Avatar is a marvelous movie that seems so real, yet, isn’t. The first time I watched it was mesmerizing and I could barely follow the plot for absorbing the scenery. You have to really admire people with that much imagination to write such a wonderful story and those who created the visual concept to come up with such an enchanting world. Oh, to be that inventive. However, today while doing some research, I happened on a comment that used the word avatar in a sentence.
It had never dawned on me that avatar was a word in our English language. It’s obviously not a commonly used word which made me curious enough to look it up in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. Avatar has several definitions including “an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/avatar) This isn’t the type of word that arises during normal conversation and I wonder how those writers knew the word. Did the word come first or did the embodiment of a new people demand the search for the word?
However, it came about the people they created were warm, loving, spiritual people who in some way reflect the way we all want to be. They were a tight knit community who cared for each other and were forced to defend themselves from an attack of those who had lost their moral ethics in search for survival in a good versus evil manner. Their leader depicts the core values of this hated society and, yet, there is an understanding of what they are trying to do, survive.
Which leads us to wonder which side we would fall on if we were placed into the same position. AFP, Agence France-Presse, recently published an article which was picked up by Yahoo News entitled, “Planet could be ‘unrecognizable’ by 2050, experts say” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/ts_afp/scienceuspopulationfood). It discusses the effect of a population growth by 2050 on our world. It warns of a problem feeding the nine billion people who will be alive then. This really isn’t news since the same arguments were made in the 1960’s about our population today. It isn’t too much of a reach to assume that there will be more such arguments made in 2050.
While many of those commenting made light of the article or boosted their own biased opinion, there is a nugget of truth to the article. The fact is that as a planet we are absorbing more and more people who need food, shelter, and safety. Those nations which have plenty share with those who don’t. We believe that we can handle it and trust that our scientific research can keep up with the needs of the people. Extrapolating this data forward, it seems impossible now that there will be more people than we can feed. But what happens if we can’t in the future? Do we become the people destroying others in the search for that one thing that promises survival?