4 ms·

> It confuses me that anyone can believe that liberalism or technological advance are not universally desirable. I'm trying to parse this. Are you saying, "Eve

> It confuses me that anyone can believe that liberalism or technological advance are not universally desirable. I'm trying to parse this. Are you saying, "Everyone should believe everyone should desire liberalism and technological advances"? > I am similarly confused (though interested) by the "prime directive" approach that academics often advocate in dealing with undeveloped cultures. When it comes from academics today, it's usually a reaction of guilt to the imperialism of the past. That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to take that approach, though. Even if your culture is more "developed" how you can be 100% sure that interfering is a good thing to do; i.e., that it won't lead to bad results?

nopassrecover 17y ago
> I'm trying to parse this. Are you saying, "Everyone should believe everyone should desire liberalism and technological advances"? I'm saying it surprises me that there are people who believe liberalism and technology are undesirable for a given set of people. > When it comes from academics today, it's usually a reaction of guilt to the imperialism of the past. That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to take that approach, though. Even if your culture is more "developed" how you can be 100% sure that interfering is a good thing to do; i.e., that it won't lead to bad results? Yeah I think that's the problem. To me it seems guilt about past imperialism can stand in the way of improving the lives of those in need. I agree you can never be 100% sure but I think the potential benefit typically outweighs the potential loss.