

James Cameron on “Avatar 2″ and the Impending Environmental Crisis - skbohra123
http://mashable.com/2010/10/29/james-cameron-eric-schmidt/

======
mmaro
Let's try to take apart this muck, which I seem to have read a hundred times
before:

> we’re becoming disconnected from nature and that we are on a precipice.

Why is it bad to be disconnected from nature? What's wrong with going in the
opposite direction towards increased artificiality, given that our very
artificial infrastructure keeps us alive?

> take control over our stewardship of our planet / the planet [...] will be
> in significant danger

What the heck does that actually _mean_? Can we just admit that these
statements are religious, but wrapped in non-religious language?

> 70% of species will be extinct by the end of this century if we do nothing
> due to the rise of world temperatures

I wish it were as fashionable to care about runaway AIs, nuclear attacks,
geologic events, etc.

~~~
meric
You're not worried the world seems to be shifting under our feet because of us
simply doing what it takes to live?

If you were a programmer adding an extra feature to an existing system, and
after a few days work you realize that 90% of the system has been modified by
you in some way or another, won't you be alarmed?

In 200 years, many species have been driven to extinction by our activities,
entire forests were chopped away, and countries are now sinking due to rising
ocean levels "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives>, and you're still not
worried?

It's fine to be "disconnected from nature", as long as everything can keep
going the same way, but _I don't think they can_. Our own artificial
infrastructure is like a ponzi scheme, requiring ever increasing amounts of
resources to support it. Until you can find a way that it'll support itself
without killing everything around it (I'm not exaggerating, your roof is a
desert.), it is not sustainable.

~~~
brc
Sorry but the Maldives is not sinking. They mustn't be too concerned, having
just built a new runway. There are several trees that exist just inches above
the high tide mark which are at least 50-100 years old.

There has been erosion in the Maldives due to changes in use, but erosion !=
sea level rise.

I also challenge anyone to nominate 1 single species made extinct in the past
50 years as a result of climate change. Note that you must be able to
attribute the sole or overwhelming cause of extinction to a change in the
average temperature, and not through habitat loss, local pollution,
overhunting or any other myriad of ways that humans wipe out species.

edit:typo seal->sea

~~~
gaius
I for one would be happy to see more seals in the Maldives ;-)

~~~
brc
yes, those pesky seal level rises. Fixed now:)

------
electromagnetic
I loved Avatar, but I've noticed a strong theme from Hollywood for over a
decade now of environmentalism. It's either the subtext, subplot in the 90's
movies, and now it's become the main context and plot of major movies in the
00's and I'm getting the strong feeling I'm going to be beaten to death with
it in the 10's.

I think one of the reasons I've gone from liking the Harry Potter film series
to outright loving it is because environmentalism isn't even a sub-subtext in
the story. The plot is that humans are doing incredible damage to humans, not
that humanities inactions are inevitably going to hurt us by some bullshit
catastrophe like 2012 or the day after tomorrow.

This bullshit enviro-paganism has driven me to the point of not giving the
slightest damn anymore. If you tell me we've got a program error from monday
to friday, but you offer no solution to fix it except to spell check the code
(recycling) then I'll tell you to fuck off by the next monday. If you offered
a major rewrite I'd buy in. Double-down on Fusion research, go all nuclear
with new power plants (it's the only practical and realistic way, if you deny
it you're ignorant of the massive wastes inherent in solar and wind systems
and the fact that many of these systems rely on the existing coal and gas
infrastructure to support it in low-wind or cloudy periods).

We're being told we've changed the world disastrously through our inactions,
then we should be showing the world we can change it through our actions.
Sequester carbon, go nucelar, build a frigging IR reflector in space, build
cloud machines.

I find it more disturbing that environmentalists are flat out ignoring the
disastrous effects caused by wind turbines, killing bird and especially bat
populations and promoting demineralization of farm land (note this is the
preliminary step in desertification). Not to mention that there's already been
noticeable wind-speed decreases in areas of heavy wind turbine usage. I think
interfering with the wind patterns is going to fuck up the planet far more
than a little CO2 as you'll actually be creating high and low pressure regions
_permanently_.

~~~
chrisb
Lots of factual errors here.

Solar and wind can make very large impacts on electricity generation - see the
Desertec website for lots more information: <http://www.desertec.org/>

Research has shown that geographically distributed renewable generation can be
used as reliable base-load, although I can't find the reference at the moment.

The CO2 payback times for various technologies are shown here:
<http://www.envirowiki.info/CO2_payback> , although this does miss out other
payback times that are relevant.

Winds and pressure regions around the world are primarily caused by
temperature contrasts between the poles and the equator, and between land and
sea (due to water having a much larger thermal inertia than land). Huge
numbers of wind turbines will not effect this in any way.

Modern wind turbines kill very few birds, orders of magnitude less than cars
and window collisions
(<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php>). Older wind
tubines have faster rotational speeds which kill more birds than modern
turbines.

Bats, again, are not effected too much by modern wind turbines as the blades
are are sufficiently high above the ground that bats will never come into
contact with them, as bats rarely fly at high altitudes (see PDF linked from
[http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/T...](http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/TIN051)).

Please, don't rant unless you know the facts.

~~~
drothlis
Do windmills kill “huge numbers” of birds? Wind farms recently got adverse
publicity from Norway, where the wind turbines on Smola, a set of islands off
the north-west coast, killed 9 white-tailed eagles in 10 months. I share the
concern of BirdLife International for the welfare of rare birds. But I think,
as always, it’s important to do the numbers. It’s been estimated that 30 000
birds per year are killed by wind turbines in Denmark, where windmills
generate 9% of the electricity. Horror! Ban windmills! We also learn,
moreover, that traffic kills one million birds per year in Denmark. Thirty-
times-greater horror! Thirty-times-greater incentive to ban cars! And in
Britain, 55 million birds per year are killed by _cats_.

\--David MacKay, "Sustainable Energy -- without the hot air".

[http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c10/page_63...](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c10/page_63.shtml)

~~~
brc
So what you're saying is that it's OK to kill birds as long as you're 'saving
the planet'? Because that's how it reads to me. I'm shocked that
environmentalists support wind power with the large ecological footprint it
has. Plus you have to build baseload power to back it up, so it's not like you
are stopping the construction of fossil fuel plants.

It just seems like a gigantic waste of resources to me.

~~~
drothlis
That's a rather provocative interpretation of what I posted. I was merely
pointing out that the birds thing is a relatively small issue, and if you
really care that much about them you'll have to sacrifice much of the modern
lifestyle.

For what it's worth, the book I quoted from (link in my previous comment) is
(in my interpretation) fairly skeptical of wind power. I highly recommend it:
It looks at the issues in a balanced manner, with extensive figures and
calculations, and without resorting to sensationalist language like "it's OK
to kill birds", or putting sarcastic quotes around "saving the planet" to
imply naïvety of anyone who dares to disagree.

------
ars
What is it about hollywood that makes people who work there think they are
qualified to speak about technical matters?

70% of species? Seriously? That's just pure nonsense.

~~~
chrisb
The IPCC 4th assessment report states that greater than 40% of species are
likely to be extinct given a temperature increase of ~3.8C, with 30% of
species at increasing risk of extinction given a temperature increase of only
~1.5C.

A rise of 1.5C is certain to happen by 2100, even in the best case scenario
where emissions peak soon; and a rise of 4.0C is depressingly likely given the
current continuous rise in emissions.

See pages 22, 23 and 29 of the synthesis report:
<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf>

I would recommend everyone reads this report; it's not too long, and I found
it very readable and succinct.

Given that we're all going to be affected, isn't it worth knowing the facts
about this stuff?

~~~
jozo
Also readable online at
[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.htm...](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html)

I would assume this is where the 70% came from: _"[...] As global average
temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest
significant extinctions (40 to 70% of species assessed) around the globe."_
[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4...](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4.html)

~~~
jbarham
> 40 to 70%

That's one heck of a margin of error.

------
DanielBMarkham
I'm a movie junkie and a Cameron fan -- at least until Avatar. Plus I love
startups and business issues.

James is part of this interesting movement by performers to insult and preach
to audiences. At some level, we all want to be challenged by art -- art should
take us places and make us look at ourselves in ways we haven't before.

But, in my opinion, what's happened is that art has ran out of ways to easily
challenge us. This has led to the development of sort of a religion -- people
are selfish and harmful, the planet is in danger, we must wake them up in
order to save our children.

Not getting into whether that's a good worldview to have -- there are many
pros and cons -- the problem here is that this particular religion, like all
religions before it, has become rigid and predictable. That hurts the art, and
it hurts the business.

Avatar was a wonderfully visual film -- and an example of a movie I don't want
to see again. It was preachy and trite. The plot was about as dumb as
possible. But damn, it was gorgeous. I bought the first disc I could when it
came out. And it's still sitting unwatched on the shelf.

When you cross the line from art to preaching, from sharing experiences to
moralizing, the art suffers.

I am also fascinated by this propensity for famous entertainers -- basically
our version of a high-paid circus clown -- to insult the people that are
buying tickets to their attractions. James isn't as direct about it, but
underneath all of this the message is clear: you are a mindless consumer and
your lack of concern and selfishness is destroying the planet. You're a
selfish asshole. Give me some more money and I will say it in a different way.
That's got to be the weirdest business model I've ever seen.

~~~
brc
The most odious part of Cameron's carry on is the way he travels to remote
villages in South America and parades them around like sideshow curiosities in
tribal outfits. He implores us to leave them be, leave the noble savage alone
(this is also the underlying message from Avatar, as I understand it) He never
asks them if they'd like a refrigerator for food and medicine, an air
conditioner or some roads built to increase their access to civilisation.
Instead, they are just assumed to be more pure, a better way of living than
the rest of us, and morally superior as a result. But nobody ever asks the
villagers what they think. They're just told to stand there in war paint and
look at one with the forest.

I haven't seen Avatar because once I saw the plotline I couldn't bear to sit
through it. It's bad enough trying to watch a decent U2 concert these days
without all the preaching being folded in.

Then there was the highly publicised event where Cameron was going to call
'high noon' on some bunch of climate change skeptics at a public debate. I
think it was at an environment conference or film festival or something. But
as the date approached he asked to have the rules changed many times before
pulling out altogether. I'm sure the reason is not to give the skeptical point
of view any airtime, but it just makes him look foolish and clumsy.

~~~
superk
_He never asks them if they'd like a refrigerator for food and medicine, an
air conditioner or some roads built to increase their access to civilisation._

Um.. most of the natives in South America are losing out to clear-cut logging.
I'm not sure how a refrigerator is going to help that.

