3 ms·

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 un

by 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.

by Leon 18y ago

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.