic, it seems evident that this makes it morality, given the value I place on it. I find it moral and "right" to pursue development, innovation, technology, science, and invention. I find it moral and "right" to be mighty, based on reality and the observations therein.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> I find it moral and "right" to pursue development, innovation, technology, science, and invention. [END-CITE]Maybe this is the problem I have with this View. You seem to be talking one thing but your quote from the Colonel in the move is different. What he is talking about is going out, gathering resources and altering the world for their own purposes (what ever that purpose is). He mentions epics and wonders, but in the movie he is not building any wonder and the "epic" is only there because of his adversary (the natives) so they are both having the epic he claims as his own. You talk about "development, innovation, technology, science, and invention" but none of that is what Colonel does, he just goes out and tries to control the environment to make it more friendly to humans. What is "right" is either conquest ("might") which is what Colonel quote is really about or "right" is about innovation which is *not* what the Colonel quote is about.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>He mentions epics and wonders, but in the movie he is not building any wonder and the "epic" is only there because of his adversary (the natives) so they are both having the epic he claims as his own. [END-CITE]Colonel Quaritch is not set out to advance anything himself, I agree. But he comes from a force who reached the planet via spaceflight, from a society capable of huge technological feats. His quote is not about his own personal endeavors, but from the culture he comes from. (I really am enjoying this discourse though. Thank you.)

[sdfgsdfggfds]

Isn't your entire argument based on speculation, and rather hubristic speculation at that? Why do you suppose that rapid, aggressive advancement is the best, long-term strategy? Perhaps careful, humanistic (Na'vi-istic?) development is. Quaritch supposes that the Na'vi will stay unchanging until "[their] sun burns out and [their] world dies", but why do you believe him? Maybe it is Quaritch's people who, in their greed for resources and advancement will destroy themselves and it is the Na'vi who will, with care and humility, expand to new worlds when they are ready to do so, and do so with the respect for each other and for the new worlds that will allow them to do it in a way that will ensure their long-term survival.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> But he comes from a force who reached the planet via spaceflight, from a society capable of huge technological feats. [END-CITE]And that is "right" compared to what? The natives seem like a harmonious people who aren't suffering or seem to have any wide complaints before the humans came. They rode on big flying animals and seemed to be ok with their past and the direction of their future. We don't know what the conditions of the human society is, but they are there for greedy resource gathering (not as much discovery and science) and for all we know there is poverty and suffering. Does having spaceflight or technological feats make up for basic human needs? My TV is thin and curved, which is a technological feat, so everything is "right" in our society today? Counter-meme to yours: http://www.goalvanise.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Parable-of-the-Mexican-Fisherman.png

[Curious_Miner]

I'm sorry, i reject your counter-meme. In the American's hypothetical scenario, the Mexican could have created thousands of jobs and opportunities for his village. For his country. Resulting in more wealth for his society. His personal enjoyment and contention was preventing him from helping people OUTSIDE OF his own family, and to me, is selfish. [STA-CITE]>My TV is thin and curved, which is a technological feat, so everything is "right" in our society today? [END-CITE]Far from, but much closer to being right than before. [STA-CITE]>And that is "right" compared to what? The natives seem like a harmonious people who aren't suffering or seem to have any wide complaints before the humans came. They rode on big flying animals and seemed to be ok with their past and the direction of their future. [END-CITE] It is right (to me) because it denotes more capability. More capability expands your potential, and possibly extends your life and enjoyment of that life.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

"Might equals Right" is one of the most dangerous presumptions in moral philosophy. Might may be reality, and might may be something that's used to force a persuasion, but in no way should might be equated to the correct course of action. That is a steep slippery slope you stand on when you make a claim like that. If might made right, it would be justified for me to take a few buddies with rifles and go rob a bank. It would be justified for every homicide and massacre there is in the world. It would be justified for totalitarian regimes to threaten their people with execution squads. It would be justified for Hitler to have slaughtered the Jews. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily make it right for you to actually go through with it. Discretion is the better part of valour.

[Curious_Miner]

If you robbed a bank, a superior force would arrest, detain, and/or kill you. Totalitarian regimes have constantly been overthrown by violent revolution by the masses. Hitler was defeated by a superior force in the end. Just because you have a perceived might over a group does not mean that group's influence is not mightier than you. Retaliation must be taken under consideration. I often get a lot of trouble for saying this, but it was a good thing the United States conquered the Native Americans. The US is currently a powerhouse and devotes millions in foreign aid to alleviate suffering. I do not believe a tribal culture like the conquered natives could be capable of that.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

[STA-CITE]>The US is currently a powerhouse and devotes millions in foreign aid to alleviate suffering... [END-CITE]And... do you think that perhaps colonialism and the Old World order might be a factor in this suffering? Do you think perhaps the strong taking from the weak plays a role in this suffering? You speak in generalities. Suffering. What is suffering? What specific suffering are you talking about?

[parentheticalobject]

I see where you're coming from, I think. However, if all that truly matters is who can bring superior force, then what point is there in even using the terms "right and wrong"? The idea that Quaritch was "right" implies that there is some moral code where his actions were good. If the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, then there is no need to say that anything is right or wrong, only whether the person in question was successful.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

[STA-CITE]> If you robbed a bank, a superior force would arrest, detain, and/or kill you. > Totalitarian regimes have constantly been overthrown by violent revolution by the masses. > Hitler was defeated by a superior force in the end. [END-CITE]The existence of a superior force and the possibility of it being overpowered doesn't have any bearing on the actions of the original force nor justify those actions. Setting aside the fact that some bank robbers get away with it, that there are still totalitarian regimes, and that Hitler very nearly did win the war... the external force's justifications for taking down the original force does in no way justify the inciting actions, the original "might". [STA-CITE]> I often get a lot of trouble for saying this, but it was a good thing the United States conquered the Native Americans. The US is currently a powerhouse and devotes millions in foreign aid to alleviate suffering. I do not believe a tribal culture like the conquered natives could be capable of that. [END-CITE]And what have also been the costs of this nation? There were the millions of native americans who were slaughtered... we fought and died over slavery which lasted decades longer than in Europe... we've been in dozens of conflicts, including in Vietnam where many of our boys went crazy and raped and murdered innocent civilians, including the past 13 years in the Middle East where between drones and everything else we've killed thousands of people who may or may not be innocent or just trying to defend their homeland... we've had the recent CIA torture reports, the NSA scandal... As much as we try to appear to be the centre of western righteousness we've done plenty of wrong in our time. The power to do something does not mean that you're right to do it. The end doesn't necessarily justify the means.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>And what have also been the costs of this nation? There were the millions of native americans who were slaughtered... we fought and died over slavery which lasted decades longer than in Europe... we've been in dozens of conflicts, including in Vietnam where many of our boys went crazy and raped and murdered innocent civilians, including the past 13 years in the Middle East where between drones and everything else we've killed thousands of people who may or may not be innocent or just trying to defend their homeland... we've had the recent CIA torture reports, the NSA scandal... As much as we try to appear to be the centre of western righteousness we've done plenty of wrong in our time. The power to do something does not mean that you're right to do it. The end doesn't necessarily justify the means. [END-CITE] I am not saying the US is blameless. There has been suffering. There has been unnecessary violence. But there also has been joy and happiness caused by, what I feel, what would have not existed if the Native Americans were not conquered. Technology does not instantly create a utopia, I know, but it certainly brings us closer than stagnation.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

So, you believe that is is "right" to be strong so that you might take from those that are weaker?

[IIIBlackhartIII]

Part of film as an artistic medium is to explore these kinds of ideas in entertaining ways. I see Avatar as an introspective look at our current culture and our own past; the film projects the kinds of things we did to native tribes onto a future human society doing the same on a much grander scale. It surely romanticizes the views of spiritual native cultures, and demonizes the coldness of a corporate empire, but in its way I think it says much about ourselves. [STA-CITE]> At that point, what does "right" matter to Humanity? We will be conquered. It doesn't matter if its "right". To protect ourselves, we MUST always push towards innovation. To do any less is suicide. [END-CITE]That wasn't so much the point the film nor I was trying to make. The point I was really trying to make is that part of an introspective look at our endeavours has to be a time for empathy; we must look from the other side. We took over the Americas and we can try to say that the world is better off for it because of how much innovation we've had, but people were slaughtered and cultures destroyed as a result. What effect that had on the potential course of history, as well as the blood that is inevitably on our hands as a species now has to be weighed and considered. The corp in Avatar came from a society that didn't "learn its lesson" from history, and kept expanding heedless of the rights of other people's. What right does any one culture have to impose itself on another? [STA-CITE]> If we try our hardest, and STILL get conquered, then at least we tried our hardest, and we might be able to preserve ourselves much like some tribes of Native Americans. It sucks, but that's the reality. [END-CITE]The reality is based entirely on the ethical situation. Had the European cultures had some innate respect for the natives' rights to their land and their traditions, perhaps we would have seen a more cooperative endeavour take place. As an introspective piece from the perspective of the underdogs, the film is trying to hold a mirror to society and show it the ghosts of our past which may become the horrors of our future. Reality need not necessarily be built from pessimistic cynicism, and without taking the time to even consider the moral dilemma of any scenario, of course that reality will be cold and brutal. But we are not machines, we are human beings. We are capable of great empathy and conviction... if only given the thought to these actions we commit to.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]> What right does any one culture have to impose itself on another? [END-CITE]Imagine two athletes set to compete. One spends his efforts and resources on exercise and training. The other, comfortable with his level of fitness, does nothing. The result is the victory to the one who trained. Effort expended gives the superior culture that right. Effort towards trying new things, failing, trying again until it works to make themselves better gives them the right to conquer civilizations who stagnate and are complacent. The end result is the prevalence of a culture which strives and advances, rather than a culture which remains the same. [STA-CITE]> Had the European cultures had some innate respect for the natives' rights to their land and their traditions, perhaps we would have seen a more cooperative endeavor take place. [END-CITE]I ask you to compare the tribal cultures of Africa and the Middle East in comparison to the modernized cultures of Japan, China, and Russia (All of whom took great pains to advance their societies through modernization) What societies would you say are impoverished, and which are advancing? I am not wholly convinced that there is much to be gained in such a "cooperative endeavor" from a conquered society.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

Do you honestly believe that cultures are "superior" because they've expended more effort? Have you thought perhaps that the European colonial powers where more technologically advanced than the Native American tribes because, maybe, the Europeans had contact and shared knowledge with other civilizations, while the Native American tribes were kinda sorta isolated? It's pretty obvious that the Europeans didn't invent all the technology which had given them an edge over native populations. Or perhaps maybe environmental factors played a role? Perhaps horses played a role in Europe's success. Do you think perhaps a lack of beasts of burden might have proven a bit of a hindrance to the Native Americans?

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>Do you honestly believe that cultures are "superior" because they've expended more effort? [END-CITE]If it can be shown they are more capable. A culture with technology can fly, vs one who is land bound. That makes the airborne culture empirically better. They have an ability the other does not. [STA-CITE]>Have you thought perhaps that the European colonial powers where more technologically advanced than the Native American tribes because, maybe, the Europeans had contact and shared knowledge with other civilizations, while the Native American tribes were kinda sorta isolated? It's pretty obvious that the Europeans didn't invent all the technology which had given them an edge over native populations. Or perhaps maybe environmental factors played a role? Perhaps horses played a role in Europe's success. Do you think perhaps a lack of beasts of burden might have proven a bit of a hindrance to the Native Americans? [END-CITE]I admit the Native Americans may not have had the advantages as the Europeans, but the result is a land capable of a whole lot more than other tribal cultures have been shown capable of.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

Your definition of "better" and "capable" seem a bit circular. What is better and what is capable? How does the capacity to flying make one empirically better? [STA-CITE]>I admit the Native Americans may not have had the advantages as the Europeans... [END-CITE]Gotcha! So, it's not just the lazy cultures that didn't produce any advantages for themselves, simply being at an inherent disadvantage means you are ripe for a rightful conquest. The right of the mighty is to take from the weak and the disadvantaged. But, you know, it's kinda funny. I learned to share in school. Sharing is an important virtue in my better and capable culture. But, apparently my better and capable culture should never *share* what makes it better and more capable with cultures that are less well off and less capable. It's better to take from them, right? It's better to take what we want with threats of violence rather than to treat others with respect and perhaps even lift them up from their primitive lifestyles.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]> Your definition of "better" and "capable" seem a bit circular. What is better and what is capable? How does the capacity to flying make one empirically better? [END-CITE]If not empirically, then observably. One culture has something the other does not. In that particular regard, it is better than the other. [STA-CITE]>Gotcha! So, it's not just the lazy cultures that didn't produce any advantages for themselves, simply being at an inherent disadvantage means you are ripe for a rightful conquest. The right of the mighty is to take from the weak and the disadvantaged. But, you know, it's kinda funny. I learned to share in school. Sharing is an important virtue in my better and capable culture. But, apparently my better and capable culture should never share what makes it better and more capable with cultures that are less well off and less capable. It's better to take from them, right? It's better to take what we want with threats of violence rather than to treat others with respect and perhaps even lift them up from their primitive lifestyles. [END-CITE] I agree with this actually. It is better to try to build up say, the Na'vi to our capabilities. Unfortunately, the Na'vi rejected our attempts. It is NOT better to immediately resort to violence. I completely understand this. BUT, for a culture rejecting the assistance or assimilation of their superiors, I find it is justifiable that they are conquered.

[Ndvorsky]

African culture has Ebola and we do not. So Africa is better? What allows you to determine if what one culture has is better than what the other has? The navi had really big trees so they are better than the humans. They had a cool connection with nature that the humans did not which makes the navi more capable of surviving there.

[BlinkingZeroes]

But the Navi are not conquered. And really only one tribe of Navi suffer losses of any form. Whilst With the exceptions of Jake, Norm, Max and a few other scientists, all humans are expelled from Pandora and sent back to Earth. The Navi are also living within their means, and appear to generally be positive for the planet they inhabit (to the point that other animals join to fight alongside them). Earth at this point appears to still require resources to survive that have become rare enough for corporations to wage war with aliens over. At the end of the movie, the Navi as a race are doing fine - but we never really learn how humanity is doing. Is it not entirely within reason that the corporations involved would never return to the Navi's planet, and that it would be humanity who become extinct long before the Navi? Where does this leave the argument about stronger races? Which species is empirically superior when viewed through a timeline of this scope? ...*I guess we'll find out in Avatar 2* My problem with Quaritch is that he's an idiot. A jock. And that his motivations are to benefit himself financially - which he approaches in a one dimensional manner. There were peaceful solutions that would likely have led to mutual, long term benefit to both the Navi and the humans. But his actions and tactics lead the situation to a confrontation that led to humans being expelled from the planet.

[FA_Hayek]

To be fair, and to put a more accurate context on the discussion, the decision not to slaughter the Na'vi was a business decision, not one born out of some noble sense of military ethics. The corporation running the show wanted to avoid bad press, so *they* were willing to evacuate the natives and seek a peaceful resolution (i.e. "the carrot or the stick"). Had the corporation not been willing to wait- had they simply not cared about bad press from the start, then there would've certainly been a wholesale slaughter right from the beginning.

[Curious_Miner]

Do you feel the actions took by the corporation were unjustified, then?

[FA_Hayek]

Of course it was "unjustified", but since when has justification ever been a requisite of action?

[Curious_Miner]

That is our disagreement. I feel that, in pursuit of progress and development, the corporation and Quaritch's actions *were* justified.

[Virtuallyalive]

The great leap forward in China killed millions. Was it right? Hitler kick started trade routes, revolutionised military techniques, and pushed the dangers of Tabacco. Was he right? How many deaths are right? Is there a limit? If so, let's nuke America so we can develop our rocket technology. We'll get out of the solar system like 10 years faster. And even if it actually sets it back, it's the intention that matters, right? All in pursuit of progress?

[Sadsharks]

So you're basically arguing in favor of Manifest Destiny?

[FA_Hayek]

First of all, you're playing semantics with an argument that has been around for literally as long as there have been human civilizations. What you call the "pursuit of progress and development" has, historically, been referred to as the "Greater Good" and it's been used to justify everything from slavery to genocide. Just because you find some way to rationalize an atrocity, doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, and just because you happen to like the outcome doesn't mean that the methods used weren't completely atrocious. This is the same Consequentialism vs. Deontology debate that's been going on and on for generations.

[perpetual_motion]

This is sounding a whole lot like "might is right". But it also comes down to what you think is the meaning of life, frankly. I think some poor "meanings" are being offered here. Basically, it's not clear why any of the "criticisms" are actually criticisms. [STA-CITE]>You gush about your connection with nature, your primal wisdom, but what has it brought you? [END-CITE]How about happiness? Maybe peace? I don't know, lots of things potentially. If you could take today's society and replace it with one with greater technological superiority, but where on the whole people were less happy and there was more war/murder/etc. do you really think this would be the right thing to do? And if so then why? I certainly don't. [STA-CITE]>we did more than merely survive. We built wonders. [END-CITE]I think this is one such misplaced sense of meaning. It's like a religious people saying to a nonreligious person "I actually did something meaningful with my life" because they followed God or whatever. Any sense of meaning related to building wonders is constructed by us. Which is fine, but it's not the only one. I don't think it's possible to defend "building wonders" as a more objective measure of worth than "connected with nature". [STA-CITE]>You speak so proudly of the plugs dangling from your skulls, little realizing that they are but strings and you puppets. [END-CITE]This is just 'edgy' nonsense. The "plugs" they have are tremendous. They connect them physically to other animals and each other in ways that we can't. If you value companionship and love, then you should value this. [STA-CITE]>your goddess, who is nothing but the voices of your dead echoing for all eternity [END-CITE]Whoever wrote this didn't really pay attention. Eywa was a vast network of connections between things in nature. "Something real, something measurable in the biology of the forest". And it had a *will*. This is beyond remarkable. Not even a goddess in the normal sense of the word. etc. So I challenge you to tell me (1) Why advances in technology/science are the measure of a societies worth? You said that they increase standard of living. Okay, sometimes - but this suggests that there's something more basic at work. It's not the technology itself that's determining the worth. (2) Why this gives a society justification for harming others in order to achieve that goal? Quaritch valued getting the mineral over their lives. And do you seriously think what we did to Native Americans was okay? All of this logic seems to apply. And side note - [STA-CITE]>from your wretched planet [END-CITE]The use of the word "wretched" there, which makes absolutely no sense, gives away the intentions of the statement.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]> How about happiness? Maybe peace? If you could take today's society and replace it with one with greater technological superiority, but where on the whole people were less happy and there was more war/murder/etc. do you really think this would be the right thing to do? And if so then why? I certainly don't. [END-CITE]A society with superior technology but more suffering? [I don't beleive it is possible](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180). Happiness, to me, equates to fulfillment, which further extends to what you can achieve. Technology substantially increases what we are able to achieve. In my mind, I equate societies with more technology as more capable, and therefore more happy. [STA-CITE]>I think this is one such misplaced sense of meaning. It's like a religious people saying to a nonreligious person "I actually did something meaningful with my life" because they followed God or whatever. Any sense of meaning related to building wonders is constructed by us. Which is fine, but it's not the only one. If we were all happy and lived fulfilling lives in peace etc. then I wouldn't use the fact that we could/couldn't build wonders as a sign of our success. [END-CITE] Again, I disagree. If someone happy does nothing, they are forgotten after their death. If someone unhappy builds a monument, that monument exists past their death. In that, their influence extends beyond death. This makes the creator more capable than the other, and thus better. Ideally the creator would also live a happy life as well as build the monument. [STA-CITE]>(1) Why advances in science are the measure of a societies worth? [END-CITE] The more technology a society has, the more capable they become. It can boil down quite simply to empirical data. A more capable society is better than one who is less capable. [STA-CITE]>(2) This somehow gives a society justification for harming others in order to achieve that goal? [END-CITE] In the end, yes. As predators consume prey to thrive, a superior society can consume a lesser one to advance. It is the nature, and reality of the world, and I place value on that. I do appreciate your discourse on this, especially your value placed on Eywa as an entity. I suppose what will change my view is being shown how pursuing advances is detrimental to a society as a whole. I'd very much like to consider that.

[perpetual_motion]

[STA-CITE]> I don't beleive it is possible [END-CITE]Not possible? How about... World War II for example? And worse things are imaginable. And what you linked is mostly beside the point. The general trend might be, - for us, now - towards less violence. This does not mean anything close to the claim that that all possible societies with more technology are happier. So you didn't answer my question. I'm glad you've started using "to me" and "in my mind". But you can't just impose your concepts of worth on others - especially at their expense. Or at least, if you think it's okay to, I also disagree with you there. [STA-CITE]>This makes the creator more capable than the other, and thus better. [END-CITE]No, it does not follow. This is very explicitly "might is right".

[AntimatterNuke]

You're forgetting the huge numbers of people alive during World War II who didn't die. Even if you factor in both world wars and all the state-caused famines of the 20th century, the overall death rate (percentage of people who were killed) doesn't even approach Genghis Khan, let alone prehistoric humanity (which was actually ridiculously violent).

[perpetual_motion]

This is missing my original the point. There had been periods of history (as long or short as you like) with more happiness than during WWII. It doesn't even have to be across the entire world. OP said it wasn't possible to have more technology and less happiness in any society. The whole trend of violence across history etc is relevant overall but also a different matter to my original question to him.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>Not possible? How about... World War II for example? And worse things are imaginable. And what you linked is mostly beside the point. The general trend might be, - for us, now - towards less violence. This does not mean anything close to the claim that that all possible societies with more technology are happier. So you didn't answer my question. [END-CITE]Allow me to better attempt to answer: Yes, the replacement with the unhappy, more advanced society is the best thing to do. I believe technology has the great potential to alleviate suffering, and I have not seen evidence to the contrary of that potential. Yes, there are cases of suffering because of technology, but I find they are outweighed by the massive gains.

[mrgoodnighthairdo]

[STA-CITE]>A society with superior technology but more suffering? I don't beleive it is possible. [END-CITE]This is the opposite of what you're talking about. Pax Americana exists because the US does *not* take from those that weaker, it *protects* the weak from those that would take from them. The right of conquest is no longer an accepted means of territorial acquisition. [STA-CITE]> In that, their influence extends beyond death. [END-CITE]Pretty much every living thing extends its influence beyond death. It's called biological reproduction. Even single-celled organisms do it. I don't quite understand how "building a monument" is somehow superior a means of exerting influence beyond your death than producing more of your species with your particular genes. [STA-CITE]>The more technology a society has, the more capable they become. [END-CITE]More capable of... what? What is "better"? Better for whom? Less capable than what? [STA-CITE]>As predators consume prey to thrive... [END-CITE]So, wait a second? Stronger civilizations should *prey* upon weaker ones? You know, I'm pretty sure we tried that and it led to global instability and a shit ton of wars between the "predator" states. Because, the one thing about predators is that they have to constantly fight their competition for their rights to the pray. But, beyond that, I don't think in nature predator species literally rape and enslave prey species. But whatever.

[Curious_Miner]

[STA-CITE]>But, beyond that, I don't think in nature predator species literally rape and enslave prey species. But whatever. [END-CITE]I agree, Rape and enslavement should be excluded from conquering. [STA-CITE]>Because, the one thing about predators is that they have to constantly fight their competition for their rights to the pray. [END-CITE]Resulting in the strongest, mightiest surviving and perpetuating the species. The predator should then strive to be the mightiest to avoid this. [STA-CITE]>More capable of... what? What is "better"? Better for whom? Less capable than what? [END-CITE]One society develops medicine. The other does not. One is capable of living comfortably longer, which the other lacks. That makes the first more capable. Having something the other does not. [STA-CITE]>Pretty much every living thing extends its influence beyond death. It's called biological reproduction. Even single-celled organisms do it. I don't quite understand how "building a monument" is somehow superior a means of exerting influence beyond your death than producing more of your species with your particular genes. [END-CITE] Say both people do this. Yes, both have kids, but only the creator's kids can be influenced by the long standing monument. The other's children are influenced by it as well. This results in the monument having greater influence than not. It results in something rather than the lack of something. That makes it empirically better. [STA-CITE]>This is the opposite of what you're talking about. Pax Americana exists because the US does not take from those that weaker, it protects the weak from those that would take from them. The right of conquest is no longer an accepted means of territorial acquisition. [END-CITE] This... actually requires consideration. Thank you for that. Allow me a while for reflection.

[_Roark]

[STA-CITE]> Say both people do this. Yes, both have kids, but only the creator's kids can be influenced by the long standing monument. The other's children are influenced by it as well. This results in the monument having greater influence than not. It results in something rather than the lack of something. That makes it empirically better. [END-CITE]Or one has a kid that becomes president. Now they have more influence than any monument. And don't throw around words like 'empirically' to prove your point. Something that is empirically proven means that it was proven using the scientific method. That means you could easily cite your source, right?

[rdrptr]

[STA-CITE]> Colonel Quaritch, as well as the other miners, were there to extract resources which benefited this endeavor. [END-CITE]Arguably, if Colonel Quaritch's civilization found itself hard up for a particular resource, it would be prudent for them to innovate around it.