A ha! I knew it wasn't Al Gore, Tom Jefferson invented the internet.

If you're actually going to give him a choice, that's fine. But in order for him to actually have a choice, he must know about other cultures. And it seems like you're saying you don't want him to know these things.

What I see here is that people seem to think that people who lack knowlege of our culture should not gain that knowledge because it will somehow 'taint' them. He's free to keep his profession after touring our country. But maybe he'd like to pick up a tv set along the way? I don't see anything wrong with that.

I agree with Maggie. What exactly are we losing by this man going to see the new Spiderman movie?

You seem to be saying that his cultural richness will be tainted by his knowledge of our culture, and that he'll suddenly forget all about his own.

Western culture often overrides and degrades other cultures yes and try as i might i can't see the relavence of that jefferson quote, we're not talking about IP laws here you know.The point is that in the process of 'development' local cultures are often lost in a wave of new imports that can override local customs, ideas, society strcutures and cultures in a bad way. When the aim is to make profit is sacred. Whether it is a 'good' thing or not, as you could say in some cases it is is not a decision i beleive we should have the right to make for them. Over two generations entire lanugages, stories etc ahve been lost to yet another saleyard for the latest hollywood crud.

The point of the Jefferson quote is that culture/ideas/memes are not physical things and many of them can occupy the same mental space at the same time. When two cultures come together, they both emerge from the experience somewhat changed. As communications among the people on the planet becomes more and more frictionless, the more crosspollenation, blending and crossover happens.

This is not a process that anybody can *do* anything about, other that attempt to keep the two cultures completely separate, and that's just not gonna happen, so you might as well get over it.

Japan resisted contact with western culture for centuries. It worked for a while, but ultimately crossiver happened, and I don't think either of the parties to the exchange are the worse for it today.

"[O]verride...in a bad way" is both a distortion and a value judgement, Jag. It's not *your* job to apply some mutant Prime Directive protect the 'ignorant savages" from what we laughingly refer to as "western" culture. They're free to take from it what they like.

And again...one culture doesn't *override* another; there's plenty of space for stuff to blend. You''ll have to look a little deeper than the typical media article to see the process, though.

A classic example would be the presence of McDonalds in Paris. Here the traditional, centuries-old food traditions are being squeezed out for shit on a shingle. It's terrible.

And yet, nobody made those Frenchmen eat those burgers. It's a matter of choice, and they're choosing something that's homogenized, marketed, inexpensive, quick, styled, branded, predictable, and made with a minimum of cheap labor. There are plusses and minuses to the deal, but it's not our choice; it's the people's choice. And they have their reasons, whatever they may be. It's not like they choose it because they admire American culture. (We are still talking about the French here.)

To deny the people their choice because you don't like their choice is... well, basically the road taken by all those nations that we consider "backwards". Their cultures stagnate without the massive benefit of trade and shared innovations.

To give the people their choice is to spread political power down, away from the top and down all the way to the individuals. That results in economic growth. The economic power of a free and productive society is a remarkable thing. In the west, it has permitted the real quality of life to roughly double every generation. To put it in personal terms, my father died of cancer in 1967. A generation later, we knew enough about how to prevent cancer that he never would have gotten it. A generation and a half later, we know enough to diagnose early... and enough to cure him if he does get it.

Ignore productive culture? Do so at your own peril.

Maggie, but in most cases i can think of they aren't merging, just riding roughshod straight over.
I'd consider the loss of tousandsof years of cultural development a bad thing, wouldn't you? We all lose in situations like that. you're twisting my words to a different context.

And a generation later he won't be able to afford it. The endgame of our economic system is extremely dangerous.

Urgh i hate this year, far too busy. Ok had alittl eitm to actually work out what i'm thinking (this happens disturbingly often - i know waht i'm argueing but i forget why). Cultural diversity is no different to biological diversity, we lose somethign every time we lsoe a species, every time we lose an aspet of a culture we as a global society are losing something irripalceable. I mean of course cultures are always evolving but when one wipes out another its a net loss all round. Culture can, and will intermingle and evolve to meet and adapt to each other, and that is good. Even the usually untouchable corps make concession - maccas in france has french salads. BUt the issue of cultural loss is more to do with mass sales and mass marketing which does not allow the more diverse fringest to exist, they aren't profitable and when these companies and economic-rationalised polcies bulldose their way though another country the result is truely depressing.

yes i'm well aware this is becoming a tangent but i didn't a have time to put together a choerent line of arguement up till now, i'm averaging 4 hours sleep.

Ok, so say you have an African tribesperson who's been totally isolated from the rest of the world. Like you see on the Discovery channel -- those folks who don't know what candy bars or wristwatches are.

Let's say we have the ability to grant this person an extensive library of books, in their native language, on modern American culture -- television, electronics, dating rituals, McDonald's, etc.

You want to deny this tribesman access to these books. Would you burn them so that he couldn't have them? Information is dangerous, after all.


Let's say he learns something from those books, like how cell phones work. He may choose to stop walking 6 hours a day to the next village in order to talk to his sister. He might instead buy a cell phone so that he can talk directly to his sister.

Is it really "better" for him to walk 6 hours a day just so he won't be infected by new information? Remember, by reading the books, this was a choice he had. He could have simply chosen to continue on with the old ways (some do -- they're called Amish). But he didn't, because he realized that our way is more efficient. That's competition of ideas.

Your first point completely misses the point of my last one and your second makes no sense at all.

The "endgame" boogeyman is just that; predictions of endless woes are common in a market economy, because it's scary because nobody is in control.

The health costs thread is a whole 'nother thread.

The species analogy is a great one, but think of it as evolution rather than extinction. A species may have many interesting traits, some of which are amazing and interesting, but the interesting traits may not be the ones that determine whether it lives or dies. We may well mourn the traits that are lost. But because the economic growth is a result of freedom and productivity, replacing tyranny and non-productivity, for every lost cultural note we are creating two new ones to replace it.

Nic Name deleted his post, and my second post was a response to his. That's why it made no sense. I went ahead and deleted my response to his deleted post as well.

As to the first post missing the point... care to elaborate?

No, y'see....that analogy is seductive but really misleading. Culture is *much* more fluid than speciation. It's not an either/or, it's a both/and. A given organism can have only one genome, but a person can embrace many cultures and ideas at once; in fact, that's a fundamental principle of the organization of the human mind. See Minsky's "Society of Mind".

Environmental awareness and "green" thinking is important, but it's not a universally applicable set of principles. You need more tools than a hammer if everything isn't to look like a nail.

So jaguar, if losing those other cultures is such a shame, are you willing to give up your culture and adopt theirs? They left their culture because life sucked for them and they saw a better choice. You're assuming they were victims rather than people who made a choice, and an easy one at that.

So why don't you give up your computer and Internet, and electricity for that matter, and go dip candles by hand your whole life? Because that life is boring and tedious, and once they saw a better alternative they rushed to it. Sorry you lost the ability to sit in your living room and read about or watch these quaint, interesting cultures from your own creature comforts, but how else would you have it?

And how does juju's post not make sense? If you want to keep other cultures from being infected by our ideas, the only way to do that is to prevent them from having the knowledge that other cultures exist. Because let's face it, most humans when given the choice would choose the modern culture. That's why it exists: because freedom of ideas have produced it.

http://www.tobiasly.com/misc/onion/amishgiveup.html

I think I can explain this.

Nicname posted a message containing a single link to some worthless site (does he get paid for these ads?).

This annoyed me greatly, because Nicname didn't contribute any of his own opinions. Just some link. I posted a response to this, which went something like:
<blockquote>
"this makes no sense at all. I fail to see the relevance".
</blockquote>
Since, of course, I was just being a jerk out-of-hand (sometimes I slip. sorry nic.), he just outright deleted his message. This, of course, made my message make no sense at all. So I deleted my response so I wouldn't look like a fool, but not before jaguar responed, asking me what the hell i was talking about.

Now, I realize that I should never have deleted my message. I should have instead edited in a quote from nic names deleted post. I resolve to never delete another post.

And I'm sorry that my response annoyed you. It was late and I wasn't up for a big debate about how my link made sense as a response to your post.

I didn't delete to screw you over ... just to avoid an argument.

I didn't feel the need for you to see what I was getting at, so I just withdrew my comment that you said made no sense and was irrelevant.