Tribe meets white people for the first time

Since you have already lived in the modern world, I suggest you get out in the wilderness and survive without any modern assistence.

Your post has its fair share of misguidedness, but this particular suggestion's problems should be very obvious. Obviously your hypothetical Traitorfish (based on reasonable but unconfirmed assumptions) has not spent his life in the wilderness and is not adapted to it, and would not be able to draw on social support networks there; equally, a Papuan highland hunter-gatherer has no more experience in this world. His struggles coping with this world would represent nothing more than the foreigness of his upbringing to another way of life ... so it is with your hypothetical construction of Traitorfish. Completely pointless line of argument.
 
If these tribals want access to ANY help from us, then they will have to do what any other modern citizen has to: get a job and pay taxes.
The beautiful thing about a self-sufficient tribal life is that they don't need "jobs". I suspect they also have longer life-expectancies than their slum dwelling counterparts who lack jobs.

Also, most tribal people aren't asking for help, afaik. Mostly they just want their land rights respected so they can take care of themselves.

Personally, I'd rather be free & die a few years earlier (a dubious argument considering it's either tribal life or slum dwelling working some crap job) than come with my hand out for some exploitative laboring job to some smug, condescending, "civilized" bastard.

He does, but leaves unanswered the question of why don't people choose such a wonderful lifestyle today? The intellectual arguments for it sound great on paper, but they are not strong enough to convince anyone to actually go back to an H&G lifestyle. It is too damn hard and what we have is actually better. I do like JD, but wonder if he is still living in a house and driving a car.
Maybe he stays in civilized America because there are so many local hunter gatherer societies to choose from he can't decide which one he wants to integrate into. :crazyeye:

If there were a few hundred people on the planet, virgin streams, forests & wildlife abounding it'd be a different story.

Also, using the word "back" is a bit dishonest. There's no reason we can't keep the knowledge we've gained while releasing the social, emotional & ecological benefits of a more tribal lifestyle. There's no room left to be nomadic (probably not enough room period, its very likely a population bottleneck will occur within our lifetime) but we can try to learn from our mistakes.
 
The beautiful thing about a self-sufficient tribal life is that they don't need "jobs". I suspect they also have longer life-expectancies than their slum dwelling counterparts who lack jobs.

Also, most tribal people aren't asking for help, afaik. Mostly they just want their land rights respected so they can take care of themselves.

Personally, I'd rather be free & die a few years earlier (a dubious argument considering it's either tribal life or slum dwelling working some crap job) than come with my hand out for some exploitative laboring job to some smug, condescending, "civilized" bastard.

And that is certainly their choice to make and they would not be judged harshly for it by any reasonable person. However, you suggested that we should try and provide assistence to them purely out of the goodness of our collective hearts. This suggestion to me is absolutely outrageous seeing as these tribals contribute nothing to the advancement of the whole of civilization. I don't mind aid going to the poor modern nations because they still contribute, whether it be in a large or small way.

If, at some point, they decide they want to benefit from our society, then it is not an unreasonable request that they integrate into our society.
 
Because it's not fair to compare the best of one lifestyle to the worst of another. If you make comparisons like that, then just about any lifestyle can look better than another. So it is only fair to either compare the worst with the worst or the best with the worst. If you do it like that, then modern society is still the more attractive choice in both cases.
We're not just comparing for the sake of it, we're talking about the actual prospects faced by hunter-gatherer peoples if they are made to integrate into "modern" society. That means that you have to compare their current lifestyle with the prospects offered to them by integration, and not some generic model of each.

You also cannot discuss the merits of one lifestyle over another just by reading other people's research. The only way you can make a valid assessment of two different lifestyles is to actually live both lifestyles. Since you have already lived in the modern world, I suggest you get out in the wilderness and survive without any modern assistence.
This is basically a denial of the validity of all anthropology, sociology, and social history, so who you thought it would convince, I'm really not sure.

And that is certainly their choice to make and they would not be judged harshly for it by any reasonable person. However, you suggested that we should try and provide assistence to them purely out of the goodness of our collective hearts. This suggestion to me is absolutely outrageous seeing as these tribals contribute nothing to the advancement of the whole of civilization.
No idea what this is. Sounds Whiggish.
 
http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf

I think Jared Diamond covers the topic well.

seriously dude? I'm only 7 posts and the same page above you.

edit: BirdJaguar, the "hole" you see is actually filled in in the article. It's a simple game theory equation: the society that made more food killed the society that made less food, took their land, made more food, and killed the next tribe over. Fast forward from agriculturalism to capitalism and it's largely an arms race. If we stop advancing economically then we become someone else's slaves or trophy skull.
 
Pangur Bán;11177491 said:
Anyway, Diamond does not advocate changing lifestyles to hunter-gatherer. He just points out that it was better for most than agriculture in terms of quality of life
Exactly! And he also points out that hunter-gatherer on a large scale is only feasible with a way, way, way reduced population than we have nowadays.
I already went into all this in my last post, but apparently nobody took notice. :(
 
And that is certainly their choice to make and they would not be judged harshly for it by any reasonable person. However, you suggested that we should try and provide assistence to them purely out of the goodness of our collective hearts. This suggestion to me is absolutely outrageous seeing as these tribals contribute nothing to the advancement of the whole of civilization. I don't mind aid going to the poor modern nations because they still contribute, whether it be in a large or small way.
Tribal people have contributed to me, by watching videos about various tribal people I have been uplifted, gotten insights into human nature & child rearing & overall become a better person.

Not to mention many modern drugs were originally discovered (in plant compounds) in the rainforests & other wild settings, no doubt researchers were helped by natives who've known the medicial properties of their ecosystems for thousands of years.

Try to think a little bit before you degrade whole classes of people merely because your narrow definition of service to you consists merely of the Chinese children who make your junk & the Walmart cashiers who bag it.

If, at some point, they decide they want to benefit from our society, then it is not an unreasonable request that they integrate into our society.
No one should have to integrate unless they want to. Forced integration is culturally genocide.
 
Also, using the word "back" is a bit dishonest. There's no reason we can't keep the knowledge we've gained while releasing the social, emotional & ecological benefits of a more tribal lifestyle.

Kind of hard to maintain research institutes without an industrial base. Making use of the fruits of such research also requires production capability. Personally, I find a societal structure that completely removes the possibility of technological advancement detestable.
 
So Pangar, Sill and Traitorfish are all gonna strip down to there hula skirts and set off into the scottish wilderness, eh? After all it's a better life, the cost is basically nil and there are zero barriers to entry. What is stopping you?
 
Kind of hard to maintain research institutes without an industrial base. Making use of the fruits of such research also requires production capability. Personally, I find a societal structure that completely removes the possibility of technological advancement detestable.
Theoretically if we could get little nano-bots to do all the work humans could live as they choose. Tribalism as a societal structure does not "completely removes the possibility of technological advancement".

Anyway, with digital technology great minds could connect remotely via the web and convene in conferences quarterly (or however often). Kind of like how they do now.
 
So Pangar, Sill and Traitorfish are all gonna strip down to there hula skirts and set off into the scottish wilderness, eh? After all it's a better life, the cost is basically nil and there are zero barriers to entry. What is stopping you?
Well for one thing I think that dress code isn't very adaptive for the climate. :p
 
Theoretically if we could get little nano-bots to do all the work humans could live as they choose. Tribalism as a societal structure does not "completely removes the possibility of technological advancement".
And how do you propose to replace and maintain them? Or even make them in the first place? Or power them and give them instructions? I don't think metals and other advanced materials come pre-purified in nature. Nanotechnology isn't magic that gives you something for nothing.

Anyway, with digital technology great minds could connect remotely via the web and convene in conferences quarterly (or however often). Kind of like how they do now.

Digital devices aren't that easy to make either. And you mention the Web. Cables and satellites that need to be maintained.
 
And that is certainly their choice to make and they would not be judged harshly for it by any reasonable person. However, you suggested that we should try and provide assistence to them purely out of the goodness of our collective hearts. This suggestion to me is absolutely outrageous seeing as these tribals contribute nothing to the advancement of the whole of civilization. I don't mind aid going to the poor modern nations because they still contribute, whether it be in a large or small way.

Are you totally against giving to charity or something? A lot of the recipients don't exactly give anything back in return (i.e. "contribute").

So Pangar, Sill and Traitorfish are all gonna strip down to there hula skirts and set off into the scottish wilderness, eh? After all it's a better life, the cost is basically nil and there are zero barriers to entry. What is stopping you?

At least they can read.
 
So Pangar, Sill and Traitorfish are all gonna strip down to there hula skirts and set off into the scottish wilderness, eh? After all it's a better life, the cost is basically nil and there are zero barriers to entry. What is stopping you?
Because, as we keep saying, we're not primitivists? :confused: (I don't know about Narz or Pangur, but I'm very specifically anti-primie, the whole Bookchinian "liberatory technology" shtick.)
 
edit: BirdJaguar, the "hole" you see is actually filled in in the article. It's a simple game theory equation: the society that made more food killed the society that made less food, took their land, made more food, and killed the next tribe over. Fast forward from agriculturalism to capitalism and it's largely an arms race. If we stop advancing economically then we become someone else's slaves or trophy skull.
Thanks!
 
Are you totally against giving to charity or something? A lot of the recipients don't exactly give anything back in return (i.e. "contribute").

Honestly, I really am not too keen on the idea of charity. Does that make me a horrible person? Maybe, but I just believe their should be a trade off for everything and it's unfair to expect someone to give you something with no expectation of some sort of repayment.
 
Honestly, I really am not too keen on the idea of charity. Does that make me a horrible person?

Yeah, it kind of does. Some people just have nothing to offer, and apparently you'd rather let them die.
 
Yeah, it kind of does. Some people just have nothing to offer, and apparently you'd rather let them die.

Everybody has something to offer. Repayment doesn't have to be with money or material goods it can be services or just a gesture that says thank you.

For example, let's say you needed $400 dollars for whatever reason and I give it to you. Now I may not expect you to repay the full amount but maybe you might do something nice for me like cutting my lawn when I'm sick or picking up my mail while I'm away. As long as I know you are trying to repay me for something I did for you then that will be good enough. The point though, is that I will not give something away for free no matter the circumstances
 
Everybody has something to offer. Repayment doesn't have to be with money or material goods it can be services or just a gesture that says thank you.

So what makes you think a hunter-gatherer tribe would be incapable of that?
 
Top Bottom