13 ms·

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 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.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  I don't know the answer either, but I sure as hell know it's not my decision to make for somebody else. Your point about possible alien intelligences is an excellent one. How would we want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot? I don't know my answer -- I suspect I would be all for change even if it were uncomfortable. But I absolutely know that I would be the one to make my personal decision about the matter. That's not for others to decide for me. We have a word for a situation where beings are allowed to live in fake isolation, while we secretly observe them and feel great about ourselves for letting them live as close to their natural state as we can allow. It's called a "zoo"
  - raganwald 16y ago
    I don't know what they're going to do here. The isolated tribe in India live in a protected zone, but the government regularly offers them a chance to make contact, and the tribe drives them off with weapons. That's a way forward that is neither dragging them into the 21st century nor running a zoo. I'm not advocating for that, of course, just pointing out that contact/isolation is a false dichotomy.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      Some members of the tribe drive them off with weapons. Others are children who do not get to make a choice until AFTER they have been indoctrinated with the tribe's values. We see the same problem in the Muslim world. In some countries, Muslim women are treated as property and not allowed outside without a chaperone. How can they make a free choice to join the West when their male guardians say "no" for them?
d3x 16y ago
Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting. How do you know their lives are so bad? From what the video showed they seem to be doing just fine. I would rather be A West coast armchair philosopher than an elitest who feels he is so superior to other people that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking. FYI: one of the main justifications for slavery - Slavery was good for the slaves; the slaveowners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction.
- lwhi 16y ago
  This is the post I'd give a 100 upvotes to.
- Charuru 16y ago
  Hypothetically what would you do if these tribes had a system of slavery?
  - bugsy 16y ago
    What are you doing about the non-hypothetical slavery in the US right now?
    - Charuru 16y ago
      You're talking about human trafficking/sex slaves? It's already illegal. I leave that up to the cops.
      - Helianthus16 16y ago
        I hope he was talking about something a little more subtle, like the fact that we have so many Hispanic people here without citizenship and have therefore created a sort of lower subservient class. But probably not, slavery's a bit too strong a term unless there's a somewhat-mitigating "wage" in front of it.
logjam 16y ago
I've rarely seen more assumptions and projections made in a few paragraphs. On the one hand, you judge these cultures as "primitive" and "caveman". Then in the next breath you decry pomposity and paternalism. Yeah, we've found over and over again that contact with "primitive" cultures destroys the cultures. Tell that to Native Americans in both South and North America. Their "primitive" culture could have taught our "modernity" plenty...that is, if we'd taken a few minutes to listen to these "primitives" before we practiced a policy of systematic genocide. Don't arrogantly assume there is anything wonderful about your "modern" life with carcinogens and pollution all around, man made global destruction of the environment, and nuclear destruction of the whole fucking planet just a half hour away. Talk about arrogance...and ignorance.
- varjag 16y ago
  Since you seem to subscribe for the concept of "noble savage", I should mention that much of the "primitive" tribes indeed do wage wars upon neighbours. That they are not commiting acts of large scale genocide has more to do with their technical insophistication than with any inherent set of cultural values.
bugsy 16y ago
He is not making the decision. Uncontacted tribes are extremely aware of the western culture outside their area. Many tribes choose not to make contact, and when contact is forced, they might even kill the enemies who refuse to leave them alone. There are few-to-none cases of tribes for whom forced contact with westerners* has been beneficial to them. * If you don't like the term westerner, feel free to insert or state your own preferred term and move on rather than argue the term in an attempt to change the topic.
- lwhi 16y ago
  some uncontacted tribes. I'm not sure you can speak for all of them ;)
nerfhammer 16y ago
While I agree totally with the points you've made, I don't know how to balance that against the nearly unavoidable side effect that contacting them may very likely end up killing most of them from diseases to which they have no resistance.
- borism 16y ago
  there is medicine you know, we don't live in XV century? it's the thought that kills indigenous tribes, not disease.
yesbabyyes 16y ago
Pardon me, but while you are certainly well-spoken I cannot help but notice that you present two options only: either someone wants to keep knowledge and culture from "them", or "they" get to decide whether they want to partake in our ways. I find that large parts of the discussion are missing another point of view: perhaps we could also learn something from them?
Helianthus16 16y ago
I would assert that the problem is in the problem and not in Star Trek's analysis of the problem. That is to say, the problem of interference and controlling choice is not an easy one. Star Trek portrays one viewpoint and its pitfalls. That's not muddying, that's _clarifying_ how muddy it already s.
guelo 16y ago
One thing that people in this conversation are overlooking is that if these tribes were contacted they wouldn't be brought into an American culture, they wouldn't get quality health care and internet access. There are millions of indigenous people living throughout South America and they mostly live in squalid slums. Personally I'd rather live in the jungle.
sliverstorm 16y ago
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. On the other hand, can they even make an informed decision? I mean, heck, we let the FDA make decisions for us every day. 99.9% of us are not chemist or biologist enough to make a real decision on many consumables and drugs, so we let the more informed make that call It's true, there's a whole mess of slippery ground around this subject, but is it actually ethical to allow someone to make a choice if they cannot fully comprehend the ramifications etc? (honest question)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  If it were unethical, then the entire system of voting in a democracy would be unethical. The simple fact is: nobody is informed enough to make the kinds of decisions they are responsible for making in life. Many times doctors don't know what the heck they are doing, lawyers have no idea which way the court might rule, economists can theorize all day long but couldn't tell you the GDP five years out. I would say something pithy like "we live in a complicated world that nobody can master", yet the sad fact is that we reach the limit of understanding possible consequences to social changes after the number of people involves climbs past one or two. There simply is no way for anybody to make an informed decision about these folks -- us or them. We can cite statistics or tell stories about similar situations, but that's about it. But whether or not an informed or good decision can be made is a completely different question than who's responsibility it is to make one. If I am very sick, there might be nobody on the planet that can tell me how my treatment might work out, but that doesn't mean that somehow I should surrender that decision to a doctor. In fact, just the opposite is true: the more unknown and hard-to-understand the situation, the more important it is for all of us to let the individuals involved make the choices. It is, after all, those people who are going to have to live with the consequences. EDIT: Also remember that it's not just the individuals who are affected: it's also all of their descendants. My great ancestor who fought the Roman conquerors in Europe probably had a much different opinion of the Romans than I do today. He and I disagree, but I fully support the fact that it was his decision to make, not the Romans'. I also feel that it was best that the Romans won. These opinions are not self-contradictory: I fully believe that individuals are the ones who are supposed to make these decisions about themselves, even if they make what to all intents and purposes look like the wrong choices. For any of the rest of us to step outside the system and start making choices for those involved is an awful affront to the dignity of man. (Sorry for the over-the-top rhetoric. Like I said, it's a pet peeve)
logicalmind 16y ago
You should really read the book "Ishmael". It explores the end-game of our "way of life" and gives thoughts to alternatives. It doesn't involve an extraordinarily intelligent alien showing us the way, but an alternatively evolved intelligence here on earth.

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.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I don't know the answer either, but I sure as hell know it's not my decision to make for somebody else. Your point about possible alien intelligences is an excellent one. How would we want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot? I don't know my answer -- I suspect I would be all for change even if it were uncomfortable. But I absolutely know that I would be the one to make my personal decision about the matter. That's not for others to decide for me. We have a word for a situation where beings are allowed to live in fake isolation, while we secretly observe them and feel great about ourselves for letting them live as close to their natural state as we can allow. It's called a "zoo"
- raganwald 16y ago
  I don't know what they're going to do here. The isolated tribe in India live in a protected zone, but the government regularly offers them a chance to make contact, and the tribe drives them off with weapons. That's a way forward that is neither dragging them into the 21st century nor running a zoo. I'm not advocating for that, of course, just pointing out that contact/isolation is a false dichotomy.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Some members of the tribe drive them off with weapons. Others are children who do not get to make a choice until AFTER they have been indoctrinated with the tribe's values. We see the same problem in the Muslim world. In some countries, Muslim women are treated as property and not allowed outside without a chaperone. How can they make a free choice to join the West when their male guardians say "no" for them?

d3x 16y ago

Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting. How do you know their lives are so bad? From what the video showed they seem to be doing just fine. I would rather be A West coast armchair philosopher than an elitest who feels he is so superior to other people that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking. FYI: one of the main justifications for slavery - Slavery was good for the slaves; the slaveowners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction.

lwhi 16y ago
This is the post I'd give a 100 upvotes to.
Charuru 16y ago
Hypothetically what would you do if these tribes had a system of slavery?
- bugsy 16y ago
  What are you doing about the non-hypothetical slavery in the US right now?
  - Charuru 16y ago
    You're talking about human trafficking/sex slaves? It's already illegal. I leave that up to the cops.
    - Helianthus16 16y ago
      I hope he was talking about something a little more subtle, like the fact that we have so many Hispanic people here without citizenship and have therefore created a sort of lower subservient class. But probably not, slavery's a bit too strong a term unless there's a somewhat-mitigating "wage" in front of it.

logjam 16y ago

I've rarely seen more assumptions and projections made in a few paragraphs. On the one hand, you judge these cultures as "primitive" and "caveman". Then in the next breath you decry pomposity and paternalism. Yeah, we've found over and over again that contact with "primitive" cultures destroys the cultures. Tell that to Native Americans in both South and North America. Their "primitive" culture could have taught our "modernity" plenty...that is, if we'd taken a few minutes to listen to these "primitives" before we practiced a policy of systematic genocide. Don't arrogantly assume there is anything wonderful about your "modern" life with carcinogens and pollution all around, man made global destruction of the environment, and nuclear destruction of the whole fucking planet just a half hour away. Talk about arrogance...and ignorance.

varjag 16y ago
Since you seem to subscribe for the concept of "noble savage", I should mention that much of the "primitive" tribes indeed do wage wars upon neighbours. That they are not commiting acts of large scale genocide has more to do with their technical insophistication than with any inherent set of cultural values.

bugsy 16y ago

He is not making the decision. Uncontacted tribes are extremely aware of the western culture outside their area. Many tribes choose not to make contact, and when contact is forced, they might even kill the enemies who refuse to leave them alone. There are few-to-none cases of tribes for whom forced contact with westerners* has been beneficial to them. * If you don't like the term westerner, feel free to insert or state your own preferred term and move on rather than argue the term in an attempt to change the topic.

lwhi 16y ago
some uncontacted tribes. I'm not sure you can speak for all of them ;)

nerfhammer 16y ago

While I agree totally with the points you've made, I don't know how to balance that against the nearly unavoidable side effect that contacting them may very likely end up killing most of them from diseases to which they have no resistance.

borism 16y ago
there is medicine you know, we don't live in XV century? it's the thought that kills indigenous tribes, not disease.

yesbabyyes 16y ago

Pardon me, but while you are certainly well-spoken I cannot help but notice that you present two options only: either someone wants to keep knowledge and culture from "them", or "they" get to decide whether they want to partake in our ways. I find that large parts of the discussion are missing another point of view: perhaps we could also learn something from them?

Helianthus16 16y ago

I would assert that the problem is in the problem and not in Star Trek's analysis of the problem. That is to say, the problem of interference and controlling choice is not an easy one. Star Trek portrays one viewpoint and its pitfalls. That's not muddying, that's _clarifying_ how muddy it already s.

guelo 16y ago

One thing that people in this conversation are overlooking is that if these tribes were contacted they wouldn't be brought into an American culture, they wouldn't get quality health care and internet access. There are millions of indigenous people living throughout South America and they mostly live in squalid slums. Personally I'd rather live in the jungle.

sliverstorm 16y ago

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. On the other hand, can they even make an informed decision? I mean, heck, we let the FDA make decisions for us every day. 99.9% of us are not chemist or biologist enough to make a real decision on many consumables and drugs, so we let the more informed make that call It's true, there's a whole mess of slippery ground around this subject, but is it actually ethical to allow someone to make a choice if they cannot fully comprehend the ramifications etc? (honest question)

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
If it were unethical, then the entire system of voting in a democracy would be unethical. The simple fact is: nobody is informed enough to make the kinds of decisions they are responsible for making in life. Many times doctors don't know what the heck they are doing, lawyers have no idea which way the court might rule, economists can theorize all day long but couldn't tell you the GDP five years out. I would say something pithy like "we live in a complicated world that nobody can master", yet the sad fact is that we reach the limit of understanding possible consequences to social changes after the number of people involves climbs past one or two. There simply is no way for anybody to make an informed decision about these folks -- us or them. We can cite statistics or tell stories about similar situations, but that's about it. But whether or not an informed or good decision can be made is a completely different question than who's responsibility it is to make one. If I am very sick, there might be nobody on the planet that can tell me how my treatment might work out, but that doesn't mean that somehow I should surrender that decision to a doctor. In fact, just the opposite is true: the more unknown and hard-to-understand the situation, the more important it is for all of us to let the individuals involved make the choices. It is, after all, those people who are going to have to live with the consequences. EDIT: Also remember that it's not just the individuals who are affected: it's also all of their descendants. My great ancestor who fought the Roman conquerors in Europe probably had a much different opinion of the Romans than I do today. He and I disagree, but I fully support the fact that it was his decision to make, not the Romans'. I also feel that it was best that the Romans won. These opinions are not self-contradictory: I fully believe that individuals are the ones who are supposed to make these decisions about themselves, even if they make what to all intents and purposes look like the wrong choices. For any of the rest of us to step outside the system and start making choices for those involved is an awful affront to the dignity of man. (Sorry for the over-the-top rhetoric. Like I said, it's a pet peeve)

logicalmind 16y ago

You should really read the book "Ishmael". It explores the end-game of our "way of life" and gives thoughts to alternatives. It doesn't involve an extraordinarily intelligent alien showing us the way, but an alternatively evolved intelligence here on earth.