The interview mentions the virtues of modernity (over tribal) being a 30yr add-on of life expectancy and feminism, etc, .... then completely ignores that the Na'vi can practically resuscitate the dead (or badly injured, transposing them into another body, no less - so who knows how old their elders are) and women are clearly equals with men there.

What's going on?

Am totally ok with the analysis of pre-trans on many things (mean green is the bane of my life, I'll deeply appreciate Ken forever just for giving a name to that crazy-making stuff), but here it's really off.

What I found most interesting was the assumption that 'they hadn't even moved to nations yet' when there's no evidence whatsoever for that: all we know is they're spread out in various tribes across the planet, and they live very peacefully, ie. as a nations' villages would in fact do.

This echoes something Daniel Quinn says in Ismael.. that in the genocide of the American Indians, it was the tribes that had already tried AND REJECTED agriculture (for not being sustainable) that were the most aggressive in combating the colonialists - who offered them agriculture as a way of helping them move on up the development stages - to nations, etc. when they already had very sophisticated kind of nations and in many ways a much higher standard of life than the colonizers.

I'd love to see an integral take on Ismael* by the way...totally essential novel, for anyone interested in how we design humanity's future.

* See the Historical Model & the Mythical Model pages in the Integral Permaculture Designers Manual - important models explained in more detail in the full course.

I agree that there is a lot of romanticising of the noble savage in this film, but it would mostly be from that kind of reading some would give it, not the director's perspective, necessarily ... And this doesn't bug me anywhere as much as the - clearly director perspective - white-man-as-saviour theme which pops up quite a lot in other stories also (another big discussion but shan't go there now).

For me the most important thing was that I saw the film as a rare vision of a teal-upwards future (where, indeed, the best of tribal, modernity.. etc. all the levels have been integrated) of which I've only found another 3 examples so far, and all from feminist sci-fi writers: Door into Ocean, Woman at the Edge of Time and La Belle Verte (see Collective Visions page in e-book).

What they all have in common is that there IS very advanced scientific progress, but it's in the 'soft' sciences, like telepathy, bioenergy mastery, genetic engineering ... and all together with the wisdom to use that huge power for Life, not to dominate or exploit, an accompanying great respect for our place in nature, and a lack of fear of death, or any fear for that matter (a most striking feature of level 2). Door into Ocean was written by a biology professor, so it's a double delight, of sci-fi with great science.

Very rare genre, hope to see a lot more of it because we desperately need interesting visions of truly sustainable futures, (sustainable for everyone, not just an elite of humans) and we're swimming in both apocalipse and high-tech fantasy visions, with nothing much in between. I think these are the only teal future visions I've seen so far, would love to hear if others know of more??

And yes, these teal visions all have in common that we go 'back' to living in tribes .. but this is in fact what seems to be, in terms of sustainability, the most logical, healthiest, most resilient and viable social form - a globe of villages, instead of the global village (as planetarization is, I hope, inevitable).

The global eco-village movement is an early experiment in that. Now we also have the Transition Towns movement (big mistake to wrap it all up as boomeritis stuff - sure, the people moving all this might well be mostly full-on green but look a little closer at the science please) ... and we just need to couple those with a truly planetary participatory democracy system (difficult to imagine without internet, which however relies on a heavy industrial base that somehow clashes with the ecovillage model, at least for me, so far .. hence the organic communications systems like telepathy that come up again and again in this type of sci-fi, I guess).

Back to the film review ... I also don't agree totally that modernity is shown as all bad and 'tribal' (which it aint') as all good, either. There were actually more 'good guys' starring as the Earthlings as bad guys and the display of technology they are capable of (that amazing ship Jake arrives in, the lab, etc.) was impressive.

And the Na'vi also have 'baddies' in that they are still prone to jealousy, petty infighting and racism, (but I loved that they are shown as passionate in expressing their feelings! something I also think will mark an important developmental progression for us, but is still considered culturally 'primitive' now), and the freedom in all that beauty they enjoy does come at a high cost, eg. of defying death in their rite of passage. And I got the impression that there's more of those kinds of tests - that if you're not a tough cookie there, you just die (this also comes up in the other sci-fi of this type that I mention above)

So I actually thought the film went some way (given the limitations of the mass-film-industry) towards portraying quite fairly, that the good things in both world-views come with their own big - and simply logical - downsides: an imperialist culture will eventually destroy its environment and have to get very bellicose in order to survive, and an enlightened tribal world, even with the most advanced bio-science imaginable, does not make for an easy life ... and they are still vulnerable to being wiped out by desperate high-tech imperialists if they get too complacent..

In terms of how outstandingly popular this movie was, it is typical of our culture to romanticise the surface sparkle and forget about the actual content, but am sure that if it seriously came down to it, even all the people that got post-Avatar depression wouldn't swap their comfy apartments for a hammock in a tree, no matter how sacred or beautiful the tree. (I have some practical grounds for saying this, as my job involves attempting to train mostly green people who say they want to learn to live closer to nature .. and often find out they really don't.. infact the orange types actually find it easier, ironically enough..)

The "I see you" thing is also interesting - and ¿do you know that one of the most successful eco-villages today (Damanhur in Italy) also have that greeting, only it's "con te" (with you)? Although I get Ken's analysis of it not necessarily being about a spiritual connection, talking about basic narcissism in the wider context of this rich culture (where anyone can plug into Eywa personally) doesn't make much sense, I think.

Yet the most important issue for me here is ¿how do you envisage a truly teal society?

Am not saying this is my perfect vision (nor the plot of the film, see above) but yes I AM celebrating that so many people across the world got to see it, and I hope it influences the visions of the kind of world they wanto live in, as well as make a lot more people conscious of what the imperialist base supporting our great lifestyles is actually costing (in destruction of ecosystems).

What would be most useful here would be to say, ok, it is just a vision, so what IS right and what is wrong with it, as a vision (for our future)?

What is your vision of a teal society?

Other

May 2015 addition:

What is interesting about the only teal futures in sci fi that I know of is that they are all feminist in nature, from women authors who self-identify as feminists: The Green Planet, Door into Ocean, Woman at the Edge of Time (see Collective Visions page in e-book).

Even Cameron, the male director of Avatar, is probably a feminist, and his main concerns are quite interesting, in terms of teal:

Cameron's films have recurring themes and subtexts. These include the conflicts between humanity and technology, the dangers of corporate greed, strong female characters, and a strong romance subplot.

(from wikipedia)

See feminist Cameron search

Let them Eat Text

And all of this is even more interesting when combined with this great article on post-modernism which very convincingly argues that feminism is the anti-dote to post-modernism (in fact post-modernism was 'installed' & how we've missed the boat several times already (by falling to the cultural demonizing / belittling of various feminist waves)

... which would explain also why I found Ken Wilber's understanding of feminism so screwy... yet another pre-trans confusion at the heart of the integral movement?