Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,518
edits
Avatar (film)/Headscratchers/Earth: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (Mass update links) |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
A ''Note for Tropers:'' For the sake of keeping this page halfway concise, please read other people's posts before adding your own. We only need the one post about wiping out the Na'vi, people. Thank you.
[[Avatar (
----
Line 19:
** Especially with there being a 6 year travel time.
* Various governments probably have policies restricting that sort of outright Na'vi slaughter, likely a cover for an international Unobtanium détente preventing the various governments of a very non-unified earth from fighting to the death over Pandora's significant supply of Unobtanium.
* I think the right answer is that humans aren't always ''total'' bastards. The [[Humans Are
** For that matter, we have no proof that Earth's ''survival'' depends on exploiting Pandora's Unobtanium. Economic prosperity and profit for RDA, yes; survival no. This isn't ''Battle For Terra''.
* It's not so much that we'd necessarily care for an alien race, it's that we despise the "HUMANITY FUCK YEAH KILL THE XENOS" people enough to side with the aliens. I'd happily see such people dead, might bump the IQ of the species up a few points.
** Hey, it's better than Navikin. Much, much better than the Navikin.
* Being xenocidal does not necessarily mean you are less intelligent. Given that this is a hard scifi setting were relativistic kill vehicles are possible(ie like real life). The smartest move a species can make may be to destroy all other sapient lifeforms. [[Warhammer
** It's not hard sci-fi at all; the Na'vi have no way of deploying relativistic kill vehicles; and please stop quoting Warhammer. It makes you sound like a drooling sociopathic tool. It's the least realistic setting ever.
*** No FTL, fairly plausible if poorly designed vehicles, modified versions of things that we already have, and a reasonable handwave of FTL communications? Sounds like hard scifi to me, if you'll excuse the [[Lego Genetics]]. Also, of course the Na'vi can't deploy the [[RK Vs]], that's what the [[Humans Are
*** Then you can argue that humanity completely devoid of morality wouldn't be co-operative enough as a whole to start civilizations.
* Of course, the cost of deploying kill sats and what have you is [[Awesome but Impractical]] (the trope page has a section on them, in fact). For the cost of weaponizing something like that, you could send an army... who could not only blow stuff up but secure the place after.
Line 85:
* In a serious case of [[Writers Cannot Do Math]], although the population of Earth at current rates should reach 10 billion in 2050 it is unlikely to as more and more countries are having much lower birth rates. If anything, it should start ''decreasing'' after 2100 as more people are child less or only have one child. Unless everyone after 2100 decided that having over three children was the done thing, the Earth's population should not have reached 20 billion.
* A current trend won't necessarily continue into the future. Declining birth rates is mainly due to people holding off having children for financial or practical reasons, as well as better awareness and use of contraception, but that allows PLANNING, not preventing reproduction.
** The problem is that as nations get more and more developed, birth rates tend to decline. It's an observable trend across the industrialized West. Remember, that trend is only due to the choices of the individuals within the industrialized nations. That fails to account for nations like China with their One Child Policy. As the population grows, and resources get more strict, doesn't it make sense to think that nations will begin variations of One Child?
*** That doesn't necessarily halt population growth. If enough people survive to adulthood, then only an average of 2.1 children per couple will keep population growing, or slightly higher to cover deaths and people who don't have children.As the adult population increases, then even with a lower birthrate, there will be far more children being born overall - IIRC, China's population is growing despite one child.
** Possibly the population-control strictures were lifted when humans began moving into space colonies, under the assumption that excess people would move off-planet. Then a crisis blocked them from actually sending as many folks up as they'd
----
:<small>Back to ''[[{{ROOTPAGENAME}}]]''
{{reflist}}
[[Category:
[[Category:Headscratchers]]
__NOTOC__
| |||