Na'vi sociology

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

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.

Good point. There seem to be differences yes and of course they are not all identical - far from it. Just like indigenous people on Earth, individuals differ in adornments and clothing style and patterns. What I was more referring to is definite differences in these depending on status or wealth. There seem to be a couple of items that denote status, like ceremonial bows, special attire of the clan leader and spiritual leader, but overall the differences are not so big. I am aware that "species bias" or "cultural bias" can cloak special meanings of certain items, but there are distinctions that are rather universal. Items that are obviously rare or very hard to make, better nutritional status or things pointing towards the ability of one person to give orders to someone else - these are general representations of hierarchical structures. Differences in the shape or design of clothing, haircuts etc can or can not mean anything in terms of status or group connection. They can be individualistic expressions or stand for spiritual achievements or they can show the difference between a hunter and a bowmaker, an uninitiated and an adult. In a stronger hierarchy some people have power over others. As a result, they can make these people work for them, creating items that require more work than a single person could come up with. Like elaborate metalsmithing adornements, coats made of so many rare furs that it takes several people and more time to get these. Another sign of hierarchy is if there are differnt sizes or quality in buildings (or shelter in general). In the movie I did not see a lot of signs for this, except in the ranks of the clan leader, spiritual leader and their descendants. But then - we did not see a lot of others and I did not play the PC game...

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.

Oh yes of course. I was not trying to imply that all the people have no personal items. The meaning of equality that I use in most cases is that of a small difference in wealth and possibilities for the individuals. Everyone has individual and personal stuff like bows and hammocks, but I would say that most likely no one will have a hammock that is 50 times as much work to make as a regular hammock.

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.

Yes, I said that that part was debatable - it was mentioned before - I was not aware though that there is a definite answer to that question. Was that in the Survival guide? I must have forgotten if that is the case.

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

Ok, one analogy. Imagine a flat surface and a ball. Which shape is the right analogy for a homeostasis of two directions - a ditch or a hill. Of course it is the ditch because on the hill, the system is instable. Which does represent two competing forces? This has to be the hill, because in that setup, both forces try to pull the ball off the hill in their direction. In the ditch setup, the competing forces would have to work to pull the ball out of that hole. But the latter implies, that there is a certain background in place that pulls the ball back into place. This background cannot come from the two forces pulling at the ball.

I did not get the paragraph on the "biological automaton receiving an order"

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

I'd say ask a human if life on Pandora was that easy. It is that easy for the NA'Vi because they know how to fit into that environment. Just as it is an easy life for the Hadzabe to live in a half-desert in Africa because they know where to find water, they know that they can always just go out and hunt because they know they can rely on their abilities to find food in that area. Someone from a western country or even someone from a Jungle or coastal region might find that landscape incredibly harsh. At these same time a Hadzabe would probably die if placed without guidance into the cold areas of Siberia or Alaska or Northern Canada - while local people know easily how to get enough fish and meat to feed their families. So I would be careful in declaring which bioregions are giving "abundant prey and resources" because that abundance depends on the culture of the people adapted to it as much as it depends on the bioregion.

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?

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

If by weak you mean relatively unchallenged, I'd say yes. I'd say it contributes to how flamboyant everything looks

Interestingly I would say that this is not so. In fact places on Earth that have high challenges there is also high diversity. A coral reef is a very challenging environment. There are not a lot of nutrients and a lot of selection. Darwins original discovery was about birds developing a high diversity in a challenging environment. The high diversity and flambuoant displays on Pandora would point towards quite a bit of challenge. From the descriptions in the survival guide, it also seems that the animals on Pandora developed very elaborate ways to catch prey and get their food. This of course does cause diversity.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

I did not mean "cheating" in the sense of deliberate and planned action designed to gain superiority. In the sense I meant it, it merely is any way that can be developed by a species that circumvents the balance of the whole. If a virus would develop the ability to infect all animals in the world, it would also be a cheater for example. Humans have a lot of abilities in that way, which makes them pretty good cheaters.

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.

The misconception here is that we think that by cheating we will win. In reality, to me it looks like we are loosing big time because we are cheating. Because if there is nothing left and we "killed our mother", we destroy our own existence or at least diminish it greatly.

Originally Posted by Human No More

no Na'vi would ever fail at hunting.

What? I mean yes they do train a lot before they are allowed to hunt to make sure that they will not fail but that statement males no sense really

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".

Oh yes - I mean wealth can be so many things - good relationship, a lot of free time to do creative work, a nice family, a spiritual knowledge,... special items one owns.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I did not mean "cheating" in the sense of deliberate and planned action designed to gain superiority. In the sense I meant it, it merely is any way that can be developed by a species that circumvents the balance of the whole. If a virus would develop the ability to infect all animals in the world, it would also be a cheater for example. Humans have a lot of abilities in that way, which makes them pretty good cheaters.

But then that virus would cease to multiply if it would kill all organic host lifeforms, just as it will happen to us if we destroy our planet. If we use the matrix metaphor, as in we are the virus, and the earth is our host organism, and if we kill our host, then we will die as well.

As in no virus would have the "incentive" to cheat like that, because it would mean its demise. We on the other hand do not have anything to hold us back, and because we don't understand that by destroying our world, we destroy ourselves. That is unless we are able to find another host organism/planet to spread to and so on, which brings us to the topic why Eltu hates space exploration.

The misconception here is that we think that by cheating we will win. In reality, to me it looks like we are loosing big time because we are cheating. Because if there is nothing left and we "killed our mother", we destroy our own existence or at least diminish it greatly.

I do not have any such misconception, because I wrote:

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

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.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Differences in the shape or design of clothing, haircuts etc can or can not mean anything in terms of status or group connection. They can be individualistic expressions or stand for spiritual achievements or they can show the difference between a hunter and a bowmaker, an uninitiated and an adult. In a stronger hierarchy some people have power over others. As a result, they can make these people work for them, creating items that require more work than a single person could come up with. Like elaborate metalsmithing adornements, coats made of so many rare furs that it takes several people and more time to get these. Another sign of hierarchy is if there are differnt sizes or quality in buildings (or shelter in general). In the movie I did not see a lot of signs for this, except in the ranks of the clan leader, spiritual leader and their descendants. But then - we did not see a lot of others and I did not play the PC game...

I'd say just ignore the game for anything relating to canon, it was really that bad

While there isn't a hierarchy in terms of something defined/formal as a human might understand one, someone are better at what they do than others. Some make better clothes, some will have a nicer bow. On the other hand, there is no communist-style erasing of individuality, and personal expression and choice is not just permitted but encouraged. Arguably this is right, and better than any other way.

Oh yes of course. I was not trying to imply that all the people have no personal items. The meaning of equality that I use in most cases is that of a small difference in wealth and possibilities for the individuals. Everyone has individual and personal stuff like bows and hammocks, but I would say that most likely no one will have a hammock that is 50 times as much work to make as a regular hammock.

Someone theoretically could, if they got others to do things for them in return for whatever, but there's no particular need to - in this way, it resembles post-scarcity economics more than anything human.

[quote]Yes, I said that that part was debatable - it was mentioned before - I was not aware though that there is a definite answer to that question. Was that in the Survival guide? I must have forgotten if that is the case.
the survival guide goes into relatively little detail - IIRC, it may be from the pandorapedia, which is admittedly not completely canon, but generally works where it doesn't directly contradict something, while the survival guide is very lacking in detail in general there.

Ok, one analogy. Imagine a flat surface and a ball. Which shape is the right analogy for a homeostasis of two directions - a ditch or a hill. Of course it is the ditch because on the hill, the system is instable. Which does represent two competing forces? This has to be the hill, because in that setup, both forces try to pull the ball off the hill in their direction. In the ditch setup, the competing forces would have to work to pull the ball out of that hole. But the latter implies, that there is a certain background in place that pulls the ball back into place. This background cannot come from the two forces pulling at the ball.

That has very little to do with how ecosystems act, since that resetting force is human, and without it, change would be rendered permanent when humans do not seek to undo it. Life was not static before humans gained sentience. A real example is a standard predator/prey relationship - the predators thrive on abundant prey and grow in numbers, prompting overhunting of the prey species whose numbers decline, causing more predators to starve and/or reduce breeding, which in turn prompts prey numbers to rise. This is called a dynamic equilibrium, i.e. Lotka-Volterra equation, and keeps the result within a certain range, but not fixed, while changes to one side may move this equilibrium to a new point. this also happens within single biological systems, such as temperature regulation, where for example, a reduced external temperature affects the balance.

I did not get the paragraph on the "biological automaton receiving an order"

I was saying that there is no direct control over plants/animals - that Eywa is simply a sentient being who happens to be comprised of smaller species in what could be compared to symbiosis, and not some kind of magic being who remote controls 'angtsik as weapons or something.

I'd say ask a human if life on Pandora was that easy. It is that easy for the NA'Vi because they know how to fit into that environment. Just as it is an easy life for the Hadzabe to live in a half-desert in Africa because they know where to find water, they know that they can always just go out and hunt because they know they can rely on their abilities to find food in that area. Someone from a western country or even someone from a Jungle or coastal region might find that landscape incredibly harsh. At these same time a Hadzabe would probably die if placed without guidance into the cold areas of Siberia or Alaska or Northern Canada - while local people know easily how to get enough fish and meat to feed their families. So I would be careful in declaring which bioregions are giving "abundant prey and resources" because that abundance depends on the culture of the people adapted to it as much as it depends on the bioregion.

People can adapt to numerous environments withvarying sucecss, but just look at the NUMBER that do, when temperate climates can support a FAR higher density than ones such as desert or arctic. You can't make a comparison between representative and unrepresentative samples like that - even in a country where conditions rarely get as bad as some other inhabited areas, you can see a clear trend in population density even with modern humans. Far more people live in the more hospitable areas.
http://www.moray.gov.uk/census_2001/...sity%20map.gif

If a virus would develop the ability to infect all animals in the world, it would also be a cheater for example. Humans have a lot of abilities in that way, which makes them pretty good cheaters.

No, it would be successful. Virii aren't technically alive anyway, and their success is more comparable to memetics than other organisms.

The misconception here is that we think that by cheating we will win. In reality, to me it looks like we are loosing big time because we are cheating. Because if there is nothing left and we "killed our mother", we destroy our own existence or at least diminish it greatly.

If an organism renders its environment unlivable, it dies. That's not success, and it's the reason disease isn't virulent enough to wipe out all life in an area, because there would be no hosts and the vast majority can not survive as free-living organisms for any reasonable length of time.

What? I mean yes they do train a lot before they are allowed to hunt to make sure that they will not fail but that statement males no sense really

Exactly. I was saying that if Pandora was being directly controlled, then the situation would be very different. As it is, they DO fail sometimes, although not enough to actually endanger themselves. See my earlier paragraph you 'didn't understand' that nothing is planned/controlled in a micromanagement basis, and for that reason, specific situations do change over time even if a balance remains intact on a higher level.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Clarke

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.

I guess I was thinking more that she would be controlling genetic drift/flow, which would be the hardest one to stop, that's impossible to stop in nature on Earth. I agree, I'm not sure how she it would work, but then again we don't know a whole lot about Eywa, maybe that ability is there.

As for mutations, I thought the Na'vi didn't have DNA, but a different genetic material. So perhaps their DNA replication, protein formation, etc is much more efficient than ours, and makes so few mistakes that mutations are so infrequent they don't account for evolution. Just a thought.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Theorist

I guess I was thinking more that she would be controlling genetic drift/flow, which would be the hardest one to stop, that's impossible to stop in nature on Earth. I agree, I'm not sure how she it would work, but then again we don't know a whole lot about Eywa, maybe that ability is there.

That's a molecular biology thing again, I think. (Or it requires control of exactly which pairs of animals breed)

As for mutations, I thought the Na'vi didn't have DNA, but a different genetic material. So perhaps their DNA replication, protein formation, etc is much more efficient than ours, and makes so few mistakes that mutations are so infrequent they don't account for evolution. Just a thought.

On Earth, ability to mutate is a positive trait that is evolutionary selected for. It's why sexual reproduction exists; so beneficial mutations can spread faster.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Clarke

That's a molecular biology thing again, I think. (Or it requires control of exactly which pairs of animals breed)


On Earth, ability to mutate is a positive trait that is evolutionary selected for. It's why sexual reproduction exists; so beneficial mutations can spread faster.

I thought it was more of a the short neck giraffes tend to mate with the short neck giraffes more, and the long neck giraffes tend to mate with the long neck giraffes more, and it'd be genetic drift because long vs short necks provided no survival advantage over the other, but just by chance it kinda happened that the giraffes separated into long and short neck species. (I know this is a very basic example, but I think that's what genetic drift is, at least what I was taught. that it's when something like this happens, or when one genotype becomes more common just by chance)

As for mutation, yeah, the positive ones are selected for, the negative ones are selected against, I'm just saying maybe mutations are so rare that they really are never significant, because even if a positive one occurs, the Na'vi population is too large to be affected by it, like even if long horns in deer is better than short horns, in a fight, short horn deer will still win sometimes. So I'm just theorizing that maybe even if a rare mutation occurs, it's not enough to change the population.

Just a thought though, it's all up to JC.