I'm sorry to have to say this, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea here, but this reads like some type of NAMBLA propaganda. Child rape is demonstrably bad because regardless of whatever cultural context it's practiced in, it induces trauma in the child, which in turn normally leads to negative societal problems. The fact that certain societies can mask or reduce the damage done, doesn't make it alright.By your logic, shouldn't we embrace pedophilia because doing so allegedly reduces the harm to society? If not, on what basis?
I understood the risk of what it might "sound like" when I wrote it, I just don't care. If it is bad regardless of cultural context(arguable, though I'm not willing to get into that here), then it is bad for THAT culture. Can you actually, verifiably equate the damage from dumping toxic waste into the ocean with that of pedophilia? Dumping toxic waste into the ocean affects you, and everyone else, no matter where it occurs because of weather patterns/ocean currents/etc. The only way pedophiles or victims can harm your culture is if they infiltrate or, at minimum, interact with it. Child rape (or childlove, to make sure I still sound like NAMBLA promoter) does not transmit by air.
Now, the answer to your question is no, we should not embrace it, by my "logic." I don't know if there's logic behind my position or not, and it doesn't matter either. My basis is that I don't want any children being molested in my culture. I don't have to justify or rationalize that - I simply DON'T WANT IT. Faced with some petulant asshole that is so self-absorbed and common that he has the gall to oppose that edict, I would suffer no hesitation to shoot him in the face. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'd experience heartfelt joy in doing so.
I'm not enforcing an utopian vision, just sanity. Again, if a society is dumping toxic waste in the Pacific Ocean and they don't think anything is wrong with that, would you allow it to continue? Is intervening a form of cultural imperialism or just the sane thing to do?
Sanity is a loaded, nebulous term, and to my mind, a very relative concept. However, to address your second question (seeing as I already addressed the first) - it is cultural imperialism AND the sane thing to do. The same would go for eliminating pedophilia. I recognize that is imperialistic, I just don't see the problem with that. Might makes right, inasmuch as there is such a thing as "right" at all(there isn't).
I thought I already addressed this, but the implosion of societies doesn't lead to a Darwinian death, but the transformation of those nations into anarchic war zones that then spread until someone with the power to do so puts an end to it. Everybody gains from living in an orderly and sane world. We are all interconnected because we share one globe, therefore if certain societies are in disarray it will indirectly effect everyone.
You addressed it in an incomplete manner. If they turn into anarchic war zones, WHY NOT NUKE THEM? Hell, why not nuke them right off the bat, if they practice such vile things. Why try to correct their behavior, siphoning off manpower, resources, energy, and time from devotion to your own society's improvement, especially when those attempts to correct theirs do not have guaranteed results? Bombs have only one outcome. If a society is dangerous enough to negatively affect everyone on the globe, just fucking eliminate it. Why the savior ethic? Some things are too broken to fix; some can be fixed, but the cost outweighs the benefit. Sometimes you have to shoot the horse in the head, even if all that's wrong with it is a broken leg.