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.....

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.

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.

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

Medicine can't prevent death, just delay it.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

Just because the modern world can offer life-saving medicine does not mean it is available to all who inhabit that world. It is not even available to all who inhabit Brazil and Peru. What on earth makes you think that this group of people will go from having no aspects of the modern world in their lives to having the best that the modern world can offer? That's a huge assumption to make. The risks inherent in wreaking sudden and profound change upon a society are great indeed to be taking on their behalf, based upon an assumption that could well prove false. Are we introducing life-saving medicines and a more fulfilling life, or are we introducing a new conception of poverty and unease?

Noble savage? Doesn't exist and never has. But who's to say they're savages? And for all of our progress how arrogant to say we are better. The city dwellar looks at the rural villager and thinks how strange and uncomfortable to know everybody and have everyone know your business, how strange and how small their world. The villager looks at the city dwellar and thinks how cold to be so anonymous, to have nobody looking out for you, nobody knowing you but your immediate family, no roots beyond your front door. Neither way is more or less civilised than the other and both are very different. We are looking from afar at these people, we only know our own world, how can we possibly know how it compares to theirs. Mathematical formulas of disease and morbidity cannot give us that answer. We don't know what their cultural understanding of the world is, what art they pass from generation to generation.

There is no consensus on the gender question, in the fields of history or anthropology. There are enough anomolies to throw doubt on most theses and there are enough patterns to add weight. We do not know how these people construct gender. It has been constructed differently at different times in different places and cultures have historically had a knack of constructing gender, or allowing enough flexibility in the model, to effectively respond to their needs. Again there are anomalies, most particularly when there are competing needs. If there is a social need for girl babies, but an economic need for boys, we can end up with cultures breaking the fine balance in births that allows them continue.

We don't know anything about these people. There is enough variance amongst the known patterns of development exhibited by 'primitive' cultures that we really can't make too many assumptions.

OK then, modest proposal time. Obviously we can't just preserve them in some sort of aquarium-like Truman Show; they will be contacted somehow, perhaps they will migrate right into civilization;

So, we send an emissary to explain we're from a tribe next door and sorry about those helicopters;

And then, we'll just say, oh hey, we come in peace and all that... we've figured something out that we'd like to tell you about. It's called a yoke. What we did, we figured out that if you put a bar of wood across two animals' shoulders, they can do a third more work. Do you have any inventions that you can share with our tribe?

And if they like the yoke idea, they will share with us one of their things. Maybe they've found a berry that cures headaches, or a secret to relaxation in the nighttime, or the names of particular Gods that they worship. And we will take their idea/invention/thinking and put it on the web, so that we all can share in what they've done.

And then the next day, we share another thing. (Cans, probably.) Until they don't want to share any more.

Fair enough?

*chuckles* nice idea.

How do any of us know what their culture has knowledge of or not? We've only seen a couple of pictures. Despite all of our previous encounters with primitive civilizations, we definitely do not know about this one. They may have infant mortality rates better than ours.

That's right, they might. Someone should go ask them about that.

Yeah.

I'd love to know how we could possibly improve their infant mortality rate given their remote location and lack of anything resembling money.

I know that's already been said, but worth reiterating for those who believe that not initiating contact makes us King Herod.

I don't know what the answer is, I just think we're presumptuous to think we know about their life spans, medicines etc.

This is a departure from the ongoing coversation...but I wonder if it isn't accidental that we've never seen them before, and they aim their arrows at us when we show up.

Maybe their ancestors encountered Europeans, long ago, and barely survived the encounter, only to hide deep, deep within the jungle and teach their children and their children's children: "BE VERY AFRAID OF THE WHITE INVADER. HE WILL ENSLAVE YOU, STEAL YOUR LAND, RAPE YOUR WOMEN, AND YOU WILL DROP DEAD FROM HORRIBLE ILLNESS."

That might be a really convincing precedent for them not to trust outsiders; possibly difficult to overcome long enough to teach them about canned food...

Maybe we could just give them some blankets.




:rolleyes:

or a PS3

With smallpox.

Dude that was so wrong.

:D

Bruce got it. :D

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.

What the fuck has God got to do with it?

Coign is railing against an argument nobody made. :rolleyes:

lol :lol2: yeah...who's he talking to? What a maroon...what an ignoranamous.

Hey dickweed, all I said was how do we know what their infant mortality rate is...they're UNCONTACTED.

Did you see this part of my post? You can fuck my god all you want, but I'm not sure who you'll fuck because I'm not a big believer...but I think it will calm you down a bit!:bitching: :comfort: :fuse: Now pull your pink panties out of your ass and your post out of your tail.

cuckoo cuckoo

Work less? On what are you basing your assumption that they work less?

I think he's contacted them. Crap, there goes the whole "uncontacted" mystique.

lol

My argument is based on you making the assumption that they have better health plan and are overall happier based on NOTHING! That is called faith.

I base my argument that their life would be better by introducing civilization on historical FACTS. That is called science.

That is why I brought a god into it. It is not the American God I specify, or Yahweh, or Xenu, or what ever magical power you think makes them healthier then me. I mention all of them because each one is an example of YOUR type arrogance.

I don't care if you use the term higher power, god, or pixie dust. You making an assumption that contradicts greater empirical evidence means you have FAITH not reasoning to backup your argument.

The work less comment was because I use it as one (and only one) of my goal posts in a happiness measurement. And historically if they are hunter/gathers as these pictures indicate to me then they work a shitload. If you have to work 160 hours a week to feed your tribe you are not spending free time in the pursuit of happiness.

Yet you call those who use reasoning to say that we should contact them and introduce civilization to them arrogant? No we are not arrogant, we are civilized, and realize that magic does not make a person healthy.

Mate...what the fuck are you talking about? Who suggested they work less? Who made that assumption? I know I didn't. Nor did I make any assumptions regarding their 'health plan.' Nor did I make the assumption that they are happier. What I did posit is that we cannot make the assumption that their lives are hard, brutish and short with no evidence on which to base such an assumption. We shold not assume that they are unhappier than we are. Nor should we assume that the potential benefits of civilisation would a) automatically render them happier or b) automatically become available to them through being contacted.

You are making huge assumptions about these people and the effects contact would have and then accusing anybody who raises potential problems with that model of acting on blind faith, whilst attributing to them assumptions which they have not made.

Where the fuck did I make any assumption that "they have better health plan?" Where the fuck did I make any assumption?

All I did was pose that, since we know nothing about them, PERHAPS they have a lower infant mortality rate than we could know. We don't know! How is it, if you're so civilized and advanced, you are still such a neanderthal?

PERHAPS. It's Engrish. Speak it.

Listen fuckwad, you're getting on my last nerve. Use me as your little hopping post for whatever cause you're trying to advance...but try to be accurate about what I said. And don't make assumptions about what I might think of as my faith. You know less about me than you do the forest-dwellars.
Or stick a cock in your mouth, a healthy one please. :headshake

Did I remember to say Fuck You? Oh, sorry. Fuck you. :lol2:

Sorry I was editing my message as you posted this one. I base my assumption that they work more on the FACT that I see them in the picture as a hunter/gather society which in EVERY case meant more work.

My HUGE assumptions is based on thousands of case histories. What are your HUGE assumptions based on?

I assume that to start them on the road to civilization WILL make their life better. Why do you want to keep them working, sick, and ignorant? Because history tells me that is what they are.

NEITHER OF US MADE ANY ASSUMPTIONS YOU ASSUMPTION MAKING ASSHAT.

What a loser.

What do you know? I mean really know? Even if you drop an apple to the ground do you KNOW it will fall down EVERY time you do it?

This is the basis of the FACT that EVERYTHING is a theory and is the base argument for creationism. Because it is a theory it could be eventually proven wrong. Therefore maybe magic does exist.

I tend to believe that the apple (without any further extenuating circumstances) will fall to the ground. And you know what? I bet you I will be right.

Using what has been shown in the past I am willing to bet these people are hungry, sick, and unhappy. And you know what? Since I believe the apple will hit the ground, I bet you I will be right.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, what apple? I'm too stupid to get the apple thing. Do you eat it?

Oh, and HUH?

You are making the assumption that us contacting them will be bad. I am making the assumption that contacting them will be good.

The rest of it is just us backing up our argument. I use "what we know" as my basis for argument and you use "what you don't know" as the basis for your argument.

Faith vs. Science again at war.

First off, as I have already said in earlier posts: given their isolation and lack of material wealth the chances of them being able to partake in much that civilisation has to offer are actually quite slim. Secondly, because they are hunter gatherers and therefore have to work a great deal, does not mean they will automatically be happier. They will almost certainly concieve of work differently to the way you or I do as they are operating from a different (in fact profoundly alien) mentalite. Consequently the perceived burden of work will be different. It is unlikely that they will spend eight to ten hours a day doing the same thing every day, that is something they may consider burdensome in the same way I would consider having to find water burdensome.

You are pulling out historical agreement where none exists. It is the nature of historians to argue and find flaws with each others' theses. How detailed are your case studies? Are they from archaeological studies, in which case they are blurred by the lack of detailed records and the vast swathes of blank and unlit terrirtory. Are they from recently observed cultures, in which case the observation is through modern eyes.

We. Do. Not. Know. How. Happy. They. Are.

In what way am I making 'HUGE assumptions' by stating that we do not know enough about these uncontacted people to make assumptions about them?

Newton's apple? You didn't get the implied physics argument there? How do we know physics will work the same every time?

I'm sorry, were you not taught science in school?

What analogy would you like me to use?

Huh? Dude, you're blinding me with science.

You're making the assumption that I made any assumption. What do you not get?

You're also making an assumption that I'm an uneducated moron waving a bible around. You are not actually reading anything you are responding to, just picking out bits and pieces so you can babble on about what a grand scientist you are.

Well Dr Franken-steeeen, you obviously don't know me. I'm the last person to hide behind religion, or anything else.

kthxbai

From

The dilemma of contact: voluntary isolation and the impacts of gas exploitation on health and rights in the Kugapakori Nahua Reserve, Peruvian Amazon

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9..._4_045005.html

From the Independant article about the tribe in this thread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...774.html?r=RSS

Sarcasm. Heard of it?

Here's an analogy you can use:


Newton beat the living fuck out of Coign because Coign was such an unprecedented asshole. This led the way to further research into assholiness and the subsequent smack-down of t-dub wannabe trolls everywhere. Science IS good.

Have you read any of your own posts in this thread?

Someone says that they have a low mortality rate. You reply that they can't know that.

Why not? Why can't that person know that if he hasn't read and been taught and learned that primitive tribes have lower lifespans and higher mortality rates than a more civilized culture?

Because he hasn't been there? Because he hasn't contacted the tribe? But there have been a hundered tribes discovered before and a hundred times it has been the case. But that past history doesn't mean that he knows what the lifestyle is like about these people?

And I'm sorry you are not making any assumptions. You are just telling him he is wrong.

Isn't that an assumption?

And it isn't the first time you have said, "You can't say that cause you don't know."

Why not?

What gives you the power to say he is wrong?

Do you have ANY basis to point to the fact that he is wrong?

I apologize for calling you a bible-thumper in my original post. I just hate it when people use what they DON'T KNOW as their basis argument.

It smacks of religion and gets me riled up and I tend to lash out a bit harder than I normally would.

Go ahead and call me an asshole. I deserve that. A number of my comments were.

But don't call me wrong unless you KNOW something I don't.

Why is it that if the indigenous people are spending their days hunting and fishing, that's work, but if we spend our days hunting and fishing, that's vacation?

Ah, perspective.

Who taught you that ? Are you comparing the health and lifespan of 'primitive' tribes with your average New Yorker, or with a more appropriate group, like the poor farming communities that subsist across much of the world (so called 'third world')?

If you are suggesting that they have a lower lifespan than we do then you may have a point, but what is on offer is not our lifestyle, but a few little forays into modernity. If you are suggesting that the poorest 'modern' community is healthier and longer lived than 'primitive' hunter gatherers then you are wrong.

Compare the health and lifespan of settled subsistence farmers with primitive hunter gatherers and you will almost certainly find that the hunter gatherers are healthier, live longer, are more resistant to disease, work less and have a healthier and more nutritious diet.



From

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/futureprim.html

Whatever. T-dub.

Coign meet tw, whats that you are tw? in that case nevermind

lol - great minds think alike :lol2:

:hugs:

:)

If you check the record of such contact you'll find it mainly went pretty badly for the contacted tribes. On the whole they did not march forward into the white heat of technology....

Also, if you think that anthropology has in any way reached a consensus on most of this stuff you are sadly mistaken. There have been near fist fights and decades long feuds over subtle distinctions of societal development in these tribes. There have also been new generations of observers who have brought wholly different techniques and observations to tribes who we previously thought we understood.


[eta] if you went to a convention of those anthropologists who've documented the first contacts you are talking about and tried to tell them any assumptions could be made on the grounds of what they already knew, you'd be laughed out of the building. Just a thought.

A hundred, coign? Cite?

I never quoted any actual "statistics" if that's what we can call your arbitrary "hundred." Some science guy.

I am sorry. Maybe I am a little slow. You compare me to and/or say I am President Bush.

Your basis for this is that (I'm assuming here because I don't really understand your insult) you are saying Bush promotes taking things on faith and on the contrary I am trying to promote educating yourself and look at things from a reasoning point of view?

Let me break this down even further to really point out the complete dichotomy of this insult.

Lets say taking things on faith is white and taking things on past scientific basis is black.

You insult me by calling my black attiude is the complete opposite and is white?

Then you pat yourself on the back and give high fives to all your friends for an awesome insult.

You know I can't even be insulted by that. I am just really confused as your elation over your clever retort.

You would have hurt my feelings more if you would have called me a poopy-head.

And since this argument has dissolved down into insults that don't even make slightest sort of sense I bid you good day and will stop posting in this thread.

Hooray!

Actually Coign nobody compared you to Bush.