Tribes uncontacted by man - facinating
- Thread starter Booner!
- Start date
See my edit. Yeah, when anthropology was a young science mistakes were made. It is a massive crime that so many societies were converted to Christianity, killed by disease, and introduced to technology they didn't need or want.
And that is exactly why, now that we have this golden opportunity, we must not make the same mistake again. It's time to get responsible.
They don't need anything else at all, they've survived like that for thousands of years. Doesn't mean we shouldn't make contact though. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sure, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think we will go in with the best intentions but in reality it will mean the end to their current way of life, maybe in balance their lives will be improved but my fear is that they will just become another "tribe lost to progress".
I think we will go in with the best intentions but in reality it will mean the end to their current way of life, maybe in balance their lives will be improved but my fear is that they will just become another "tribe lost to progress".
If they want to progress we have no right to tell them otherwise. It might be a shame, but we can't tell people what to do just because we think it's the best for them.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
Seems like they have overdone the spray tan
No one is telling them not to progress.
I think the consensus here is broadly recognising the complexity of the question and recognising that there is no right answer. Leaving them to it is ok but already compromised by seeing the aircraft. Saying hello and giving them the opt in / out choice is nice but flawed. Since they have not been socialised to understand the choice you propose presenting them with. So broadly speaking their world, for good or for bad, will never be quite the same again.
But they've not progressed in 1000's of years, it won't be their own progress it will just be progress handed to them on a plate! They don't really need progress as they live at one with nature, sure we can teach them how to be "good consumers" and utilise even more of the earths non replaceable resources.
To be honest their lifestyle is far more sustainable than ours, we think we're advanced but I bet you are I couldn't live in the middle of a jungle!
Last edited:
But there is no choice being presented. It is simply a contact and asking if they mind sharing there storys. From there then it's upto them on how far they want to go. People get confused about what would happen know and how things have been done in the past.
Share their stories? Really. Again, how are they going to do that without sufficient exposure to us to find a common tongue. Surely that presents them with a choice, whether they want it or not. Will they want to hear our "stories"?
I am pretty certain i am not confused.
Acidhell does more than one person have access to your account?
"progress" is a dirty word. imho that tribe are more "advanced" than us.
Nope jut me, I've already aid there is nothing wrong with there way of live and in many cases it's better than ours.
Of course there is a choice being presented. Additionally, why do you insist on offering them progress? They have developed very little in however long they have existed because they haven't the need or desire to - subsistence lifestyle is the one they have chosen. Many indiginous peoples and societies do develop, if they desire to.
If they have no desire to, why should we come in and offer it to them?
How do you propost they make a rational decision to a group of people they do not know, and whom they do not understand?
I'm sorry to press this issue, but it is up to you to give us a compelling argument as to why they would be better off with us introducing ourselves to them.
I'm not offering them progress, i'm not saying they would be better of with us. I'm simply saying we should make contact and see what happens. With legislation so they aren't steam rolled over. Simply some people making contact and seeing what happens.
Whatdo you imagine happens?
Best case - they simply carry on as they were.
Worst case - it leads to them leaving their way of life (perhaps this would take a generation) for this 'better' model. Their traditional way of life is lost forever.
Can we take the risk? Really? Sure, it might be fine. But if there was even a 1% chance it won't be, we simply must not do it.
Best case - they simply carry on as they were.
Worst case - it leads to them leaving their way of life (perhaps this would take a generation) for this 'better' model. Their traditional way of life is lost forever.
Can we take the risk? Really? Sure, it might be fine. But if there was even a 1% chance it won't be, we simply must not do it.
Has nothin anyone has said here had any impact on your view whatsoever? Oh well, that was a good way to kill time.
What risk if they wish to leave there old live that's there decision not yours or mine. As I said your treating them like a museum artifact for your own ends.
no way is that worst case - that is best case and base case, worst case is that they die.
Perhaps 150 years from now the Brazillian government can build a casino for them and let them run that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 5,280
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Send in Indy Jones to find the gold and stuff! 
I'm not treating them as anything for my own ends.
If we hadn't seen this picture, the reality is we wouldn't know they exist - so we don't touch them. That's why, now that we do know, I still say we don't touch them.
THat's why I'm not 'treating them like a museum piece' because I haven't changed my view. My view is that we have a moral obligation to let them live their own lives in the way they have chosen to, not via a choice we have engineered upon them.
You're saying now that we know, let's contact them and see what happens. To me that's massively short sighted, I'll say it again, given the precedents of past experience.
If we hadn't seen this picture, the reality is we wouldn't know they exist - so we don't touch them. That's why, now that we do know, I still say we don't touch them.
THat's why I'm not 'treating them like a museum piece' because I haven't changed my view. My view is that we have a moral obligation to let them live their own lives in the way they have chosen to, not via a choice we have engineered upon them.
You're saying now that we know, let's contact them and see what happens. To me that's massively short sighted, I'll say it again, given the precedents of past experience.