Religious nut is killed by remote tribe

Narz

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
31,514
Location
Haverhill, UK
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/world/asia/andaman-missionary-john-chau.html

Guy breaks the law to try to preach to an isolated tribe, risking killing them all (via infectious disease), they shoot him with arrows. Do they still give Darwin awards? This chap definitely deserves one.

Hardly payback for all the harm missionaries have done to indigenous people. Hopefully he hasn't contaminated them.
 
Thats one of the problems I have with 'prophets' and the like, they inspire people to do stupid things

Certainly Jesus should have known committing suicide by cop would result in emulation by followers, that goes for the conversion crowd - 'go spread the word' has done enough damage and anyone truly wise would think twice before telling yahoos to become their ambassadors.

On the other hand ;) if Jesus does have connections he better use them to get this guy in the VIP suite.
 
Should we allow their society to stay in the dark ages because it satisfies our far left desires?

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment and over the course of modernization, the mortality of children below 5 years of age has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1%. This is a very recent development and was only reached after a hundredfold decline in child mortality in these countries. In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015; while 4.3% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
 
Estebonrober said:
Should we allow their society to stay in the dark ages because it satisfies our far left desires?

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment and over the course of modernization, the mortality of children below 5 years of age has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1%. This is a very recent development and was only reached after a hundredfold decline in child mortality in these countries. In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015; while 4.3% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
Click to expand...
If we're not careful their mortality could go to 100%.

Anyway it's their choice not ours. Do you know anything about the health of that tribe or are you just throwing out random data unrelated to them?

Is it a right-wing tenet to save people from themselves? Isn't the right the ones whining about smoking bans and taxes on soda and whatnot?
 
Last edited:
Estebonrober said:
Should we allow their society to stay in the dark ages because it satisfies our far left desires?

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment and over the course of modernization, the mortality of children below 5 years of age has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1%. This is a very recent development and was only reached after a hundredfold decline in child mortality in these countries. In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015; while 4.3% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
Click to expand...

Wonder if the indigenous peoples we brought into the future are glad we did. I've never seen a reservation with better quality of life than some of these remote tribes.
 
Estebonrober said:
Should we allow their society to stay in the dark ages because it satisfies our far left desires?

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment and over the course of modernization, the mortality of children below 5 years of age has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1%. This is a very recent development and was only reached after a hundredfold decline in child mortality in these countries. In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015; while 4.3% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality
Click to expand...
Ever hear of the Prime Directive? Clearly it was made for situations like this where the natives not only don't have warp drive, but they prefer a stone age kind of existence and will kill to preserve it.
 
Valka D'Ur said:
Ever hear of the Prime Directive? Clearly it was made for situations like this where the natives not only don't have warp drive, but they prefer a stone age kind of existence and will kill to preserve it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the Sentinelese kill intruders to deliberately preserve their stone age existence. More likely, they're just killing perceived invaders without regard to the threat of being modernized.
 
^Exactly. They kill because see the white guy like an invasor, a dangerous alien critter, a phantom or who knows what.

After the very first contact is successfully done and the missionaries are not longer seen like a menace, they will eagerly accept the fruits of our civilization like tools, clothes, weapons, engines, etc, things that simply make his everyday life infinitely easier and comfier. Unless it is the massochist tribe of course, which lives so deep in the Amazon forest nobody has been able to find them yet.

That is the most dangerous aspect of contacting these tribes (beside diseases), and the reason because once the first contact is made, there is not way back for these people. Obviously missionaries will use this unlimited attractive power of technology to cajole the tribesmen and get them into Christianity.

Preservation of his identity and sophisticated considerations like that come much later, once they have been asimilated into modern civilization and become aware of such concepts, then they will want to keep some selected aspects of the old way of life whitout losing the facilities civilization have given them, of course.
 
Goodfella said:
I'm not sure if the Sentinelese kill intruders to deliberately preserve their stone age existence. More likely, they're just killing perceived invaders without regard to the threat of being modernized.
Click to expand...
They have a stone age culture that they consider normal. They don't call it that, they just know that they don't like these weird, different people and are willing to kill them.

They just want to preserve things as they are.

Of course, if the Prime Directive is successfully broken, then it will likely go as Thorgalaeg suggests.
 
Honestly it all boils down to the fact that we do not have any obligation toward them one way or the other aside from respecting their wishes. And their wishes are clearly shown to us at arrow point. So we shouldn't try and analyze them and twist the truth until we finally find some excuse to march in and do what we think is better for them than their wishes.
 
We modern humans like to crow about bringing progress but many of the cultures we've come across have been utterly annihilated.

In some global catastrophe (electric grid crashes or internet goes down) we'd descend into chaos with 99% casualties while these people would go on catching turtles.

Prosetlization is like advertising, it only works on those unhappy with their lot.
 
PPQ_Purple said:
Honestly it all boils down to the fact that we do not have any obligation toward them one way or the other aside from respecting their wishes. And their wishes are clearly shown to us at arrow point. So we shouldn't try and analyze them and twist the truth until we finally find some excuse to march in and do what we think is better for them than their wishes.
Click to expand...
It can be seen from the opposit point if view: We have a technology they want but they don't know they want it. Should we decide for them and hide it from them or show it so they can decide themselves?

I think this is a complex topic, morally and practically. On a hand we know they will enjoy our tech making their lifes easier. On the other hand It will probably destroy their society in the long run and they may become parias in our society.

On a hand they are suffering all kind of health problems we can cure with a single pill, on the other hand there is the risk the whole tribe is wiped out by a simple flu transmitted in the first contact...

On a hand learning to read/write, and having acces to our technology and information will make them stronger and safer but may lead to the desintegration of their culture, on the other hand leaving them alone will make them more vulnerable to dangers coming from our very modern society, like guerrillas, traffickers, miners/loggers or other contacted tribes with access to firearms and such.

:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Thorgalaeg said:
It can be seen from the opposit point if view: We have a technology they want but they don't know they want it. Should we decide for them and hide it from them or show it so they can decide themselves?

I think this is a complex topic, morally and practically. On a hand we know they will enjoy our tech making their lifes easier. On the other hand It will probably destroy their society in the long run and they may become parias in our society.

On a hand they are suffering all kind of health problems we can cure with a single pill, on the other hand there is the risk the whole tribe is wiped out by a simple flu transmitted in the first contact...

On a hand learning to read/write, and having acces to our technology and information will make them stronger and safer but may lead to the desintegration of their culture, on the other hand leaving them alone will make them more vulnerable to dangers coming from our very modern society, like guerrillas, traffickers, miners/loggers or other contacted tribes with access to firearms and such.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
It's not hiding. Its simply not showing them. There is a huge difference. We are not actively working to dissuade them from seeking us out and asking about our world. And they do know a world outside of their island exists. They just simply aren't curious enough to bother.
 
PPQ_Purple said:
It's not hiding. Its simply not showing them. There is a huge difference. We are not actively working to dissuade them from seeking us out and asking about our world. And they do know a world outside of their island exists. They just simply aren't curious enough to bother.
Click to expand...
They are, they will even steal it if can. A quite fine document about the topic:
 
Thorgalaeg said:
They are, they will even steal it if can.
Click to expand...
So what? You do not seem to understand the point here. The point is that since there is no coercion on our part to prevent them from reaching out to us how ever much or little they do this is entirely a matter of their choice. And that is how it should remain.

If they want to send an ambassador to the outside world tomorrow demanding we show them how we do things I say agree. No harm done in civilizing them if its consensual and by demand. But if they want to newer set foot in the outside world again I also agree. No harm letting them live out the rest of eternity as stone age savages.

The only thing I'd disagree with is forcing them to chose one way or the other. Because that would be harm.
 
I cant but be fine with that. In practice though the few isolated tribes that remains will be fagocited by modern world by the hook or by the crook. (excepting maybe some cases like the Sentinel Island where the tribe can remain physically isolated) Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the natural thing to happen indeed, as the brazilian expert from FUNAI says at the end of the documentary.
 
This is not an uncontacted tribe. They're a sort of barely contacted tribe. The British (because of course it was) kidnapped some of them a bit back, the older ones quickly died of disease and the young ones were released back possibly after having their genitals measured. Is it any wonder they don't trust the outside world?

Also some very smug uses of civilized vs. savage in this thread.
 
It's hard not to be smug when you have flushing toilets and they don't. What matters is not how you feel about someone or how you talk about them in the company of others who'll newer meet or effect them but how you act toward them and in situations where they can be effected by your actions.
 
Narz said:
If we're not careful their mortality could go to 100%.

Anyway it's their choice not ours. Do you know anything about the health of that tribe or are you just throwing out random data unrelated to them?

Is it a right-wing tenet to save people from themselves? Isn't the right the ones whining about smoking bans and taxes on soda and whatnot?
Click to expand...

Eloquently argued, yet again, that the right left scale is by fools for fools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom