Have you ever noticed how lots of people out there hold opinions that are based, not on what they really think, but on what other people think?
For example, many uni students have a defacto opposition to abortion, guns and the Liberal Party, and an automatic belief in global warming, the racism of Australians and the purity and goodness of the union movement. They don't actually BELIEVE in any of these things (generally speaking), they're just positions they've absorbed from those around them.
Orson Scott Card, one of my favourite authors, has written a great little column about Sarah Palin and her treatment by the media. One of his best points is that many intellectuals (so called) have opinions on people such as Palin or Rush Limbaugh, without ever having heard their radio show or listened to their book. Their opinions are based on what those around them think, not on them assesing facts and doing some informed reasoning.
As for Palin's book, here's the link to the review of it in Card's column.
This whole thing brings me back to Avatar and that whole idea that those we treat badly we need to portray as sub-human in some form. By doing this we can justify our appalling behaviour in our own heads (such as the Spanish in Haiti and slave owners in the USA). All these people in the media constantly denigrate Palin as being stupid, a liar, a woman hater, whatever. They then use those epithets as an excuse for even more vigorous attacks on her.
There's plenty of people out there I don't like, but I can't think of anyone that I truly hate. And those people that I have hated in the past, as soon as I'm removed from them the problem goes away. Everybody has something good about them and these unreasoning and vicious attacks that seem to be quite common nowadays just indicate the nature of the person making the attack.
Think about it!
Harry
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
predictions gone wrong...
Tim Blair has a regular thing on his blog at the moment called "Things scientists say", pulling out quotes from the New York Times archives. Kind of amusing.
But I was thinking about the whole prediction business because of something else and I'd like to share those thoughts with you.
How often do we get a widespread consensus in the media or elsewhere about something, only for it all to be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about when it all turns out to be wrong?
An excellent recent example is the Australia-Pakistan test in Sydney, where Australia chose to bat first. Ricky Ponting copped 4 days of ridicule and then went onto win the test.
The big one that came to my mind when I was thinking of this was George W. Bush. Lots of people I know and lots of people in the media seemed convinced that he was doing his best to create an imperial presidency, that the Patriot Act was destroying democracy and that he would simply refuse to leave office at the end of his term. When that didn't happen, what did they do? they kept on bagging out George W. but just pretended like they'd never said any such thing.
Sometimes you can be swimming against the tide and it seems that no-one else agrees with or supports your point of view. That doesn't mean your wrong though. In science the real breakthroughs are done by people who do what other people say is impossible.
For me, this says, if you have an opinion or position on something and you can justify it (justify it properly) then hold onto that opinion, despite what people say. Changing your opinions to make other people feel better is all well and good, but it won't get you anywhere.
cheers
harry
But I was thinking about the whole prediction business because of something else and I'd like to share those thoughts with you.
How often do we get a widespread consensus in the media or elsewhere about something, only for it all to be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about when it all turns out to be wrong?
An excellent recent example is the Australia-Pakistan test in Sydney, where Australia chose to bat first. Ricky Ponting copped 4 days of ridicule and then went onto win the test.
The big one that came to my mind when I was thinking of this was George W. Bush. Lots of people I know and lots of people in the media seemed convinced that he was doing his best to create an imperial presidency, that the Patriot Act was destroying democracy and that he would simply refuse to leave office at the end of his term. When that didn't happen, what did they do? they kept on bagging out George W. but just pretended like they'd never said any such thing.
Sometimes you can be swimming against the tide and it seems that no-one else agrees with or supports your point of view. That doesn't mean your wrong though. In science the real breakthroughs are done by people who do what other people say is impossible.
For me, this says, if you have an opinion or position on something and you can justify it (justify it properly) then hold onto that opinion, despite what people say. Changing your opinions to make other people feel better is all well and good, but it won't get you anywhere.
cheers
harry
the internet is funny....
http://www.achewood.com/
http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Hate_My_Job.htm
http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Prius.htm
And of course lolcats. I love lolcats!
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
why Avatar is the biz...
So I just finished watching "Avatar", the movie that everyone else is going to see and yes, it was definitely worth it. It was an amazing viewing experience with a great story and while it didn't need the 3D, it certainly helped create something utterly fantastic.
Now the basic premise of the movie is that in the future, humans can travel for six years in a spaceship (presumably at light speed, so presumably to Proxima Centauri of thereabouts) to a planet called Pandora. Pandora has a mineral (called unobtainium) that is worth $20 million a kilo back on earth and is being developed by a private corporation. Unfortunately, there is a local population causing some troubles...
Now the pictures look absolutely stunning when you first view the planet. It looks a lot like Earth, except for the fact that there's an absolutely massive planet in the background, far far larger than Pandora. Basically Pandora is a moon of this much larger planet. We see it quite often throughout the movie and not only does it look fantastic, but they don't bother to explain what it is, which I quite liked. If you were to be on Ganymede or another of the Jovian moons (around Jupiter) you'd experience a similar kind of skyline, this enormous planet that absolutely dominates the skyline at certain times.
I won't go on about the film and what happens, because after all, why spoil the surprise?
However, I will say that it has a great story, that is presented in a totally believable way. Yes there is lots of tree-hugging hippy shit, with a planetary network of intelligent trees (somewhat gaia like) and other kinds of what-not, but the fact is that this is a science fiction movie and they present a credible and fully realised world in which the story is set. And that's the important part. Because if you had a bunch of blue tree-huggers and nothing else this film would not be any kind of a success (just look at any recent Australian film to check. Oh wait, you'd rather stab yourself than watch most Australian movies...). The blue tree-huggers provide the backdrop for the story and THAT is why people are going to see this movie. The setting could be changed utterly, but the basic premise of the story would still be gold.
Now Andrew Bolt, a writer who I admire and respect and whose work I enjoy, was quite dismissive of the movie, talking about how it's a great big gaia-loving wet dream, with a primitive people "at one" with nature and living a perfect, unspoilt life. He than suggested (more than suggested) that this was the utopian fantasy of many of those who are using global warming as an excuse to try and tell and tell us how to run our lives.
Column - Avatar, the answer to a Copenhager’s dream | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Read the column yourself, I have to say that I can't really disagree with him too strongly, especially when he produces quotes from James Cameron. Many people do have this fascination with primitive peoples and how they are somewhat "better" than what we have now. While some primitive communities may have been fantastic in all kinds of respects, the fact is that many primitive communities were brutal, dirty, violent, hungry and misogynistic. It all depends.
However, I have to reiterate, the story is what makes this film work and without the story all the giant trees and blue aliens in the world wouldn't save it.
What I found far more interesting than the environmental aspects of the movie were the historical aspects.
I believe that this film can be viewed as an allegory for the historical interaction between westerners and the rest of the world, especially in relation to the first Europeans to visit the Americas. Of course the major difference is that in this movie the natives win, while in real life they lost.
When Europeans first came to the Americas, they found civilised communities with high standards of health and hygiene, excellent standards of living and generally very low levels of disturbance or unrest. To compare London or Lisbon to Massachusetts or Haiti 500 years ago most people would probably prefer the latter, with most European cities being ridden with filth, overcrowding, disease, hunger, crime, brutality and despair. Many Indians apparently complained when dealing with Europeans that they smelt and asked them to bathe.
In fact many Europeans did change sides, preferring to live a native lifestyle rather than stay in the settlements, especially those settlements dominated by religious fanatics or excessive control. During the Indian wars in North America, especially in the East (not so much on the plains, where the numbers involved where tiny) the Indians had large numbers of white people who lived and fought with them, were in fact members of their community, often highly respected leaders, because of their understanding of both cultures.
For someone to "betray his own species" is certainly analogous to someone to "betray" his own people and go live with the Indians or whomever. In fact, choosing to "go native" is not just an old phenomenon, it's something that still happens to this day.
When I was in Ecuador I was told by a raft guide of their experience one day, on the upper reaches of the Amazon. In the middle of nowhere, they met this blonde, white woman, with a child on her hip, who was trying to reach the other side of the river. She had been living in the jungle, in a quichua village, for the last ten years. You couldn't get much further removed from civilisation than that, living what is essentially a hunter-gatherer, tribal lifestyle.
I would almost suggest that the historical allegory is in fact deliberate and well researched, although I could of course be wrong.
The other interesting historical point is the demonisation of the natives. They are referred to as "savages" and "blue monkeys". Demonising someone is a way to make us feel alright about the way that we are mistreating them.
For example, when Columbus first came to Haiti, he reported that the inhabitants were civilised, of fine bearing and generally pretty good. In later years, as Haiti was being raped by the Spanish, his descriptions began to change, describing the locals as inferior and sub-human. By describing them as such he could justify the wholesale murder and enslavement of the local population.
Similarly, african americans were routinely denigrated as being incapable of independent thought, as being unintelligent, as being destined for slavery because they just weren't as good as the white man. Such a portrayal enable people to feel good about owning slaves, even being able to justify such ownership as being "kind" and "right".
The only problem with this whole allegory, is that ultimately, the white men won. You could set this movie in the United States, and have the natives be the Iroquois in the Ohio Wars or the Seminole in the Seminole Wars. Both times the Indian community featured runaway slaves and Europeans from various walks of life who preferred to join the Indians. And of course, both times the Indians lost.
So what does all this mean?
You can be strongly conservative/libertarian (like me) and still go along and enjoy this movie. The story is enjoyable. The effects are amazing. The world of Pandora, as realised in 3D, is absolutely, jaw-droppingly, amazing. The powered armor of the soldiers is very cool (maybe James Cameron can make a proper movie of Starship Troopers, just a pity he's a bit of dirty hippy). The battle scenes, particularly the aerial formations, are stupid, but most movies suck at using realistic tactics on the big screen anyway. The characters are interesting and enjoyable and you actually care about what happens to them.
Go see it!
One more thing. The destruction of the forest by the humans is portrayed in a way that to me is totally believable. I'm not saying that it WOULD happen, I'm saying that it could happen and again is analogous to previous destruction of natural environments by Europeans. Just because you don't like to believe that we're capable of such a thing or you think that James Cameron is a dirty tree-hugging hippy is no excuse to close your eyes and not accept the possible.
cheers
Harry
Edit: Here's a nice piece from the Australian which touches on the bagging out of the politics of "Avatar".
Now the basic premise of the movie is that in the future, humans can travel for six years in a spaceship (presumably at light speed, so presumably to Proxima Centauri of thereabouts) to a planet called Pandora. Pandora has a mineral (called unobtainium) that is worth $20 million a kilo back on earth and is being developed by a private corporation. Unfortunately, there is a local population causing some troubles...
Now the pictures look absolutely stunning when you first view the planet. It looks a lot like Earth, except for the fact that there's an absolutely massive planet in the background, far far larger than Pandora. Basically Pandora is a moon of this much larger planet. We see it quite often throughout the movie and not only does it look fantastic, but they don't bother to explain what it is, which I quite liked. If you were to be on Ganymede or another of the Jovian moons (around Jupiter) you'd experience a similar kind of skyline, this enormous planet that absolutely dominates the skyline at certain times.
I won't go on about the film and what happens, because after all, why spoil the surprise?
However, I will say that it has a great story, that is presented in a totally believable way. Yes there is lots of tree-hugging hippy shit, with a planetary network of intelligent trees (somewhat gaia like) and other kinds of what-not, but the fact is that this is a science fiction movie and they present a credible and fully realised world in which the story is set. And that's the important part. Because if you had a bunch of blue tree-huggers and nothing else this film would not be any kind of a success (just look at any recent Australian film to check. Oh wait, you'd rather stab yourself than watch most Australian movies...). The blue tree-huggers provide the backdrop for the story and THAT is why people are going to see this movie. The setting could be changed utterly, but the basic premise of the story would still be gold.
Now Andrew Bolt, a writer who I admire and respect and whose work I enjoy, was quite dismissive of the movie, talking about how it's a great big gaia-loving wet dream, with a primitive people "at one" with nature and living a perfect, unspoilt life. He than suggested (more than suggested) that this was the utopian fantasy of many of those who are using global warming as an excuse to try and tell and tell us how to run our lives.
Column - Avatar, the answer to a Copenhager’s dream | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Read the column yourself, I have to say that I can't really disagree with him too strongly, especially when he produces quotes from James Cameron. Many people do have this fascination with primitive peoples and how they are somewhat "better" than what we have now. While some primitive communities may have been fantastic in all kinds of respects, the fact is that many primitive communities were brutal, dirty, violent, hungry and misogynistic. It all depends.
However, I have to reiterate, the story is what makes this film work and without the story all the giant trees and blue aliens in the world wouldn't save it.
What I found far more interesting than the environmental aspects of the movie were the historical aspects.
I believe that this film can be viewed as an allegory for the historical interaction between westerners and the rest of the world, especially in relation to the first Europeans to visit the Americas. Of course the major difference is that in this movie the natives win, while in real life they lost.
When Europeans first came to the Americas, they found civilised communities with high standards of health and hygiene, excellent standards of living and generally very low levels of disturbance or unrest. To compare London or Lisbon to Massachusetts or Haiti 500 years ago most people would probably prefer the latter, with most European cities being ridden with filth, overcrowding, disease, hunger, crime, brutality and despair. Many Indians apparently complained when dealing with Europeans that they smelt and asked them to bathe.
In fact many Europeans did change sides, preferring to live a native lifestyle rather than stay in the settlements, especially those settlements dominated by religious fanatics or excessive control. During the Indian wars in North America, especially in the East (not so much on the plains, where the numbers involved where tiny) the Indians had large numbers of white people who lived and fought with them, were in fact members of their community, often highly respected leaders, because of their understanding of both cultures.
For someone to "betray his own species" is certainly analogous to someone to "betray" his own people and go live with the Indians or whomever. In fact, choosing to "go native" is not just an old phenomenon, it's something that still happens to this day.
When I was in Ecuador I was told by a raft guide of their experience one day, on the upper reaches of the Amazon. In the middle of nowhere, they met this blonde, white woman, with a child on her hip, who was trying to reach the other side of the river. She had been living in the jungle, in a quichua village, for the last ten years. You couldn't get much further removed from civilisation than that, living what is essentially a hunter-gatherer, tribal lifestyle.
I would almost suggest that the historical allegory is in fact deliberate and well researched, although I could of course be wrong.
The other interesting historical point is the demonisation of the natives. They are referred to as "savages" and "blue monkeys". Demonising someone is a way to make us feel alright about the way that we are mistreating them.
For example, when Columbus first came to Haiti, he reported that the inhabitants were civilised, of fine bearing and generally pretty good. In later years, as Haiti was being raped by the Spanish, his descriptions began to change, describing the locals as inferior and sub-human. By describing them as such he could justify the wholesale murder and enslavement of the local population.
Similarly, african americans were routinely denigrated as being incapable of independent thought, as being unintelligent, as being destined for slavery because they just weren't as good as the white man. Such a portrayal enable people to feel good about owning slaves, even being able to justify such ownership as being "kind" and "right".
The only problem with this whole allegory, is that ultimately, the white men won. You could set this movie in the United States, and have the natives be the Iroquois in the Ohio Wars or the Seminole in the Seminole Wars. Both times the Indian community featured runaway slaves and Europeans from various walks of life who preferred to join the Indians. And of course, both times the Indians lost.
So what does all this mean?
You can be strongly conservative/libertarian (like me) and still go along and enjoy this movie. The story is enjoyable. The effects are amazing. The world of Pandora, as realised in 3D, is absolutely, jaw-droppingly, amazing. The powered armor of the soldiers is very cool (maybe James Cameron can make a proper movie of Starship Troopers, just a pity he's a bit of dirty hippy). The battle scenes, particularly the aerial formations, are stupid, but most movies suck at using realistic tactics on the big screen anyway. The characters are interesting and enjoyable and you actually care about what happens to them.
Go see it!
One more thing. The destruction of the forest by the humans is portrayed in a way that to me is totally believable. I'm not saying that it WOULD happen, I'm saying that it could happen and again is analogous to previous destruction of natural environments by Europeans. Just because you don't like to believe that we're capable of such a thing or you think that James Cameron is a dirty tree-hugging hippy is no excuse to close your eyes and not accept the possible.
cheers
Harry
Edit: Here's a nice piece from the Australian which touches on the bagging out of the politics of "Avatar".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
