|
Those isolated groups in the Amazon rainforest aren't that isolated, they'll have come in contact with groups trying to kill them, and who need to be (but aren't) punished. I'd still be 100% for integration in spite of that, were it not also for the fact that it's difficult to determine how disease resistant they are. Human diseases have this remarkable ability to spread much faster & further than you think, so it's unlikely that they are entirely isolated from diseases, but they'd still be at serious risk. But the broader question behind your topic would be 'is consent the dominant moral factor when interacting with the other?", with my answer being 'no'. There's no guarantee that, in the real world, people can accurately pursue their interests. They'll have mistaken beliefs, prejudices, fears and anxieties that are gonna push them around. OTOH, people enjoy the feeling of making decisions for themselves, and forcing something upon them is always traumatic. So as a general rule, respecting consent is good, but it's not dominant. This is relevant to states because, If we're being serious, the idea of the social contract doesn't really make sense. There was no point in your life that you ever had a realistic choice over being a member of the society you are in or not. There is no place on this earth that is habitable and not already claimed by a state. But while being part of the social contract has obligations, it has rewards too, and it solves the problems you get without it. It's not a choice you ever had, but it is to everyone's benefit. So the talk of jurisdiction also doesn't fly, because that's not the reality of what happens today. Assuming you could get around the disease problem (which you probably can't), integrating isolated groups would also be to the benefit of everyone. It's reasonable that the isolated groups want to remain that way, but that's not relevant as to whether or not it's the right outcome. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Oct 4, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Well actually, a global proletarian dictatorship would solve a lot of problems, but you wouldn't really be shipping people around to be rural farmers as much as you would moving investments around till you get everyone at good QoL standards. So first world poor might not notice much, rich would lose big time, middle class would be 50/50. If you're moving anyone around, it'd be moving people from over populated areas to under populated areas. And it would be acceptable for, say, if one region breaks away, to annex that region back. You want a good example about how consent doesn't mean much when it comes to states, look at the US civil war. What the south wanted was irrelevant to whether or not they could rightly break away or not. The obvious response to that is the analogy doesn't work because single-issue (and an immoral one at that) succession isn't the same as self-determination, which is valid. But the problem comes with the scope of self-determination, and the fact that your fundamental unit of self-determination, the nation, is arbitrarily constructed and pointless, nevermind dangerous. Can you rigorously talk about this group being contained enough to justify self determination, but that a sub-group or super-group isn't? And more importantly: why are you doing this? Is the association between arbitrary imagined community and legitimate demarcation actually to the benefit of everyone?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Equipment matters, but the medical knowledge even GPs are taught is going to be more extensive than the knowledge that isolated community has. It's unreasonable to suggest that an isolated tribe is going to have medical knowledgeon par with the entire rest of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
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
|
|