Avatar: The Meh One
This subject came about after I read an interesting comment on a Reddit forum. The topic was about the Avatar movies and how humans are the bad guys trying to destroy the environment. Most of the comments were praising the Nav’i and saying humanity had to be more like them. I’ve seen that before. We are a species that really tears into ourselves over how we get along with our environment. I see it with every ‘Animal Post’ even on the positive ones. Anyway, the comment that got my attention went like this:
“Of course, humans are going to be aggressive while the Nav’i are peaceful when it comes to nature. The Nav’i exist on a planet where they can physically and spiritually bond with the other organisms to create peace. Humans are from a planet that actively wants to kill us with diseases, predators, and nature disasters. The Nav’i are allowed to live in true peace with their world while humans can never truly achieve this, so they will always have the mentality that they have to be aggressive to survive.”
I think this is true. Even the human cultures that live alongside nature still have to get involved in survival of the fittest. Predators won’t just ignore a human just because they’re being nice. In reality, we are prey to a variety of animals, which means we always have to fit to survive. Just that technology and other aspects of our culture have made it an unfair battle with us at the top of the food chain. Pretty much the exact opposite of the way the Nav’i could go, which really shows how environment can shape the direction of any species with higher cognitive functions.
Expanding to fiction in general, I can see how this can influence nearly every world that authors have created. Those with harsh, brutal lands tend to create characters who are tough and somewhat callous. Those with pleasant and unchallenging lands have more peaceful and relaxed characters. Shows that you really need the personalities to fit the environment. The deadlier the world, the harder you need the people to be in order to explain how they survived. I don’t know if we do this consciously or it just makes sense to us on a psychological level.
I don’t know, which I prefer as both an author and a reader. Having there be no danger from the environment does seem rather boring, but I think it would have appeal due to not be a common theme. Not sure where I would go with it besides having a dangerous entity appear to cause an upheaval. Makes me think of ‘Demolition Man’. So, I do gravitate more towards a world that isn’t easy for humans to live in. There has to be some obstacle for humanity or the stand in for us to have created a civilization. Without a need for community to survive, I don’t think they would evolve beyond simple packs moving around for food. No arts or the like would appear, so there might be something beneficial to a harsh environment.
What do you think of these two types of worlds?
Legends of Windemere 
You have the most interesting posts! Weirdly enough, I usually watch movies and TV shows in which aliens come to destroy humans. 😊 (Like War of the Worlds; Titan AE; Avengers; Justice League; the Batman animated series—though in some cases, aliens come to aid humans against evil aliens.) Still, I’m reminded of Perelandra by C.S. Lewis in which a hostile man from Earth wreaked havoc on the peaceful planet of Perelandra. He wanted to rule it. Another man was sent to stop him. So to answer your question, good conflict arises with characters of differing personalities who are placed in unfamiliar lands. Starfleet in Star Trek might have a prime directive to avoid interference in alien cultures. But that doesn’t stop flawed humans from deliberately interfering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like the humans were the source of trouble. This really does make it seem as if Earth causes us to be violent.
LikeLike
I know which type of world I’d rather live in. The way things are right now on this planet I don’t enjoy living on it at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s definitely not that great.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I would prefer to read about a hostile world and how the inhabitants or visitors overcome the challenges to survive. It is definitely true that humans are doing a great job in their efforts to ruin this one, but I am encouraged every week or even more often to read about the efforts of people who make a difference in saving it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting how people have jumped to the ‘humans destroy the world’ thing here. Part of the initial argument for why humans do that is because we live in a world that would destroy us. Survival of the fittest can trigger these types of actions with no thinking ahead. After all, we are born to survive until the next day and then repeat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. I wish people would get away from the glass half empty way of thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a very interesting perspective by the original commenter, but I do think it reflects a Western view that we have to dominate the world rather than being part of it. That idea is so entrenched, it’s hard to imagine any other approach than being harsh and competitive.
It would be very interesting to read something where natural conditions are tough but people respond by rallying together in a supportive way instead of becoming rivals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe. It was noted that even those who live in tune with nature have to dominate in some fashion. Predators, bad weather, illness, and the like are all threats that a human would need to defeat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pure author perspective, but I think we have to choose them with purpose. If the story is more about relationship strife, the world can be a little nicer. Even then, a few downpours and such can help with mood.
If it’s about war, or even survival, the world should be harsh. In a quest, the environment has to come into play to some degree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if a war on a pleasant environment would work. Definitely be surreal.
LikeLiked by 1 person