u/Live_Alarm3041

I imagine Quairtch and Varang having a child. This child will become the Avatar franchises first child antagonist. I imagine this child living at Bridgehead where he is taken care of by Varang and Quaritch. The child eats at the Bridgehead cafeteria and receives medical care in the Bridgehead med bay. This child is the arch nemesis of the Sully Kids and Spider.

Here is my idea for how James Cameron and his team could write this character

Personality:

- Anxious,

- Immature

- Hates nature

- Hates Eywa

- Likes human technology (obsessed with guns and flamethrowers)

- Likes human culture more than Na'vi culture

Nicknames

- "Little Ash Buddy" by low ranking RDA personnel (miners, Tulkun hunters, SecOps grunts, technicians, etc)

- "The Small One" by Mangkwan Na'vi

- "Red Boy" by Parker Selfridge

- "Quaritch Jr" by the RDA chairman

Favorite things to do:

- Making crayon drawings making fun of the Na'vi, the Sully family and Ian Gavin

- Shooting Pandoran wildlife with an M69-AR for fun

- Bullying and tormenting Na'vi kids he finds when venturing out of Bridgehead

- Vandalizing and stealing from Na'vi villages

- Playing golf with Parker Selfridge

- Watching CET-Ops Tulkun hunts (Scoresby takes him)

Relationships:

- Quaritch: Closest parent who he spends the most time with

- Varang: More distant parent who he respects but does not prefer to spend time with because she's not as "cool" as the other adults

- Lyle Wainfleet: Sees him as a cool uncle

- Parker Selfridge: Bonds with him over golf and showing his crayon drawings

- Mick Scoresby: Bonds with him over CET-Ops Tulkun hunting excursions

- Major Bukowski: Bonds with him over small chat, peaches and his crayon art

- RDA Chairman: Sees him as a grandpa figure

If I had to name this character I would name him Emmet Quaritch.

What do you think? Do you think James Cameron should write such a character for the future sequels? Le me know in the comments.

Short termism is the primary driver of environmental harm in the 21st century. Decades of peer reviewed and tested science have made clear the consequences of our actions on the environment. In the 21st century environmental science has made clear that our mindset towards the environment needs to change in order for present and future generations to have a better future. We have the awareness but why don't we change. The answer is the concept of short termism.

Short termism in industry and government is why we still continue to conduct environmentally damaging activities even though the science makes it clear that we should stop. Under short termism a business or government only cares about the short term benefit of an activity. Only caring about the short term benefits is why long term externalities like environmental harm are sidelined in the decision making process.

Addressing environmental problems requires us to think in the long term. Environmentalism itself is a long term endeavor because it's what secures a better future for everyone in the long term. Environmentalism protects the environment which enables us to live a high quality of life that we would not be able to achieve if we had to artificially replace nature for our survival. Environmentalism and short termism are fundamentally incompatible and thus short termism needs to be addressesd if we want to adress environmental problems.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) runs a nationwide system which strips its population of all human dignity. This system is where human beings are turned into tools and then these tools are used until they break. The system essentially ensures that nobody other than CCP officials and those with connections to the CCP can truly achieve a "better life" within the borders of China under CCP rule. In China everyone is either exploited for having what the CCP wants or shamed for not having what the CCP wants.

To understand the CCPs system in more detail

1. The CCPs education system turns innocent free thinking youth with unique talents into mindless obedient and standardized economic assets for the CCP to exploit. This is done through systemic dehumanization, verbal/physical abuse and phycological manipulation. This system is almost entirely memorization based and has no special needs services so thus anyone with mental disabilites or who simply don't have memorization as an inherent strength will inevitably fail. Those who inevitably fail face abuse and shame for not being exploitable to the CCP. Teachers abuse their students because they will face consequences for their students underperformance and parents abuse their kids because they get angry when their kids fail to distract them from the harsh reality of life under the CCP with their academics.

And then

2. The economic assets created by the CCP education system are fed into the CCPs 996 white collar workforce. These 996 white collar workers will have to work extremely long hours for six days a week under management who can abuse them with impunity. The 996 work culture of China's white collar sector completely eliminates ones life outside of work to sustain with an income so thus it does not matter if these white collar jobs pay more than other jobs available in China. These workers are worked to the bone until they can no longer be exploited and then they are abandoned and replaced with the next freshly minted economic asset from the CCP education system

The CCP fundemnally does not treat the majority of its population as human beings. They treat them as tools to be forged, used, discarded and then replaced. The Gaokao is the CCPs social sorting mechanism to determine who to exploit (those with high scores) and who to reject (those with low scores). Those with high Gaokao scores face a life of exploitation and abuse and those with low Gaokao scores face a life of rejection and abuse. Nobody "succeeds" in China because "success" means getting exploited by the CCP.

Under these conditions the young people of China have every right to "lie flat" because they do not owe an ounce of work to the state. If a government treats its people as disposable assets then said people have no right to do anything productive for their government. The CCP thinks that they could coerce and manipulate their population into being their disposable labor source but the population has realized the truth and is deciding not be bitches for the CCP anymore. The CCP is getting what it deserves for refusing to treat its youth as human beings.

"Lying flat" is an ingenious way to protests because it's not something the CCP could prosecute as political dissent and it does not involve any violence towards anyone. The problem is the state treating its youth as disposable assets so therefore the youth have decided to adresss the situation by choosing not be disposable assets for the CCP by refusing to do anything productive. They realized that all working under the CCP is ever going to do is only entice the CCP to extract more and more from you until you have nothing left to give. These people choose to live a minimalist lifestyle because they want to live as a human being instead of being a disposable human robot for the CCP to use abuse and then discard.

I fully agree with the "lie flat" movement in China because I am a human being with situational awareness and a moral compass. Anyone who disagrees is defending mass state sanctioned dehumanization and exploitation of over a billion people. If you want to defend a regime which dehumanizes and exploits its own people with impunity then that is not my problem.

Wood does not magically appear out of nowhere. It has to be harvested from forests using forestry. The environmental impacts of forestry are well known to anyone with even the most basic understanding of environmentalism. Sustainable forestry does exist but the amount of wood that it can produce is finite in order to ensure that the production is sustainable and that the forest ecosystem remains intact. Using wood to replace steel in construction would require far more wood than what sustainable forestry can provide.

Steel does not have to be unsustainable because

1. Steel can be recycled

2. Direct Reduced Iron can be used to produce virgin steel from iron ore

Friction extrusion can be used to recycle steel which is significantly less energy intensive than the conventional process of melting scrap in electric arc furnaces.

The idea of replacing steel in construction with wood is blatantly stupid. Trying to use wood to replace steel in construction a waste of money and time that could go towards making steel more sustainable. We need to stop pretending that wood is a sustainable alternative to steel.

The reasoning here is simple

1. Electric Vehicle EV) batteries require graphite which is geological carbon

2. This graphite is oxidized into CO2 during both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical recycling of EV batteries

3. This results in a net increase of atmospheric CO2 because the carbon in the graphite is not part of the Earths carbon cycle.

The recycling of EV batteries is a net contributor to atmospheric CO2 just like combusting fossil fuels.

Transport sector electrification is a contributor to climate change just like burning fossil fuels because of the oxidation of graphite during EV battery recycling. Achieving carbon neutrality will require ceasing all energy production activities which cause net increases in atmospheric CO2. This will require us to both phase out fossil fuels and electrification as they are both net atmospheric CO2 contributors. We need transport sector decarbonization solutions which are actually carbon neutral in order to effectively mitigate climate change.

Regenerative agriculture will enable biofuels to be produced without ILUC via

- Cover crops

- Marginal lands

- Unprofitable farmland

Using regenerative agriculture will eliminate the need for fertilizers and pesticides ensuring that future biofuel production does not repeat the same mistakes of the industrial food system.

Here is the final comparison

1. The carbon which makes up graphite is not part of Earths carbon cycle so therefore oxidizing it during EV battery recycling will result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2

2. The carbon in drop-in biofuels (renewable diesel, SAF, and renewable gasoline) came from the Earths atmosphere as CO2 and thus it is part of Earths carbon cycle so therefore oxidizing it in an ICE engine will not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

Our refusal to acknowledge the reality of electrification will not change the laws of chemistry.

Recent science completely disproves the ILUC argument against biofuels. The ILUC argument assumes that land can only be used to grow one crop at once so therefore either existing food production will have to be displaced or new farmland will need to be created. This is patently false.

Here are the three ways to grow oilseed crops for HEFA biofuel production without ILUC

1. Cover Crops: The main economic barrier to farmers adopting cover cropping is that cover cropping has typically been a net loss because the cover crops do not generate any revenue. Growing oilseeds as cover crops changes this. Oilseeds can be crushed to produce seed oil and meal. The seed oil can be used as HEFA biofuel production feedstock and the meal can be fed to livestock. Growing oilseeds as cover crops will allow farmers to implement regenerative agriculture and make extra revenue from the oil and meal from their cover crops in the process.

- https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2025/10/16/helping-farmers-boosting-biofuels-new-wsu-led-paper-shows-promising-cover-crop-benefits/

2. Marginal and degraded lands: Marginal and degraded lands by definition cannot be used to grow food because their soil is too poor for any food crops to grow. Using these lands to grow oilseeds for HEFA biofuel production does not displace food production because these lands cannot be used to grow food in the first place. These lands already exist around the world so therefore they do not need to be created by destroying natural habitats.

- https://www.futurity.org/biofuel-crops-switchgrass-marginal-land-climate-change-2717252/ (oilseeds can be grown instead of switchgrass)

3. Unprofitable farmland: In some areas of the world growing certain food crops is becoming unprofitable for farmers. If farmers continue to try and cultivate these food crops then they will go bankrupt. Switching to oilseeds for HEFA biofuel production makes sense because then these farmers will switch from growing an unprofitable crop to growing a profitable crop. Oilseeds will be very profitable in the future for struggling farmers because they produce both oil for HEFA biofuel production and meal for livestock.

- https://www.wusf.org/economy-business/2024-07-07/pongamia-trees-grow-where-citrus-once-flourished-offering-renewable-energy-and-plant-based-protein

All three of these methods are currently considered by academia and industry as the future of biofuels.

The agricultural sector is switching to regenerative agriculture which will further increase the sustainability of these biofuels. Regenerative agriculture will eliminate the need for the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides that have long been used in industrial agriculture. In addition regenerative agriculture will improve the health of the soils that oilseeds are grown on. The ILUC free cultivation of oilseeds in the ways mentioned above should all be done using regenerative agriculture.

We really should stop spouting the "biofuels use too much land" BS whenever biofuels are mentioned. That logic is BS based on incomplete picture thinking. ILUC free ways to produce biofuels will exist regardless of if we acknowledge their existence or not. Our ignorance will not change reality.

If a kid gets bad grades because they don't care about school then yes that is a perfectly valid reason for a parent to be unhappy with them. Not caring about school is squandering a persons opportunity to unlock their potential to contribute to the world as well as being disrespectful to everyone involved in education. I am not trying to disprove this fact. If you accuse me of trying to disprove this fact then I will refer you back to this paragraph.

It is not a kids fault if

1. They have a mental disability that impairs learning

2. They do not have memorization as an inherent strength

Either of those things are likely to cause a kid to get bad grades regardless of how hard they study.

Studying is the process of familiarizing oneself with information. Studying will not magically cure mental disabilities or change how a person brain is wired. Mental disabilites and cognitive strengths are inherent parts of human biology. Human beings are human beings and thus they should not be treated as such.

If a kid is getting bad grades and not caring can clearly be ruled out

1. If said kid has a mental disability that affects their ability to intake information then they need special education support

2. If said kid has a mental disability of cognitive profile that affects their ability to retain information then they need special education support along with the recognition that their future will have to rely on professional fields which do not require memorization as an inherent strength

I don't get why its so hard for so many parents to acknowledge this basic fact of life

Everyone has their own potential. Each person potential to contribute to the world is different. We need to stop acting as if every single kid is some blank canvas that can be turned into anything. That long prevailing logic is BS and if anyone refuses to acknowledge that then that is not my problem.

I am not saying that parents should not are about their kids grades. I am saying that parents need to stop acting as if their kids are blank canvases which can be turned into anything solely through study. If a parent refuses to acknowledge this reality then they have no business being a parent.

The problem with agriculture is not any crop or any application of agriculture. The problem is industrial monoculture. Industrial monoculture will make farming any crop for any reason unsustainable

It does not matter

1. How sustainable a crop is
2. What the crop is used for

If the production of the crop is scaled using industrial monoculture then it will inevitably become unsustainable.

Industrial monoculture will always

1. Require habitat destruction
2. Destroy lands ability to store carbon
3. Result in biodiversity loss
4. Require synthetic chemical inputs to replace what nature cannot do due to the erasure of biodiversity
5. Use more water than the regions precipitation can provide
6. Require the creation of new farmland if a new crop needs to be grown because multiple crops cannot be grown on the same land

This is due to the very nature of monoculture which treats land as a "factory" to produce only one "product" while destroying the mechanisms needed to sustain life. Nature does not work by only naturing a single plant. Nature works as a system which enables multiple species to survive by being dependent on each other for the conditions and resources needed to survive. We need agriculture to work according to nature not separately from nature.

The solution to this problem is to match agriculture to the biome where it is being conducted

- Forest biomes -> agroforestry

- Grassland biomes -> regenerative field cropping with vegetation strips

- Desert biomes -> regenerative setups which incorporate water catchment and managed water usage that can facilitate a small water cycle via transpiration

We need to stop seeing agriculture as a standard thing to be done everywhere and replace that idea with the idea that agriculture type needs to match the biome where it will be conducted in.

With this "biome matching" approach to agriculture we can produce

- Food

- Materials

- Bioenergy

Without any of the problems that are caused by industrial monoculture.

So please let's stop acting as if the problems of agriculture are due to certain crops or products. The true problem is industrial monoculture. Blaming the climate impacts of agriculture on certain crops or products is diverting attention, time and money away from addressing the actual cause of the problem.