That is the only logical conclusion. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable, must be the truth.

Again, and just as civil as before: Jake's commentary on the situation on Earth is hyperbole. That is an exaggeration of facts used to convey the seriousness of the situation in an emotional way. The scene in question was extraordinarily charged with emotion and desperation. It is simply not reasonable to take his words seriously as precise facts given that the RDA is up and running. There would be no point to any mining operation, no point to the conflict depicted in the film, if the home planet was anywhere near as bad off as you seem to think it must be, PunkMeister. The conflict would not be over a mineral, it would be over colonization. Humanity is a starfaring culture in 2154, and that requires a huge infrastructure and a robust economy. If humanity was at or near extinction, you would only see anarchy. The Venture Star was never "the last ship from Earth."

Again keep in mind that this is IGNORING quite a few facts that show Earth is not as barren and lifeless as Jake evoked in his words "They killed their mother"

Thank you because that is the whole point of this thread. Earth cannot be just a lifeless rock as Jake put it. And in fact the script and the guide both speak of Earth plants and animals being cloned meaning they were actively trying to restore their world and it is also the reason many scientists such as Dr Grace found Pandora so valuable. Because to them the unique biology of Pandora offered means to restore Earth to a more pristine state.

i read this in spocks voice. i laughed.

what he is referring to here, is Gaia, or the Eywa of earth, your taking his words too literally here. killing eywa wouldn't automatically make the na'vi extinct, they would adapt, and work around the change, just the same as with the humans.

^^ Which one?? Nimoy or Quinto?

Jake's words represent anecdotal evidence only. Possibly bias, we can't tell. The way I see it is, regardless of how extensive the eco-system is on earth in 2154, it could not possibly support the human race. Therefore I conclude the technology is the sole benofactor. Any plant or natural life will be negligable bar the algae that humans farm for food.

Sherlock Holmes. Really though, take your pick.

Upon what do you base that supposition? Given that RDA is sending a starship once a year to Alpha Centauri, that implies an economic base, and any economic model that we've used to date is one based on the future being "there." I will grant that conditions are dismal, but if the ecosystem could not possibly support the human race, then a superconducting mineral worth scandalous sums of money would hardly merit pursuit. Unobtanium is described as the solution to our energy crisis on Earth. There can be no energy crisis without a sustainable human presence.

Love Nimoy as Spock. Grew up with the character as a hero. But Quinto is superb as well. Hard to pick one. And I do believe that Spock quoted Holmes famous "Occam's Razor" in ...what was it, Star Trek IV?

Gaia and Eywa are extremely different, because While Gaia is without question a network it is by no means a sentience as Eywa in Pandora is.



Yes but that's because there is no current crop that could possibly ever feed the amount of people they have. Is not that the Earth is totally barren but that the population is such that the Ecosystem on it's own could not possibly ever support it.


Truth be told the overpopulation problem depicted in the move is grossly and deliberately exaggerated to make a point, given what we now know the current OP problem resides mostly in the third world particularly and specifically in Africa.

I think your ignoring what genetic technologies are capable of. The eco-system in any size at in this timeline will simply be an irrelevant factor. There is some sort of energy crisis, but it is not interconnected with ecology. What I was saying that the eco-system in whatever capacity in that timeline could not support the human race. Technology must be relied upon. I read somewhere that there was something like 20 billion people on earth in 2154. That may seem unrealistic but those are the facts we must deal with.

I don't even remember what movie, will have to go through them again.

No current crop? What, of algae? Mmmh. I am pondering Africa's existance in this timeline.

The algae they consume is not a current crop, is a genetically enhanced variety grown for the purpose of feeding such a horribly burgeoning population.

I dare not think how Africa would be doing on that alternate timeline. Is not doing well now I cannot imagine it in Avatar Earth.

I'm sure my population control method would have run it's course by then, albiet late.

Let's keep homicidal population control schemes whether by negligence or direct action out of this thread shall we?

I think a more pertinent statement would be: "Lets keep population control schemes out of this thread".

Ok, sure.

Hmm, OK then moving on...

Indeed. I concur. Given our current course, it is likely that artificial means will become progressively more and more necessary to address the damage our wayward intentions are doing to the naturally occurring ecology.

Overpopulation will likely be a severe issue, and procreation control itself will likely be the logical means of control. I would think that involuntary and irreversible chemical sterilization the most likely and humane means, accompanied by a societal sacrifice of the right to bear children. Easier said than done....but I also agree, if asked, that harsher means are intolerable. Edit: I also concur that exploring this line of thinking is perhaps a bit too grim for this happy thread and forum.