Our adaptation to nature is not as perfect as some people and organizations try to describe. For example the keratins = dwarf and deformed humans, remaining the size of children for most of their lives * If you have not heard of the keratins, then you can only thank medical science for explaining the importance of iodine in the development of the fetus and the child
And yet... there was only one problem that bothered me in the movie and that was, of course, the script. The moon on which the plot takes place, also known as Pandora, can also be identified with the world capital of kitsch. I can only guess that Cameron crudely pushed his worldview into the plot, and thus we get blue alien Indians fighting for their right to live in harmony with nature, against the predatory capitalism of humans seeking to conquer the planet and mine its minerals.
Pandora's harmony is not just an illusion of pink tree-hugging blue hippies. Every organism on the surface of that moon is able to connect into a neural network that exists in the depths of the planet and attach its thoughts and desires to the collective mind, also known as ``Mother Earth''. In fact, it is a kind of god that oversees the balance of all things happening on the planet: who preys on whom, how much, why and when. This god is also able to direct the course of events as he wishes by sending messages through the organisms he directs. At a certain point in the film, Jack Sully, a human soldier who sympathizes with the suffering of the giant fluorescent Smurfs, arrives and explains to Al-Yarah that the humans want to kill the planet. And I quote the spirit of things -
"They have already killed their mother earth, in their planet. It can happen here too!”
The result, not surprisingly, is that the moon god gets angry and tramples the insolent humans. Nature and harmony won. The spectators cheer loudly, then go home and donate green rustlers to Greenspace or any of the other green organizations. Why? Because these organizations oppose globalization, the destruction of nature, and in general - most types of scientific progress that could pollute the planet. Some, the more delusional, believe that nature provided humans with everything they needed to exist - and any damage to this delicate balance of life can collapse the entire system.
And the truth? They are half right. There is a balance of life on Earth, but it is constantly changing. This balance is actually a war of existence of all the organisms that exist in all the other organisms and in the environment itself. This war is the reason why countless millions of animal species have become extinct in the past, when they could not compete with other species. This war is also the reason why there are islands where the predators exterminated all the prey animals - and finally became extinct themselves after they had no food left of their own. As much as I would love to see evidence of a larger ``circle of life'' guided by a higher intelligence, all the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction: a ceaseless war of existence, all against all.
The worst part of the whole thing is that our adaptation to nature is not as perfect as some people and organizations try to portray. Those who know the history of medicine surely know about keratins. Kertins are dwarfish and deformed humans who remain the size of children for most of their lives, sometimes without ever reaching sexual maturity. Some are deaf, others are blind and most of them are mentally retarded on one level or another.
To illustrate how widespread the disease was, we only need to say that in 1810 Napoleon Bonaparte ordered a survey of the residents of one of the Swiss provinces, Valais. His scientists found about four-thousand keratins out of seventy-thousand residents of the province. That is, almost three percent of the residents were keratinized, in a more or less severe state of the disease. In fact, the disease was so common in certain parts of Europe that it was considered genetic, or as a result of the ``bad air'' of the valleys in the mountains. This reason is not far from the truth. The areas where the keratins were found in particularly high abundance were all characterized by a lack of iodine in the soil.
All humans and animals need a supply of iodine in their food, which usually comes from the plants that extract it from the soil. However, in certain areas of the world, the climate and the rains lead to the iodine draining from the soil, and thus there is not enough of it left for humans. Iodine is used as a key component in the production of two important growth hormones: T3 and T4. If the pregnant mothers do not get enough iodine for the fetus, it will not develop properly. The condition will get even worse after birth, when he is unable to grow and develop like a normal person due to the continuous lack of iodine, and will be defined as keratin. And everything is under the auspices of Mother Nature.
If you haven't heard about the keratins, then you can only thank medical science for explaining the importance of iodine in the development of the fetus and the child. Since the middle of the XNUMXth century, a large part of the table salt in Europe has been enriched with iodine, so that everyone received their daily dose of iodine without noticing at all, and this is how keratins were almost eradicated from the West. In developing countries such as China and India, there is still a lack of iodine in certain areas. According to some estimates, about two billion people are currently in a state of iodine deficiency. For some, the deficiency is so severe that it will lead to poor brain development and mental retardation. The only chance for those people is to break free from nature, which is so praised in the West, and rely on globalization to provide them with the iodine they need.
And in conclusion - those who want to return to nature must take into account that life is not like a movie, and instead of blue and sturdy Indians, their children may suffer from keratin disease.
More on the subject on the science website
Avatar's moon - Pandora - may exist in reality
29 תגובות
It's like the suitcases that went to sleep when the chimpanzees ate all the frogs' shields in World War 17
indeed. Everything you read was unrelated. Just like your article
One of the best movies you've seen? I wonder what movies you've seen at all.
And apparently life is not like a movie. Anyone who thinks like that is living in a movie.
Swept away your 5 senses?
I see no need for the sense of smell, taste and touch.
Oren, what is the connection between the article and milk?
Muller is giving away free costumes of the milkmaids from the cool advertisement.
Go to the dairy page on Facebook, answer a question and you can win a cool costume for Purim
http://www.facebook.com/pages/MULLER/306197741002
I was disappointed by the article. Maybe because I expected to find a more serious analysis of the film (as much as possible in this genre). It seems to me that the author set a predefined goal and started looking for examples (not the most related) in candles to prove his thesis. Too bad.
4 out of 70 thousand is a little less than 6%.
The urge to kill, which is found in some humans, in my opinion is a phenomenon that the term ativism explains well.
Uncle,
I do not deny the benefit that humans or animals derive from violence. But do you have proof that chimpanzees (or any other non-human animal) do not derive pleasure from their actions? Is there proof that humans are indeed unique in their ability to observe themselves from the side?
Considering the fact that chimpanzees and humans share a common origin, it should not be ruled out outright that among the other homologies between the two species, the enjoyment of cruelty may also be homologous. Since you will not deny that chimpanzees have kidneys, stomachs and other organs similar to ours, are you aware that their minds will be so different that they cannot contain a link between pleasure and cruelty?
In addition, it is known that cats have a prey instinct. This is why cats jump on balls of wool - they enjoy it. In nature, every killing will end up benefiting the cat - food. But a domesticated cat will not benefit from killing an animal because all its food is provided by its owner. Still, this phenomenon is observed in nature, even without benefit. It would be difficult to argue that the animal learned this behavior from its owner, because many cat owners do not kill animals and yet their cats give them offerings in the form of game animals.
Roy, you are right that the adaptation to nature is not perfect.
But the obvious question is whether the lack of iodine in question is due to human agriculture which itself is not "natural".
There are no known animals in the wild with such a disease (at least not that I know of) because animals develop in an ecological niche (except for exceptions in the case of migration due to changes in the continents, for example) and then there is also a match between the age of life and the natural resources, whereas humans do not necessarily develop in an ecosystem, but takes over her.
The price for this is that what nature offers him in that place is not necessarily the environment his body has adapted to.
For example: an environment that only has grass. A cow can develop in a good way because it is adapted to produce energy from such a diet, and in contrast, humans are not adapted to cellulose nutrition, nor will they be adapted within a short period of time and will develop diseases.
light,
You said: "Since humans evolved from previous animals, it is not unreasonable to assume that they also had cruelty and that it is a trait that exists in our relatives, for example the chimpanzees."
It is true that there have been observed and documented cases of chimpanzees in the wild going into the territory of the rival group, with the aim of killing as many of them as possible (and this even led to cannibalism), but the chimpanzees did not do it with the same level of awareness that a human being would do it - for pure pleasure - it is always for a purely practical purpose (Extinction of your opponents adds free resources to you which directly improves the survival chances of your genes), and this is the whole difference between us and the other animals.
We are able to think about the very process of thinking itself.
We are able to get out of ourselves and observe ourselves from the side (contemplation) and this is something that is unique to humans compared to all other creatures in nature.
There is a correct summary in the article in my opinion, and in my opinion those who want a really successful child who looks like him or the type of person who wants a child who looks like Richard Gere can simply overcome the obstacles that nature has created here and use cloning (aka cloning) and also take into account that just as other creatures come here who have given them The name aliens, even like them, there may be keratins who are happy in their shape, this is something that can be known through another means of communication that we have here in the world, luckily
To all commenters:
Of course, the shepherds of the solutions, and I do not pretend to speak for him.
But according to my understanding of the article, it does not seem to me that the intention is that nature is not necessary, or that the green organizations are a bunch of paranoids disconnected from reality. But the "shortness" in the human understanding of nature makes a person think as if it is a complete (perfect) thing and free of mistakes. Similar to the line of religious thought, for example, which sees it as a *divine* act, we were 100% complete.
Such a perception is called idealization. That is, it appears to us as if everything natural is positive, and any proactive intervention in nature is negative. (Reminds a bit of the opposition of the religious organizations to genetic engineering).
Which is of course a mistake, because nature is simply evolution, with more successful and less successful cases, and absolutes should not be attributed to it.
This is how I understood the article. Correct me, Roy, if I'm wrong.
Roy, hello
I think you are oversimplifying the view of the environmentalist organizations, and turning them into people who are just afraid of an advance, lest you destroy the "delicate balance" of KDAHA. I don't think there are many such people among them - according to them, the main problem is a corporate takeover that serves the interests of the corporation, contrary to what *scientists* often warn against, such as exploiting certain resources in sensitive areas of the world, the most famous example, of course, is global warming.
Or, I think it was an article by Roy, which was written there, that the transparent ones are very violent even towards me
Kindred, when the other two groups are fighting, it will be ugly.
Golan, I completely agree with you.
Note that Roy brought the example of the predators who consume their prey and as a result also themselves. Humans have become very efficient in extracting the resources they need and the trouble is that they may run out because they regenerate too slowly compared to the rate of their utilization. This applies to many resources, from food through fossil fuels to global greenhouse gas capacity within reasonable limits. We must differentiate ourselves from the BHA by planning our populations to avoid over-exploitation that would lead to self-destruction, partially or completely.
There is no balance in nature that protects the private sector. Beech became extinct long before the existence of man and likewise also plants. The question is not whether there is a natural balance or not, and the question is not what would happen if humans did not intervene, the question is how we do intervene to change the situation to our advantage in the long run. For example, let's say that a deadly virus develops in a completely natural way and spreads rapidly in the world. If we do not intervene, "nature" will destroy us - but that does not mean that developing a vaccine for the virus is a sin just because it is against nature! In addition to this, it is highly desirable that we do not cut down the industry we are sitting on, for example due to climate change, the depletion of biological diversity, etc.
Natural is not the same as positive. Unnatural is not the same as negative. The relevant discussion is about the good of humanity regardless of the naturalness or unnaturalness of things.
And by the way, David, following on from what Ra'anan said to you, since humans evolved from previous animals, it is not unreasonable to assume that they also had cruelty and that it is a trait that exists in our relatives, for example the chimpanzees.
There is something in what you say!
You are right, we are not above nature but part of it and therefore your answer is correct.
To focus my previous words - my intention was for all non-human flora and fauna.
Best regards,
Uncle
David of Nazareth Elite
Cruelty is my interpretation of the nature of nature, interpretation is thought, and thought is, in my opinion, a completely physical thing, therefore thinking about the cruelty of nature is actually a part of nature.
Cruelty is pure enjoyment of the very process of hunting and killing and all the enthusiasm in it. This is actually active thinking about another thought, and this is a characteristic of only human beings - the ability to look at yourself from the side "and observe" yourself from the side and experience an opinion about yourself from the side.
fresh -
Cruelty and evil are human concepts and nothing more, they do not exist in nature! It is the personification of nature into the world of our concepts.
When a lion eats a zebra, he is not cruel to her! No such feelings are involved there at all!
There is indeed enthusiasm on the part of the ardor of the act of chasing and killing (adrenaline), and a terrible fear of the zebra (also adrenaline) - but there are no concepts like cruelty, evil, precisely, and the like.
All questions about whether introduction is useful are pointless.
This is our reality and we need to know how to conduct ourselves within it and with it.
Awareness of nutrition has risen on the consumer side, followed by the producers
Trying to catch up with the trend. There is still much to improve
But at least we are in the right direction.
Who would have thought to find salads at McDonald's so and so years ago?
arasnu et kadur ha arets be 100 shana. rov ha enoshut lo maspik itiligentim ve hasrei regashot, az ma she iesh kidma ve iod? rak ma she mevi kesef muhanim leashkia bo be zmaneinu, lemasheal grass she hu beetsem tsemah pele (i efshar lirshom alav patent) ve eifo hu? mehuts la hok, kolkah pohadim mimenu she le anashim im matsav briuti lo tov maadifim latet opiumim(heroin) ve lo grass. ma holeh po ba olam kulam ishtagu? masheu po lo beseder tahshevu al ze
As for the article, interesting and intriguing - even for an "ignorant" like me (unlike some of the comments which I couldn't understand on first reading...).
And for Ami - a question: From your response it is not clear to me: Do you see artificial intervention as a positive or negative thing? Or maybe each case individually... and this can sometimes only be understood after the fact 🙂
Cheers! A brave, correct article, and worthy of wide publication. What a shame because only readers of this site are exposed to it. And as for iodine and the reactions to it: iodine is a small example and in my opinion even a marginal one: you can bring millions more examples of artificial intervention "in nature" such as electricity and all that is involved, buildings, houses, glasses, hearing aids, early pregnancy tests, fertility treatments ………………………… …………………..Anyone who wants is welcome to add
[or share].
add refresh,
The real question is who guarantees "eternity" or in other words does the conduct today guarantee existence
Our descendants let's say in a thousand years, I personally trust the natural balance of inferior beings more than
About "culture" as human that plays God.
Roi Shalom
I do not belittle and even enjoy being part of the society in which I live, but I feel a spoiled taste
Your reference to iodine deficiency in the diet in the article is only for agricultural companies
I read several articles claiming that the transition to an agricultural society changed our nutritional balance to a negative.
I'm interested if you have any information about iodine deficiency in primitive hunter-gatherer societies?
I actually don't understand what the big fuss is about the movie...I saw it, visually it's good, but that's about all. The plot itself is very formulaic.
People only get excited about effects these days...the defect in the effect.
But in nature, keratin will not survive two days...
There is nothing like the balance of nature, it is cruel, it is true, but it is also perhaps the least cruel of the alternatives, the evil in the minority, the vanity either way it doesn't matter because "progress" can also be seen as a kind of nature.
I don't usually give negative reviews, but the article is pointless
Advancement is necessary but alongside it we must protect our planet
At least until we find others to live on..