This post may contain some Avatar Spoilers

Like most people I was impressed with the special effects in the smash hit movie Avatar. I was also impressed with the degree to which they closed more scientific holes than typical in a blockbuster.

For example, the Na’vi (a humanoid species) were too tall and lanky to have evolved on earth, but they mentioned that the gravity was lower on Pandora, which makes tall, small jointed creatures physically practicable.

The economics, however, left quite a bit to be desired. I don’t want to go all David Henderson here, but there were just some digs at the market too blatant not to mention. Pop fiction is pop fiction but when its starts to get too vicious we should probably speak up. Here are a few of my issues:

Issue 1: No one mentioned what unobtanium was used for. I jokingly posted to my facebook status (I just haven’t gotten with twitter yet) that unobtainium is used in the treatment of childhood cancers and that millions of children throughout the galaxy were going to die because the Na’vi wouldn’t move to a new tree.

If we take a truly galactic perspective then we have to consider the health and wellbeing of all people, Na’vi and human. There are obvious moral costs to making the Na’vi move but there may have been unobvious moral benefits. Unobtainium may not have been used to treat cancer but it reportedly sold for $20 Million a KG which means it was used for something that humans valued greatly.

Now, it could be that the wealth difference between the humans and the Na’vi was so great that marginal utility of income issues trump willingness to pay. That is, the humans are so rich that $20 million a KG is cheap for them. However, if you consider that the value of human life rises as people get wealthier and that the humans were willing to risk their lives to get unobtanium then we can deduce that it was probably pretty valuable in terms of utility, not just money.

Now consider that in theory Na’Vi only had to move – not die – in order for the humans to get what was so important to them. Which brings me to

Issue 2: The Na’Vi’s prime motivation was blatant nationalism and ethnocentrism. Our way of life is good and great and we are not giving it up – no matter what the costs to anyone, anywhere. They didn’t ask why the humans wanted unobtainum. They weren’t interested in any compromise that got them what they wanted and what the humans wanted. They were going to maintain their way of life no matter the costs.

How is this different from someone who says “I am going to pollute as much carbon as possible no matter the costs. My lifestyle is, my lifestyle and I am not giving it up.”

Perhaps, one could argue that the Na’Vi were there first. Just as the US and Europe hit industrialization first and therefore shouldn’t have to give up to make room for India and China?

Issue 3: Granting that the Na’vi claim was justifiable from their point of view, even if not from a galactic perspective, war should have been the correct solution. If the Na’Vi would rather die than forge any compromise whatsoever with the humans. And, if the humans would rather die than give up unobtainium then war is the dominant strategy and the optimum solution

That is, no matter the outcome you are better off going to war. If you loose you are dead, which is by assumption better than compromise. If you win you win, which is better than compromise. Moreover, even the case where everyone dies, is better than the case where everyone compromises, since they all prefer death to compromise.

In short, the Na’Vi position is romantic. It appeals to a lot of our basic nature. It makes us feel good to side with the Na’Vi. But, it makes us feel good because it triggers precisely the primitive, nationalistic, ethnocentric, culturally non-relativist emotions that we deplore in members of our own society.

The Na’Vi weren’t interested in the human’s way of life. They weren’t interested in the human’s needs or motivations. They claimed dominion over natural resources by virtue of having gotten there first. They were willing to fight rather than pursue compromises. They saw their way of life as more important than the lives of the “other.” These are not traits to admire.

Advertisement