15 ms·

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

by 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.
        xenophanes 16y ago
        I am not programmed with these views. I grew up in an environment heavily leaning the other way. Then I rethought things on my own initiative. I am open to discussion including lengthy discussion. HN is not a suitable place for that. Why don't we talk here: http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/ http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/ You can also read some of my philosophy if you like (if you think I am programmed by someone, please let me know who I've copied here! :) http://fallibleideas.com/ http://fallibleideas.com/
        16y ago
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

by d3x 16y ago

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.
      - xenophanes 16y ago
        I am not programmed with these views. I grew up in an environment heavily leaning the other way. Then I rethought things on my own initiative. I am open to discussion including lengthy discussion. HN is not a suitable place for that. Why don't we talk here: http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/ http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list/ You can also read some of my philosophy if you like (if you think I am programmed by someone, please let me know who I've copied here! :) http://fallibleideas.com/ http://fallibleideas.com/
        16y ago

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