I thought I was going to have to answer no, because I don’t have the book I read it in nearby, but with a five second Google search: cite.
I didn’t see anything in the movie that hostile to technology. Just the opposite, in fact. The entire conceit of the “avatars” themselves was an entirely technological one.
There was also no “anti-military” message. The hero of the movie is a US Marine who uses his military knowledge and tactics to fight back against bad guys who are NOT military.
“Anti big business?” Didn’t see that either. One company was depicted as rapacious, but a movie has to have bad guys.
What is it with conservatives whining and snivelling about this movie so much? Is it really so detestable to portray genocide and pillaging in a bad light?
Well, pillaging is often a necessary part of advancing technology. Without importing resources, the resources needed to maintain current technology and develop new technology aren’t generally available. It is foolish to think that imported resources aren’t forcibly taken from a society that is already using (and wants to continue using) those resources.
Pillaging has nothing to do with science or advancing technology. It’s political and economic forces at work.
I’ll grant you that pillaging has nothing to do with science; however, it has everything to do with politics and the economy. Green pieces of paper are only valuable if one can convince people that they are worth something; if someone has something you want, but that someone doesn’t want your green pieces of paper, then what do you do?
Hint: you shoot them, and take their stuff anyway.
You got us there. Raiding, pillaging, rape and war were all created by Europeans. :rolleyes:
I’m done here.
Or, you find something they do want, and trade your green pieces of paper to someone else for that, then trade that with the first mob.
Or does that make too much sense?
Could it be as simple as Luddites embracing green causes &/or using environmentalism as an excuse, whereas conservationists generally are not necessarily Luddite?
That is, Luddites are nearly a subset of greens.
I suppose it’s not that simple.
OK, conservationism can be expressed in an environmental way, a cultural way, a technology/material-culture way, a religious way… So a lot of greens are also fans of “primitive” or atavistic culture, rooted in the same psychological conservationist bias as that that makes them strong greens.
A little such conservatism isn’t so bad. The world needs those who can hang on to things. Without some conservatism, we’d have gone extinct long ago.
Certainly not, but the notion is based in affluent European lifestyle, which has been very successful at making money. Look at what has happened to the Pygmies; loss of population and removal from their ancestral habitat (African rainforests) by other, more “civilized” Bantu commonly under the impression that they own the Pygmy race. Cite.
No, it doesn’t really make sense. Traditional cultures prefer to keep their landbase above all else for obvious reasons until their own culture is destroyed or their people become assimilated (by force of course), observe the Palestinians and Israelis, who are still fighting over what each culture sees as their homeland. Look at how prevalent alcoholism and other drug use becomes, as seen in both Native Americans and the Pygmies, the latter of which I previously mentioned. Another good example is what the Europeans did when the Chinese outlawed opium; the British shelled harbors until the Chinese government submitted because of the vast amount of cash invested in selling opium to China.
Why would anyone want what we have to offer at the expense of submission when their culture is has been historically sustainable for thousands of years?