May 30, 2008: Uncontacted Indigenous People - Page 5

Shawnee123 · 06-03-2008, 09:58 AM

Well said, DanaC. Your analogy regarding explorers venturing out makes sense. What some others are speaking of is, to me, imposing ourselves on a culture that we have no right to impose upon. We take away their choice; whether or not we believe it is an un-informed choice is completely irrelevant.

Then again, they'd like some can openers.

DanaC · 06-03-2008, 10:08 AM

I can see arguments for and arguments against making contact with these people. Like most questions regarding humanity it isn't an easy one to answer. I don't know whether the best thing is to contact or not. I just know that it isn't as simple as bringing the benefits of civilisation to those who are potentially trapped in a less enjoyable way of life. Sure, they may suffer more in terms of infant bereavement than we do, but they may also suffer significantly less mental illness, depression and social isolation than many of our peoples do.

There is no easy answer to this. They are people, and shouldn't be treated like some beautiful but endangered rhinos. Protection zones to prevent contact? Not so sure of that. Sounds a bit like turning them into a protected species. Actively seeking to contact them? Profoundly dangerous in terms of potential negative effects. We could potentially wipe them out with disease or fracture their society by dint of our very presence.

Or, they could be freed from damaging and frightening superstitions, brought a longer life. Mothers could be freed from the grief of burying half their babies. Injuries would not necessarily cripple but be better healed and less likely to infect with anti-biotic treatments. For all we know they are an unhappy society just waiting for some kind of catalyst for change.....

smoothmoniker · 06-03-2008, 10:11 AM

Ok, put away that innate liberal cultural self-loathing for a second, and think about the best, the absolute best that modern society has to offer.

Medicine that can prevent death. Knowledge of how the physical world works. Gender equality (which both history and anthropology have shown us is something developed and chosen, not something indigenous to any culture).

We DO have something to offer them, and they are better things than they currently have. I don't buy the myth of the "noble savage", and this insane idea that all of human advancement has been an ever-increasing regression from the perfect unspoilt natural state.

HungLikeJesus · 06-03-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

...

Medicine that can prevent death. ...

Medicine can't prevent death, just delay it.

Shawnee123 · 06-03-2008, 10:12 AM

Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream. However, this notion only opens up the "let's study and see what we can learn" can of worms.

Best if we had never known of them, I think.

I don't buy the myth that our evolvement is the be-all end-all basket of goodies you make it out to be, moniker.

But kudos on the knee-jerk "damn liberal" argument. That's effective. We have evolved, haven't we? Let me slink away in shame for disagreeing. Yawn.

Nice.

Coign · 06-05-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream. However, this notion only opens up the "let's study and see what we can learn" can of worms.

No idea of infant mortality? Are you seriously saying they work less and have a better mortality, infant and lifespan, then we have? Do you think for a MOMENT that out of a thousand plus different cultures and tribes they somehow are different and found the fountain of youth and are living in some utopia of perfect health?

Give me back your damn bible. The earth was not created in seven days, it is not a thousand years old, dinosaur bones were not planted by god, magic doesn't work, and Xenu is not the reason you have a bunch of thetans causing the bad in your life.

It is called empirical evidence. I will agree that in history a more civilized country has been defeated by a more barbaric one, but I can not believe you really believe that civilization does not promote a better way of living.

And civilization is not created equal. There are different levels to it. We live better than the those in ramshackle "2nd World" countries. They live better than those in "3rd World" countries, and they live better than those in the mud huts in the middle of deepest Africa.

No, we are not all equal, but those of us at the top live better and those at the bottom are climbing that ladder right behind us.

Arrogance you call it? I call it read your damn history books and understand the meaning of empirical evidence. This is not a question of faith and morality, it is another example of the faithful trying to say, "Quake in the face god for his wrath shall strike down the mighty."

Well fuck your god.

smoothmoniker · 06-03-2008, 10:12 AM

Sorry, I didn't see your last post, Dana, before I wrote mine. I was responding to the earlier sentiments.

Shawnee123 · 06-03-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Sorry, I didn't see your last post, Dana, before I wrote mine. I was responding to the earlier sentiments.

He was responding to me, lest anyone think he needed to attack someone decidedly not on the diplomatic fence.

Undertoad · 06-03-2008, 10:18 AM

In "caveman" times, one's life expectancy would be about 25 years.

By 1850, in modern cultures, if you made it past infancy and childhood, you could expect to see age 45.

Two generations into the industrial revolution, heading into WW2, having achieved refrigeration, telecommunication, and solved many infectious diseases, life expectancy reached 60.

If you were born in 2008 in first/second-world countries, you can expect to see 78. That's 2-3 years longer than it was in 1990.

Do we have it better? Fuck yes we have it better. Do we know more than they do and should we share it? Fuck yes we should, and their grandchildren will thank us for it. Do they want a can opener? Fuck yes they want a can opener. As it is they have to shoot their food with bows and arrows, and smoke it or otherwise preserve so it will remain edible long enough so half the tribe doesn't starve. The utter and obvious "magic" of getting a big serving of non-rotting, nutritious food not covered in bugs would be the best gift anyone could possibly give them. A can opener would solve some of their biggest problems in life. To not give them one, as well as cans, a cheap way to preserve and store food for long periods, is heartless and inhumane.

The advancement of humanity is a wonderful thing. Don't go taking it for granted, and don't say it doesn't mean anything only because all the benefits aren't spread to every single person on the earth. We create problems yes, but we solve two problems for every one we create. To think otherwise would be to usher in a new dark age.

Shawnee123 · 06-03-2008, 10:20 AM

Amazed at the arrogance here. Just amazed.

Life expectancy of a "caveman" can hardly be compared to the lives of these people who can also have evolved physically, just not in ways we know of. You can't make that assumption.

Ibby · 06-03-2008, 10:22 AM

Fucking hell

thank you tony. you said it a hell of a lot better than i could.

I'm for preserving cultural diversity as much as any other bleeding-heart liberal out there, but it isnt OUR job to preserve THEIR culture. It's THEIRS. and it would be cruel and wrong to deprive them the chance to take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-03-2008, 10:27 AM

How can they, " take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer", when they have no money? Do we make them slaves or pets?

HungLikeJesus · 06-03-2008, 10:25 AM

The real question is this: Who is happier, they or we*?

Based on a lot of posts I see on the Cellar, I would say that they are.

*them or us?

Ibby · 06-03-2008, 10:27 AM

i can see no reason not to give THEM the option of sticking with their current state or changing. I think its pretty fucking arrogant of us to make that decision for them.

xoxoxoBruce · 06-03-2008, 10:31 AM

It's not a fair option without giving them the knowledge of the consequences, also.

06-03-2008, 09:58 AM	#1
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Well said, DanaC. Your analogy regarding explorers venturing out makes sense. What some others are speaking of is, to me, imposing ourselves on a culture that we have no right to impose upon. We take away their choice; whether or not we believe it is an un-informed choice is completely irrelevant. Then again, they'd like some can openers. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

06-03-2008, 10:11 AM	#3
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Ok, put away that innate liberal cultural self-loathing for a second, and think about the best, the absolute best that modern society has to offer. Medicine that can prevent death. Knowledge of how the physical world works. Gender equality (which both history and anthropology have shown us is something developed and chosen, not something indigenous to any culture). We DO have something to offer them, and they are better things than they currently have. I don't buy the myth of the "noble savage", and this insane idea that all of human advancement has been an ever-increasing regression from the perfect unspoilt natural state. __________________ to live and die in LA

06-03-2008, 10:12 AM	#5
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Then again, we have no idea of their infant mortality rate...if "think of the children" is a viable argument. Perhaps having lived outside of what we know to be society has afforded them immunities and benefits of which we could never dream. However, this notion only opens up the "let's study and see what we can learn" can of worms. Best if we had never known of them, I think. I don't buy the myth that our evolvement is the be-all end-all basket of goodies you make it out to be, moniker. But kudos on the knee-jerk "damn liberal" argument. That's effective. We have evolved, haven't we? Let me slink away in shame for disagreeing. Yawn. Nice. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

06-03-2008, 10:12 AM	#7
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Sorry, I didn't see your last post, Dana, before I wrote mine. I was responding to the earlier sentiments. __________________ to live and die in LA

06-03-2008, 10:20 AM	#10
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Amazed at the arrogance here. Just amazed. Life expectancy of a "caveman" can hardly be compared to the lives of these people who can also have evolved physically, just not in ways we know of. You can't make that assumption. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

06-03-2008, 10:08 AM	#2
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I can see arguments for and arguments against making contact with these people. Like most questions regarding humanity it isn't an easy one to answer. I don't know whether the best thing is to contact or not. I just know that it isn't as simple as bringing the benefits of civilisation to those who are potentially trapped in a less enjoyable way of life. Sure, they may suffer more in terms of infant bereavement than we do, but they may also suffer significantly less mental illness, depression and social isolation than many of our peoples do. There is no easy answer to this. They are people, and shouldn't be treated like some beautiful but endangered rhinos. Protection zones to prevent contact? Not so sure of that. Sounds a bit like turning them into a protected species. Actively seeking to contact them? Profoundly dangerous in terms of potential negative effects. We could potentially wipe them out with disease or fracture their society by dint of our very presence. Or, they could be freed from damaging and frightening superstitions, brought a longer life. Mothers could be freed from the grief of burying half their babies. Injuries would not necessarily cripple but be better healed and less likely to infect with anti-biotic treatments. For all we know they are an unhappy society just waiting for some kind of catalyst for change.....

06-03-2008, 10:18 AM	#9
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	In "caveman" times, one's life expectancy would be about 25 years. By 1850, in modern cultures, if you made it past infancy and childhood, you could expect to see age 45. Two generations into the industrial revolution, heading into WW2, having achieved refrigeration, telecommunication, and solved many infectious diseases, life expectancy reached 60. If you were born in 2008 in first/second-world countries, you can expect to see 78. That's 2-3 years longer than it was in 1990. Do we have it better? Fuck yes we have it better. Do we know more than they do and should we share it? Fuck yes we should, and their grandchildren will thank us for it. Do they want a can opener? Fuck yes they want a can opener. As it is they have to shoot their food with bows and arrows, and smoke it or otherwise preserve so it will remain edible long enough so half the tribe doesn't starve. The utter and obvious "magic" of getting a big serving of non-rotting, nutritious food not covered in bugs would be the best gift anyone could possibly give them. A can opener would solve some of their biggest problems in life. To not give them one, as well as cans, a cheap way to preserve and store food for long periods, is heartless and inhumane. The advancement of humanity is a wonderful thing. Don't go taking it for granted, and don't say it doesn't mean anything only because all the benefits aren't spread to every single person on the earth. We create problems yes, but we solve two problems for every one we create. To think otherwise would be to usher in a new dark age.

06-03-2008, 10:22 AM	#11
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Fucking hell thank you tony. you said it a hell of a lot better than i could. I'm for preserving cultural diversity as much as any other bleeding-heart liberal out there, but it isnt OUR job to preserve THEIR culture. It's THEIRS. and it would be cruel and wrong to deprive them the chance to take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

06-03-2008, 10:27 AM	#12
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	How can they, " take advantage of all the benefits our technology has to offer", when they have no money? Do we make them slaves or pets? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

06-03-2008, 10:25 AM	#13
HungLikeJesus Only looks like a disaster tourist Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: above 7,000 feet Posts: 7,208	The real question is this: Who is happier, they or we? Based on a lot of posts I see on the Cellar, I would say that they are. them or us? __________________ Keep Your Bodies Off My Lawn SteveDallas's Random Thread Picker.

06-03-2008, 10:31 AM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	It's not a fair option without giving them the knowledge of the consequences, also. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)