7 ms·

The (Star Trek's) Prime Directive is not something worthwhile to be considered here? The representatives of these people (the ones with bows and other kind of w

The (Star Trek's) Prime Directive is not something worthwhile to be considered here? The representatives of these people (the ones with bows and other kind of weapons that dare to face the outsiders) are stating clearly their policy. Maybe it is us that must get over our desires to intrude supposedly on someone else's benefit.

Anderkent 13y ago
The representatives of these people are hardly in a situation where they can make an informed decision. Even if they were, they have no right of condemning their children to such life.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  We are getting into politics here. We all have representatives and policy makers that are deciding all the time for us and we also have to support the consequences of their decisions, no mater how informed they were.
- annnnd 13y ago
  That doesn't really matter. If a girl refuses to go out with you, she might not be in a position where she can make an informed decision. And she is possibly depriving her future children of a magnificent father, condemning them to life without you. But you should still respect her "NO". On a more serious note, given some historic evidence how our contact with other tribes ended (pick any tribe, anytime, anywhere) I am both surprised and happy that they exist. I hope they stay the same for as long as possible and may we never learn anything about them.
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    But if a man is jumping of a cliff because he thinks he can fly, you should not respect his 'NO' when trying to catch him. Your serious argument is one of the little valid points raised so far. And I agree, we might not be in a position to help them now. But the statements that even if we could bring them to our society in a humane manner we still shouldn't, because they're clearly fine as they are... That just disgusts me.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      They're not jumping off a cliff. They've been doing fine (insofar as they're surviving with a small population) for some 60 thousand years. First contact alone will probably kill them with diseases (a well-documented phenomenon). More akin to a guy standing on a ledge of a cliff, albeit precarious but doing fine; if you try to help him, he'll probably fall and die fast. He knows this, and he's telling you to stay the he11 away. That said, I am sympathetic with your basic view. Les Stroud's Beyond Survival was fascinating, but the recurring theme of "and this ancient people is about to die out or lose their culture" struck me as "well, if doing stupid things[1] isn't survivable then maybe those ways should change, and the consequences of sticking to them are natural." The Sentinese however seem to be holding it together pretty well; not advancing, but living on what is otherwise a stereotypical tropical paradise island (food growing on trees, good climate, water), methinks they've achieved some form of comfortable equilibrium and are doing pretty well (I'm sure some here on HN are thinking "I'd like to join them"). Someone mentioned above "your 100 kids will leave the island, move to India, and become call center employees". That vs. where & how they're living now, I'm not so sure "bring[ing] them to our society in a humane manner" really is. Someday it will happen, someday modern life will crash into their ancient and stable culture, someday they will have to deal with new diseases and cell phones and high-speed transport, and "someday" probably isn't very long from now. "But the kids need to do X and Y and Z!" my wife declares. "They're content and playing nicely with their toys and crayons," I'll reply. "Let them enjoy it a little longer." [1] - the clincher was a tribe that fishes by dangling bare hooks in the ocean for hours while sitting on poles. I'm amazed that culture lasted so long. Yeah, they need some help.
      - dennisgorelik 13y ago
        It's not about their interests. It's about our interests of preserving that ancient culture for our research purposes.
        thret 13y ago
        I was going to say the same thing. Their scientific value as a primitive society preserved against all odds is something we will never see again. To destroy it on a whim would be akin to killing the last dodo for food. Some type of hidden observation as in the movie Insurrection might be worthwhile though? Someone should ask the NSA, are they really comfortable with these people NOT being monitored constantly? They could be a terrorist threat?
  - Chris2048 13y ago
    > If a girl refuses to go out with you I think you're unnecessarily conflating this with another topic entirely.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      I think he made the point quite well. "No" means "no", and they're saying "no" pretty emphatically and consistently - and no amount of "but I'll make your life so much better" trumps that.
      - fc2 13y ago
        The adults are saying "no", the children just have to go along with that choice that was made for them. This is arguably a form of coercion because the children are being denied the opportunity to a better life.
      - Chris2048 13y ago
        That isn't the point, he specifically likened the situation to asking out a girl; and "no means no" is an emotionally charged idiom, for that matter. So "you should still respect her \"NO\"" - How is this relevant? He doesn't expand on why you should do this, so we can't link that logic to the situation and and, all we have is "You'd accept 'no' if you asked someone out, so you should also do so here", with no further reasoning on how the two are similar.
- pcrh 13y ago
  Won't anyone think of the children? /s
  - Anderkent 13y ago
    If someone was raising their children in a similar quality of life in a western society, they would have their children taken away by social security. Do you disagree?
    - dirktheman 13y ago
      No, I don't. But these people don't live in a western society. They don't share our cultural beliefs of what is good or civilized. They live by a whole different set of rules and conventions. We can't just go there, impose our vastly superior beliefs upon them with the argument that it's for their best because WE believe that. Have you ever travelled to another continent? If you're American or from Western Europe, try going to Japan. Or somewhere in Africa, off the beaten path. You're likely to experience a culture shock, right? You can do two things. You can think 'I can't believe these fucktards, why the hell would they want to live like this, now where's the nearest Motel 6' or you can accept the fact that their culture is just different. I'm not speaking in terms of better or worse, just different. They don't need our help and they don't want our help. We have showed time after time that 'helping savages' does not work. Native Americans? Unless you think the inabriated guy with the poncho selling roadside flatbread is actually happier than his ancestors, it's hard to argue we did a good job helping them. Numerous tribes in South America now have to deal with alcoholism, crime, murder. The ones that don't are just smart enough to evade us. Ask yourself this: should we contact these people if we were certain that our contacting them would lead to their loss of culture, and most likely would wipe them away? Do you think that, despite ALL the times where we screwed up entire tribes, this time it will be different? Why is it our responsibility anyway to 'help' them, even against their will?
      - true_religion 13y ago
        I don't really understand this argument. Other cultures have survived contact with technologically superior civilizations. Examples are listed in your own post: Africa, Japan, etc. People can negotiate how much an outside culture influences them. Even in cases where campaigns are made to stamp out culture (e.g. W. Africa, wherein anyone in schooling was given Western names and forbidden to speak their native language in school), the old mores still prevail if people where were willing to fight for it. And how can you measure that the parts of the culture that are lost, are more important than the practical benefit of say.... modern medicine dropping the early childhood mortality rate by 90%?
- wslh 13y ago
  Informed decisions are inside our rational [and egocentric] limitations, so in this case not take those decisions very seriously.
- Kynlyn 13y ago
  "Even if they were, they have no right of condemning their children to such life" So who does? You? Western society? Don't you find that thinking a bit arrogant?
davidw 13y ago
> Star Trek's We could send William Shatner to fool around with their women...
true_religion 13y ago
Representatives notwithstanding, I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice. I never liked the prime directive in any case. Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved at the cost of the health and comfort of human beings.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  "I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice." Point taken. For now all we have are members of their community that made contact with external world and expressed an isolationist stance. Of course we may not like it and consider that (regardless whether they want or not) they should be exposed again and again until we'll finally get out of them the buyer's "yes". I also guess that only then we'll call their decision "right" and "informed". If we may somehow disable our influence as actors in their decision then yes, I agree with you that individuals that desire the freedom of making informed choice should have it. For those who chose (having peaceful reasons) to willingly get in contact with external world, there should be left a door somewhere in their reach. "Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved" Here I doubt that you got in contact with enough cultures to make for yourself an informed opinion.

Anderkent 13y ago

The representatives of these people are hardly in a situation where they can make an informed decision. Even if they were, they have no right of condemning their children to such life.

userulluipeste 13y ago
We are getting into politics here. We all have representatives and policy makers that are deciding all the time for us and we also have to support the consequences of their decisions, no mater how informed they were.
annnnd 13y ago
That doesn't really matter. If a girl refuses to go out with you, she might not be in a position where she can make an informed decision. And she is possibly depriving her future children of a magnificent father, condemning them to life without you. But you should still respect her "NO". On a more serious note, given some historic evidence how our contact with other tribes ended (pick any tribe, anytime, anywhere) I am both surprised and happy that they exist. I hope they stay the same for as long as possible and may we never learn anything about them.
- Anderkent 13y ago
  But if a man is jumping of a cliff because he thinks he can fly, you should not respect his 'NO' when trying to catch him. Your serious argument is one of the little valid points raised so far. And I agree, we might not be in a position to help them now. But the statements that even if we could bring them to our society in a humane manner we still shouldn't, because they're clearly fine as they are... That just disgusts me.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    They're not jumping off a cliff. They've been doing fine (insofar as they're surviving with a small population) for some 60 thousand years. First contact alone will probably kill them with diseases (a well-documented phenomenon). More akin to a guy standing on a ledge of a cliff, albeit precarious but doing fine; if you try to help him, he'll probably fall and die fast. He knows this, and he's telling you to stay the he11 away. That said, I am sympathetic with your basic view. Les Stroud's Beyond Survival was fascinating, but the recurring theme of "and this ancient people is about to die out or lose their culture" struck me as "well, if doing stupid things[1] isn't survivable then maybe those ways should change, and the consequences of sticking to them are natural." The Sentinese however seem to be holding it together pretty well; not advancing, but living on what is otherwise a stereotypical tropical paradise island (food growing on trees, good climate, water), methinks they've achieved some form of comfortable equilibrium and are doing pretty well (I'm sure some here on HN are thinking "I'd like to join them"). Someone mentioned above "your 100 kids will leave the island, move to India, and become call center employees". That vs. where & how they're living now, I'm not so sure "bring[ing] them to our society in a humane manner" really is. Someday it will happen, someday modern life will crash into their ancient and stable culture, someday they will have to deal with new diseases and cell phones and high-speed transport, and "someday" probably isn't very long from now. "But the kids need to do X and Y and Z!" my wife declares. "They're content and playing nicely with their toys and crayons," I'll reply. "Let them enjoy it a little longer." [1] - the clincher was a tribe that fishes by dangling bare hooks in the ocean for hours while sitting on poles. I'm amazed that culture lasted so long. Yeah, they need some help.
    - dennisgorelik 13y ago
      It's not about their interests. It's about our interests of preserving that ancient culture for our research purposes.
      - thret 13y ago
        I was going to say the same thing. Their scientific value as a primitive society preserved against all odds is something we will never see again. To destroy it on a whim would be akin to killing the last dodo for food. Some type of hidden observation as in the movie Insurrection might be worthwhile though? Someone should ask the NSA, are they really comfortable with these people NOT being monitored constantly? They could be a terrorist threat?
- Chris2048 13y ago
  > If a girl refuses to go out with you I think you're unnecessarily conflating this with another topic entirely.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    I think he made the point quite well. "No" means "no", and they're saying "no" pretty emphatically and consistently - and no amount of "but I'll make your life so much better" trumps that.
    - fc2 13y ago
      The adults are saying "no", the children just have to go along with that choice that was made for them. This is arguably a form of coercion because the children are being denied the opportunity to a better life.
    - Chris2048 13y ago
      That isn't the point, he specifically likened the situation to asking out a girl; and "no means no" is an emotionally charged idiom, for that matter. So "you should still respect her \"NO\"" - How is this relevant? He doesn't expand on why you should do this, so we can't link that logic to the situation and and, all we have is "You'd accept 'no' if you asked someone out, so you should also do so here", with no further reasoning on how the two are similar.
pcrh 13y ago
Won't anyone think of the children? /s
- Anderkent 13y ago
  If someone was raising their children in a similar quality of life in a western society, they would have their children taken away by social security. Do you disagree?
  - dirktheman 13y ago
    No, I don't. But these people don't live in a western society. They don't share our cultural beliefs of what is good or civilized. They live by a whole different set of rules and conventions. We can't just go there, impose our vastly superior beliefs upon them with the argument that it's for their best because WE believe that. Have you ever travelled to another continent? If you're American or from Western Europe, try going to Japan. Or somewhere in Africa, off the beaten path. You're likely to experience a culture shock, right? You can do two things. You can think 'I can't believe these fucktards, why the hell would they want to live like this, now where's the nearest Motel 6' or you can accept the fact that their culture is just different. I'm not speaking in terms of better or worse, just different. They don't need our help and they don't want our help. We have showed time after time that 'helping savages' does not work. Native Americans? Unless you think the inabriated guy with the poncho selling roadside flatbread is actually happier than his ancestors, it's hard to argue we did a good job helping them. Numerous tribes in South America now have to deal with alcoholism, crime, murder. The ones that don't are just smart enough to evade us. Ask yourself this: should we contact these people if we were certain that our contacting them would lead to their loss of culture, and most likely would wipe them away? Do you think that, despite ALL the times where we screwed up entire tribes, this time it will be different? Why is it our responsibility anyway to 'help' them, even against their will?
    - true_religion 13y ago
      I don't really understand this argument. Other cultures have survived contact with technologically superior civilizations. Examples are listed in your own post: Africa, Japan, etc. People can negotiate how much an outside culture influences them. Even in cases where campaigns are made to stamp out culture (e.g. W. Africa, wherein anyone in schooling was given Western names and forbidden to speak their native language in school), the old mores still prevail if people where were willing to fight for it. And how can you measure that the parts of the culture that are lost, are more important than the practical benefit of say.... modern medicine dropping the early childhood mortality rate by 90%?
wslh 13y ago
Informed decisions are inside our rational [and egocentric] limitations, so in this case not take those decisions very seriously.
Kynlyn 13y ago
"Even if they were, they have no right of condemning their children to such life" So who does? You? Western society? Don't you find that thinking a bit arrogant?

davidw 13y ago

> Star Trek's We could send William Shatner to fool around with their women...

true_religion 13y ago

Representatives notwithstanding, I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice. I never liked the prime directive in any case. Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved at the cost of the health and comfort of human beings.

userulluipeste 13y ago
"I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice." Point taken. For now all we have are members of their community that made contact with external world and expressed an isolationist stance. Of course we may not like it and consider that (regardless whether they want or not) they should be exposed again and again until we'll finally get out of them the buyer's "yes". I also guess that only then we'll call their decision "right" and "informed". If we may somehow disable our influence as actors in their decision then yes, I agree with you that individuals that desire the freedom of making informed choice should have it. For those who chose (having peaceful reasons) to willingly get in contact with external world, there should be left a door somewhere in their reach. "Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved" Here I doubt that you got in contact with enough cultures to make for yourself an informed opinion.