Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

There are still hundreds of uncontacted tribes in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

And there are obviously small tribes that we don't know exist yet. I find it amazing that with everything in the modern world, that people like this could still exist. We should leave these people alone until it is absolutely necessary to interfere or contact them in some way.


NHA

Man the chick doing the voice over in the last one sounds like shes about to slash her wrists.

Uffe den tuffe

We should leave these people alone until it is absolutely necessary to interfere or contact them in some way.

Why?

We should leave these people alone until it is absolutely necessary to interfere or contact them in some way.

Why?

Well, most basically, they're not exposed to the germs the mainstream population has built up immunity towards, so contact often leads to population crashes. But fundamentally, these people are happy the way they are, they are free to live how they choose. If they want to contact us, let them choose, otherwise let them be at peace, harmonious with nature. I don't see why we have any duty or right or obligation to infuse society into their ways of life. It is understood that most of these people are probably aware of the existence of society on some level outside their sphere. When they are ready, if they are ever ready, let them choose.  Additionally, in their "natural" state provide a wealth of information about human socialization outside of complex societies and dogmatic monotheistic gods, and also how life may have been for our own ancestors.

If our current society were healthier, we had ways to repress the outbreak of disease that we don't know, and if I wasn't part of a culture being purposely disintegrated I might feel differently.

Uffe den tuffe

[F]undamentally, these people are happy the way they are, they are free to live how they choose. If they want to contact us, let them choose, otherwise let them be at peace, harmonious with nature. I don't see why we have any duty or right or obligation to infuse society into their ways of life. It is understood that most of these people are probably aware of the existence of society on some level outside their sphere. When they are ready, if they are ever ready, let them choose.  

Let's say some outsiders needed their land or the like. What justifies us stopping these infiltrators from taking it? What justifies the tribes' survival? Nostalgia of "natural men" from a "Golden Age"?

Additionally, in their "natural" state provide a wealth of information about human socialization outside of complex societies and dogmatic monotheistic gods, and also how life may have been for our own ancestors.

Would that information make it "necessary to interfere" then?

Let's say some outsiders needed their land or the like. What justifies us stopping these infiltrators from taking it? What justifies the tribes' survival? Nostalgia of "natural men" from a "Golden Age"?

See my post in the walking stick thread about bio diversity to shed further light on the perspective I take. There are multiple parts to the answer. I see these people as part of the biosphere, as they are a part of the biosphere. That appears at first glance to be a trivializing dehumanization. But it is not, as it just relegates these humans to the animal kingdom, as they are members of the animal kingdom. One should then ask "why then are the outsiders who need the lake also not animals then and due the same protection?" My answer is once humans reach the point of living outside a "natural" balance, that is no longer more or less eternally sustainable, then they are exempt from protection under a nature provision. As my other post discusses, given our propensity to destroy other creatures, modern man is evolution's greatest failure. People like this in many ways represent the ideal of a human state where there is a synergy within nature. Whether these primitive tribes live in a perfect equilibrium with nature isn't material to this. No species does. The lack of perfect equilibrium is what causes speciation. These people should serve to inspire us to find the good in our history, and to strive for a future where modernism is no longer destructive to nature. And If they should inspire that, then therefore we should choose to leave these people alone, if we agree they are part of nature where we are not.

Also from what I will describe essentially as a libertarian pan-nationalist perspective, I don't think any group has the right to unilaterally run up on someone and for no other reason than purely self interest cause fundamental or catastrophic harm to another nation or cultural group's livelihood. Taking their lake would surely involve tremendous upheaval and their way of life would never be the same again.

I answered with the "us" mentioned in your question applied to the broad notion of "society" and not from the perspectives of "us" as Americans. That adds a whole new set of variables in terms of what right do Americans have in forcing the Peruvians to stop the illegal loggers or someone from taking the lake or what have you.

Quote
Would that information make it "necessary to interfere" then?

Several scenarios would lead to elements of their protection being potentially challenged or lost.

1. If these people were under significant risk of major harm or injury, and not requiring a risk of extinction. We would have a basic human rights duty to try and at least warn or even intervene and assist against the threat. Especially if it were a direct, or indirect, result of something we initiated. But either way, we have to intervene. The general rule when dealing with animals is to let nature take its course, unless we're dealing with extinction, then we intervene even if the extinction events are possibly natural in origin. It seems like a convenient double standard to treat them as natural "animals" when it fits, but then to default to a human rights issue when required, but they are human, and they are yet natural animals equally, so both schools of thought can be equally applied. "Human natural animals" are a true rarity, and this adds even more imperative at least for me in protecting them.

2. If they imitated contact, and began assimilation into unnatural society. There would have to be a judgement call here when they'd lose special naturalist protection. There is no guarantee they would be fully aware of what exactly they were doing, and if they understood the implications of what contact would mean for them. So a single or specific number of contact events, even if they initiated would rob them of "animalistic innocence"

3. They "naturally" became a significant risk to the survival of other species. Then they've moved closer into our camp. Say we identify without contact, a never before seen rare Dolphin in their lake that has been isolated for thousands of years, and is genetically unique. Say this dolphin is a prize game species to the tribe, but according to our observations may be heading toward extinction. If that is the case then our protection duty immediately moves in favor of the dolphin.

4. They develop "unnatural" technology or behavior independently. They come up with a gun, or a new pattern of behavior that is wholly unnatural and destructive like slash and burn farming, then consciously or not, they've forsaken their "annimalistic innocence".

"They develop "unnatural" technology or behavior independently. They come up with a gun, or a new pattern of behavior that is wholly unnatural and destructive like slash and burn farming, then consciously or not, they've forsaken their "annimalistic innocence"

What is "annimalistic innocence"? There's no such thing as this. The only reason apes or ants doesn't guns and planes it's because they are not intelligent enough to have them. If you observe an animal, you will see that they do everything for their survival, within the range of their intelligence. Sure, the animals don't try to go in that direction if they don't have the need to. It's the same thing with human in general. But with the humans destroying all nature, I'm pretty the majority of them wouldn't mind shooting a few humans with guns given the opportunity to do so.

Prove me wrong if i'm mistaken about this.

Personnally, I think that if thoses tribes doesn't threat us, we should leave them alone. If they don't want help from us, it's better not to intervene and let nature take care of it. I don't like civilisation enough to shove it down to people witout their consent. We got to remember that no matter what we do, they will die eventually like everyone of us. But if we intervene without jugement, they will have a double death. A cultural death. And we can also add a racial death either.

Uffe den tuffe

[G]iven our propensity to destroy other creatures, modern man is evolution's greatest failure. People like this in many ways represent the ideal of a human state where there is a synergy within nature. Whether these primitive tribes live in a perfect equilibrium with nature isn't material to this. No species does. The lack of perfect equilibrium is what causes speciation. These people should serve to inspire us to find the good in our history, and to strive for a future where modernism is no longer destructive to nature. And If they should inspire that, then therefore we should choose to leave these people alone, if we agree they are part of nature where we are not.

Not to be an ass, but I don't really see how their being a sort of mascot for anti-modern critics can help us learn anything about how we should for example adapt our technology in a non-harmful way.

These tribes may know how to live in harmony with their resources, demography and technology, but they don't have the experiences of the rest of the world.

Several scenarios would lead to elements of their protection being potentially challenged or lost.

These are plausible scenarios, but what I was wondering was whether our need for research on these tribes (a research I had the impression you advocate) justifies interfering with them, and potentially "ruin" them.

"They develop "unnatural" technology or behavior independently. They come up with a gun, or a new pattern of behavior that is wholly unnatural and destructive like slash and burn farming, then consciously or not, they've forsaken their "annimalistic innocence"

What is "annimalistic innocence"? There's no such thing as this. The only reason apes or ants doesn't guns and planes it's because they are not intelligent enough to have them. If you observe an animal, you will see that they do everything for their survival, within the range of their intelligence. Sure, the animals don't try to go in that direction if they don't have the need to. It's the same thing with human in general. But with the humans destroying all nature, I'm pretty the majority of them wouldn't mind shooting a few humans with guns given the opportunity to do so.

Prove me wrong if i'm mistaken about this.

Personnally, I think that if thoses tribes doesn't threat us, we should leave them alone. If they don't want help from us, it's better not to intervene and let nature take care of it. I don't like civilisation enough to shove it down to people witout their consent. We got to remember that no matter what we do, they will die eventually like everyone of us. But if we intervene without jugement, they will have a double death. A cultural death. And we can also add a racial death either.


I should have specifically said that I was using that as a way to describe the exemption from contact they're given that other people are not. What I simply mean is they are given their freedom and autonomy because of their natural or animal like state. They are "innocent" in that way as they can operate with impunity from government interference. If we discovered a group of people we knew descended from somewhere much more recently, and demonstrated behaviors and habits identifiably modern, we wouldn't likely feel any reservation running up on them immediately. But because these folks live in isolated, naturally evolved cultures that are very old, they're viewed in an animalisitic sense, and they're innocent from being held to expected social parameters, criminal justice, child labor, tax, criminal,. etc

Once they lost their animal like status, the innocence goes with it. Thus annimalistic innocence is what I dub it.

[G]iven our propensity to destroy other creatures, modern man is evolution's greatest failure. People like this in many ways represent the ideal of a human state where there is a synergy within nature. Whether these primitive tribes live in a perfect equilibrium with nature isn't material to this. No species does. The lack of perfect equilibrium is what causes speciation. These people should serve to inspire us to find the good in our history, and to strive for a future where modernism is no longer destructive to nature. And If they should inspire that, then therefore we should choose to leave these people alone, if we agree they are part of nature where we are not.

Not to be an ass, but I don't really see how their being a sort of mascot for anti-modern critics can help us learn anything about how we should for example adapt our technology in a non-harmful way.

These tribes may know how to live in harmony with their resources, demography and technology, but they don't have the experiences of the rest of the world.

Several scenarios would lead to elements of their protection being potentially challenged or lost.

These are plausible scenarios, but what I was wondering was whether our need for research on these tribes (a research I had the impression you advocate) justifies interfering with them, and potentially "ruin" them.

Admittedly, I am romanticizing them and their life style to add further weight to my case. I was more speaking to the idea of using them as inspirational, spiritual mascots, and not specific models of how we can better form society.

The research question is valid. This is in some ways parallel to the concern that any probe sent to Europa to find our solar cousins is dangerous as it may contaminate the European environment with earth life and potentially cause catastrophic extinction. Is the risk of destroying life there worth knowing if it is there?  I would say unless a specific scientific question of great importance came up, I don't think basic research is enough of a need to pester those people.