Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[cdsacken]

16 minutes ago, RaidensSword said:

You just made me realise that by the tine the first sequel comes out, there is going to be a whole generation that wasn't even born when Avatar was released! That is both sad because of how long it's taken but also incredible because of the potential impact on box office and culture.

 

A whole new audience is waiting to be embraced by this amazing Avatar universe. Waiting to experience in the cinema first hand what their parents could only describe to them.

 

It's going to be amazing. 

I'd love to take her to a double feature but she would never make it. Will try Avatar on 4k tv the year it's released so she can really enjoy it. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by cdsacken

[MattW]

This was probably already posted but I just saw it:

 

 

[TomCruiseTop]

I hope Jim addresses natalism in some form in the sequels. I know he has a large family, but he also owns hundreds of acres of land and thousands of liters of fresh water in NZ so he gets a small pass on that front. How others can justify having children that will have to live through possibly the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced is beyond me. To inflict that level of suffering on another person is just unconscionable. 

[cdsacken]

How do you want him to address it? Populations will decline in many areas around the world but go way up in a few countries. Global population projections to be are inaccurate.

 

Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Japan, China will decline but India and African countries will go up. If immigration really is cut down hard in the USA we will see significant decline in population.

Edited July 18, 2019 by cdsacken

[TomCruiseTop]

24 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

How do you want him to address it? Populations will decline in many areas around the world but go way up in a few countries. Global population projections to be are inaccurate.

 

Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Japan, China will decline but India and African countries will go up. If immigration really is cut down hard in the USA we will see significant decline in population.

I'm not referring to population changes. Reread what I wrote and try again. 

[cdsacken]

1 hour ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I'm not referring to population changes. Reread what I wrote and try again. 

I understand it and I'm not sure what the best way he should address it. Few in America are addressing it. Try that with less condescension.

Edited July 18, 2019 by cdsacken

[Hunch]

5 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I hope Jim addresses natalism in some form in the sequels. I know he has a large family, but he also owns hundreds of acres of land and thousands of liters of fresh water in NZ so he gets a small pass on that front. How others can justify having children that will have to live through possibly the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced is beyond me. To inflict that level of suffering on another person is just unconscionable. 

I'm confused...do you want people to stop having children?

[cdsacken]

15 minutes ago, Hunch said:

I'm confused...do you want people to stop having children?

We need to deal with finite resources but use natalism didn't make much sense to me. In the context of the rest of his comment perhaps in resources per capita?

[JimiQ]

Well, earthlings certainly helped with overpopulation of Pandora the last time 🙂

 

and y'all should learn about Hans Rosling and the cap on the population, which seems like 10-10.5B, which we can sustain quite well

[TomCruiseTop]

3 hours ago, Hunch said:

I'm confused...do you want people to stop having children?

I'm saying that I don't know how people who know that the world is going to become an increasingly unpleasant place can justify having children. I'm not prescribing any solution, merely pointing out that I personally feel that I could not morally have children given the current direction the planet is heading - for both the planet and the child's sake I find it personally repugnant. 

[JimiQ]

1 hour ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I'm saying that I don't know how people who know that the world is going to become an increasingly unpleasant place can justify having children. I'm not prescribing any solution, merely pointing out that I personally feel that I could not morally have children given the current direction the planet is heading - for both the planet and the child's sake I find it personally repugnant. 

It's in human nature to be selfish and seek happiness however shortlived it may be. Try to see it from that point.

[cdsacken]

4 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I'm saying that I don't know how people who know that the world is going to become an increasingly unpleasant place can justify having children. I'm not prescribing any solution, merely pointing out that I personally feel that I could not morally have children given the current direction the planet is heading - for both the planet and the child's sake I find it personally repugnant. 

Without children the human race goes down. We do need to better regulate and need to prepare for many things coming, water shortages, climate issues etc. That said it's not selfish to have a child, certainly not anymore than not having one.

 

 

[dxmatrixdt]

individuals are children

[TimmyRiggins]

1 hour ago, cdsacken said:

Without children the human race goes down. We do need to better regulate and need to prepare for many things coming, water shortages, climate issues etc. That said it's not selfish to have a child, certainly not anymore than not having one.

 

 

And now, I have to ask, how is it selfish not having one?

[cdsacken]

21 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

And now, I have to ask, how is it selfish not having one?

If you don't find a mate I think it's unfair to characterize it as selfish to not have a kid. I have only 1 and probably will have only 1. Would have been two but my wife got a job in England for 3 years right when we decided on 2. 

[TomCruiseTop]

2 hours ago, cdsacken said:

That said it's not selfish to have a child, certainly not anymore than not having one.

Knowingly inflicting suffering onto a person is more selfish than not doing so? How is that possible? 

[cdsacken]

35 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Knowingly inflicting suffering onto a person is more selfish than not doing so? How is that possible? 

What gibberish are you talking about? Sure in several decades bad stuff will occur and I doubt we will be prepared for it. In the meantime kids these days have it amazing. Also in America population growth is non-existent. Where you live makes a difference in regards to population impact.

[TomCruiseTop]

3 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

several decades

So that's how you sleep at night. You choose to be blind to what climate science is telling us. As I said previously, I wasn't talking about population changes, I was talking about an individuals' moral choice when having children. I merely pointed out that I could not bring a child into the world knowing full well that in the next 20-30 years they're in for a very rough time, to put it mildly. My generation has done so much damage to this planet, I really couldn't see something I love hurtling towards what I know will be a very bleak future given current trends.

 

It's all theoretical anyway, I didn't realize it at the time but being gay ended up being more of a blessing than I could have ever hoped for, saved me those hard choices.  

[cdsacken]

3 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

So that's how you sleep at night. You choose to be blind to what climate science is telling us. As I said previously, I wasn't talking about population changes, I was talking about an individuals' moral choice when having children. I merely pointed out that I could not bring a child into the world knowing full well that in the next 20-30 years they're in for a very rough time, to put it mildly. My generation has done so much damage to this planet, I really couldn't see something I love hurtling towards what I know will be a very bleak future given current trends.

 

It's all theoretical anyway, I didn't realize it at the time but being gay ended up being more of a blessing than I could have ever hoped for, saved me those hard choices.  

The 10 years and everything is gonna die stuff is a lie. That said a ton of damage is set because we didn't already make changes. 

 

The Day After Tomorrow isn't real JCS.

[Hunch]

3 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

So that's how you sleep at night. You choose to be blind to what climate science is telling us. As I said previously, I wasn't talking about population changes, I was talking about an individuals' moral choice when having children. I merely pointed out that I could not bring a child into the world knowing full well that in the next 20-30 years they're in for a very rough time, to put it mildly. My generation has done so much damage to this planet, I really couldn't see something I love hurtling towards what I know will be a very bleak future given current trends.

 

It's all theoretical anyway, I didn't realize it at the time but being gay ended up being more of a blessing than I could have ever hoped for, saved me those hard choices.  

The only people who are really aware or care about the long-term effects of climate change are educated people in first world countries. Those people are already basically not having kids with really low birthrates. Your wish is going to come true! In 100 years there will be very few descendants of people who really really care about climate change right now.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Hunch