4 ms·

What I don't like is the presumption in this article that it would be best if these "uncontacted" people stayed that way. It's just as bad as the presumption th

by hugh 18y ago

What I don't like is the presumption in this article that it would be best if these "uncontacted" people stayed that way. It's just as bad as the presumption that our ancestors would have had that we should immediately go in and start giving them trousers and bibles. Is it really right to deny these people the benefits of our thousands of years of hard-won knowledge, just because we think it's cute to watch them in their body paint? Also, does this help us in thinking about what more advanced extraterrestrial civilizations might do if they encountered us?

Leon 18y ago
Well, like the article said, the biggest threat is probably disease introduced that they are not immune to. I'd say that's a good reason to leave them alone until we have at least a plan to go in and protect them w/ vaccinations (if they would even let us give them vaccines - I highly doubt they would understand them; even people today are fear mongering over mercury in vaccines). But then again we're going to run into contact with them eventually, so it might as well be sooner than loggers or land-grabbers go in and kill them all.
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  But don't we have a moral imperative to share our knowledge? Why is it a law that children must attend school if not to underscore the value of spreading knowledge that we've acquired. The instinct to teach (not to convert, but just to teach) is human. We can't force them to adopt our ways; but shouldn't we show them the alternatives and give them the choice of accepting it or not?
  - LPTS 18y ago
    " We can't force them to adopt our ways; but shouldn't we show them the alternatives and give them the choice of accepting it or not?" No. Another installment of short answers to long questions.
  - Leon 18y ago
    The reason it's required for children to attend school in our society probably has more to do with the fact that it's pretty much a requirement if you want to exist in our society, while for a native it isn't necessary to survive - they can get along alright with their preexisting knowledge base, however limited. Ex: A native running around protecting his territory in our society would most likely be shot by police.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    "Why is it a law that children must attend school if not to underscore the value of spreading knowledge that we've acquired." That sounds rather naive. Societies make it a law for children to go to school so that they become good citizens of said societies. It is a self-perpetuation thing. Imagine christians would raise their children to be muslims, christianity would not survive long. Just saying that from the existence of such a law you can not derive that it is a good thing.
markbao 18y ago
It's not about "we think it's cute to watch them in their body paint." It's about letting them be in their own natural environment, undisturbed by the outside world. From previous history, we know that native peoples aren't usually of being so-called "saved" by those more technologically advanced than them.
LPTS 18y ago
People here are so on my wavelength. Sometimes I dabble in writing short sci-fi stories and as soon as I read this I started a near future story where a tribe at risk of extinction from an impending earthquake must be saved without triggering the problems previous people had making first contact. At the same time, an ET civilization is using the same kind of methods and a much more advanced technological level (through methods like DMT elves and seizures), to contact the technology people of the new world order (that is the group preserving the culture at risk of extinction) and teach them enough to get off the planet before it's hit by an asteroid (or whatever). I think the right way to contact them would be to use mechanical bugs to infiltrate their society, and learn their language and social structure. Then, in the modality that the shaman of the tribe trances in, contact only the shaman, and in their language and their mythological mode of thinking, convey what you need too. Then, teach the shaman 'magic' in the guise of technology that will allow him to convince the tribe and convince him of your power and authenticity. Particularly effective would be to make another tribesman sick with some disease and give the shaman the medication to cure the disease. Then, let them have as much of their way of life as possible after you did whatever you needed to do to prevent them from dying off like they would of without your help. You should only make contact in cases where the tribe is at great risk without it.
gruseom 18y ago
I'm not sure I saw the same presumption you did. If I were in their position, I'm pretty sure I'd want the freedom to be left the hell alone, if that were my preference. The article does strike me as poor journalism, though. It crosses way over the line into the tendentious: I had to ask myself if the writer was a reporter or a representative of some sort of activist group. It's also grossly sensational. How exactly does anybody know that this tribe has had no contact with modern society? It looks to me like all we can say for sure is that they paint their bodies and have grass huts.
- DougBTX 18y ago
  It is from the Daily Mail.

by hugh 18y ago

Leon 18y ago

Well, like the article said, the biggest threat is probably disease introduced that they are not immune to. I'd say that's a good reason to leave them alone until we have at least a plan to go in and protect them w/ vaccinations (if they would even let us give them vaccines - I highly doubt they would understand them; even people today are fear mongering over mercury in vaccines). But then again we're going to run into contact with them eventually, so it might as well be sooner than loggers or land-grabbers go in and kill them all.

ComputerGuru 18y ago
But don't we have a moral imperative to share our knowledge? Why is it a law that children must attend school if not to underscore the value of spreading knowledge that we've acquired. The instinct to teach (not to convert, but just to teach) is human. We can't force them to adopt our ways; but shouldn't we show them the alternatives and give them the choice of accepting it or not?
- LPTS 18y ago
  " We can't force them to adopt our ways; but shouldn't we show them the alternatives and give them the choice of accepting it or not?" No. Another installment of short answers to long questions.
- Leon 18y ago
  The reason it's required for children to attend school in our society probably has more to do with the fact that it's pretty much a requirement if you want to exist in our society, while for a native it isn't necessary to survive - they can get along alright with their preexisting knowledge base, however limited. Ex: A native running around protecting his territory in our society would most likely be shot by police.
- Tichy 18y ago
  "Why is it a law that children must attend school if not to underscore the value of spreading knowledge that we've acquired." That sounds rather naive. Societies make it a law for children to go to school so that they become good citizens of said societies. It is a self-perpetuation thing. Imagine christians would raise their children to be muslims, christianity would not survive long. Just saying that from the existence of such a law you can not derive that it is a good thing.

markbao 18y ago

It's not about "we think it's cute to watch them in their body paint." It's about letting them be in their own natural environment, undisturbed by the outside world. From previous history, we know that native peoples aren't usually of being so-called "saved" by those more technologically advanced than them.

LPTS 18y ago

People here are so on my wavelength. Sometimes I dabble in writing short sci-fi stories and as soon as I read this I started a near future story where a tribe at risk of extinction from an impending earthquake must be saved without triggering the problems previous people had making first contact. At the same time, an ET civilization is using the same kind of methods and a much more advanced technological level (through methods like DMT elves and seizures), to contact the technology people of the new world order (that is the group preserving the culture at risk of extinction) and teach them enough to get off the planet before it's hit by an asteroid (or whatever). I think the right way to contact them would be to use mechanical bugs to infiltrate their society, and learn their language and social structure. Then, in the modality that the shaman of the tribe trances in, contact only the shaman, and in their language and their mythological mode of thinking, convey what you need too. Then, teach the shaman 'magic' in the guise of technology that will allow him to convince the tribe and convince him of your power and authenticity. Particularly effective would be to make another tribesman sick with some disease and give the shaman the medication to cure the disease. Then, let them have as much of their way of life as possible after you did whatever you needed to do to prevent them from dying off like they would of without your help. You should only make contact in cases where the tribe is at great risk without it.

gruseom 18y ago

I'm not sure I saw the same presumption you did. If I were in their position, I'm pretty sure I'd want the freedom to be left the hell alone, if that were my preference. The article does strike me as poor journalism, though. It crosses way over the line into the tendentious: I had to ask myself if the writer was a reporter or a representative of some sort of activist group. It's also grossly sensational. How exactly does anybody know that this tribe has had no contact with modern society? It looks to me like all we can say for sure is that they paint their bodies and have grass huts.

DougBTX 18y ago
It is from the Daily Mail.