should we intervene with the Sentinelese under any circumstances?

[RickJay]

@senoy

Their orbit is already destabilized. Climate change is going to impact their hunting and fishing grounds. They’re going to lose shoreline and reef habitat. Some animal and plant species won’t survive. Storms will be stronger and more deadly. Rainfall could be impacted destroying freshwater sources. The rest of us have technology to survive and the ability to migrate. The Sentinalese have what? The ability to die of famine and from dehydration? At least we’ll know we’ve preserved their culture, at least until the last one dies.

I have to admit I’ve been a little divided on this myself. On one hand, the Sentinelese have made it rather clear they want no one else on their island, and North Sentinel Island is, basically, a sovereign nation. The country that technically owns it, India, treats it as such. We respect that sort of thing, or are supposed to. I would not be at all impressed if an advanced country invaded any other less developed nation on the pretext of improving the lives of its inhabitants.

On the other, humans are humans. Their lives are important. If it was apparent the Sentinelese were in serious imminent danger of being massacred, it would be right and just to try to help them.

[Hermitian]

When thinking about them as a “people,” I imagined more uh…people.

From Wikipedia: “In 2001, the Census of India officially recorded 21 men and 18 women. This survey was conducted from a distance and may not be accurate for the population which ranges over the 59.67 km2 (14,700 acres) island. Ten years later, the 2011 Census of India recorded 12 males and 3 females.”

If those numbers are anywhere near accurate, then they are probably going to die out pretty soon. We will never know if the population just naturally depleted or the small number of (brief) visitors were enough to carry diseases.

My guess is that they need female numbers ten times that to ensure survival.

[RickJay]

Estimates range as high as 500 individuals actually on the island. The “census” counts are always really low, and they haven’t died out yet. You just can’t officially count people you don’t see.

The island is bigger than I had realized; it’s a little bigger than Manhattan. It could certainly support several hundred people living a stone age lifestyle, but no more.

[JB99]

Prime Directive. Non-interference with primitive cultures protects them from us. However, it also protects us by morally absolving us of responsibility for intervention.

[clairobscur]

@Broomstick

True, we don’t know that, but based on our knowledge of thousands of other human cultures, societies, tribes, nations, and other groupings it is most likely they don’t have chemical birth control, and sex taboos are far from 100% reliable. Based on what the rest of the world has done through history I’d say infanticide is probably more likely than a lot of other explanations, even as horrifying as we find that.

It has been pointed out that a nearby people whose name escape me had an infertility rate of almost 50%. That could be the case for them too, for all we know. On top of which, before modern medicine, plenty of people had a very low or non existing growth rate despite having plenty of children since the mortality rate was so high. Finally, we apparently don’t even know if there are 15 or 200 Sentinelese, so I’m not sure how we could make a guess at their growth rate, since we don’t have the slightest clue about their numbers. Personally, I would rather expect that with such a small population, there are dying out rather than being forced to use infanticide to prevent their population from exploding. Finally, infanticide hasn’t been acceptable in many cultures even when it was in fact practiced. Famines and epidemics often took care of excess population, historically, without need for infanticide. I’m not sure why one would assume that infanticide being culturally acceptable for them is more likely than not.

In any case, if it’s about saving the children and it justifies intervention, then we could intervene right now, because as I already pointed out it’s pretty certain that their are children dying needlessly even without infanticide. For instance children dying from appendicitis. I’m not sure why we would have a moral obligation to do something about it if they’re killing their newborns, but no such obligation if their children die from preventable causes.

[clairobscur]

@Hiker

See - I am aware that many cultures - especially us Europeans - have a history of looking down upon other cultures as “inferior” and using that as a justification for all kinds of intrusion. I have no wish to in any way support such a mindset. I just believe that to be concerned about the human rights situation of people in other parts of the world you do not have to be a supremacist of any kind. In fact I feel that not wanting to be supremacist sometimes is an all too convenient explanation for why you keep looking the other way.

The problem is that plenty of our ancestors acted because they were fully convinced that their cultural values were objectively better than that of the natives. Not every thing we consider wrong was done by evil people motivated by greed. To give an example, in the numerous instances when children of a native people were forcefully removed from their families to be raised by Europeans, those were likely pretty happy with themselves for offering these children the possibility to receive a proper education (including acquiring the correct set of moral values) and a chance at a better life. In fact, this missionary we’re talking about also strongly believed he was acting in the best interest of the islanders. From his own point of view he was a selfless hero.

You’re absolutely convinced that your moral values are objectively better than those of both your ancestors and those supposedly baby-killing islanders. Well, both thought or would think the same about their own set of moral values. And your descendant will also be absolutely sure that their own moral values are objectively better than yours. How can you do such a thing as obviously horrible as killing animals and eating their flesh and think that you’re a “moral” person? How can you have no issue with restricting the sexual freedom of children? How comes that you aren’t terribly repulsed by the murder of helpless unborn babies, when plenty of people around you can easily see how horrible it is? How can you be so egoistic and egocentric that you’ll give preference to your own petty individual “freedoms” (read personal preferences and privileges you want to keep) over the obviously much more important interests of society at large? How can’t you see that salaried work is pretty much indistinguishable from slavery?

As soon as you think that you should replace the obviously wrong moral values of some people by your obviously right moral values, that’s cultural imperialism. You might believe that there’s an objective morality and that you’re so lucky that this objective morality so happens to be exactly fit your own moral values (like believers think that they just happened to be born in the obviously correct religion), but every single people, past, present and future have thought, thinks or will think exactly the same despite having widely different values. If you’re justified in imposing your own values on the islanders (not killing newborns or whatever), then the missionary was justified in trying to ensure their Christian salvation, and your great-grandchildren will be justified in imposing tolerance for pedophilia and mandatory vegetarianism on the island.

[clairobscur]

@dracoi

I think the first step would be to treat these guys like we treat almost any foreign nation - send a delegation and establish an embassy. In this case, it might be two anthropologists and a tent with a phone. But basically we approach them and say “Hi, the rest of the world exists. We’d like your permission to stay here and learn about you, and you may ask us questions about the rest of the world. You agree that we have diplomatic immunity, and we agree that we have no power to compel you to do things.”

And what if they say “you don’t have our permission” and “what is this stupid diplomatic immunity idea? Can I also stay in your house with “immunity” as long as I don’t tell you how you should live your daily life”?

As far as I can tell, it’s pretty obvious that at the moment at least, they have no intent to give anybody permission to stay.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Chronos

For all practical purposes, the Sentinelese are not under Indian jurisdiction. They are under the jurisdiction of their own government, whatever form it is that that takes. If they don’t want us intervening in their society, then to do so is an act of war, and we shouldn’t go to war against a nation just because they’re doing things we don’t like to their own people. Not even if they’re so weak they can’t pose any meaningful threat against us. Especially not if they’re that weak, even.

We have a rather lengthy history of going to war “against a nation just because they’re doing things we don’t like to their own people.” In 2011, Obama ordered the bombing of the Libyan government precisely for these reasons:

… Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted – if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance. …

In your opinion, was he wrong to do so?

[clairobscur]

@dracoi

How about some pre-fab modular units such as these?

As for being slaughtered, this is the real world, not Avatar. Again, I’d leave it up to the experts to design the first contact scenario, because I would not want to see casualties if we can manage it, but I have no fundamental problem with a company of armed marines to establish security. Even with a language barrier, they’re going to figure out that they can’t fight us off and it’s not like we’re conquistadors who would shoot them for sport.

And how many of them will be killed by the marines before they realize they can’t fight us off? If they’re brave and stubborn, maybe half the population, who knows? Plenty of people would (or at least state that they would) fight off unwelcome invaders of their country, and they clearly seem to have this mindset.

Let’s look at it from the other end, though. How would you like to have to tell them someday “It’s shame your mother died in childbirth and your father from an infection. We cure those all the time, but we didn’t want to disrupt your culture.”

True also.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@RickJay

I have to admit I’ve been a little divided on this myself. On one hand, the Sentinelese have made it rather clear they want no one else on their island, and North Sentinel Island is, basically, a sovereign nation. The country that technically owns it, India, treats it as such. We respect that sort of thing, or are supposed to. I would not be at all impressed if an advanced country invaded any other less developed nation on the pretext of improving the lives of its inhabitants.

On the other, humans are humans. Their lives are important. If it was apparent the Sentinelese were in serious imminent danger of being massacred, it would be right and just to try to help them.

In practice, I don’t see an intractable moral issue. India has the right idea: “Eyes on, hands off.” They send helicopters in after hurricanes. If they discover a human rights catastrophe, they can act with deliberation. If they perceive famine, they can consider airdrops.

Eventually, rising waters due to excessive conservatism in the industrialized world will pose a mortal threat to the Sentinelese. Until then… eyes on, hands off.
If we had a solid track record with regards to integrating stone age tribes or hell reliably developing third world institutions, the cost/benefit would be different.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Measure_for_Measure

… Eventually, rising waters due to excessive conservatism in the industrialized world will pose a mortal threat to the Sentinelese. …

Here is a topographical map of the island. I suspect they’ll be extinct way before they ever have to seriously worry about the ocean level.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@HurricaneDitka

Here is a topographical map of the island. I suspect they’ll be extinct way before they ever have to seriously worry about the ocean level.

Good catch: even a 5 meter rise in sea levels won’t affect them too much, judging from the map.

Whether they can handle the increase in tropical storms (or rather worse severity) associated with higher energy in the system is another matter. (My guess: yeah they can: they’ve been around for tens of thousands of years after all.) Whether climatic change messes up their island ecology catastrophically is a third issue. (My guess: can’t rule something like that out - occupants on larger land masses have migration options that others don’t.)

[Velocity]

So this article discusses the difficulty of retrieving Chau’s body:

Police Fear Giving the Flu to the Tribe that Killed an American Missionary

Why exactly is it necessary to retrieve the body, though? He’s dead, confirmed dead as dead can be. If the family wants the body for a burial, their interests shouldn’t be considered to supersede those of the Sentinese’s interests in not getting flu’d or germ’d to death.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Velocity

So this article discusses the difficulty of retrieving Chau’s body:

Police Fear Giving the Flu to the Tribe that Killed an American Missionary
Why exactly is it necessary to retrieve the body, though? He’s dead, confirmed dead as dead can be. If the family wants the body for a burial, their interests shouldn’t be considered to supersede those of the Sentinese’s interests in not getting flu’d or germ’d to death.

isn’t it possible that retrieving Chau’s body is actually maintaining their interest in not getting germ’d to death? After all, his body might contain some of those very diseases we’re worried about the Sentinelese catching, and the longer they’re left to drag it around the island by a rope, the greater their risk of exposure.

[Ludovic]

@Velocity

Why exactly is it necessary to retrieve the body, though? He’s dead, confirmed dead as dead can be.

No, he’s resting!

[Ludovic]

@Measure_for_Measure

Good catch: even a 5 meter rise in sea levels won’t affect them too much, judging from the map.

Whether they can handle the increase in tropical storms (or rather worse severity) associated with higher energy in the system is another matter. (My guess: yeah they can: they’ve been around for tens of thousands of years after all.) Whether climatic change messes up their island ecology catastrophically is a third issue. (My guess: can’t rule something like that out - occupants on larger land masses have migration options that others don’t.)

I think it depends on how much of their food comes from the ocean shore. A little sea rise won’t hurt their land agriculture since it will mainly just cover the beaches. But it might make their previous hunting waters less fertile given the deeper water, and I don’t think they have the means to go deep sea fishing.

[Gatopescado]

@DPRK

Not on Sentinel Island, but nearby, a tribesman once wandered into the local village, presumably to see what all the fuss was about. He ended up getting plied with drink and sexually assaulted.

This would make a great Pogues song.

[Northern_Piper]

@HurricaneDitka

isn’t it possible that retrieving Chau’s body is actually maintaining their interest in not getting germ’d to death? After all, his body might contain some of those very diseases we’re worried about the Sentinelese catching, and the longer they’re left to drag it around the island by a rope, the greater their risk of exposure.

They’ve already buried his body, so wouldn’t that make contamination unlikely?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Northern_Piper

They’ve already buried his body, so wouldn’t that make contamination unlikely?

Yes, it would. I did not realize they had buried him.

[Sandwich]

@Bryan_Ekers

They stood their ground. If their island was off the coast of Florida, people would be praising them.

I am surprised that many of our American friends still haven’t realised this whole thread is an elaborate whoosh.

Do ‘we’ have a moral imperative to intervene in a nation which:

• has robust immigration controls, posting armed guards on its borders and turning back unauthorised travellers, with lethal force as a necessary last resort
• what if the ‘leos’ (the formal warrior caste) routinely murdered lower caste individuals in order to maintain its supremacy, to the extent we needed an omnibus pit thread to keep track of just the most egregious examples?
• how about if the lower ‘uninsured’ caste were denied routine healthcare which could save their lives trivially easily?
• we can’t be sure, but they might easily be mistreating their women (1)! We know for certain that the poor savages don’t have easy access to modern contraception and safe abortions
• we can’t be sure, but they might easily be mistreating their women (2)! It’s quite possible that at least a third of the living members of the ‘presidential’ caste (the all male leadership group) are rapists
• won’t someone think of the children! Perhaps millions of unwanted babies are terminated every year!

Hell yes, intervention is a moral imperative. And if we have to destroy the village to save it, that is right and just too. :smack:

Legal notice: moral conclusion may vary if the deviant nation is the most heavily armed and aggressive nation in the world, rather than the least. Intervention undertaken at crusaders’ own risk.