Religious nut is killed by remote tribe

[Cheetah]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

 

[Senethro]

We should recognise that we are presently incapable of reliably and safely contacting and engaging in useful cultural exchange, therefore we should do nothing other than enforce a perimeter that keeps disease carrying godbotherers away. They aren't on land with valuable lumber/copper/oil so there isn't a time based issue attached.

 

[Narz]

@ Purple, Are these people living in "poverty, disease and suffering"? Lot or bizarre assumptions here, their lives are probly healthier than 50% of their Indian neighbors.

You guys have weird ideas like if they just say the word the modern world is gonna go over there, build a Walmart and give them all jobs, medicine and playstations and they'll live rich, healthy lives to 102.

 

[Narz]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

Their way of life is more sustainable than ours (tho since they're on an island probably climate change will eventually destroy them).

In the grand scheme of things we're all going extinct so why the superiority?

 

[Berzerker]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

They've survived this long without the modern world, why will they disappear if we leave them alone? You called that pure callousness, but wouldn't welcoming them into the modern world mean an end to their culture?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Good. Then I obviously misunderstood.

Yes, they would. How can this even be up for discussion?

If our current livestyles weren't better than what came before, and if those livestyles weren't better than what came before those, we would not have adopted them

that's not true at all. there are thousands of examples of people keeping up bad habits for no good reason, think female genital mutilation, while there are equally many examples of people refusing to adopt to a lifestyle that might be better or more well suited for them.

human history isn't linear, it isn't teleological, things don't exclusively get better. sometimes we crash and develop "backwards". you assume a model of humans as rational beings, who do what's best for them. this has long been disproven, even in economics people don't believe this myth anymore.

our current lifestyle is threatening our health due to sedentarism, lack of physical labor, lack of non-digital stimulation, bad diets.. and so on. it's just a lie that we always pick the better lifestyle. just think about obesity, heart disease, diabetes.. clearly at some point our diets, at least in the first world, were definitely healthier.

But to leave people in ignorance and squalor simply because «they might prefer it», is pure callousness.

does this apply to religious people, too? should we undertake an effort to convert all abrahamics, because they live in ignorance of our scientific advancement?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

some anthropologists now argue that many cultures in Southeast Asia consciously made an effort to have their scripture deteriorate by age, same for their housings, tools, and so on. it might confuse you, because it is not in line with your western beliefs, but maybe to some people that is what they want. and that's okay.

it was in regard to some sights in cambodia where all that was left was temples built by the royals. it seemed at first that no one had lived in those lands, only later on did archeologists realize that the people simply did not leave any trace. whether or not it was really conscious we might never be able to tell, but it's a really interesting question

to someone living in the moment what comes hundreds of years after is not relevant. they might not care at all whether or not some white dude in a museum thousand years later can gush at their cool temples and art. what is it to them? why is preservation for the sake of itself important?

even today, in our society, I might argue, that I will be entirely, completely forgotten in a few hundred years. no one will spare a thought from me. there might be some documentation, sure, like a birth certificate. but no one gives a ****. I die, I rot, I will be forgotten entirely. only one in a million people will actually be remembered, the vast majority just decays

 

[PPQ_Purple]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

What ever they chose to do with their lives. If someone chooses suicide that's still his own choice.

@ Purple, Are these people living in "poverty, disease and suffering"? Lot or bizarre assumptions here, their lives are probly healthier than 50% of their Indian neighbors.

Comparable to us they are. They have no concept of germ theory, antibiotics, human waste processing and other measures of modern medicine. They also have no access to or idea of modern luxury items. And thus objectively speaking they are less wealthy and more sick comparatively to us in every way which is physically measurable.

You guys have weird ideas like if they just say the word the modern world is gonna go over there, build a Walmart and give them all jobs, medicine and playstations and they'll live rich, healthy lives to 102.

The point is that even if we were the sort to do that it's still something that would be morally wrong to do. "Helping" someone against their will is not helping.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

What ever they chose to do with their lives. If someone chooses suicide that's still his own choice.


Comparable to us they are. They have no concept of germ theory, antibiotics, human waste processing and other measures of modern medicine. They also have no access to or idea of modern luxury items. And thus objectively speaking they are suffering comparatively to us in every way which is physically measurable.

hunter-gatherer societies had better ideas of antibiotics and human waste processing than you might believe. archeological evidence suggests that some hunter-gatherers, after observing the effects of antibiotic mushrooms, started using them medicinally. they might or might not have a concept of antibiotics, or even of illness, but after all "antibiotic" is just a name given to a concept. they might have different names and different ways of explaining, but they know how to apply them.

human waste processing is also something hunter-gatherers apparently put a lot of thought in. their waste was kept at some distance from their settlements, so as to not get them bateria related problems. it was, however, kept close, for one very specific reason: selective breeding of plants. we all know that corn 50,000 ya did not look like corn today. what happened? well..

humans picked out the best corn pods, with the most kernels on it. they carried them back to their houses, ate them, and then shat out the seeds in their "backyard". often times, already fertilized those seeds grew into plants that had all the benefits of the "good" corn pods the humans picked. this process went on for thousands of years and improved plant revenue significantly.

actually, many of the plants we eat today were toxic or disgustingly bitter in earlier times. we know today that alomds, for example, used to be incredibly bitter (and toxic..) to the point where they were inedible. but humans kept trying and trying, and at some point some human came across a genetically mutated almond, that was missing a specific allele for bitterness and the production of its toxin. they took those almonds home, ate them, and shat them out. then, a few thousand years later, selectively bred and grew them. and that is how we made almonds edible.

of course you can argue that all of this was just random, or subconscious, or whatever. but maybe you're just doing it to feel intellectually superior to some "savages" who were, in their own way, quite smart!

 

[Dekker]

Ironic how those more left which usually glorifies the noble savage lean for modernizing while those more right which the left usually paints as phobic of other cultures leans for respecting their lifestyle.

Also we keep up outdated habits like male genital mutilation so can we really look down on when do to females? I say yes but to both, nonsense about health is making up excuses for a traditional practice rooted in dogma.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I don't consider myself politically right in any sense of the word, and yet I am still the one most ardent on defending those peoples' right to life their life as they choose. maybe your black/white view of this issue could use with some nuance? It certainly isn't as simple as you claim it is.

(also your second sentence doesn't really make any sense.. what do you mean by "we really look down on when do to females?")

 

[tetley]

From a missionary's standpoint, modernizing them is beside the point. Reaching them with the Gospel is the point. If that is a cause greater than life, then that is certainly also a cause greater than dealing with some armchair critics. He started by giving them gifts. If he got killed for it, even as the "experts" back home say HE harmed THEM, then so be it. The story isn't over yet.

 

[Narz]

some anthropologists now argue that many cultures in Southeast Asia consciously made an effort to have their scripture deteriorate by age, same for their housings, tools, and so on. it might confuse you, because it is not in line with your western beliefs, but maybe to some people that is what they want. and that's okay.

it was in regard to some sights in cambodia where all that was left was temples built by the royals. it seemed at first that no one had lived in those lands, only later on did archeologists realize that the people simply did not leave any trace. whether or not it was really conscious we might never be able to tell, but it's a really interesting question

to someone living in the moment what comes hundreds of years after is not relevant. they might not care at all whether or not some white dude in a museum thousand years later can gush at their cool temples and art. what is it to them? why is preservation for the sake of itself important?

even today, in our society, I might argue, that I will be entirely, completely forgotten in a few hundred years. no one will spare a thought from me. there might be some documentation, sure, like a birth certificate. but no one gives a ****. I die, I rot, I will be forgotten entirely. only one in a million people will actually be remembered, the vast majority just decays

Nooo, YCJ foreva!!!

 

[yung.carl.jung]

foreeeever young (carl jung).. I'm gonna be forever younnnnnggggggg (carl jung)

From a missionary's standpoint, modernizing them is beside the point. Reaching them with the Gospel is the point. If that is a cause greater than life, then that is certainly also a cause greater than dealing with some armchair critics. He started by giving them gifts. If he got killed for it, even as the "experts" back home say HE harmed THEM, then so be it. The story isn't over yet.

but, given sufficient time, modernizing them will just eventually turn them into dogmatic internet-atheists, so why even bother with the whole missionary mission?

 

[uppi]

They'll eventually go extinct and nothing from their culture or society will be preserved.

That's «better for them»?

If "them" refers to the actual human beings, I don't really see the impact of that on them. If they could be slowly and safely be integrated into a modern society, these humans wouldn't go extinct. They would still have descendants, maybe even more than they will have if they stay uncontacted. They would see their children and grandchildren acting differently, but in a way that is something that every generation has to face. Culture is never preserved, because it is constantly changing. You can only try to rescue tidbits by documenting them - but that could also be done in such cases. Therefore, I don't think preserving culture is an important value. It just doesn't help anyone and there is no point to create a "zoo" of different cultures (that no one can visit anyway).

That said, it would be quite hard to ensure slow and safe integration and with their arrows they have made it very clear that they don't want to be contacting. So I think that using force to make them take the risk is not ethical behavior, even if you believe that it would be better for them.

 

[Narz]

Comparable to us they are. They have no concept of germ theory, antibiotics, human waste processing and other measures of modern medicine.

Ironically if they contacted us for modern medicine they may well be wiped out by our contagious diseases.

They also have no access to or idea of modern luxury items.

Without advertising there is no desire for a $8000 sofa.

And thus objectively speaking they are less wealthy and more sick comparatively to us in every way which is physically measurable.

Obesity? Diabetes? Alcoholism? Heart disease? Cardiovascular fitness?

I figure they're like outdoors cats, live probably 10-40% less years, alot less sedentary & more free within those years.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Don't. Just don't. Seriously. I am not even going to entertain the notion that stone age tribes have anything comparable to modern medicine.

End of story. It's not even a discussion.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's best to think of it as a circle. The more you go down the extreme of either direction the more you end up in the same place.

Eh, then the dick measuring contest is about where the best place on the circle is to start and which 180 is bad. Or, if circles bore you, you could go full fish hook to argue that lack of murder is the hallmark of a terrible person. Eh, the whole thing is kinda dumb. I get more tired of it's particular breed of malice by the year and am all the more annoyed for its common parlance creeping into my brain.

should we undertake an effort to convert all abrahamics, because they live in ignorance of our scientific advancement?

It's sorta pithy, but they aren't isolated. They speak your language, they shop in your stores when they're allowed the money they self select your medicine when they're allowed the resources. This island situation, either way you take it, isn't actually just naked bigotry.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

If "them" refers to the actual human beings, I don't really see the impact of that on them. If they could be slowly and safely be integrated into a modern society, these humans wouldn't go extinct. They would still have descendants, maybe even more than they will have if they stay uncontacted. They would see their children and grandchildren acting differently, but in a way that is something that every generation has to face. Culture is never preserved, because it is constantly changing. You can only try to rescue tidbits by documenting them - but that could also be done in such cases. Therefore, I don't think preserving culture is an important value. It just doesn't help anyone and there is no point to create a "zoo" of different cultures (that no one can visit anyway).

That said, it would be quite hard to ensure slow and safe integration and with their arrows they have made it very clear that they don't want to be contacting. So I think that using force to make them take the risk is not ethical behavior, even if you believe that it would be better for them.

I agree with this mostly, culture is definitely everchanging, not static, so there is little point in trying to preserve, because culture is simply lived. If it isn't anymore, it's dead. But we should also be aware that some elements of culture can be viral, or toxic. And protesting that is a good thing.

In the end, I don't want a "Zoo of cultures" nor "Every city has a only a McDonalds, a Starbucks and an Apple Store". Some "cultures" die out, but there are different mechanisms of cultural erosion. Culture can also be replaced and manufactured. Like when the Chinese government aggressively targets minorities to "Hanify" them, destroy their population on a genetic and cultural level. Or when corporate culture takes over local culture and strips away identity and character from a city. Those things happen all the time in a globalized world. A zoo isn't a good solution, but what mechanisms of defense can we, not as politicians or capitalists, but as people, employ?

Don't. Just don't. Seriously. I am not even going to entertain the notion that stone age tribes have anything comparable to modern medicine.

End of story. It's not even a discussion.

Nobody said anything even close to this.

 

[Farm Boy]

what mechanisms of defense can we, not as politicians or capitalists, but as people, employ?

These guys used bows. Some of us use guns.

Then it takes a bigger gun or a slower motion erosion. The latter of which people tend to find more acceptible.

dogmatic internet-atheists

A weak subculture tolerated by the devaluation of labor, no? The religous have crises of faith all the time, they just tend to phrase their struggles in the language of communal hope, rather than prosthlytizing it. Certainly not a new human cultural development, is it?