|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Jesus an actual example of the noble savage myth in tyool 2015. Lol someone who believes in the myth of progress in tyool 2015
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Really we should just make trading agreements to them and when they get in debt take their land forcibly by reneging on previous agreements. That sounds complicated. Can't we just take their land and be done with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
XMNN posted:People keep saying noble savage a lot then arguing that civilising the jungle savages is the white man's burden. People have a misconception that Amazonian uncontacted tribes are unknown people living in some sort of primeval state who have never encountered modern civilization. In fact most of these tribes are descendants of agriculturalists, who fled deep into the rainforest during the early 20th century during the Rubber Boom to escape genocidal massacres of indigenous people by rubber plantation owners and loggers. Anthropologists typically know exactly who these groups are, what languages they speak, and who their closest contacted relatives are. These groups refuse contact by choice, not because they are unaware of the outside world. Also, it's not unusual for these isolated groups to re-establish contact themselves after several generations have passed and violence against them has mostly stopped. This has happened in the Andaman Islands, though the indigenous groups there are still in a bad situation. Sucrose fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Weren't the last "uncontacted" groups in Central America Mayan refugees from the Spanish who were just living in remote agricultural regions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Weren't the last "uncontacted" groups in Central America Mayan refugees from the Spanish who were just living in remote agricultural regions? Yeah. Forcing someone to have contact with you for their own good isn't okay, but I have no legal problem with private individuals such as missionaries hiking around public reserves and exercising their free speech with whomever will listen. It's pretty dumb but it's not the same as "okay we're going to take your children to special schools whether you like it not d/w/i" like they did in Australia. Anyone conducting business like logging or oil prospecting (assuming it's legal) is also justified in shooting the poo poo out of any attacking party that puts lives in danger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:13
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Mofabio posted:Lol someone who believes in the myth of progress in tyool 2015 lol someone who believes progress is an ideology and not a descriptor of more people having access to more technologies and institutions that make life more convenient
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
I think everyone should the option to live however they want, so I'm sympathetic to the OP's proposal, but modern civilization has no facility with which to make that happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:What about people who homeschool their children? Should that practice be banned? Forcing people to interact seems like a losing proposition. There is a reason that they have chosen to isolate themselves Homeschooling should absolutely be limited to cases of legitimate need. For instance: 1) Medical needs - short or long term illness or injury that requires being out of school 2) Mental needs - students who simply can't handle the school 3) Protection from bullying - students who are subject to unrelenting abuse should be allowed to be out of the school until those other kids can be handled. I've known people who were stuck in homeschool situations against their will and in no way wanted to be there. And on top of that their parents were lovely as hell at teaching anything, and refused to use the free teaching materials/help that practically any public school authority in the country is more than willing to give out. DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah. I kinda do have a problem with them exercising "their free speech" if only that they probably don't know word one of the target people's language, so basically they're just hanging out near them and yelling stuff they can't understand. That's not really worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Yeah. Uncontacted indigenous groups typically live on reservations set aside for them, where it's illegal to trespass. But of course loggers and others often do so anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:A thousand times this. There's an assumption in the OP that bears examination, and it's the assumption that civilized life is objectively better than indigenous/noncivilized life. Not only is that not necessarily the case, but I can actually think of two instances where civilization is the clear loser when measured up against noncivilized lifestyles (which I'd define as any lifestyle that includes hunting/gathering as the primary mode of subsistence): I know this is from many pages back but I just feel like reiterating that both of these are unmitigated bullshit, including the second point. Effectronica posted:People declaring that it's okay to treat uncontacted people as children (which is what paternalism means) provide the strongest example of why compassionate contact is largely impossible- too many people refuse to look at these uncontacted people as fully human. The experiences and lifestyles of such cultures are starkly limited to the point that cosmopolitan outsiders are fully justified in holding paternalistic attitudes towards them. This is not any fault of theirs, but by the standards of a modern society, such people essentially suffer from a form of socially-reinforced mental illness and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 05:47
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I know this is from many pages back but I just feel like reiterating that both of these are unmitigated bullshit, including the second point. It actually is wrong to treat people as subhuman even if they have mental disorders. Furthermore, I am drat sure I know a lot more than you do, so I can apparently dictate what it is you do, according to your own logic, because you're suffering from a mental illness because of your relative ignorance. You can start by blowing me, and if you use your teeth, I'll knock 'em all out. Get to sucking.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It actually is wrong to treat people as subhuman even if they have mental disorders. Furthermore, I am drat sure I know a lot more than you do, so I can apparently dictate what it is you do, according to your own logic, because you're suffering from a mental illness because of your relative ignorance. You can start by blowing me, and if you use your teeth, I'll knock 'em all out. Get to sucking. paternalism != oppress all sub-humans
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Are there any statistics on how many people leave these isolated groups and choose to join the rest of society? Is that a realistic option anywhere, and does it happen? Are there programs in place to facilitate the cultural change that it requires?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I know this is from many pages back but I just feel like reiterating that both of these are unmitigated bullshit, including the second point. Did you even bother reading your own link? Because it doesn't refute either of the points I made (hell, this section explicitly discusses a decline in overall health and a rise in social divisions as a result of the Agricultural Revolution. But yeah, neither declining health nor a rise in social divisions could possibly influence mental health, so what do I know?). Not sure how you are planning to argue against my point about sustainability, considering that anyone could confirm it by reading a single shred of scientific research on what is happening to the environment, or by just, I don't know, walking outside and looking around. If you don't understand that our current lifestyle is wildly unsustainable, then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Did you even bother reading your own link? Because it doesn't refute either of the points I made (hell, this section explicitly discusses a decline in overall health and a rise in social divisions as a result of the Agricultural Revolution. But yeah, neither declining health nor a rise in social divisions could possibly influence mental health, so what do I know?). Hmm you just gave members of a species living in small roving groups with occasional contact eating a varied diet of intermittently no-to-moderate starch/sugar things a way to sit on top of each other by the thousand continuously while munching on grains and wading through pig poo poo? Oh gosh, the incidence of disease initially increased until they adapted to changed conditions, what a shock! e: we should, however, note that all the peoples that became unhealthy fat sedentary goons with rotten teeth and no body hygiene nonetheless conquered the world while hunter-gatherers are probably in the minority even among the isolated peoples that people itt want to put in suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Did you even bother reading your own link? Because it doesn't refute either of the points I made (hell, this section explicitly discusses a decline in overall health and a rise in social divisions as a result of the Agricultural Revolution. But yeah, neither declining health nor a rise in social divisions could possibly influence mental health, so what do I know?). The kind of lifestyles you are championing is equally unsustainable for socio-political reasons, which is to say "Existing at the mercy of natural forces and primitive social systems is a living hell that most people will choose to escape from, given the chance." Note that these 'uncontacted societies' are usually only able to maintain control over their members and prevent desertion to modern settlements because of geographical barriers like oceans and forests. Any efforts to return to the nightmarish state of primitivism you idolize would unavoidably resemble the latter stages of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge purges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:lol someone who believes progress is an ideology and not a descriptor of more people having access to more technologies and institutions that make life more convenient Those are certainly things that have happened in the last 200 years, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Hmm you just gave members of a species living in small roving groups with occasional contact eating a varied diet of intermittently no-to-moderate starch/sugar things a way to sit on top of each other by the thousand continuously while munching on grains and wading through pig poo poo? Oh gosh, the incidence of disease initially increased until they adapted to changed conditions, what a shock! I don't really see how how you're arguing against what he's saying though? Are we all agreeing that early agricultural societies probably had a lower quality of life? also its hardly surprising that hunter gatherer groups are a minority, the lifestyle simply can't sustain anywhere near the same number of people that agriculture can, but again that doesn't really say anything about quality of life before the industrial revolution. Liberal_L33t posted:The kind of lifestyles you are championing is equally unsustainable for socio-political reasons, which is to say "Existing at the mercy of natural forces and primitive social systems is a living hell that most people will choose to escape from, given the chance." Note that these 'uncontacted societies' are usually only able to maintain control over their members and prevent desertion to modern settlements because of geographical barriers like oceans and forests. Any efforts to return to the nightmarish state of primitivism you idolize would unavoidably resemble the latter stages of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge purges. Can I just say something, there is a recent theory that supposedly 'Primitive' peoples that lived on the outskirts of civilization (think Montagnards in Southeast Asia) might not represent some remnant of pre-civilized culture but were actually previous members of said civilized society who hosed off to the mountains or forests to leave behind of the major social or economic problems that more Civilized societies had to deal with, have a lighthearted video on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyzi9GNZFMU khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Not sure how you are planning to argue against my point about sustainability, considering that anyone could confirm it by reading a single shred of scientific research on what is happening to the environment, or by just, I don't know, walking outside and looking around. If you don't understand that our current lifestyle is wildly unsustainable, then I don't know what to tell you. There are Seven Billion humans in the world. That number is not remotely sustainable as hunter gatherers, in fact a million humans isn't sustainable as hunter gatherers. So, no. Modern society is vastly more sustainable, it has to be, it has to support more people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:paternalism != oppress all sub-humans it does, actually
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:There are Seven Billion humans in the world. I don't think you know what sustainable means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:I don't think you know what sustainable means. the point, however, stands: a hundred thousand hunter gatherers may be more sustainable than seven billion people participating to a greater or lesser extent in a global economy with intensive agriculture and industry, but seven billion people in a global economy with intensive agriculture and industry are less unsustainable than seven billion hunter gatherers
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
So assuming we can fix the myriad problems for the rest of the population in the global south, and we can rule out the disease, poverty and exploitation issues you'd anticipate from making contact, how would you actually go about doing it? Would you persist if they clearly didn't want you to, like they attacked the ambassadors or retreated further into the rainforest?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
blowfish posted:the point, however, stands: That's true, but it is meaningless. We are not discussing a world of seven billion hunter-gatherers, because it is an absurd hypothetical. Let me clarify my point: A hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which some cultures on Earth still practice today, is sustainable. Part of the reason this is the case is that hunting and gathering can only support maybe a million or so people worldwide (during the many millennia that the lifestyle was dominant), which keeps the human population at a reasonable, non-destructive level. Modern industrial society, on the other hand is unsustainable. Full stop. It remains to be seen whether or not it can possibly be made sustainable (my strong suspicion is that it can't, given the way it has historically progressed). The reasons it is unsustainable are many, including resource depletion, habitat destruction, widespread extinction, climate change, and exponential population growth. The very population levels you are pointing to is part of the reason why it is unsustainable. Seven billion humans is only possible given the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. Do you agree?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:That's true, but it is meaningless. We are not discussing a world of seven billion hunter-gatherers, because it is an absurd hypothetical. Let me clarify my point: It's weird to suggest that hunter-gathering is inherently sustainable because if we all went out with M16s and weed whackers and hunted/gathered the poo poo out of everything around us, it would be pretty hosed pretty quick. The point about pre-agrarian civilisation is not that it was hunter-gatherer, but that it was bad at hunting and gathering. Any mode of living can be progressed to the point where our ability to extract from our environment outstrips the environment's ability to replenish itself. This is true of all creatures, actually, any form of life will happily eat itself into extinction if it's able to. Human intelligence means we will always have to consciously limit ourselves if we want to not out compete everything else on the planet into extinction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's weird to suggest that hunter-gathering is inherently sustainable because if we all went out with M16s and weed whackers and hunted/gathered the poo poo out of everything around us, it would be pretty hosed pretty quick. Dude, you're not getting it. Hunter-gatherers don't use M16s or weed whackers, even the majority of the ones who exist today (there may be some isolated hunter-gatherers in the far North who use modern technology to get by, but that doesn't take away from my overall point). Complex, technological society (and all its accoutrements, like M16s and weed whackers) is only possible through agriculture. If everyone went out and tried to hunt and gather right now, the M16 factories and weed whacker plants would shut down in short order. What you are suggesting is absurd. Let me be clear: What I AM NOT suggesting is that we should all go be hunter-gatherers right now. That is completely loving bonkers and if you'll read my posts, you'll see that I've never suggested such a thing. All I am doing is comparing sustainable human lifestyles to unsustainable ones. Trying to all be hunter-gatherers now after centuries of technological development would be an instant, catastrophic failure. The OP was about forcibly contacting and potentially "modernizing" uncontacted peoples (or at least giving them the choice). I am saying that is wrong because many of those uncontacted peoples are the last vestiges of a truly sustainable human lifestyle. Also, sidenote: "Pre-agrarian civilization" is by and large not a thing that exists. I can only think of one example, and it only arose due to very specific environmental reasons and remained quite small.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
forcibly subjecting people to life at the bottom rung of modern industrial society is a major dick move y'all it's not quite as bad as capturing people for sale as slaves to that society, but it's definitely on the same continuum
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
What if we were to reframe it as bringing democracy to the Amazon? These poor people have never participated in our most sacred institution, and it is time to remedy that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
I mean, it's a universal fact that life without liberty is meaningless, and look at these people - they've never even heard of the enlightenment! We are morally obliged to free them from their mental cages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
I mean in the sense that they get to enjoy high mortality rates and food scarcity they're pretty sustainable in that the rest of the world is very adept at killing them. I'm sure they feel much better to know that they should be happy about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
zeal posted:it does, actually What's the point of preserving 'the last vestige of a sustainable lifestyle'? Do you think that, if industrial civilization collapses (not a given, it may not be sustainable now but it may in the future, depending on whether you can close some loops), that they're going to have any better of a time surviving than everyone else? No, what's going to happen is a bunch of hicks will come in, shoot them, and then become the new hunter gatherers (when they run out of bullets for hunting). Unless you want preppers to inherit the earth, just start hoping it all doesn't fall down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:02
|
|
rudatron posted:Not really. If you insist on that understanding, then all authority contains paternalism, and human beings have not yet advanced beyond that sort of stuff. There's no abstract difference between integrating tribal communes and ignoring sovereign citizen stuff - Any social system extends as far as it is able to enforce itself, and no further. The tangible problems of discrimination and disease are very serious, to the point where they're reason enough to scuttle attempts. But assuming you could work around both of them, it's not actually that immoral to integrate. Saying that it's impossible to have authority without treating someone as a child says a lot more about your life than anything else, and I hope things improve for you, rudatron.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Preppers are the ones probably least likely to survive the collapse of civilization, given how most are extreme isolationists and xenophobes of the highest order. Any successful attempt at survival in a post-collapse society is going to be predicated on co-operation and mutual pooling of resources. That kind of falls apart when you have a crazy dude with a gun who wants to shoot and kill anyone who wants to go near their poo poo filled bunker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
A bit late for Columbus Day, but I do like the story of Magellan meeting Lapu-Lapu:quote:At midnight, sixty of us set out armed with corselets and helmets, together with the Christian king, the prince, some of the chief men, and twenty or thirty balanguais. [a type of Filipino boat] We reached Mactan three hours before dawn. The captain did not wish to fight then, but sent a message to the natives to the effect that if they would obey the king of Spain, recognize the Christian king as their sovereign, and pay us our tribute, he would be their friend; but that if they wished otherwise, they should wait to see how our lances wounded. They replied that if we had lances they had lances of bamboo and stakes hardened with fire. They said that in order to induce us to go in search of them; for they had dug certain pit holes filled with spikes between the houses in order that we might fall into them. It ended about as happily as it could have, because now Magellan's head is in a Filipino village somewhere. It also puts this thread in perspective: the Conquistadors were offering eternal salvation. What'd the OP offer again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Mofabio posted:A bit late for Columbus Day, but I do like the story of Magellan meeting Lapu-Lapu: In time, the smartest of their number will be declared Prime Minister of the forest and poured into a navy blue suit. G20 members will pose for a photo shoot in the traditional garments of his people
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:12
|
|