Na'vi sociology

[Cyvaris]

Originally Posted by Rainbowhawk1993

The Na'vi are simular to humanity from the ancent cultures of native north and south america. (Indians, Miya, aztechs, the surviving tribes in the amozon today) In the forests and the plains, everything was basicly provided for them so they didn't have to push so much for change.

Yeah I feel this may be a little bit uhm....WRONG.

All of these tribes ESPECIALLY the Maya developed VERY complex systems to survive in their local environments. The Maya had a very complex building system, charted star positions and solar events to determine the perfect time to grow crops, and created a writing system we still have yet to fully crack. Like all people they changed and adapted to their environment, but they also greatly altered their environment. The Maya felt that the perfect area to live in had a large lake in the center, surrounded by mountains. When they could not find that....they frelling MADE it.


As for Native North American Indians....Pueblo people!

[auroraglacialis]

Yeah, especially the Maya were quite a civilization, they were doing a lot of construction, agriculture and so forth. So I would not really want to compare them with the NA'Vi. Same goes for the Aztecs and the Pueblo indians. I have the impression that these civilizations had somewhat different values and may have been more sustainable in some ways, especially since some of them at least placed a great value on Nature and the garden of the world, the forest and its plants and animals. Also they had quite sustainable garden techniques like the "three sisters" which prevents soil erosion and nutrient depletion unlike the pioneering "disaster crops" of Europe which originated in an area that was flooded regularly by the Nile river so there was no need to look out for ways to keep the soil.
But in fact any culture has complex methods to get to their food and materials. Tracking and hunting, identifying the right plants, processing plants by grinding, chopping or cooking, watering sago trees, setting traps, building fishing lines and making canoes to get to the fish - all that are very complex techniques and few cultures would survive without them. There are a few places in the world that are abundant enough to provide year-round easy to identify food, but in most cases, a considerable amount of knowledge had to go into these things. And still has to (you dont want to eat a feedlot-grown beef that has not been tested by a vet for pathogens, would you ). For the NA'Vi, identifying the right kind of larvae and finding the places where they live to collect them, all the effort put into hunting, even with "aerial support" - it is also complex and not easy. However in many of these cases, especially in the NA'Vi but also in many non-agricultural tribal cultures the gathering of food and materials look effortless - and I think this is to a large part because the people have grown up with the knowledge on how to do that. For them it is as hard as it is for any of us to type on a computer, to operate a cellphone, to install a software or to drive a car. Its easy - every child knows how to avoid the lions at the waterhole, how to deal with the monkey in the forest and which of the 100 different tree species is the one that has edible fruit and which shrubs on the ground show that there are plants growing nearby that have edible roots.

[Human No More]

Exactly. It's adaptation, and what's second nature to people. There are no human equivalents, particularly not when what most people believe about various people has little to no resemblance to what they realy are like.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Interesting topic indeed.
I think in terms of what we can infer about NA'Vi society in anthropological terms is that they are quite egalitarian. In the tribe, no one seems to own special wealth or property visibly. This could show as special jewelry or clothing or a hierarchical order when taking meals.

On the other hand, this is completely wrong. Na'vi clothing varies immensely, clearly based on skill as well as possibly connections (i.e. knowing someone who makes good ones). Design of bows varies greatly too, from purely functional design to ornate and every point inbetween. Some Na'vi wear extra clothes/jewelery, while others do not, much like the difference in hairstyles that they wear.

Gender equality, certainly, but that has nothing to dowith whether or not they have individuality, at all. Things seem to be contribution-based - i.e. nobody lives for free without contributing when necessary, but people do with what their skill may be, but neither is there some formalised system of this - if you ever read the survival guide, you'd see all sorts of references to the Na'vi hammocks, personal items, and bows. They are their own. Nobody gets his bow stolen because it's nicer than someone else's or because he has two necklaces.

[The Na'vi] look very much like they have rather similar clothing and attire

I'm sure humans do to aliens too

There is the debatable statement about "choosing a woman" which was interpreted by some as a hint on gender inequality.

Again, read some background before complaining. BOTH Na'vi choose mates, it is normally a process that can take years, but obviously, this simply did not apply is Jake and Neytiri's case.

That concept totally breaks apart when one looks at how ecosystems work.

No, it doesn't. Homeostasis is two competing systems creating an equilibrium, usuall with some degree of instability.

The overall "goal" is to keep the whole world alive, to maintain a natural living world full of dufferent beings - if you will a balance.

That is 100% incidental to personal and species/bloodline survival for every nonsentient organism alive. If they could wipe out all competitors while keeping their existence and food sources intact, they would.

And this is on Pandora in a way what Eywa does - not giving special attention to the NA'Vi, but keeping the balance - looking out for cheaters. I guess if the NA'Vi would start wiping out other species, they would feel the opposition of Eywa just as the skypeople did.

Perhaps incidentally, but you're talking like it's some kind of 'remote control', as if 'angtsik were a weapon. It's coming to an understanding of a situation as it is (a central point in the network dying would have a big impact, comparable in a 'real life' analogy to the impact on the internet if a large ASN such as level3 or HE went down - by no means at all interrupting it, but definitely noticed), not a biological automaton receiving an order.

Life in the Jungle like on Pandora can be harder than life in a semi-desert environment.

For a human, yes.
The Na'vi have EVERY SINGLE advantage humans lack - global communication and transport. A near-perfect immune system. Built in biological protection against overpopulation. Memory sharing and a global language. Far more accommodating landscape in terms of natural features, as well as in terms of abundant prey and easily accessible resources... and they are said to have basic agriculture

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Human No More

On the other hand, this is completely wrong. Na'vi clothing varies immensely, clearly based on skill as well as possibly connections (i.e. knowing someone who makes good ones). Design of bows varies greatly too, from purely functional design to ornate and every point inbetween. Some Na'vi wear extra clothes/jewelery, while others do not, much like the difference in hairstyles that they wear.

Gender equality, certainly, but that has nothing to dowith whether or not they have individuality, at all. Things seem to be contribution-based - i.e. nobody lives for free without contributing when necessary, but people do with what their skill may be, but neither is there some formalised system of this - if you ever read the survival guide, you'd see all sorts of references to the Na'vi hammocks, personal items, and bows. They are their own. Nobody gets his bow stolen because it's nicer than someone else's or because he has two necklaces.

I'm curious, maybe it says in the survival/field guide, but do clothing and necklaces, or knives and bows represent any kind of status in Na'vi culture. I realize in the movie, tsu'tey, Neytiri, Mo'at, and Eytukan seemed to have special clothes compared to all the other Na'vi. But, was that just because it was either too expensive, or detracted from the fact that those were the four main Na'vi we as viewers were supposed to focus on. Maybe all the Na'vi have certain necklaces, clothes, etc that have some meaning or memory attached to them.

I realize it looks like it's based on rank in the movie, but is that just for the sake of budget and getting viewers to focus on those 4 characters.

[Human No More]

There's no real mention, but I'd guess at this being more of a conservation of detail thing, because background characters are there for background. Certainly, some of the ASG's images show more compicated designs, including bodypaint (an interesting thing to note on the latter is that in the scene with Tsu'tey's death, the paint of the background Na'vi is more intricate than that of the others seen around before, when they are a lot more prominent on screen than other background characters in that part of the film).

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by HumanNoMore

The Na'vi have EVERY SINGLE advantage humans lack - global communication and transport. A near-perfect immune system. Built in biological protection against overpopulation. Memory sharing and a global language. Far more accommodating landscape in terms of natural features, as well as in terms of abundant prey and easily accessible resources... and they are said to have basic agriculture

If this is indeed true, would that mean that because of Eywa and the abundance of resources, natural selection is weak on Pandora?

[Moco Loco]

If by weak you mean relatively unchallenged, I'd say yes. I'd say it contributes to how flamboyant everything looks, along with the wonky daylight schedule

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Interesting topic indeed.
I think in terms of what we can infer about NA'Vi society in anthropological terms is that they are quite egalitarian. In the tribe, no one seems to own special wealth or property visibly.

I don't think they even have such concept as wealth or property, so kind of hard for there to be any. Kind of like they didn't even really have the concept of lying, until humans came along that is.

This could show as special jewelry or clothing or a hierarchical order when taking meals. There is little evidence of that in the NA'Vi, which look very much like they have rather similar clothing and attire (also on the Direhorses they seem to be equal) and meals are eaten in circles. No one seems to be better nourished than the other.

As HNM already mentioned, race blindness. To us Caucasians, Asians might seem all the same, while they say the same thing about us, so we even have race blindness inside our own species, so no wonder the Na'vi look all alike.

There are women warriors even, hinting at gender equality.

But what if Na'vi women are just equal in physical strength for example, the same of which can't be said of humans, or some other animals. Sometimes it's the other way around, where the female is the bigger and stronger physically.

I think one of the main reasons of "gender inequality" as we call it, is the result of our instrumental differences, which in turn have in time molded into social conduct and so on. Real gender equality is impossible as long as there are instrumental requirements that need to be met, as women need to have babies, because men can't do it for them. There isn't really anything exclusively for males to do, aside from serving as the other half for the genetic material, but after that it's more or less a redundant role.

There is the debatable statement about "choosing a woman" which was interpreted by some as a hint on gender inequality.

If men would not "choose" women, the human race would become extinct. Then again as it currently stands, we are too numerous because men "choose" so many women, so we kind of go wrong either way. This is a subject matter is quite complex, and people do not seem to have even the slightest grasp about, so it's kind of hard to explain.

There is also a warrior class, which has the potential to be hierarchical or is prone to social stratification (warriors, craftsmen, aristocracy, peasants?) but it seems that this is linked to hunting as well (warrior-hunters) and is open to everyone, even an outsider (though that may not be true, considering that an outsider may actually have a special standing). Overall I'd say they seem to be a communalist mostly egalitarian society with flat but aristocratic hierarchies but some division of labour. But we definitely need "more data"

Stuff needs to get done, so logically those who are better at something than others, should be doing that, in theory at least.

The existence of warriors points to the possibility of intraspecies conflict. While overall they seem to be peaceful enough, there are a few warriors around. The way they act and the fact that not all people in the tribe are part-time warriors reminds of chivalry and I'd suggest that there is some sort of ritualized warfare happening to resolve disputes. This is common among native people to have struggles with other tribes at times but only dedicated warriors participate and there are rules to these fights.

Savage behaviour, but at least it's honest savage behaviour, unlike what we have these days.

Generally I dont think the Dawkinsian neodarwinistic view of the way evolution or altrusim works ("The selfish gene" that looks only to its own benefit and protects similar genes in the shape of altruism) is getting the full picture. This concept tries to break down the bits of life to its smallest pieces - genes - that compete with each other and keep only alive what is similar to them. That concept totally breaks apart when one looks at how ecosystems work.

Think of ecosystem as a talented musician, a one who can make good music with the instruments that are currently available.

The ecosystem works as a rulebook of sorts to species who look up the best possible behaviour that is available to them in the current system. That is usually a sustainable behaviour that keeps them numerous and healthy, but also prevents overpopulation due to predatory traits of other species who thrive when their prey is numerous.

Generally they develop a state that reminds of a complex interdependent system of living beings, individuals and species who participate in a "cycle of life" in which one beings waste is another beings food or one beings shell becomes the home of another being later. The only way this would be so in a selfish world would be if there is a delicate balance, but in fact nature is quite resilient. If one player breaks out and tries to take over, usually he will not succeed.

Dawkins argued that Nature is not a system of mutual beneficial cooperation because if it was so, it would take only one cheater to bring everything down. Well that is what is happening now - there is one species that "cheats" and everything is coming down around it.

Well it's not possible to "cheat" nature without intellect and tools, and as we are pretty much the only species in possession of both in sufficiently advanced quality, so we are capable of cheating and destroying the balance, but animals could not cheat, even if they wanted to, so that is why they do not behave that way.

Our technological superiority allows us to cheat, because we can use all manner of tools to fight against nature that would normally reduce our population, but because we cheat, nature is loosing that fight, until there will no longer be either us or nature left.

Of course there is competition, but the "goal" of the competition seems to me rather to find a place that fits, a niche that is not yet occupied, a good part in the overall picture.

The result of competition is what makes a functional ecosystem.

This is what "survival of the fittest" actually means - the survival of thos species that fit to a given place in the complex overall system of the natural world. (It is not "fit as in fitness training", but rather "fit as in fitting into a pair of jeans").

Cross species perhaps, but in the same species that is not true, because there will always be traits that are and aren't preferable when it comes to the continuation of said species. First there needs to be a basic functional system, which enables more niche places to be made. As in there would be no need for plants if there were no one here to consume oxygen. Once plants were in place, there was a 'niche' to be filled by aerobic organism that take advantage of the excess oxygen, and in turn provide carbon dioxide in return for the cycle to continue.

The overall "goal" is to keep the whole world alive, to maintain a natural living world full of dufferent beings - if you will a balance. And this is on Pandora in a way what Eywa does - not giving special attention to the NA'Vi, but keeping the balance - looking out for cheaters. I guess if the NA'Vi would start wiping out other species, they would feel the opposition of Eywa just as the skypeople did.

Or they would learn to cheat as we have. Of course they would have many tries and always fail, but eventually they would notice that the only way to "win" is to play unfair.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Raptor

If this is indeed true, would that mean that because of Eywa and the abundance of resources, natural selection is weak on Pandora?

In some cases, the complete opposite. They have a normal genetic diversity, while becoming too narrow has its own problems. Active control would look very different, because if selection was being directly influenced, we'd be seeing 'remote control' animals and plants all the time, while, for example, no Na'vi would ever fail at hunting.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

I don't think they even have such concept as wealth or property, so kind of hard for there to be any. Kind of like they didn't even really have the concept of lying, until humans came along that is.

Property, yes; currency; no. Big difference. Not 'wealthy' by (equivalent) name, perhaps, but able to understand "he has a really nice bow, a beautiful mate, and knows someone who makes the best loincloths".

Well it's not possible to "cheat" nature without intellect and tools, and as we are pretty much the only species in possession of both in sufficiently advanced quality, so we are capable of cheating and destroying the balance, but animals could not cheat, even if they wanted to, so that is why they do not behave that way.

Our technological superiority allows us to cheat, because we can use all manner of tools to fight against nature that would normally reduce our population, but because we cheat, nature is loosing that fight, until there will no longer be either us or nature left.

Exactly. It's nothing that any other animal wouldn't do if that had the ability and the intelligence.

The result of competition is what makes a functional ecosystem.

Exactly. It's also, in the extreme long term, what keeps every species from drifting apart with random mutational divergences.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Property, yes; currency; no. Big difference. Not 'wealthy' by (equivalent) name, perhaps, but able to understand "he has a really nice bow, a beautiful mate, and knows someone who makes the best loincloths".

That's what wealth is, albeit without a liquid currency.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by HumanNoMore

In some cases, the complete opposite. They have a normal genetic diversity, while becoming too narrow has its own problems. Active control would look very different, because if selection was being directly influenced, we'd be seeing 'remote control' animals and plants all the time, while, for example, no Na'vi would ever fail at hunting.

The Na'vi as a species and as a society doesn't seem to have a lot of pressure to evolve, at least not at the rate of hominids on earth. I was pointing out that maybe Eywa's hand in keeping the balance of the ecosystem removed some of the catalysts for evolution.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Raptor

If this is indeed true, would that mean that because of Eywa and the abundance of resources, natural selection is weak on Pandora?

First I must say this thread is rather interesting!

But, natural selection doesn't always occur. There's 5 things that can stop it from occurring if they all are met. I don't know if I can remember all 5, but let me try.

1. No mutations occur.

2. There's not a genotype that gives a noticeable advantage to an individual.

3. Relatively large population. So bottle necking doesn't occur.

4. Random mating. (Which simply implies that a species isn't consciously breeding itself for a specific trait, like if the Na'vi only let the darkest blue Na'vi mate. Which I don't think they do).

5. No genetic drift

edit: found it "The Hardy–Weinberg principle (also known by a variety of names: HWP, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, Hardy–Weinberg Theorem, HWE, or Hardy–Weinberg law) states that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, "overlapping generations", random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these "disturbing influences" are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature. Genetic equilibrium is an ideal state that provides a baseline against which to measure change."

Hardy

It is impossible in nature, but it can be produced in a lab. I don't know how much influence Eywa has, but it's possible Eywa could influence this maybe? And prevent evolution from occurring.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Theorist

It is impossible in nature, but it can be produced in a lab. I don't know how much influence Eywa has, but it's possible Eywa could influence this maybe? And prevent evolution from occurring.

Unless Eywa is capable than a lot more than we're shown, it/she can't stop genetic mutation. That's a problem of molecular biology, and it'd basically be equivalent to a human rewriting their brain at the neuron level.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Property, yes; currency; no. Big difference. Not 'wealthy' by (equivalent) name, perhaps, but able to understand "he has a really nice bow, a beautiful mate, and knows someone who makes the best loincloths".

You mean like understanding what things are useful?