Your premise was that the namby-pamby liberals were denying these people the fruits of modern civilization out of some misguided notion of keeping them pure and unspoiled.
But that’s a delusion. These people are denied the fruits of modern civilization because they’re poor farmers and hunters who live in an isolated area and have no way of producing valuable trade goods they can use to become part of the global economy. This is the reason poor people all over the planet are poor. It’s not a mystery, it’s not conspiracy. They are poor, and if they ever did have something of value people with guns would come along and take it from them, those people with guns might be from the government, or from some business, or some criminal gang.
If there is a “Prime Directive” at work here, it would be “You’re not allowed to murder these people and take their land”.
With due respect, I don’t think this is a very good argument. South American societies are very different today than they were in the 1960s, or the 1930s, or even more so the 1800s or the colonial era. They’re much more prosperous, more literate, more industrialized and modern, and they’ve largely internalized (to a greater extent than some other societies) liberal ideas about human rights, treatment of ethnic minorities, etc… Bolivia, for example, is run by a socialist of indigenous descent who ran on a platform of, among other things, promoting the interests of indigenous people. Ecuador is run by a similar coalition although I don’t think the president is indigenous himself. It’s inconceivable that the same kind of exploitation or killings that went on in the early or mid 20th century would happen today. Although I certainly understand why the uncontacted tribes might be suspicious.
I imagine it would be better than outright mass murder or enslavement. But that’s an incredibly low bar to clear, and I’m unconvinced that the outcome of contact would be better for them than if they were left alone.
Really? I honestly can’t see how anyone could think the jury is still out on a modern civilization (and modern medicine???) verse a hunter gatherer society. Even modern poor have it better than most hunter gatherer societies do, especially the poor in 1st world countries.
As for the OP, I’m not sure there is any one answer. As others have noted, there probably aren’t any completely uncontacted tribes left. If there were they probably would be happier with no contact ever, as it’s usually the contact itself today that would be the most corrosive to their traditional ways of life. I’m unsure whether it’s better for people to cling to those traditional ways of life, but if they really want to then I don’t think they should be forced to change.
It’s easy for us to say that the governments these people would be interacting with are more likely to be sympathetic to their needs than previous ones. (Sympathetic to their wishes? Hopefully so, too.)
But the OP cites an article about a massacre of indigenous people. It’s not inconceivable: it just recently happened. I guess at a smaller scale, but if you live in a small tribal community I doubt you care whether a massacre was limited to just your village (as opposed to earlier massacres of multiple villages).
I believe the Brazilian government’s policy is to not contact them, so there is a legal, if not social, taboo. Brazil is where the bulk of the so-called unnoticed people live.
Hey, XT, I agree that I wouldn’t want to live as a hunter/gatherer, but people do disagree with both of us. How do we know they’re wrong? Have we fully considered their arguments against our own way of life, or are we approaching these questions in near-ignorance of counter-arguments?
This raises some further questions:
How do we deal with people who deeply disagree with basic principles that form the basis of our way of life?
Can they opt out – set up their own small societies away from the rest of us?
Do we stop them from reproducing, or raising their children in their own ways of life?
Seems easy enough. How many people in history have opted out of a modern society to join a real hunter gatherer society verse the other way? I think a lot of people have a very rose colored view of what a real hunter/gatherer life is like while being overly critical of life in a modern society. They have no real comparison, and only their rose colored view of what HG life is like, colored by all sorts of things that romanticize that life, while in most cases not really understanding how good they have things. There is a good reason why HG societies exist only in very remote and isolated places today, and it’s not a conspiracy by evil modernists to deny people the good life.
Why would we want to do either of those? I’m good with people living as they choose. Hell, I’m good with folks in this thread who think that going back to nature are allowed, even encouraged to do so. Sell off your iPhones, get rid of those computers and the evils of electricity, modern sanitation and evil Western Medicine™, and go forth into the wilderness, ye who think this is good and right! Throw off the shackles of your oppressors and head into the Amazon! We will miss you and your participation on this board and discussions with folks all over the world, but you gots to do what is best for you!
Let me give an analogy: white supremacists. Let’s say they’ve set up an enclave in Idaho (sorry, Idaho) or wherever.
To what degree can “the rest of us” intrude on their way of life?
At first glance, I’d say:
to the degree they interact with outsiders, they’re subject to outside laws protecting people and property
to be degree they use larger government services, they’ve got to abide by the rules the government sets for using those services (you can’t demand that your kid in the public school gets to celebrate “White History Month,” or that you have a separate whites-only drinking water supply)
“But if the “uncontacted” tribes were really analogous to Idaho white supremacists, we’d make them live by much stricter rules!”
Yes, but that’s where the nuance in the analogy comes in.
You point out how the angels are in a dilemma over us. There is sort of a Startrek prime directive of them with us, but with this part : Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. part of their mission. to advance us and guide us to the ability we are capable of handling it.
And I think that would be the answer to the question, do we have the wisdom to decide that we have a better way of life, and is that a better way for them. Or is it better for them and us for us to leave them be till we can better assist them in transitioning to higher technology. Do we have a record of helping people via contact, or just absorbing them into the poverty state of modern society. Also how can we better protect them from exploitation from others, by contact, or by trying to protect their independency.
Hey, I wouldn’t do it either. But do you value pluralism, or just say “vox populi” and be done with it? Have you considered the arguments against our modern way of life, especially from the perspective of a newcomer to that way of life?
Also, historical arguments based on “how many have gone from y to x” versus "“how many have gone from x to y” are not convincing in themselves. History’s directions are multiple and contingent on random events. IMHO.
Yeah, if you exclude a huge chunk of mostly-conservative charitable givings, then liberals win. How is that noteworthy or surprising? The article also said:
Anyways, the point isn’t to get the thread hijacked into a debate about which side donates more, but to acknowledge that “giving free stuff to poor people is anathema to conservatives” is a false statement. Can you acknowledge that?
Not that it helps the dead Amazonians much, but rather than condoning, or themselves performing the massacre, the government in this case seems to be trying to bring the guilty to justice for it. That’s a noteworthy change from earlier generations, I believe.
Sure! I agree. It’s a big improvement on the government’s part. It’s also not the same as wrenching these people – without their consent – into the modern world.
You don’t make friends with people in a second. You don’t bring a feral cat into your house in a day. You don’t solve a Hatfield/McCoy-style feud in a year.
That’s not hippie-dippie “noble savage” cultural relativism. It’s a combination of respect for different points of view and pragmatic pursuit of one’s own believed best course of action.
I think there could be a middle ground where they are contacted and “checked up” on by authorities who vow not to interfere but check on them and see if they need some help.
Also could we find a way the tribe could call in help if needed?
This way the authorities would act more like game wardens who keep the natives safe by keeping out others who want to harm them.
There’s a documentary on Amazon about these uncontacted tribes. I don’t know who made it or what their angle might be, but the way the documentary presented it, these people were abused by rubber plantation owners in the early 20th century and are now hiding from civilization because they’re afraid of it. Government laws prohibiting contact with them have kept them in the jungle.
There is a program to provide for them, in which they somehow–I can’t remember how, given that people aren’t supposed to talk with them–request assistance. They’re then re-located and given subsistence food, clothing, and medical attention. In this situation, they are watched and, one hopes, protected from massacres like the recent one. The particular band who gets picked up in the documentary says they far prefer the modern food and clothes. They describe how, in the jungle, they often couldn’t find food for 3-4 days at a time, and were too afraid at night to sleep well.
shrugs The takeaway for me is that these issues are complicated and that no flat judgment on how to deal with them is going to cover all cases. They aren’t a museum; they aren’t a work of art. They’re human beings.
This is the part that’s fascinating to me. IANAL, and I certainly don’t understand much of the Brazilian legal system, but it’s my vague understanding that there were actual legal prohibitions against interacting with these “uncontacted” groups, at least at some level. The libertarian in me doesn’t really have an issue if economics disincentivize interaction and no one chooses to open a stock market in the Amazon to help these people out, or if the tribesmen themselves would rather forage for roots and berries in the jungle than participate in modern society (although I’d be surprised if that was a popular opinion). That’s fine if we or they don’t want to interact with each other, but in this case, at least as far as I understand it, the government has taken that choice out of our hands, and theirs, and prohibited interaction with legal force. Why? And was that an evil decision?
I honestly can’t see how anyone could think the jury is still out on a modern civilization (and modern medicine???) verse a hunter gatherer society. Even modern poor have it better than most hunter gatherer societies do, especially the poor in 1st world countries.