3 ms·

> They see it as some great holy mission from god to go out into the hinterlands and convert the local people from their local existing belief system to their o

> They see it as some great holy mission from god to go out into the hinterlands and convert the local people from their local existing belief system to their own particular form of Christianity. Call me apologist, but I can see no real problem with that. They are willing to take risks and have enough motivation to spend resources. Whatever I think about their belief system in my opinion they are free to do that. It's not 1800s, if the given population doesn't like missionaries, as far as I'm aware it's equally free not to listen to them. Or to throw them out.

timcobb 12d ago
Cargo culting is still a thing, the power imbalance is still real here. Kicking people out is generally much trickier than letting them in, these aren't simple things. Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart.
- ericmay 12d ago
  > Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart. Why not?
  - walrus01 12d ago
    At the risk of taking the bait, what percentage of PNG highland villagers living in grass thatched huts do you think have 24x7 electricity and broadband Internet and intermediate to advanced level literacy in one of the Internet's major languages?
    - ericmay 12d ago
      It’s not bait. I don’t think the OP that I responded to was speaking about the mechanics of introducing these populations to the Internet (they’re welcome to correct me) but that they shouldn’t be introduced to such things or that the introduction would be tantamount to exploitation of some sort.
      - walrus01 12d ago
        I read it more as that a remote highlands PNG villager is not "innoculated" against the concept of, and is not aware of the methodologies that will be used by odd foreigners who have a well thought out plan to convert people to their specific ideology. Like, if you're out shopping and some person starts up a weirdly friendly conversation with you that leads to a MLM sales pitch, you already know that's a thing which exists and why you're almost certainly not interested in participating even before the pitch arrives.
        ericmay 12d ago
        I see- your interpretation may be the correct one.
    - ggsp 12d ago
      [flagged]
    - anon291 12d ago
      It is immoral to treat another human being as too stupid to be exposed to others and worthy of your protection because you view them as primitive.
      - hackinthebochs 11d ago
        It's also immoral to expose isolated populations to all manner of the modern world's vices, optimized to be maximally addictive and maximally extractive, for which they have zero defense or even knowledge of their dangers.
        anon291 11d ago
        That's a decision for them to make. If they don't want it by all means don't force it. But to say you shouldn't talk to them is unfathomably cruel.
        esafak 11d ago
        Missionaries aren't there to inform the locals but to persuade them. They are intellectually dishonest.
        hackinthebochs 11d ago
        But they're not equipped to decide whether they want it or not. It's like offering drugs to children saying they can choose if they want it. Children simply aren't equipped to make that decision, neither are people in these populations. I don't think we should keep them isolated, but contact should be limited initially. The technology we introduce them should be limited, enough to increase their quality of life and eliminate disease and so on without being utterly disruptive. Over time more technology and information can be introduced. No population should be kept living a life we would consider extreme poverty out of some noble ideal. But we also shouldn't completely disrupt their way of life out of a different noble ideal. Wealth as we understand it isn't the only thing of value. Human connection, meaning anchored in community and deep roots, a sense of belonging and so on, are what really matter. Introducing modernity to such populations will sweep all of that away in one motion. These people would be left adrift in an alien world devoid of personal meaning, their only solace whatever addiction appeals to them most.
  - nisiddharth 12d ago
    I don't think they even have electricity, let alone the internet.
- account42 12d ago
  These missionaries don't come in with an army. Its more often small families or a couple of individual vs entire villages of natives and the "conversion" is done via talking, persistence and kindness rather than by force. > Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart. Shouldn't that be a good thing according to your logic? Its not like the global ideas mart is less different from their own society than what the missionaries bring and it would be quite presumptuous to say that your beliefs or those that you consider "global ideas" are better for as yet untouched tribes than those of christian missionaries.
xg15 12d ago
> It's not 1800s, if the given population doesn't like missionaries, as far as I'm aware it's equally free not to listen to them. Or to throw them out. The given population doesn't know that though...
- relevant_stats 12d ago
  You claim they think they have to listen to missionaries?
- Gareth321 12d ago
  Know what? They don't know that they can not listen to people? I don't believe that at all.
- account42 12d ago
  That argument would necessitate treating them like children rather than adults who can think and choose for themselves. I don't think this is a healthy approach that would work out well at all.
PhunkyPhil 12d ago
One of the problems is the power dynamic westernized/developed societies have. The article talks about just that: Australians brought shells in and basically one-shotted a rich culture for their own gain via hyper inflation. If a missionaries message was basically "Believe in God and you'll have limitless shells", and backed it up with a crate of shells, they would all be converts.

timcobb 12d ago

Cargo culting is still a thing, the power imbalance is still real here. Kicking people out is generally much trickier than letting them in, these aren't simple things. Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart.

ericmay 12d ago
> Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart. Why not?
- walrus01 12d ago
  At the risk of taking the bait, what percentage of PNG highland villagers living in grass thatched huts do you think have 24x7 electricity and broadband Internet and intermediate to advanced level literacy in one of the Internet's major languages?
  - ericmay 12d ago
    It’s not bait. I don’t think the OP that I responded to was speaking about the mechanics of introducing these populations to the Internet (they’re welcome to correct me) but that they shouldn’t be introduced to such things or that the introduction would be tantamount to exploitation of some sort.
    - walrus01 12d ago
      I read it more as that a remote highlands PNG villager is not "innoculated" against the concept of, and is not aware of the methodologies that will be used by odd foreigners who have a well thought out plan to convert people to their specific ideology. Like, if you're out shopping and some person starts up a weirdly friendly conversation with you that leads to a MLM sales pitch, you already know that's a thing which exists and why you're almost certainly not interested in participating even before the pitch arrives.
      - ericmay 12d ago
        I see- your interpretation may be the correct one.
  - ggsp 12d ago
    [flagged]
  - anon291 12d ago
    It is immoral to treat another human being as too stupid to be exposed to others and worthy of your protection because you view them as primitive.
    - hackinthebochs 11d ago
      It's also immoral to expose isolated populations to all manner of the modern world's vices, optimized to be maximally addictive and maximally extractive, for which they have zero defense or even knowledge of their dangers.
      - anon291 11d ago
        That's a decision for them to make. If they don't want it by all means don't force it. But to say you shouldn't talk to them is unfathomably cruel.
        esafak 11d ago
        Missionaries aren't there to inform the locals but to persuade them. They are intellectually dishonest.
        hackinthebochs 11d ago
        But they're not equipped to decide whether they want it or not. It's like offering drugs to children saying they can choose if they want it. Children simply aren't equipped to make that decision, neither are people in these populations. I don't think we should keep them isolated, but contact should be limited initially. The technology we introduce them should be limited, enough to increase their quality of life and eliminate disease and so on without being utterly disruptive. Over time more technology and information can be introduced. No population should be kept living a life we would consider extreme poverty out of some noble ideal. But we also shouldn't completely disrupt their way of life out of a different noble ideal. Wealth as we understand it isn't the only thing of value. Human connection, meaning anchored in community and deep roots, a sense of belonging and so on, are what really matter. Introducing modernity to such populations will sweep all of that away in one motion. These people would be left adrift in an alien world devoid of personal meaning, their only solace whatever addiction appeals to them most.
- nisiddharth 12d ago
  I don't think they even have electricity, let alone the internet.
account42 12d ago
These missionaries don't come in with an army. Its more often small families or a couple of individual vs entire villages of natives and the "conversion" is done via talking, persistence and kindness rather than by force. > Remote populations aren't global idea consumers at the internet-accessible global ideas mart. Shouldn't that be a good thing according to your logic? Its not like the global ideas mart is less different from their own society than what the missionaries bring and it would be quite presumptuous to say that your beliefs or those that you consider "global ideas" are better for as yet untouched tribes than those of christian missionaries.

xg15 12d ago

> It's not 1800s, if the given population doesn't like missionaries, as far as I'm aware it's equally free not to listen to them. Or to throw them out. The given population doesn't know that though...

relevant_stats 12d ago
You claim they think they have to listen to missionaries?
Gareth321 12d ago
Know what? They don't know that they can not listen to people? I don't believe that at all.
account42 12d ago
That argument would necessitate treating them like children rather than adults who can think and choose for themselves. I don't think this is a healthy approach that would work out well at all.

PhunkyPhil 12d ago

One of the problems is the power dynamic westernized/developed societies have. The article talks about just that: Australians brought shells in and basically one-shotted a rich culture for their own gain via hyper inflation. If a missionaries message was basically "Believe in God and you'll have limitless shells", and backed it up with a crate of shells, they would all be converts.