5 ms·

Won't anyone think of the children? /s

by pcrh 13y ago

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%?
- pcrh 13y ago
  For one, we don't know enough about their quality of life to say anything about it. I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet, in particular it is likely to be better than the majority of urban dwellers and subsistence farmers in the 3rd world. If you wanted to give them the quality of life enjoyed in the nicer parts of the US or Europe you would have to provide all those amenities for them, and it is in any case unlikely that they would appreciate them the same way that you do. The only likely benefit that "we" could provide would be medical care for infections or easily treated disorders. That would have to be balanced with the high likelihood that contacting and attempting to integrate them would actually kill most of them. Anything else is a egocentric view of what is good for mankind.
  - pilom 13y ago
    "I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet" I'd agree with you that they probably have a more enjoyable day to day experience, however I also would bet that they have an infant mortality rate that is astronomical even by 3rd world standards. And that they have an average life expectancy which isn't hard to beat in the 3rd world. I'm not saying that these 2 things justify us forcing contact with them, just that it is hard for someone to justify that lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy are always positive things for our species to strive for. Its not just an issue of culture.
    - bennyg 13y ago
      The United States is 35th in infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mor...) - and the US is 33rd in life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...). You just said you didn't know their two statistics in those categories, but a hunch may be enough to go in and shake things up for them.
      - jcnnghm 13y ago
        Of course, many other countries cook the infant mortality books be not reporting premature babies that die shortly after birth or are "hopeless" because they don't have the medical tech that the US does. Consequently, that skews US life expectancy down.
- devb 13y ago
  Because of the conditions, or because of how far removed their lifestyle is from western societal norms? What if the tribe decided our children were being severely mistreated with glowing distraction screens, processed corn sugar, helicopter parenting, etc.? Surely you'd let them take our kids away.

Won't anyone think of the children? /s

by pcrh 13y ago

Won't anyone think of the children? /s

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%?
pcrh 13y ago
For one, we don't know enough about their quality of life to say anything about it. I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet, in particular it is likely to be better than the majority of urban dwellers and subsistence farmers in the 3rd world. If you wanted to give them the quality of life enjoyed in the nicer parts of the US or Europe you would have to provide all those amenities for them, and it is in any case unlikely that they would appreciate them the same way that you do. The only likely benefit that "we" could provide would be medical care for infections or easily treated disorders. That would have to be balanced with the high likelihood that contacting and attempting to integrate them would actually kill most of them. Anything else is a egocentric view of what is good for mankind.
- pilom 13y ago
  "I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet" I'd agree with you that they probably have a more enjoyable day to day experience, however I also would bet that they have an infant mortality rate that is astronomical even by 3rd world standards. And that they have an average life expectancy which isn't hard to beat in the 3rd world. I'm not saying that these 2 things justify us forcing contact with them, just that it is hard for someone to justify that lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy are always positive things for our species to strive for. Its not just an issue of culture.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    The United States is 35th in infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mor...) - and the US is 33rd in life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...). You just said you didn't know their two statistics in those categories, but a hunch may be enough to go in and shake things up for them.
    - jcnnghm 13y ago
      Of course, many other countries cook the infant mortality books be not reporting premature babies that die shortly after birth or are "hopeless" because they don't have the medical tech that the US does. Consequently, that skews US life expectancy down.
devb 13y ago
Because of the conditions, or because of how far removed their lifestyle is from western societal norms? What if the tribe decided our children were being severely mistreated with glowing distraction screens, processed corn sugar, helicopter parenting, etc.? Surely you'd let them take our kids away.