12 ms·

We should give them access to technology and to our way of life. Our way of life is better. Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of mis

We should give them access to technology and to our way of life. Our way of life is better. Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. Help is exactly what I would want from advanced alien visitors. I don't want them to respect my culture just because it is mine; I want something better for myself, not cultural relativism. There is nothing good or enviable about uncivilized lifestyles to preserve; any actions that maintain them in that lifestyle are ensuring they literally die young, mostly of preventable causes. Their lives are short, uncomfortable and brutal. Trying to minimize contact is ensuring they do not get modern medical care and that they retain their dark ages quality (or worse) myths and prejudices.

d3x 16y ago
I really hope you are kidding. If not this is so typical of the american way of thinking. Yes, we are so superior lets convert them all to our [insert culture, religion etc...]. What is so bad about leaving them alone? I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day. While we are at it lets make sure they all become good christians too because anyone that has not accepted christ in their life just does not know what they are missing. Im not trying to be an ass but I fundamentally disagree with everything you just said. BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. While we are at it lets take them our aids, diabetes, obesity etc... You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them and that is total bullshit. They have a right just as you do to continue their way of life without someone like you coming along and deciding what is and is not ok for them.
- lwhi 16y ago
  I agree - it's a shocking point of view. I'm choosing to read it as parody. EDIT: Does the downvote mean it's not parody? EDIT,EDIT: So maybe the OP was being sincere - in which case I'm v depressed.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    You're mistaken. I did not post a parody. I'm serious. That you have a hard time believing that people who disagree with you (like myself) even exist should perhaps be a wake up call to open your mind.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      It's just that many (feared and hated) leaders from history took a similar view. I'm surprised so many people on HN share it. (Did I dodge the Godwin's law bullet...?) -- Seriously though, this is exactly the point of view that was used by all colonial movements. It's antiquated, unjust and it's also completely xenophobic. I'm genuinely shocked.
      - xenophanes 16y ago
        Respectable people like Jacob Bronowski, David Deutsch, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- not to mention easily over 100 million Americans -- believe this kind of thing. Don't be so shocked by a mainstream point of view. It is not xenophobic to be pro-civilization, to think that allowing people the option to join civilization is good for them, or to wish aliens would come along and share advanced knowledge with us (thus radically transforming our world). Change is not bad or scary on principle. Change is a necessary aspect of improvement. Improvement exists. I'm not going to force my idea of improvement on anyone, but I damn well am going to offer it to them and give them the choice. Maybe you are ignorant of how some Western organizations strive to keep uncivilized people backwards against those people's will by putting up barriers between them and integration with the modern world. They treat them a little like a zoo. That's disgusting. (You might have dodged Godwin's law if you hadn't included the parenthetical about it... :)
        lwhi 16y ago
        Honestly - I think our politics are so far removed, that talking about this sanely would involve a hours of deprogramming on either of our parts. My biggest problem with your point of view is that you're claiming superiority for our society, when the quality of a culture can't easily be measured. It's equivalent of saying 'mine is the best, because it's mine'. I can't agree with it.
- Groxx 16y ago
  >You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them. Whether they're right or not is another issue, and as there's no objective way to measure such things, there is no actual correct view. If that's their belief, they're entirely justified in taking that course of action. Your belief is apparently the opposite, so you're entirely justified in preventing them from doing so. But what they said is not total bullshit, it's just opposed to you.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    "No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them." "Whether they're right or not is another issue [..]" Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. -- The OPs belief is entirely objectionable. Have none of us learnt anything from history? EDIT: Actually, maybe that wasn't quite strong enough. The OPs belief is utterly abhorrent. It's from the same school of thought that's used in attempts at 'ethnic cleansing'.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      Morals are, beliefs are not. And since morals are heavily heavily based on beliefs, they are heavily influenced by the person who is determining right and wrong. One person can't have it both ways. Two can have opposing viewpoints and still be completely, logically correct in their own eyes. It's a fundamental aspect of communication between different entities.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        I'm sorry, but I call BS.
        Groxx 16y ago
        Then you need some philosophy, metaphysics, and Lincoln-Douglas style debate classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate edit: how about a starting point (in no way intended to be snide / insulting, I'm entirely serious about this): Murder is wrong, right? Why? Completely objectively, why?
- heed 16y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with giving them the option to join the rest of civilization. Besides, you're doing the same thing as xenophanes. You're saying that one set of values is better over another, or rather worse over another.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  What is so bad about leaving them alone? I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day. What is so bad is you making the decision for them -- one way or the other. It's that kind of pompous paternalistic attitude that caused all kinds of pain and misery. If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, of having mothers die in childbirth commonly, of dying of things like scratches and measles -- if they want that life, let them have it. But show and tell them what they are missing and let them decide. Don't arrogantly assume that there's something romantic about living like a caveman. It's just as whacked as automatically assuming they would want all of the modernity we enjoy. What we've found, over and over again, is that contact with primitive cultures destroys the cultures. That's because you'd have to be a flaming idiot to want to live like that (I find the greatest supporters of "leave them alone" are armchair philosophers living all nice and comfy in the west) We can't help that, but it's no excuse to let people suffer when we can help them stop if (If they so desire) There is nothing noble in inaction. Treat people as you would like to be treated if you were them. It's really very simple. If you'd like to rant and rave about how much modern life sucks, fine. But don't use these guys as props to do so. They deserve better than that. By the way, this is also a pet peeve of mine, and I come at this from exactly the opposite pov. Sometimes I think "Star Trek" has done more to muddy up an entire generation of thinkers than a hundred piss-poor colleges could have ever hoped to accomplish.
  - mrleinad 16y ago
    Then first, you must comprehend yourself how all of these "improvements" would impact their society and minds. And then, you have to teach them enough so they can understand all of those facts you just learned, so they can take an INFORMED decision. That alone would make you get in contact with them, show them things they have never seen before, change their culture in unimaginable ways. There's no "interface" here to which you can give them access, and expect that if they choose not to use it, their lives would remain as they were. If you touch it, you change it. You don't know how. Perhaps you will destroy it and will never know what of all those things you showed/gave them did it.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Treat people as you would like to be treated if you were them. I wish I had 100 upmods to give. This is exactly what I was saying elsewhere, we should think about how we would want to be treated. Would we want medicine and education offered to us? Would we want the option for some of our elders to live out the rest of their lives in a traditional manner? Would we want bulldozers knocking down our trees? Would we want jobs driving bulldozers? I don't know the answer, I just know that I'd want to ponder that for a good long while if I had to make a call.
- LaGrange 16y ago
  "I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day." Hi, I am an obsessed FB and Twitter narcissist, and I'm proud of it. I'm also happy about having access to the Western medicine, which, while not the only one, and not perfects, seems to be the only one that consistently works. And you are not talking about giving them a "right". You are talking about choosing something for them -- we can contact them (which will unavoidably deeply alter their culture, and is quite dangerous) or not (and let them live uncomfortably). It's our choice, and we can't really run from it. By doing nothing we decide for them, whether we like it or not. Oh, and your parent didn't really say that we should convert them. He said that we should give them access to our technology. And if that converts them, then possibly it's actually them who preferred our culture over their own. I'm actually mostly on the side of avoiding contact for now -- but mostly because of health risks related to contact, not because I'm afraid for their culture. Culture is about the change, not about maintaining some snapshot of society.
  - kevinelliott 16y ago
    Don't forget that technology is in itself a drug and nearly impossible for a "simple" mind to resist. To them technology appears as "tools of the Gods"... how could they reject it? After all that, you have to think... do they really have the self-driven choice to accept it?
  - ericd 16y ago
    Keep in mind that most of our thoughts about what is good have been shaped by the society we were raised in. If you were born and had lived your entire life in the rain forests of South America, you almost certainly wouldn't feel the same way. Their very definition of comfort might be different from yours. Keep in mind that many people in more advanced countries prefer heat and humidity, sleeping on bare floors to soft mattresses, and many other things that many other people would consider odd. Our culture is about change, many cultures are about tradition. Change is not inherently good.
    - LaGrange 16y ago
      What I was trying to say was that we have to make a decision and thus decide what's better for those people. We can't even ask them without influencing them. Therefore we have to make a decision that seems best for them, even considering our cultural bias and imperfect view of their society. I can even say that we will make a decision for them, maybe just wrapping it into some feel-good distractions. When you decide not to interfere you're not really letting them evolve on their own, you're starting to avoid them. It's more subtle influence, but influence nonetheless. I'm not really saying that change is inherently good, that's a view that can be easily disproved by samples from our own culture. I'm saying that change is an inseparable part of culture, and we shouldn't try too much to protect a culture from it (but we shouldn't actively try to destroy a culture without very good reasons -- like, I don't know, mass killings or something -- as well). Especially considering that (at least for me) people are more important than culture (while keeping in mind that culture is quite important for people). As for preferences like those you've mentioned -- actually, here in Poland I know people from the whole spectrum on each of those issues, and soft mattresses are easily available. When you don't show a person a mattress you're not really letting the person choose to sleep on a bare floor, you're forcing the person to sleep on a bare floor.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  I am not kidding. You are posting a very typical left wing way of thinking where you have a hard time believing people can both exist and fundamentally disagree with you. You hope they don't really mean it, or at least they are Christians so you have something unintellectual to blame (I am not). You are advocating some kind of "tolerance" of primitive cultures (consisting largely of non-intervention which is rather different than tolerance) but you have have no tolerance of opposing viewpoints within your own culture. I did not advocate forced conversion. That you refuse to differentiate between access to better ideas and depriving them of their rights is a straw man.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    I don't see what's left wing about it. The basic premise of conservatism is that government should be limited, and that its primary role should be to protect people's rights from other people, the government, and other governments. Obviously, these people have a right to their property. It is being encroached upon. The issue is not, should we go through the jungle and make conversation? The issue is if Peru should allow the destruction of this group of people's property by farmers. There is nothing liberal about saying that the government should be protecting the property of these people. We have already in essence made contact. They have seen an airplane or helicopter taking a picture of them. They are all clearly looking at the camera. They know there is a world out there that they aren't a part of because they certaintly can't fly and other people can. That could make them do things they would not have done if they had not seen the airplane, so we have shattered their world view already. What I'm more interested in is if they want to keep their land or not. There are plenty of tribes in the world who know about the real world, and choose to stay in their own way of life. There was an entire American TV series about this, they brought people from tropical islands to the US and showed them everything, and most of them chose to go back. I think these people should have a choice as well, but that choice will not be there for them if their forest is destroyed.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Very typical left wing way of thinking? I'm staying out of this slugfest because there's no way anybody will end up edified by it - but in what possible way can you characterize philosophical intolerance as an exclusively left-wing trait? That's just weird.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  >BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. There is only one class of medicine in the world, and is scientific. Your attempt to frame science-based medicine as a racial or cultural property ("Western") lies at the root of your reasoning fallacies: you reinterpret comparison between industrialized and tribal humans as cultural/racial, regardless of whether race or culture has anything to do with it. The superiority of empirical medicine is not cultural hegemony. The life-saving knowledge of microbe theory and hygiene is not a religious belief that be can relativized with shamanist "healing."
  - borism 16y ago
    There is only one class of medicine in the world, and is scientific. what is considered scientific is very often defined by culture though. I bet those tribes consider their shamans scientists, even though they won't pass our western scientific criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicine
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      "By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call Alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine." --Tim Minchin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
      - borism 16y ago
        Traditional medicine != Alternative medicine, it's the only medicine available for majority of people on Earth (about 80% of people in Asia are exposed almost exclusively to it). Chinese had their medicine when we europeans were still living in caves.
        yaix 16y ago
        There is also a european traditional medicine, only that it has been largely forgotten because scientific medicine was so much more effective. In China they never developed any scientific approach to healing, so the traditional stuff was all they had. And no, its not "that" old.
- seanos 16y ago
  "If not this is so typical of the american way of thinking. Yes, we are so superior lets convert them all to our [insert culture, religion etc...]. " Why is this the typical american way of thinking? Surely every culture believes theirs is superior, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted it.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    It's very possible to exist in a culture without thinking that it's the best. I didn't adopt my culture, it adopted me (I was born into it).
- Devilboy 16y ago
  Please could we have this discussion without the ad hominem?
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I wonder if anyone is seriuosly advocating forcing anyone to do anything. Yes, civilization was once murderously expansionist, then it was culturally imperialist, but I'd like to think we've got better. Remember, there are ways to make contact that don't involve oppression and/or bloodshed. Shockingly, some of them have even been tried successfully. It befuddles the hell out of me that many people here--allegedly accurate thinkers--not only can't see this, but actively dislike anyone who can. To the entire thread: ye who hate thoughtful discussion, go away.
- jordan0day 16y ago
  "BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. " First off, can we not call it "Western medicine?" Because what you're calling "Western medicine" happens to be practiced all over the world. I'd prefer to call it "science-based medicine" or "evidence-based medicine", although I will admit the applicability of those labels is more range-based than absolute. However, you're right. Western medicine isn't the only medicine in the world. There's also voodoo-based medicine (with "voodoo" representing any variety of "ancient chinese secret"-type of treatments). So which would you prefer to be treated with? "Western" medicine, or voodoo medicine? Also, "While we are at it lets take them our aids, diabetes, obesity etc..." You do realize AIDS originated in sub-saharan Africa, right? Not exactly the heart of modern civilization.
  - Mz 16y ago
    Actually, I've pursued "alternative" medicine for treating my (very deadly) medical condition and gotten much better results than "modern" medicine can promise. I have a form of cystic fibrosis, as does my 23 year old son. I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I have not been on antibiotics for about 7 years. I have been drug free for about 18 months. My son has not been on antibiotics in nearly 13 years. He has been drug free for about 4 years. Ten years ago, I was bedridden for 3 1/2 months and spent a year at death's door. Doctor's told me "People like you don't get well. Symptom management is the name of the game." I currently live without a car, thus walk a lot, and have a full-time job. The hole in my lung has closed and my symptoms have basically all disappeared or greatly improved. Modern medicine has it's good points. But a lot of other traditions also have value. I think it is unproductive and a straw-man argument to pit them against each other. I don't see why we can't take from both and build something better than either. I've been trying to stay out of the comments in this thread about medicine because I'm basically one lone "nutcase" who is dismissed by most folks in the CF community. So you can either believe I am telling the truth or not. I really don't have a leg to stand on if you choose to think I am making up tall tales, as many people think. (And I hope you will take my post as a compliment, as a statement that you seem like a reasonable person who might listen, rather than as "argumentative" or attacking.) Peace.
    - 16y ago
araneae 16y ago
I generally agree with you except for one thing: A significant number of them may die of disease. There have been a few uncontacted tribe members that were forced to make contact with the outside world, and at least one died of TB: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=26225682776 https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=26225682776 This is quite similar to what happened in North America; the blankets with smallpox were highly unnecessary.
raganwald 16y ago
How does your perspective differ from the perspective of the missionaries who attempted to bring "salvation" to indigenous peoples around the world? How does your perspective differ from the perspectives that led to the imposition of the Residential Schools? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indi... Also, nothing I wrote says anything about providing them with access, it says something about destroying their culture and identity. So don't be too quick to make assumptions about what I believe or don't believe about medicine and education.
- rubashov 16y ago
  What about the missionaries who stopped indigenous peoples' crazy blood soaked ways and widespread human sacrifice rituals? The Aztecs in particular were quite psycho. With the daily stories of decapitated bodies and mass slayings in connection with the drug cartels in Mexico, sometimes a wonder about the cultural link back to the Aztec ways.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    IIRC, the Spaniards stopped the Aztecs with smallpox and the measles. http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html But let's not quibble a minor point like that. The question I raised was simply how our perspective today differs from their perspective back in colonial times, with an eye to considering the possibility that we are fallible and that what we sincerely believe is in someone else's best interests may not be in their best interests. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't contact or help them, I'm saying we should be careful, because it may be that what we think is good for them today turns out to be bad for them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act, but isn't it worth thinking carefully before making choices?
  - Naga 16y ago
    The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double the Aztecs were.
gloob 16y ago
How "white man's burden"-esque.
- raganwald 16y ago
  I'm here because someone helpfully provided one of my ancestors with an education into modern sugar plantation processes and methods, including a free trip to Barbados. If it hadn't been for that, I'd be in Nigeria living large on my 419 business. Blogs, 419s, what's the difference?
ThomPete 16y ago
The problem with our unproven claims is that you speak from the vantage point of the advanced alien visitors speaking on the primitive cultures behalf. I am not sure what you mean with uncivilized lifestyles. Do you mean wearing clothes? Eating with knife and fork or do you talk about dropping the bomb, invading other countries?
T_S_ 16y ago
Perhaps they have something to teach us as well. We should at least ask for directions to El Dorado, before we convert them to OS X and give them some french fries.
mwhite 16y ago
Define "better". Primitive people's lives are short, yes. But that they are uncomfortable and brutish is at best an uninformed value judgment that supports the narrative of civilization. By any good measure of happiness, they are probably happier than us. Most of them would die from diseases of civilization in the event of contact, anyway, so I don't really see how western medicine potentially extending their lives applies.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  >Primitive people's lives are short, yes. But that they are uncomfortable and brutish is at best an uninformed value judgment that supports the narrative of civilization. Then let them make their own value judgement. Offer them 80-year life expectancies and the extravagant luxury of modern life; let them make their own choices. Xenophanes isn't the one arguing for forced isolation -- for keeping the truth of the world secret from them.
- forensic 16y ago
  The shortness of tribal people's lives has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, it's pure myth. The book Sex at Dawn demonstrates this using the latest anthropology and archaeology if you want to know more. Until recently, it was normal for tribal societies to live longer on average than agricultural societies. All of the statistics that support the idea that tribal life is short were done very poorly and skewed by abortion/infanticide. Tribal societies would have the same lifespans on average as our society does today and perhaps even longer because they had far healthier diets and always got lots of exercise. However, they would keep their numbers low through infanticide and eugenics. For instance a baby with birth defects would often be allowed to die and abortions using certain drugs were normal. Anyway, the idea that tribal life was brutish, solitary and short is utterly wrong on every point. The science indicates clearly: - it was less brutish on average with more social harmony and warfare was less painful for all involved - it was not short at all, quite the contrary. Only modern agricultural societies, through scientific medicine, have begun to approach the lifespans of tribal societies who are not interfered with. This was just a myth from the very start. - it was not solitary. Our society is solitary. In a tribal society, every person is surrounded by lifelong friends and relatives at every moment of every day for their entire lives. Modern man can scarcely imagine the depths of human bonding that tribal societies experience.
paulitex 16y ago
"Our way of life is better" Ahh yes, the colonialist's mantra. Even more of a historical failure than the communist manifesto. Go look at how life 'improved' in sub saharan africa. Or the profoundly sad state of natives all over the world, in Canada, Australia, US, and beyond. Our way of life is not better. It is not for everyone. We have huge wealth and health disparity, large scale violence, drug addiction and homeless to name but a few unsavories. Your argument is a very old one - this is a 19th century discussion. As such I suggest you look at the history of colonialism, and the atrocities that resulted and continue to result because of it. Maybe start with Rwanda, it's pretty compelling.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Our way of life is not better. Yes, it is. Would you trade places with them? Would you want your children to? We have huge wealth and health disparity Which we could certainly eliminate by destroying all our wealth and abandoning medicine. The only thing that should tell you is that "inequality" is a poor metric. And none of this implies that it would be acceptable to forcibly impose our civilization on anyone. It does imply that we should offer them the choice.
  - kevinelliott 16y ago
    It's not fair to offer that comparison after we've already been exposed to our own cultures. Of course now that we've had technology, our social traditions and structure, and advances in science and history, that it would be nearly impossible to WANT to trade places with them. However, we are a stressed out, overworked, sick society who has lost traditions such as appreciation of family, and our idea of relaxation and "living life" is a 2 week vacation once a year. Sure, we've got great tools and Xboxes and the Internet and modern medicine... but at the end of the day, 100+ million Americans are literally sick (defined by the prescribed medications that over 1 in 3 have to treat symptoms of sickness). If I had grown up in their tribe, and was given an opportunity to completely understand the pros and cons of the new society, I may just want to stay ignorant in my tribe. It's quite possible that while they're likely less intelligent, less advanced and very primitive, but happy and connected with each other and have a quality of life that comparatively (to them) is better than our way of life. At the end of the day, to me at least, quality of life is what's really important. To others, it's competition, satisfaction of proving that they are better than others, money, and egocentric activities that make them happy (and that's fine).
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
forensic 16y ago
>Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. The point is that they are not suffering. Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, have more social harmony, deeper longer lasting social bonds, etc. All the ingredients for deep, lasting, and fulfilling happiness. They are living precisely how humans evolved to live. From the perspective of "suffering" agriculture is actually a step backwards. Nonetheless agricultural societies dominate because agricultural societies have higher populations, stronger diseases (natural disease warfare) and better military technology. It is natural that agriculture dominates and pushes out the tribal lifestyle. However on the basis of suffering/misery it is actually the agriculturalists who are worse off. A great book that details this phenomenon was recently released for the public called Sex At Dawn.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. So does the typical Oxycontin addict. 'Happiness and satisfaction' are weasel words that ultimately have no objective meaning. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, No, they do not.
  - forensic 16y ago
    I wasn't the one making the argument that these people are experiencing misery/suffering. Misery and suffering is no more objective than happiness and satisfaction. I would argue that both of these things are objective and can be observed in the brain and well as inferred from other criteria. >No, they do not. Yes, they do. We can go back and forth like this all day or you can make a real argument. Read SEX AT DAWN and get back to me with your criticism of their anthropology. Based on your statements regarding happiness I'm going to tentatively conclude that you're one of the ignorant engineers who has little contact with the social sciences. Why do programmers believe they know more than everyone else in subjects where they are grossly ignorant? We need a word for this. Programmer hubris or something. I guess it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect striking again.
raganwald 16y ago
I never actually said we shouldn't contact them or offer assistance. Before I go to the gym, I'll argue what I think is with your point. For those who think they should be left in isolation, why is it bad to contact them and expose them to our civilization, but good to invent new things and businesses and cultural systems in our civilization? For example, entrepreneurs invented television and birth control. These inventions changed everything for us and our culture. How is it ok for someone to invent television but not ok for us to contact an isolated tribe and show them what the rest of the world is doing? How is it ok for someone to invent a way for hetero women to make more choices about their bodies and their sexuality, but not ok for us to offer them medicine so that they can make more choices about their bodies? We hackers espouse a philosophy of creating change. How is it ok to create change for our culture but not ok to create change for theirs?
- seanos 16y ago
  I think it's because when we invent television we don't lose anything. Once we show these people the modern world, there is no going back. It makes it a difficult moral dilema.
  - ugh 16y ago
    When we invented cars we lost our own culture’s tradition of riding horses. It used to be the case that everyone knew how to ride a horse, now only a select few decide to preserve that tradition. Even they ride only for sport and fun, a cheap imitation of what it meant to ride a horse 200 years ago. Cars viciously destroyed the role horses play in our society, that part of our culture is forever lost. (I’m not sad.)
    - seanos 16y ago
      But people can still ride a horse. A contacted tribe can never become uncontacted again. BTW I have no idea whether the right answer is to contact them or not, I am just explaining why it is a moral dilemma.
    - raganwald 16y ago
gokhan 16y ago
Check the FAQ first: http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3109-questions-and-answers-uncontacted-tribes http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3109-questions-and... But could this be because they don’t see the benefits of ‘our’ way of life? If they knew, might they want to join us? They won’t get the chance. In reality, the future offered by the settler society is to ‘join’ at the lowest possible level – often as beggars and prostitutes. History proves that tribal peoples end up in a far worse state after contact, often dead.
ojbyrne 16y ago
One of the more interesting books I've read recently - A Farewell to Alms - http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/dp/0691121354 http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/d... has the basic argument that as a direct result of modern technology, there are people living on the planet now (in sub-saharan Africa), with the lowest standards of living ever present on this planet, significantly worse than that experienced by Paleolithic hunters and gatherers. Uncivilized lifestyles turned out not to be that brutal, and in fact modern medicine is the primary mechanism by which the poorest countries have significantly lower standards of living than undiscovered tribes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence
hristov 16y ago
Now are you sure our way of life is better? That is a rather self centered thing to say. How do you think they would do in Brazilian society with no property no education and no ability to speak the language? How much do you know about the lives of the poorest Brazilians and Peruvians? Do you think they get much modern medicine? These people would of course be poorer than the poorest brazilians and peruvians because even they (i) can speak the language and (ii) know something about the society they live in.
Mz 16y ago
Help is exactly what I would want from advanced alien visitors. I don't want them to respect my culture just because it is mine; I want something better for myself, not cultural relativism. I wish it were so simple. Culture is really not easy to transmit. Transmitting some small piece of it in isolation very often only causes problems without improving anything at all. It often destroys what was there without replacing it with anything viable. Look at the really high rates of diabetes and other issues in so many tribal groups around the world. Look at the general quality of life contact has brought them. I'm really not impressed with the track record so far of "helping" such peoples. EDIT: Here is an article (called "Diseases of Affluence") which talks about the high levels of diabetes and such that I found through HN not terribly long ago. Really fascinating piece in its own right. http://maisonneuve.org/pressroom/article/2010/nov/15/the-diseases-affluence/ http://maisonneuve.org/pressroom/article/2010/nov/15/the-dis...
haberman 16y ago
Some uncontacted people violently resist outside contact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people
DanI-S 16y ago
"Our way of life is better." The fact that this has so many upvotes /really/ lowers my high opinion of the HN readership.
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  The natives might disagree if they saw our lives, but they can't reply here. They don't know the Internet exists and they're illiterate. I doubt many of us would desire to live in an uncontacted tribe. People in uncontacted tribes spend most of their time getting food to avoid starvation. Sometimes they get injured or ill, but they don't have painkillers or medicine. Sometimes a kid gets appendicitis. They don't have surgery, so the kid dies. Sometimes a child is born with a cleft palette. Charities do this procedure in developing countries, but in uncontacted tribes the child is deformed for life. Based on evidence from other tribes, they're almost certainly a patriarchal society. Sorry girls, you can't be leaders when you grow up. You'll have to have birth children without painkillers or medical supervision. (Oh and there's no birth control.) Breech baby? Tough luck. And don't get attached to your kids early on; infant mortality is pretty high. Granted, their quality of life isn't going to be great even if they're contacted. And arguing on the Internet isn't going to change the outcome of this situation. But our way of life is better. There are very few places on earth where quality of life is worse than an uncontacted tribe. The list is pretty short: Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and a couple other countries. Eventually, even those failed states will progress, whereas the uncontacted tribes won't.
- ugh 16y ago
  Here is another way of looking at it: If you compare the way of living in the United States today to the way of living in the United States at any other point in time, do you think that you would be able to roughly order those ways of living from superior to inferior? If you think that’s possible, wouldn’t it be very weird indeed if you couldn’t similarly order geographically separated cultures?
pessimist 16y ago
The problem is that once we make contact with them, 50% will die due to disease. The rest will lead miserable dependent lives, and probably turn to alcoholism. I have seen this first hand with the Jarawa people of the Andaman Islands, and anecdotally with many other tribals. History repeats itself.
mohsen 16y ago
how could you even say that, do you even know what their way of life is?
mambodog 16y ago
As an Australian, seeing what has happened to our Aboriginal people partly as a result of our interference, and partly also just because of the incompatible nature of our societies and cultures, I'd be very concerned about how such change would affect these people. This experience is repeated among indigenous peoples the world over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Contemporary_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Contempo...
guynamedloren 16y ago
For all you know, these people may be the happiest in the entire world. Who are we to take that from them?
nerme 16y ago
OUR way of life is better? No, dude, YOUR way of life is better. If these people are brought in to our culture they're fucked. Plain and simple. What do you think they're going to do, move to the Bay Area and start a social media company? They're on the bottom rung. They've got some red body paint, some banana trees, and some thatch roofed huts. They're wealth exists solely in their own way of life. As soon as they're faced with our way of life, they're fucking worthless.
logjam 16y ago
Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to us all exactly what an "uncivilized lifestyle" is, what is "backward" about them, and exactly which "uncivilized" and "dark age" cultures you feel currently live lives which are "uncomfortable, short, and brutal." Exactly what characterizes "our way of life?" Technology? How does technology make our way of life "better?" Science? I'd advance that many of these "backwards cultures" are probably successful in large part because they are more scientific and experienced and thoughtful about the worlds they inhabit, than oh, say, the average conservative Republican in the "civilized" U.S...who denies global warming, thinks education is dangerous, wants to halt stem-cell research, believes in the efficacy of prayer in health care, etc etc. Maybe we could continue our discussion with a glance at the now classic 1990 New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that African American men in the middle of one of our modern and "civilized" cities and countries in the late twentieth century have a lower life expectancy than their counterparts in Bangladesh. "Dark ages quality?" "Myths and prejudices" You mean racism? Nationalism? "In God We Trust?" http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199001183220306 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199001183220306 Maybe we could move on to a thesis dozens of historians share, that the "primitive" Native Americans gave us MORE in the way of transfer of technology and culture than we provided. The agricultural knowledge passed on, the result of generations of careful observation and experimentation by Native Americans, was immense. Beyond agricultural technology and an enlightened, observational ecology, it's not even clear that the average European knew you could take a damned bath with water regularly as a healthful practice before immigrants gaped at Native Americans doing just that. More importantly, as Ian Frazier notes in the first chapter of "On the Rez" which I invite all the cultural imperialists here to read, at the time of Columbus there were probably about "eleven people in all of Europe who could do what they wanted." Amerigo Vespucci had brought back news that in the New World, "every one is his own master." Frazier goes on to show the profound impact Native American thought had on the idea of personal freedom among European immigrants still steeped in monarchy, and what that brought forth in America.
pyre 16y ago
> We should give them access to technology and to our > way of life. Our way of life is better. So, we should like emulate Canada over the mid-20th century, and kidnap children from tribal lands and force them into orphanages/boarding school where most of them will be abused physically and sexually in the process of trying to 'train the savage' out of them? edit: Missed raganwald's post and Wikipedia link
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.” -- Stephen Hawking The truth, in both theory and practice, is that there is no pure, fair sharing of technology. It always, in nearly every single situation throughout world history, has ended in blood, subjugation, and/or slavery. And, it likely always will. Cultures don't just switch over to a "more superior" one; they're almost always forced to. Think of how many people died or were conquered through history just so that we could all be able to flush a toilet and it actually go somewhere. Absurd, but apropos.
- wazoox 16y ago
  > The truth, in both theory and practice, is that there is no pure, fair sharing of technology. It always, in nearly every single situation throughout world history, has ended in blood, subjugation, and/or slavery. And, it likely always will. However this always happened between social apes. E.T. aliens probably would be completely different from us (see "Ender's game" for instance) and may very well act in different ways and follow different motivations. So we don't know, really.
techiferous 16y ago
"Our way of life is better." Are you asserting that you know their culture well enough to make a meaningful comparison with your culture?
jeisenberg 16y ago
This response is a joke, right? What constitutes a 'civilized' lifestyle? Your concepts of 'backwards' and 'civilized' are grounded in normative assumptions about what is right and wrong. I am not a post-structuralist, but I expect someone to acknowledge his or her normative stance before degrading a culture different than your own. What do you mean when you say 'There is nothing good?' What do you define as 'good?' There are 'tribes' whose languages don't even contain a sense of linear time, which goes against Chomsky's universal theory of language. Here is a recent article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_... No past, no present. I am sorry, but your narrow, ethnocentric mind can't cognitively understand what that kind of existence is like. Look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology This varies across cultures and languages. At least pretend to respect difference.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Not a joke. You're mistaken in your assumption that I am ignorant of philosophy just b/c A) I didn't cite anyone impressive in my initial comment B) we disagree. Yes I am aware of Chomsky (in more detail than New Yorker articles offer). Yes I am aware of what ontology is. Yes I have studied philosophy. Do you want me to counter-cite philosophers for you to read? You might learn something by reading _The Myth of the Framework_ and _The Open Society And Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. If you want to trash freedom, human rights, peaceful cooperation, and other aspects of modern Western civilization, and deny their objective value, don't pretend there is no serious and thoughtful stuff published on the other side and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Next time you want to call someone closed minded, try to do it without ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments don't make you come off as tolerant and willing to have an open-ended discussion where you don't assume in advance who is right.
  - jeisenberg 16y ago
    You certainly don't argue or write like you studied anything but Glenn Beck's wikipedia page. Can you please explain to me how I am 'trashing' freedom, and human rights? Cultural rights ARE human rights. And please explain to me how Karl Popper somehow supports your theory of 'objective value.' Popper's arguments concern the contingency of analyses. Contingency, not objectivity. I only reserve the ad hom's for close-minded dipshits like yourself.
dkarl 16y ago
It won't be better for them. It may not better for their children. It will probably be better for their grandchildren... if we continue to be generous. But by that time we'll probably be disgusted and resentful because they haven't assimilated well enough to be productive members of the middle class. The alternative, of course, is forcible assimilation and cultural extinction, which would be a horrific fate inflicted on two generations for the sake of unborn ones. To accomplish what you suggest, it seems like the "cleanest" and most humane way would be to kidnap every child under ten and every subsequent child born into the tribe and put them up (separately) for adoption in wealthy countries. Let everyone older than ten live out their lives undisturbed, except for the tragic disappearance of all of their children. I challenge you to either endorse this method or describe a way that causes less suffering.
raquo 16y ago
Obligatory: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/
marquis 16y ago
Let them decide for themselves. Consider those who chose to explore, chose to leave their home village, chose to travel across continents. The members of that tribe who want to know more will explore if/when they decide to do so, and only then should they discover what worlds lie outside of theirs, not by force by us. Perhaps an advanced civilization would think the same. They have seen us go to the moon and send probes into space, and hopefully this would be sufficient for them to understand that we too, wish to explore and are ready for more knowledge.
dools 16y ago
Our way of life is better This is a dangerous and destructive attitude without exception.
hyperbovine 16y ago
This is the old noble savage debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage). As evidenced by the fact that Western societies have engaged in it for at least the past 500 years, it's way less settled than you make it out to be. Convincing arguments exist for both sides.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dmg8 16y ago
It sounds as if you're envisioning these people being painlessly integrated into modern society, perhaps retrained as plumbers, software developers, etc., then joining Brazil's (extremely small) middle class. This is just not realistic. In practice, these people joining "civilization" would almost certainly mean ending up living in grinding poverty in an extremely violent "favela" (Brazil's ubiquoutous shanty towns) with drugs and guns everywhere.
tc23emp 16y ago
We won't get a chance to offer them a better life if the illegal loggers kill them off with guns and disease first - a process that already began during the rubber boom. The fact that illegal loggers are even there to begin with shows that our morality is not greater than our greed in the pursuit of resources. We may have good intentions, but, if these tribes are not completely protected, elements within our society will slowly take every liberty with the land and its people as has been done countless times in the history. We know nothing of aliens. Any speculation is a reflection on ourselves and, therefore, it is more common to believe that aliens would annihilate us rather than be interested in improving our way of life.
jordan0day 16y ago
I don't know why the belief in the "noble savage" persists to this day, but your response is exactly what I would hope for from a rational human being. Certainly there probably is an optimal way to go about contacting a tribe like this and "bringing them up to speed" with the rest of the world, and I admit that there probably isn't a single person on this earth who actually knows what that optimal way is. But to deny these people even the chance at a better life because we're busy hand-wringing over how it will affect their culture is terrible.
yason 16y ago
I hope that was sarcasm because as such it would be great and insightful, and very symbolic of Western civilication throughout the centuries. If not, I disagree pretty much with everything you said. Myself, I think Shaw grokked it perfectly with his "Don't do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same".
lisperforlife 16y ago
How do you know that they live a miserable life or that they suffer? Do you think they remain uncontacted because they do not have the means to contact? They have remained uncontacted because of their choice. They live close to nature and there is nothing wrong with that. They have their own society and their own culture. Their life is as complicated and as rich as your life is. How do you measure how civilized a culture is? If it is their choice to remain un-contacted, they should be free to live that way. You cannot make an assumption that they would die young. Their bodies would have developed systems to counter most of the natural viruses and other health aspects there. Their upbringing would have taught them the skills to live in harmony with the forest. Their brains would not have developed the adequate techniques to survive in our society. Getting them out of there is the worst possible thing that you can do to them. They have got their technology and we have ours. What is comfort to you is only a conditioned response? Car is a great comfort only if you want to travel long distances. They have crafted their lifestyle in such a manner that they do not need such comforts. Most of their building materials and techniques would take care of air conditioning and cooling. They consume so few resources that their carbon foot print is probably negative. As far as education is concerned, we use this education to survive in this society, to earn, to create and transact with goods and so on. Their society is not built on such structures and transactions. They would have different structures and transactions. One is not necessarily superior or inferior. They are merely different.
sliverstorm 16y ago
How do you know they are uncivilized? I think you are making assumptions. If they are civilized... I know of at least one old-fashioned civilized culture relatively estranged from Western influence that seems to be doing well, at least in some regards: http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/longevity/page/2 http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/longevity/page/2
- Mz 16y ago
  Excerpt: Their incidence rate is at or near zero in just about every category, including diabetes, vascular disease, and colorectal cancer. Age seems to have no effect on them, either: The Tarahumara runner who won the 1993 Leadville ultramarathon was 55 years old. Plus, their supernatural invulnerability isn't just limited to their bodies; the Tarahumara have mastered the secret of happiness as well, living as benignly as bodhisattvas in a world free of theft, murder, suicide, and cruelty. Great article. Thanks so much for sharing. Very relevant for me, I mean to my life (as I get well when doctors say it cannot be done -- and I live without a car and walk a lot).
ra 16y ago
I suspect you are baiting us but I'll bite. > Our way of life is better. I think you are making a massive assumption. What do you know about their life? How do you know they don't love the forest as if it is their own mother and father? Do you really think that they haven't seen their world destroyed around them, by us, and fear that their world is hanging on by a thread? Do you really think that if they wanted to be part of our world, they wouldn't come out of the forest; even out of simple curiosity? I think raganwald is spot on.
logicalmind 16y ago
You should read the book "Ishmael" and see if it changes your view. http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Adventure-Spirit-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407 http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Adventure-Spirit-Daniel-Quinn/...
Herald_MJ 16y ago
I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I really do appreciate you making this point so we can openly debate the merits (and pitfalls) of this perspective.
StuffMaster 16y ago
They're living exactly as nature intended them to. Aren't animals best off in their natural environments? You obviously don't know how 'contact' works out. They would likely become alcoholic slum-dwellers, but hey, they have TV! Your attitude is the same as China's regarding Tibet. "Save Tibet!" "Why?" "The Chinese are destroying their culture and way of life by modernizing them! Forcing them to go to school, learn Chinese and math and business and stuff, to get jobs..." Oh wait...

d3x 16y ago

I really hope you are kidding. If not this is so typical of the american way of thinking. Yes, we are so superior lets convert them all to our [insert culture, religion etc...]. What is so bad about leaving them alone? I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day. While we are at it lets make sure they all become good christians too because anyone that has not accepted christ in their life just does not know what they are missing. Im not trying to be an ass but I fundamentally disagree with everything you just said. BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. While we are at it lets take them our aids, diabetes, obesity etc... You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them and that is total bullshit. They have a right just as you do to continue their way of life without someone like you coming along and deciding what is and is not ok for them.

lwhi 16y ago
I agree - it's a shocking point of view. I'm choosing to read it as parody. EDIT: Does the downvote mean it's not parody? EDIT,EDIT: So maybe the OP was being sincere - in which case I'm v depressed.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  You're mistaken. I did not post a parody. I'm serious. That you have a hard time believing that people who disagree with you (like myself) even exist should perhaps be a wake up call to open your mind.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    It's just that many (feared and hated) leaders from history took a similar view. I'm surprised so many people on HN share it. (Did I dodge the Godwin's law bullet...?) -- Seriously though, this is exactly the point of view that was used by all colonial movements. It's antiquated, unjust and it's also completely xenophobic. I'm genuinely shocked.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Respectable people like Jacob Bronowski, David Deutsch, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- not to mention easily over 100 million Americans -- believe this kind of thing. Don't be so shocked by a mainstream point of view. It is not xenophobic to be pro-civilization, to think that allowing people the option to join civilization is good for them, or to wish aliens would come along and share advanced knowledge with us (thus radically transforming our world). Change is not bad or scary on principle. Change is a necessary aspect of improvement. Improvement exists. I'm not going to force my idea of improvement on anyone, but I damn well am going to offer it to them and give them the choice. Maybe you are ignorant of how some Western organizations strive to keep uncivilized people backwards against those people's will by putting up barriers between them and integration with the modern world. They treat them a little like a zoo. That's disgusting. (You might have dodged Godwin's law if you hadn't included the parenthetical about it... :)
      - lwhi 16y ago
        Honestly - I think our politics are so far removed, that talking about this sanely would involve a hours of deprogramming on either of our parts. My biggest problem with your point of view is that you're claiming superiority for our society, when the quality of a culture can't easily be measured. It's equivalent of saying 'mine is the best, because it's mine'. I can't agree with it.
Groxx 16y ago
>You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them. Whether they're right or not is another issue, and as there's no objective way to measure such things, there is no actual correct view. If that's their belief, they're entirely justified in taking that course of action. Your belief is apparently the opposite, so you're entirely justified in preventing them from doing so. But what they said is not total bullshit, it's just opposed to you.
- lwhi 16y ago
  "No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them." "Whether they're right or not is another issue [..]" Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. -- The OPs belief is entirely objectionable. Have none of us learnt anything from history? EDIT: Actually, maybe that wasn't quite strong enough. The OPs belief is utterly abhorrent. It's from the same school of thought that's used in attempts at 'ethnic cleansing'.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Morals are, beliefs are not. And since morals are heavily heavily based on beliefs, they are heavily influenced by the person who is determining right and wrong. One person can't have it both ways. Two can have opposing viewpoints and still be completely, logically correct in their own eyes. It's a fundamental aspect of communication between different entities.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      I'm sorry, but I call BS.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        Then you need some philosophy, metaphysics, and Lincoln-Douglas style debate classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_Debate edit: how about a starting point (in no way intended to be snide / insulting, I'm entirely serious about this): Murder is wrong, right? Why? Completely objectively, why?
heed 16y ago
I don't see anything wrong with giving them the option to join the rest of civilization. Besides, you're doing the same thing as xenophanes. You're saying that one set of values is better over another, or rather worse over another.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
What is so bad about leaving them alone? I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day. What is so bad is you making the decision for them -- one way or the other. It's that kind of pompous paternalistic attitude that caused all kinds of pain and misery. If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, of having mothers die in childbirth commonly, of dying of things like scratches and measles -- if they want that life, let them have it. But show and tell them what they are missing and let them decide. Don't arrogantly assume that there's something romantic about living like a caveman. It's just as whacked as automatically assuming they would want all of the modernity we enjoy. What we've found, over and over again, is that contact with primitive cultures destroys the cultures. That's because you'd have to be a flaming idiot to want to live like that (I find the greatest supporters of "leave them alone" are armchair philosophers living all nice and comfy in the west) We can't help that, but it's no excuse to let people suffer when we can help them stop if (If they so desire) There is nothing noble in inaction. Treat people as you would like to be treated if you were them. It's really very simple. If you'd like to rant and rave about how much modern life sucks, fine. But don't use these guys as props to do so. They deserve better than that. By the way, this is also a pet peeve of mine, and I come at this from exactly the opposite pov. Sometimes I think "Star Trek" has done more to muddy up an entire generation of thinkers than a hundred piss-poor colleges could have ever hoped to accomplish.
- mrleinad 16y ago
  Then first, you must comprehend yourself how all of these "improvements" would impact their society and minds. And then, you have to teach them enough so they can understand all of those facts you just learned, so they can take an INFORMED decision. That alone would make you get in contact with them, show them things they have never seen before, change their culture in unimaginable ways. There's no "interface" here to which you can give them access, and expect that if they choose not to use it, their lives would remain as they were. If you touch it, you change it. You don't know how. Perhaps you will destroy it and will never know what of all those things you showed/gave them did it.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Treat people as you would like to be treated if you were them. I wish I had 100 upmods to give. This is exactly what I was saying elsewhere, we should think about how we would want to be treated. Would we want medicine and education offered to us? Would we want the option for some of our elders to live out the rest of their lives in a traditional manner? Would we want bulldozers knocking down our trees? Would we want jobs driving bulldozers? I don't know the answer, I just know that I'd want to ponder that for a good long while if I had to make a call.
LaGrange 16y ago
"I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day." Hi, I am an obsessed FB and Twitter narcissist, and I'm proud of it. I'm also happy about having access to the Western medicine, which, while not the only one, and not perfects, seems to be the only one that consistently works. And you are not talking about giving them a "right". You are talking about choosing something for them -- we can contact them (which will unavoidably deeply alter their culture, and is quite dangerous) or not (and let them live uncomfortably). It's our choice, and we can't really run from it. By doing nothing we decide for them, whether we like it or not. Oh, and your parent didn't really say that we should convert them. He said that we should give them access to our technology. And if that converts them, then possibly it's actually them who preferred our culture over their own. I'm actually mostly on the side of avoiding contact for now -- but mostly because of health risks related to contact, not because I'm afraid for their culture. Culture is about the change, not about maintaining some snapshot of society.
- kevinelliott 16y ago
  Don't forget that technology is in itself a drug and nearly impossible for a "simple" mind to resist. To them technology appears as "tools of the Gods"... how could they reject it? After all that, you have to think... do they really have the self-driven choice to accept it?
- ericd 16y ago
  Keep in mind that most of our thoughts about what is good have been shaped by the society we were raised in. If you were born and had lived your entire life in the rain forests of South America, you almost certainly wouldn't feel the same way. Their very definition of comfort might be different from yours. Keep in mind that many people in more advanced countries prefer heat and humidity, sleeping on bare floors to soft mattresses, and many other things that many other people would consider odd. Our culture is about change, many cultures are about tradition. Change is not inherently good.
  - LaGrange 16y ago
    What I was trying to say was that we have to make a decision and thus decide what's better for those people. We can't even ask them without influencing them. Therefore we have to make a decision that seems best for them, even considering our cultural bias and imperfect view of their society. I can even say that we will make a decision for them, maybe just wrapping it into some feel-good distractions. When you decide not to interfere you're not really letting them evolve on their own, you're starting to avoid them. It's more subtle influence, but influence nonetheless. I'm not really saying that change is inherently good, that's a view that can be easily disproved by samples from our own culture. I'm saying that change is an inseparable part of culture, and we shouldn't try too much to protect a culture from it (but we shouldn't actively try to destroy a culture without very good reasons -- like, I don't know, mass killings or something -- as well). Especially considering that (at least for me) people are more important than culture (while keeping in mind that culture is quite important for people). As for preferences like those you've mentioned -- actually, here in Poland I know people from the whole spectrum on each of those issues, and soft mattresses are easily available. When you don't show a person a mattress you're not really letting the person choose to sleep on a bare floor, you're forcing the person to sleep on a bare floor.
xenophanes 16y ago
I am not kidding. You are posting a very typical left wing way of thinking where you have a hard time believing people can both exist and fundamentally disagree with you. You hope they don't really mean it, or at least they are Christians so you have something unintellectual to blame (I am not). You are advocating some kind of "tolerance" of primitive cultures (consisting largely of non-intervention which is rather different than tolerance) but you have have no tolerance of opposing viewpoints within your own culture. I did not advocate forced conversion. That you refuse to differentiate between access to better ideas and depriving them of their rights is a straw man.
- krschultz 16y ago
  I don't see what's left wing about it. The basic premise of conservatism is that government should be limited, and that its primary role should be to protect people's rights from other people, the government, and other governments. Obviously, these people have a right to their property. It is being encroached upon. The issue is not, should we go through the jungle and make conversation? The issue is if Peru should allow the destruction of this group of people's property by farmers. There is nothing liberal about saying that the government should be protecting the property of these people. We have already in essence made contact. They have seen an airplane or helicopter taking a picture of them. They are all clearly looking at the camera. They know there is a world out there that they aren't a part of because they certaintly can't fly and other people can. That could make them do things they would not have done if they had not seen the airplane, so we have shattered their world view already. What I'm more interested in is if they want to keep their land or not. There are plenty of tribes in the world who know about the real world, and choose to stay in their own way of life. There was an entire American TV series about this, they brought people from tropical islands to the US and showed them everything, and most of them chose to go back. I think these people should have a choice as well, but that choice will not be there for them if their forest is destroyed.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Very typical left wing way of thinking? I'm staying out of this slugfest because there's no way anybody will end up edified by it - but in what possible way can you characterize philosophical intolerance as an exclusively left-wing trait? That's just weird.
uvdiv 16y ago
>BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. There is only one class of medicine in the world, and is scientific. Your attempt to frame science-based medicine as a racial or cultural property ("Western") lies at the root of your reasoning fallacies: you reinterpret comparison between industrialized and tribal humans as cultural/racial, regardless of whether race or culture has anything to do with it. The superiority of empirical medicine is not cultural hegemony. The life-saving knowledge of microbe theory and hygiene is not a religious belief that be can relativized with shamanist "healing."
- borism 16y ago
  There is only one class of medicine in the world, and is scientific. what is considered scientific is very often defined by culture though. I bet those tribes consider their shamans scientists, even though they won't pass our western scientific criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_medicine
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    "By definition, Alternative Medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call Alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine." --Tim Minchin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
    - borism 16y ago
      Traditional medicine != Alternative medicine, it's the only medicine available for majority of people on Earth (about 80% of people in Asia are exposed almost exclusively to it). Chinese had their medicine when we europeans were still living in caves.
      - yaix 16y ago
        There is also a european traditional medicine, only that it has been largely forgotten because scientific medicine was so much more effective. In China they never developed any scientific approach to healing, so the traditional stuff was all they had. And no, its not "that" old.
seanos 16y ago
"If not this is so typical of the american way of thinking. Yes, we are so superior lets convert them all to our [insert culture, religion etc...]. " Why is this the typical american way of thinking? Surely every culture believes theirs is superior, otherwise they wouldn't have adopted it.
- lwhi 16y ago
  It's very possible to exist in a culture without thinking that it's the best. I didn't adopt my culture, it adopted me (I was born into it).
Devilboy 16y ago
Please could we have this discussion without the ad hominem?
cynicalkane 16y ago
I wonder if anyone is seriuosly advocating forcing anyone to do anything. Yes, civilization was once murderously expansionist, then it was culturally imperialist, but I'd like to think we've got better. Remember, there are ways to make contact that don't involve oppression and/or bloodshed. Shockingly, some of them have even been tried successfully. It befuddles the hell out of me that many people here--allegedly accurate thinkers--not only can't see this, but actively dislike anyone who can. To the entire thread: ye who hate thoughtful discussion, go away.
jordan0day 16y ago
"BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. " First off, can we not call it "Western medicine?" Because what you're calling "Western medicine" happens to be practiced all over the world. I'd prefer to call it "science-based medicine" or "evidence-based medicine", although I will admit the applicability of those labels is more range-based than absolute. However, you're right. Western medicine isn't the only medicine in the world. There's also voodoo-based medicine (with "voodoo" representing any variety of "ancient chinese secret"-type of treatments). So which would you prefer to be treated with? "Western" medicine, or voodoo medicine? Also, "While we are at it lets take them our aids, diabetes, obesity etc..." You do realize AIDS originated in sub-saharan Africa, right? Not exactly the heart of modern civilization.
- Mz 16y ago
  Actually, I've pursued "alternative" medicine for treating my (very deadly) medical condition and gotten much better results than "modern" medicine can promise. I have a form of cystic fibrosis, as does my 23 year old son. I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I have not been on antibiotics for about 7 years. I have been drug free for about 18 months. My son has not been on antibiotics in nearly 13 years. He has been drug free for about 4 years. Ten years ago, I was bedridden for 3 1/2 months and spent a year at death's door. Doctor's told me "People like you don't get well. Symptom management is the name of the game." I currently live without a car, thus walk a lot, and have a full-time job. The hole in my lung has closed and my symptoms have basically all disappeared or greatly improved. Modern medicine has it's good points. But a lot of other traditions also have value. I think it is unproductive and a straw-man argument to pit them against each other. I don't see why we can't take from both and build something better than either. I've been trying to stay out of the comments in this thread about medicine because I'm basically one lone "nutcase" who is dismissed by most folks in the CF community. So you can either believe I am telling the truth or not. I really don't have a leg to stand on if you choose to think I am making up tall tales, as many people think. (And I hope you will take my post as a compliment, as a statement that you seem like a reasonable person who might listen, rather than as "argumentative" or attacking.) Peace.
  - 16y ago

araneae 16y ago

I generally agree with you except for one thing: A significant number of them may die of disease. There have been a few uncontacted tribe members that were forced to make contact with the outside world, and at least one died of TB: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=26225682776 https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=26225682776 This is quite similar to what happened in North America; the blankets with smallpox were highly unnecessary.

raganwald 16y ago

How does your perspective differ from the perspective of the missionaries who attempted to bring "salvation" to indigenous peoples around the world? How does your perspective differ from the perspectives that led to the imposition of the Residential Schools? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_Indi... Also, nothing I wrote says anything about providing them with access, it says something about destroying their culture and identity. So don't be too quick to make assumptions about what I believe or don't believe about medicine and education.

rubashov 16y ago
What about the missionaries who stopped indigenous peoples' crazy blood soaked ways and widespread human sacrifice rituals? The Aztecs in particular were quite psycho. With the daily stories of decapitated bodies and mass slayings in connection with the drug cartels in Mexico, sometimes a wonder about the cultural link back to the Aztec ways.
- raganwald 16y ago
  IIRC, the Spaniards stopped the Aztecs with smallpox and the measles. http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html But let's not quibble a minor point like that. The question I raised was simply how our perspective today differs from their perspective back in colonial times, with an eye to considering the possibility that we are fallible and that what we sincerely believe is in someone else's best interests may not be in their best interests. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't contact or help them, I'm saying we should be careful, because it may be that what we think is good for them today turns out to be bad for them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act, but isn't it worth thinking carefully before making choices?
- Naga 16y ago
  The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double the Aztecs were.

gloob 16y ago

How "white man's burden"-esque.

raganwald 16y ago
I'm here because someone helpfully provided one of my ancestors with an education into modern sugar plantation processes and methods, including a free trip to Barbados. If it hadn't been for that, I'd be in Nigeria living large on my 419 business. Blogs, 419s, what's the difference?

ThomPete 16y ago

The problem with our unproven claims is that you speak from the vantage point of the advanced alien visitors speaking on the primitive cultures behalf. I am not sure what you mean with uncivilized lifestyles. Do you mean wearing clothes? Eating with knife and fork or do you talk about dropping the bomb, invading other countries?

T_S_ 16y ago

Perhaps they have something to teach us as well. We should at least ask for directions to El Dorado, before we convert them to OS X and give them some french fries.

mwhite 16y ago

Define "better". Primitive people's lives are short, yes. But that they are uncomfortable and brutish is at best an uninformed value judgment that supports the narrative of civilization. By any good measure of happiness, they are probably happier than us. Most of them would die from diseases of civilization in the event of contact, anyway, so I don't really see how western medicine potentially extending their lives applies.

uvdiv 16y ago
>Primitive people's lives are short, yes. But that they are uncomfortable and brutish is at best an uninformed value judgment that supports the narrative of civilization. Then let them make their own value judgement. Offer them 80-year life expectancies and the extravagant luxury of modern life; let them make their own choices. Xenophanes isn't the one arguing for forced isolation -- for keeping the truth of the world secret from them.
forensic 16y ago
The shortness of tribal people's lives has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, it's pure myth. The book Sex at Dawn demonstrates this using the latest anthropology and archaeology if you want to know more. Until recently, it was normal for tribal societies to live longer on average than agricultural societies. All of the statistics that support the idea that tribal life is short were done very poorly and skewed by abortion/infanticide. Tribal societies would have the same lifespans on average as our society does today and perhaps even longer because they had far healthier diets and always got lots of exercise. However, they would keep their numbers low through infanticide and eugenics. For instance a baby with birth defects would often be allowed to die and abortions using certain drugs were normal. Anyway, the idea that tribal life was brutish, solitary and short is utterly wrong on every point. The science indicates clearly: - it was less brutish on average with more social harmony and warfare was less painful for all involved - it was not short at all, quite the contrary. Only modern agricultural societies, through scientific medicine, have begun to approach the lifespans of tribal societies who are not interfered with. This was just a myth from the very start. - it was not solitary. Our society is solitary. In a tribal society, every person is surrounded by lifelong friends and relatives at every moment of every day for their entire lives. Modern man can scarcely imagine the depths of human bonding that tribal societies experience.

paulitex 16y ago

"Our way of life is better" Ahh yes, the colonialist's mantra. Even more of a historical failure than the communist manifesto. Go look at how life 'improved' in sub saharan africa. Or the profoundly sad state of natives all over the world, in Canada, Australia, US, and beyond. Our way of life is not better. It is not for everyone. We have huge wealth and health disparity, large scale violence, drug addiction and homeless to name but a few unsavories. Your argument is a very old one - this is a 19th century discussion. As such I suggest you look at the history of colonialism, and the atrocities that resulted and continue to result because of it. Maybe start with Rwanda, it's pretty compelling.

orangecat 16y ago
Our way of life is not better. Yes, it is. Would you trade places with them? Would you want your children to? We have huge wealth and health disparity Which we could certainly eliminate by destroying all our wealth and abandoning medicine. The only thing that should tell you is that "inequality" is a poor metric. And none of this implies that it would be acceptable to forcibly impose our civilization on anyone. It does imply that we should offer them the choice.
- kevinelliott 16y ago
  It's not fair to offer that comparison after we've already been exposed to our own cultures. Of course now that we've had technology, our social traditions and structure, and advances in science and history, that it would be nearly impossible to WANT to trade places with them. However, we are a stressed out, overworked, sick society who has lost traditions such as appreciation of family, and our idea of relaxation and "living life" is a 2 week vacation once a year. Sure, we've got great tools and Xboxes and the Internet and modern medicine... but at the end of the day, 100+ million Americans are literally sick (defined by the prescribed medications that over 1 in 3 have to treat symptoms of sickness). If I had grown up in their tribe, and was given an opportunity to completely understand the pros and cons of the new society, I may just want to stay ignorant in my tribe. It's quite possible that while they're likely less intelligent, less advanced and very primitive, but happy and connected with each other and have a quality of life that comparatively (to them) is better than our way of life. At the end of the day, to me at least, quality of life is what's really important. To others, it's competition, satisfaction of proving that they are better than others, money, and egocentric activities that make them happy (and that's fine).

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

forensic 16y ago

>Preserving their backwards culture so they can continue lives of misery and suffering is just as disgusting as the Prime Directive. The point is that they are not suffering. Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, have more social harmony, deeper longer lasting social bonds, etc. All the ingredients for deep, lasting, and fulfilling happiness. They are living precisely how humans evolved to live. From the perspective of "suffering" agriculture is actually a step backwards. Nonetheless agricultural societies dominate because agricultural societies have higher populations, stronger diseases (natural disease warfare) and better military technology. It is natural that agriculture dominates and pushes out the tribal lifestyle. However on the basis of suffering/misery it is actually the agriculturalists who are worse off. A great book that details this phenomenon was recently released for the public called Sex At Dawn.

CamperBob 16y ago
Modern anthropology and the best science actually indicates that tribal hunter-gatherers experience higher levels of happiness and satisfaction than your typical citizen of an agricultural society. So does the typical Oxycontin addict. 'Happiness and satisfaction' are weasel words that ultimately have no objective meaning. Tribal hunter-gatherers have healthier diets, live longer without outside interference, No, they do not.
- forensic 16y ago
  I wasn't the one making the argument that these people are experiencing misery/suffering. Misery and suffering is no more objective than happiness and satisfaction. I would argue that both of these things are objective and can be observed in the brain and well as inferred from other criteria. >No, they do not. Yes, they do. We can go back and forth like this all day or you can make a real argument. Read SEX AT DAWN and get back to me with your criticism of their anthropology. Based on your statements regarding happiness I'm going to tentatively conclude that you're one of the ignorant engineers who has little contact with the social sciences. Why do programmers believe they know more than everyone else in subjects where they are grossly ignorant? We need a word for this. Programmer hubris or something. I guess it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect striking again.

raganwald 16y ago

I never actually said we shouldn't contact them or offer assistance. Before I go to the gym, I'll argue what I think is with your point. For those who think they should be left in isolation, why is it bad to contact them and expose them to our civilization, but good to invent new things and businesses and cultural systems in our civilization? For example, entrepreneurs invented television and birth control. These inventions changed everything for us and our culture. How is it ok for someone to invent television but not ok for us to contact an isolated tribe and show them what the rest of the world is doing? How is it ok for someone to invent a way for hetero women to make more choices about their bodies and their sexuality, but not ok for us to offer them medicine so that they can make more choices about their bodies? We hackers espouse a philosophy of creating change. How is it ok to create change for our culture but not ok to create change for theirs?

seanos 16y ago
I think it's because when we invent television we don't lose anything. Once we show these people the modern world, there is no going back. It makes it a difficult moral dilema.
- ugh 16y ago
  When we invented cars we lost our own culture’s tradition of riding horses. It used to be the case that everyone knew how to ride a horse, now only a select few decide to preserve that tradition. Even they ride only for sport and fun, a cheap imitation of what it meant to ride a horse 200 years ago. Cars viciously destroyed the role horses play in our society, that part of our culture is forever lost. (I’m not sad.)
  - seanos 16y ago
    But people can still ride a horse. A contacted tribe can never become uncontacted again. BTW I have no idea whether the right answer is to contact them or not, I am just explaining why it is a moral dilemma.
  - raganwald 16y ago

gokhan 16y ago

Check the FAQ first: http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3109-questions-and-answers-uncontacted-tribes http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3109-questions-and... But could this be because they don’t see the benefits of ‘our’ way of life? If they knew, might they want to join us? They won’t get the chance. In reality, the future offered by the settler society is to ‘join’ at the lowest possible level – often as beggars and prostitutes. History proves that tribal peoples end up in a far worse state after contact, often dead.

ojbyrne 16y ago

One of the more interesting books I've read recently - A Farewell to Alms - http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/dp/0691121354 http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Brief-Economic-History/d... has the basic argument that as a direct result of modern technology, there are people living on the planet now (in sub-saharan Africa), with the lowest standards of living ever present on this planet, significantly worse than that experienced by Paleolithic hunters and gatherers. Uncivilized lifestyles turned out not to be that brutal, and in fact modern medicine is the primary mechanism by which the poorest countries have significantly lower standards of living than undiscovered tribes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence

hristov 16y ago

Now are you sure our way of life is better? That is a rather self centered thing to say. How do you think they would do in Brazilian society with no property no education and no ability to speak the language? How much do you know about the lives of the poorest Brazilians and Peruvians? Do you think they get much modern medicine? These people would of course be poorer than the poorest brazilians and peruvians because even they (i) can speak the language and (ii) know something about the society they live in.

Mz 16y ago

Help is exactly what I would want from advanced alien visitors. I don't want them to respect my culture just because it is mine; I want something better for myself, not cultural relativism. I wish it were so simple. Culture is really not easy to transmit. Transmitting some small piece of it in isolation very often only causes problems without improving anything at all. It often destroys what was there without replacing it with anything viable. Look at the really high rates of diabetes and other issues in so many tribal groups around the world. Look at the general quality of life contact has brought them. I'm really not impressed with the track record so far of "helping" such peoples. EDIT: Here is an article (called "Diseases of Affluence") which talks about the high levels of diabetes and such that I found through HN not terribly long ago. Really fascinating piece in its own right. http://maisonneuve.org/pressroom/article/2010/nov/15/the-diseases-affluence/ http://maisonneuve.org/pressroom/article/2010/nov/15/the-dis...

haberman 16y ago

Some uncontacted people violently resist outside contact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people

DanI-S 16y ago

"Our way of life is better." The fact that this has so many upvotes /really/ lowers my high opinion of the HN readership.

AngryParsley 16y ago
The natives might disagree if they saw our lives, but they can't reply here. They don't know the Internet exists and they're illiterate. I doubt many of us would desire to live in an uncontacted tribe. People in uncontacted tribes spend most of their time getting food to avoid starvation. Sometimes they get injured or ill, but they don't have painkillers or medicine. Sometimes a kid gets appendicitis. They don't have surgery, so the kid dies. Sometimes a child is born with a cleft palette. Charities do this procedure in developing countries, but in uncontacted tribes the child is deformed for life. Based on evidence from other tribes, they're almost certainly a patriarchal society. Sorry girls, you can't be leaders when you grow up. You'll have to have birth children without painkillers or medical supervision. (Oh and there's no birth control.) Breech baby? Tough luck. And don't get attached to your kids early on; infant mortality is pretty high. Granted, their quality of life isn't going to be great even if they're contacted. And arguing on the Internet isn't going to change the outcome of this situation. But our way of life is better. There are very few places on earth where quality of life is worse than an uncontacted tribe. The list is pretty short: Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and a couple other countries. Eventually, even those failed states will progress, whereas the uncontacted tribes won't.
ugh 16y ago
Here is another way of looking at it: If you compare the way of living in the United States today to the way of living in the United States at any other point in time, do you think that you would be able to roughly order those ways of living from superior to inferior? If you think that’s possible, wouldn’t it be very weird indeed if you couldn’t similarly order geographically separated cultures?

pessimist 16y ago

The problem is that once we make contact with them, 50% will die due to disease. The rest will lead miserable dependent lives, and probably turn to alcoholism. I have seen this first hand with the Jarawa people of the Andaman Islands, and anecdotally with many other tribals. History repeats itself.

mohsen 16y ago

how could you even say that, do you even know what their way of life is?

mambodog 16y ago

As an Australian, seeing what has happened to our Aboriginal people partly as a result of our interference, and partly also just because of the incompatible nature of our societies and cultures, I'd be very concerned about how such change would affect these people. This experience is repeated among indigenous peoples the world over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Contemporary_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Contempo...

guynamedloren 16y ago

For all you know, these people may be the happiest in the entire world. Who are we to take that from them?

nerme 16y ago

OUR way of life is better? No, dude, YOUR way of life is better. If these people are brought in to our culture they're fucked. Plain and simple. What do you think they're going to do, move to the Bay Area and start a social media company? They're on the bottom rung. They've got some red body paint, some banana trees, and some thatch roofed huts. They're wealth exists solely in their own way of life. As soon as they're faced with our way of life, they're fucking worthless.

logjam 16y ago

Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to us all exactly what an "uncivilized lifestyle" is, what is "backward" about them, and exactly which "uncivilized" and "dark age" cultures you feel currently live lives which are "uncomfortable, short, and brutal." Exactly what characterizes "our way of life?" Technology? How does technology make our way of life "better?" Science? I'd advance that many of these "backwards cultures" are probably successful in large part because they are more scientific and experienced and thoughtful about the worlds they inhabit, than oh, say, the average conservative Republican in the "civilized" U.S...who denies global warming, thinks education is dangerous, wants to halt stem-cell research, believes in the efficacy of prayer in health care, etc etc. Maybe we could continue our discussion with a glance at the now classic 1990 New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that African American men in the middle of one of our modern and "civilized" cities and countries in the late twentieth century have a lower life expectancy than their counterparts in Bangladesh. "Dark ages quality?" "Myths and prejudices" You mean racism? Nationalism? "In God We Trust?" http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199001183220306 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199001183220306 Maybe we could move on to a thesis dozens of historians share, that the "primitive" Native Americans gave us MORE in the way of transfer of technology and culture than we provided. The agricultural knowledge passed on, the result of generations of careful observation and experimentation by Native Americans, was immense. Beyond agricultural technology and an enlightened, observational ecology, it's not even clear that the average European knew you could take a damned bath with water regularly as a healthful practice before immigrants gaped at Native Americans doing just that. More importantly, as Ian Frazier notes in the first chapter of "On the Rez" which I invite all the cultural imperialists here to read, at the time of Columbus there were probably about "eleven people in all of Europe who could do what they wanted." Amerigo Vespucci had brought back news that in the New World, "every one is his own master." Frazier goes on to show the profound impact Native American thought had on the idea of personal freedom among European immigrants still steeped in monarchy, and what that brought forth in America.

pyre 16y ago

> We should give them access to technology and to our > way of life. Our way of life is better. So, we should like emulate Canada over the mid-20th century, and kidnap children from tribal lands and force them into orphanages/boarding school where most of them will be abused physically and sexually in the process of trying to 'train the savage' out of them? edit: Missed raganwald's post and Wikipedia link

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

“If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.” -- Stephen Hawking The truth, in both theory and practice, is that there is no pure, fair sharing of technology. It always, in nearly every single situation throughout world history, has ended in blood, subjugation, and/or slavery. And, it likely always will. Cultures don't just switch over to a "more superior" one; they're almost always forced to. Think of how many people died or were conquered through history just so that we could all be able to flush a toilet and it actually go somewhere. Absurd, but apropos.

wazoox 16y ago
> The truth, in both theory and practice, is that there is no pure, fair sharing of technology. It always, in nearly every single situation throughout world history, has ended in blood, subjugation, and/or slavery. And, it likely always will. However this always happened between social apes. E.T. aliens probably would be completely different from us (see "Ender's game" for instance) and may very well act in different ways and follow different motivations. So we don't know, really.

techiferous 16y ago

"Our way of life is better." Are you asserting that you know their culture well enough to make a meaningful comparison with your culture?

jeisenberg 16y ago

This response is a joke, right? What constitutes a 'civilized' lifestyle? Your concepts of 'backwards' and 'civilized' are grounded in normative assumptions about what is right and wrong. I am not a post-structuralist, but I expect someone to acknowledge his or her normative stance before degrading a culture different than your own. What do you mean when you say 'There is nothing good?' What do you define as 'good?' There are 'tribes' whose languages don't even contain a sense of linear time, which goes against Chomsky's universal theory of language. Here is a recent article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_... No past, no present. I am sorry, but your narrow, ethnocentric mind can't cognitively understand what that kind of existence is like. Look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology This varies across cultures and languages. At least pretend to respect difference.

xenophanes 16y ago
Not a joke. You're mistaken in your assumption that I am ignorant of philosophy just b/c A) I didn't cite anyone impressive in my initial comment B) we disagree. Yes I am aware of Chomsky (in more detail than New Yorker articles offer). Yes I am aware of what ontology is. Yes I have studied philosophy. Do you want me to counter-cite philosophers for you to read? You might learn something by reading _The Myth of the Framework_ and _The Open Society And Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. If you want to trash freedom, human rights, peaceful cooperation, and other aspects of modern Western civilization, and deny their objective value, don't pretend there is no serious and thoughtful stuff published on the other side and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Next time you want to call someone closed minded, try to do it without ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments don't make you come off as tolerant and willing to have an open-ended discussion where you don't assume in advance who is right.
- jeisenberg 16y ago
  You certainly don't argue or write like you studied anything but Glenn Beck's wikipedia page. Can you please explain to me how I am 'trashing' freedom, and human rights? Cultural rights ARE human rights. And please explain to me how Karl Popper somehow supports your theory of 'objective value.' Popper's arguments concern the contingency of analyses. Contingency, not objectivity. I only reserve the ad hom's for close-minded dipshits like yourself.

dkarl 16y ago

It won't be better for them. It may not better for their children. It will probably be better for their grandchildren... if we continue to be generous. But by that time we'll probably be disgusted and resentful because they haven't assimilated well enough to be productive members of the middle class. The alternative, of course, is forcible assimilation and cultural extinction, which would be a horrific fate inflicted on two generations for the sake of unborn ones. To accomplish what you suggest, it seems like the "cleanest" and most humane way would be to kidnap every child under ten and every subsequent child born into the tribe and put them up (separately) for adoption in wealthy countries. Let everyone older than ten live out their lives undisturbed, except for the tragic disappearance of all of their children. I challenge you to either endorse this method or describe a way that causes less suffering.

raquo 16y ago

Obligatory: http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

marquis 16y ago

Let them decide for themselves. Consider those who chose to explore, chose to leave their home village, chose to travel across continents. The members of that tribe who want to know more will explore if/when they decide to do so, and only then should they discover what worlds lie outside of theirs, not by force by us. Perhaps an advanced civilization would think the same. They have seen us go to the moon and send probes into space, and hopefully this would be sufficient for them to understand that we too, wish to explore and are ready for more knowledge.

dools 16y ago

Our way of life is better This is a dangerous and destructive attitude without exception.

hyperbovine 16y ago

This is the old noble savage debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage). As evidenced by the fact that Western societies have engaged in it for at least the past 500 years, it's way less settled than you make it out to be. Convincing arguments exist for both sides.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dmg8 16y ago

It sounds as if you're envisioning these people being painlessly integrated into modern society, perhaps retrained as plumbers, software developers, etc., then joining Brazil's (extremely small) middle class. This is just not realistic. In practice, these people joining "civilization" would almost certainly mean ending up living in grinding poverty in an extremely violent "favela" (Brazil's ubiquoutous shanty towns) with drugs and guns everywhere.

tc23emp 16y ago

We won't get a chance to offer them a better life if the illegal loggers kill them off with guns and disease first - a process that already began during the rubber boom. The fact that illegal loggers are even there to begin with shows that our morality is not greater than our greed in the pursuit of resources. We may have good intentions, but, if these tribes are not completely protected, elements within our society will slowly take every liberty with the land and its people as has been done countless times in the history. We know nothing of aliens. Any speculation is a reflection on ourselves and, therefore, it is more common to believe that aliens would annihilate us rather than be interested in improving our way of life.

jordan0day 16y ago

I don't know why the belief in the "noble savage" persists to this day, but your response is exactly what I would hope for from a rational human being. Certainly there probably is an optimal way to go about contacting a tribe like this and "bringing them up to speed" with the rest of the world, and I admit that there probably isn't a single person on this earth who actually knows what that optimal way is. But to deny these people even the chance at a better life because we're busy hand-wringing over how it will affect their culture is terrible.

yason 16y ago

I hope that was sarcasm because as such it would be great and insightful, and very symbolic of Western civilication throughout the centuries. If not, I disagree pretty much with everything you said. Myself, I think Shaw grokked it perfectly with his "Don't do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same".

lisperforlife 16y ago

How do you know that they live a miserable life or that they suffer? Do you think they remain uncontacted because they do not have the means to contact? They have remained uncontacted because of their choice. They live close to nature and there is nothing wrong with that. They have their own society and their own culture. Their life is as complicated and as rich as your life is. How do you measure how civilized a culture is? If it is their choice to remain un-contacted, they should be free to live that way. You cannot make an assumption that they would die young. Their bodies would have developed systems to counter most of the natural viruses and other health aspects there. Their upbringing would have taught them the skills to live in harmony with the forest. Their brains would not have developed the adequate techniques to survive in our society. Getting them out of there is the worst possible thing that you can do to them. They have got their technology and we have ours. What is comfort to you is only a conditioned response? Car is a great comfort only if you want to travel long distances. They have crafted their lifestyle in such a manner that they do not need such comforts. Most of their building materials and techniques would take care of air conditioning and cooling. They consume so few resources that their carbon foot print is probably negative. As far as education is concerned, we use this education to survive in this society, to earn, to create and transact with goods and so on. Their society is not built on such structures and transactions. They would have different structures and transactions. One is not necessarily superior or inferior. They are merely different.

sliverstorm 16y ago

How do you know they are uncivilized? I think you are making assumptions. If they are civilized... I know of at least one old-fashioned civilized culture relatively estranged from Western influence that seems to be doing well, at least in some regards: http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/longevity/page/2 http://www.menshealth.com/fitness/longevity/page/2

Mz 16y ago
Excerpt: Their incidence rate is at or near zero in just about every category, including diabetes, vascular disease, and colorectal cancer. Age seems to have no effect on them, either: The Tarahumara runner who won the 1993 Leadville ultramarathon was 55 years old. Plus, their supernatural invulnerability isn't just limited to their bodies; the Tarahumara have mastered the secret of happiness as well, living as benignly as bodhisattvas in a world free of theft, murder, suicide, and cruelty. Great article. Thanks so much for sharing. Very relevant for me, I mean to my life (as I get well when doctors say it cannot be done -- and I live without a car and walk a lot).

ra 16y ago

I suspect you are baiting us but I'll bite. > Our way of life is better. I think you are making a massive assumption. What do you know about their life? How do you know they don't love the forest as if it is their own mother and father? Do you really think that they haven't seen their world destroyed around them, by us, and fear that their world is hanging on by a thread? Do you really think that if they wanted to be part of our world, they wouldn't come out of the forest; even out of simple curiosity? I think raganwald is spot on.

logicalmind 16y ago

You should read the book "Ishmael" and see if it changes your view. http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Adventure-Spirit-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407 http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Adventure-Spirit-Daniel-Quinn/...

Herald_MJ 16y ago

I'm not sure if I agree with you, but I really do appreciate you making this point so we can openly debate the merits (and pitfalls) of this perspective.

StuffMaster 16y ago

They're living exactly as nature intended them to. Aren't animals best off in their natural environments? You obviously don't know how 'contact' works out. They would likely become alcoholic slum-dwellers, but hey, they have TV! Your attitude is the same as China's regarding Tibet. "Save Tibet!" "Why?" "The Chinese are destroying their culture and way of life by modernizing them! Forcing them to go to school, learn Chinese and math and business and stuff, to get jobs..." Oh wait...