Hacker News Reader

Treat people as you would like to be treated if you were them.

I wish I had 100 upmods to give. This is exactly what I was saying elsewhere, we should think about how we would want to be treated. Would we want medicine and education offered to us? Would we want the option for some of our elders to live out the rest of their lives in a traditional manner? Would we want bulldozers knocking down our trees? Would we want jobs driving bulldozers?

I don't know the answer, I just know that I'd want to ponder that for a good long while if I had to make a call.

I don't know the answer either, but I sure as hell know it's not my decision to make for somebody else.

Your point about possible alien intelligences is an excellent one. How would we want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot? I don't know my answer -- I suspect I would be all for change even if it were uncomfortable. But I absolutely know that I would be the one to make my personal decision about the matter. That's not for others to decide for me.

We have a word for a situation where beings are allowed to live in fake isolation, while we secretly observe them and feel great about ourselves for letting them live as close to their natural state as we can allow. It's called a "zoo"

I don't know what they're going to do here. The isolated tribe in India live in a protected zone, but the government regularly offers them a chance to make contact, and the tribe drives them off with weapons.

That's a way forward that is neither dragging them into the 21st century nor running a zoo. I'm not advocating for that, of course, just pointing out that contact/isolation is a false dichotomy.

Yeah, I was aware of the peculiarities of this particular case (the tribe not wanting contact) and chose to ignore them in order to make the larger point.

Science fiction is great. It lets us look at some of these issues without (perhaps) so much emotional heat.

So let's assume that in the 1950s, aliens contacted the president of the United States -- a theme which recurs over and over again in sci-fi. The president decided that we were too primitive and paranoid to handle contact with a galactic civilization, so he told them to leave us alone.

What I'm saying is that whatever the nature of the leader, whether they are the president, or prime minister, or head of NATO, or head of the UN, or whoever else, it doesn't matter. They don't have the moral authority to be making decisions like that for me. No part of the social contract allows leaders to make decisions of such huge import and keep them secret.

So while I support any individual's right to be left alone and live however they like, I do not support people who are presumed leaders keeping information of that magnitude from others.

Just to speculate a bit, if you're the chief of a tribe, or part of the power structure, it probably sounds pretty good to be left alone. After all, who wants change? However if you're a mother who just watched her 5-year-old kid die from something that was easily prevented? You might have different ideas. Keeping the mother uniformed so that you can continue exercising your power over her is immoral and I do not support it.

As you point out, in the real world, these kinds of things are murky at best, with lots of little conditions and details you want to consider. All I'm saying is that it's not acceptable to simply throw your hands up and give up. From what little I know, I think the idea of repeated gentle contact -- as much as it can be done without annoying them too much -- is probably the wisest course of action. This would allow us to be sure we have made a reasonable and polite effort to inform them of the outside world, as well as trying to catch the newer members of the tribe as they are born and grow up. After all, even if you're left alone, it is reasonable to expect that you still have some kind of relationship to your neighbors.

I remember I said to my philosophy teacher, 'nobody considers native tribes to be poor or miserable, even though they lack material comfort,' and she replied 'I think the comfort of these situations greatly depends on whether you're male or female.'

Some members of the tribe drive them off with weapons.

Others are children who do not get to make a choice until AFTER they have been indoctrinated with the tribe's values.

We see the same problem in the Muslim world. In some countries, Muslim women are treated as property and not allowed outside without a chaperone. How can they make a free choice to join the West when their male guardians say "no" for them?

We see the same problem universally.

We're all brought up in societies which indoctrinate. We're all introduced to ideas at an early age, which we grow attached to. It's unavoidable.

I'd want to be left alone - give one example of colonialism that worked out well for indigenous people, and I'll maybe change my mind.

Ok.

India is now an "important" country. Burgeoning technologically and culturally, what it received from Britain was access to the intellectual firestorm of the Enlightenment. Hindu thinkers were involved in the formation of Universalism, the idea that all religions were different aspects of the same thing and could be united.

Of course, it cost them the pain of the Pakistan-India divide, the struggle of Gandhi, and a confusing cultural identity among a people that didn't necessarily have a singular cultural identity in the first place. But what price is too much?

South Africa paid the price, and is now among the most advanced of African nations.

Of course, most indigenous peoples just got royally fucked. Aboriginal Australians and the Maori. So I suppose your point in general holds.

It is a bit presumptuous to assume that India or S.A. would not have made progress or exchanged "intellectual" information without a country sailing over and lording over it for a hundred years.

Disclaimer: I am an Indian.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm making an assertion--an assertion that could be right or wrong. In particular I am not assuming/asserting that India or S.A. would not have made progress.

I am saying that the effects of colonial rule are so unstable and so varied that it can be difficult to the point of meaninglessness to say a country would be "better" or "worse" without it.

The Bengal Renaissance is a documented movement, founded and driven by people exposed to Western thought. That doesn't mean the movement wasn't theirs, that they weren't the ones producing "intellectual" information. But they were in a different place because of colonialism than they would have been without, one where Indians went to school in Britain and where people were writing letters to each other across the ocean.

Technically, I agree, but using this same logic, the effects of _any_ major historical incident are so unstable and so varied that "it can be difficult to the point of meaninglessness to say a country would be "better" or "worse" without it."

You should look at India's share of world GDP before the British came and after they left.

GDP is one measure of a country's power. I should point out that measuring the GDP of India prior to British imposition is a little bit hairy since India was not really a singular political entity.

Besides, my point was never that India didn't suffer; my point was to illustrate some of the advantages of colonial rule and demonstrate _just how muddy_ the interference of a technologically superior culture can become.

There are much less invasive options for contact than colonialism. Nobody said we have to move ourselves into some indigenous peoples' lands in order to offer them the chance to accept or reject a modern life.

But the effect is the same - their society would be absorbed, and probably forgotten.

It's like time travel - you can't go back because you don't know what kind of effects you'll have on the future. In this case you don't know what kind of effects contact will have on their (the tribe's) future.

So how about Japan for example? Do you think contact with the west was bad for them?

you're comparing different things, or do you think that a highly advanced CIVILIZATION like the japanese encountering the west is similar to a TRIBE of HUNTERS-GATHERERS.... damn!

No. I was referring to messages by lwhi and nitrogen. As nitrogen said, there are less invasive options to contact them than colonization and there are cases where it is beneficial to the (in some ways) less advanced civilization. It might not have been fun for the japanese when the westerners first came there, but in the long run it was a good thing. And while the japanese culture was certainly changed, it was not destroyed or forgotten.

Hong Kong.

One thing that people in this conversation are overlooking is that if these tribes were contacted they wouldn't be brought into an American culture, they wouldn't get quality health care and internet access. There are millions of indigenous people living throughout South America and they mostly live in squalid slums. Personally I'd rather live in the jungle.

Then first, you must comprehend yourself how all of these "improvements" would impact their society and minds. And then, you have to teach them enough so they can understand all of those facts you just learned, so they can take an INFORMED decision. That alone would make you get in contact with them, show them things they have never seen before, change their culture in unimaginable ways.

There's no "interface" here to which you can give them access, and expect that if they choose not to use it, their lives would remain as they were.

If you touch it, you change it. You don't know how. Perhaps you will destroy it and will never know what of all those things you showed/gave them did it.

What is so bad is you making the decision for them -- one way or the other. It's that kind of pompous paternalistic attitude that caused all kinds of pain and misery.

On the other hand, can they even make an informed decision?

I mean, heck, we let the FDA make decisions for us every day. 99.9% of us are not chemist or biologist enough to make a real decision on many consumables and drugs, so we let the more informed make that call

It's true, there's a whole mess of slippery ground around this subject, but is it actually ethical to allow someone to make a choice if they cannot fully comprehend the ramifications etc? (honest question)

If it were unethical, then the entire system of voting in a democracy would be unethical.

The simple fact is: nobody is informed enough to make the kinds of decisions they are responsible for making in life. Many times doctors don't know what the heck they are doing, lawyers have no idea which way the court might rule, economists can theorize all day long but couldn't tell you the GDP five years out. I would say something pithy like "we live in a complicated world that nobody can master", yet the sad fact is that we reach the limit of understanding possible consequences to social changes after the number of people involves climbs past one or two. There simply is no way for anybody to make an informed decision about these folks -- us or them. We can cite statistics or tell stories about similar situations, but that's about it. But whether or not an informed or good decision can be made is a completely different question than who's responsibility it is to make one. If I am very sick, there might be nobody on the planet that can tell me how my treatment might work out, but that doesn't mean that somehow I should surrender that decision to a doctor. In fact, just the opposite is true: the more unknown and hard-to-understand the situation, the more important it is for all of us to let the individuals involved make the choices. It is, after all, those people who are going to have to live with the consequences.

EDIT: Also remember that it's not just the individuals who are affected: it's also all of their descendants. My great ancestor who fought the Roman conquerors in Europe probably had a much different opinion of the Romans than I do today. He and I disagree, but I fully support the fact that it was his decision to make, not the Romans'. I also feel that it was best that the Romans won. These opinions are not self-contradictory: I fully believe that individuals are the ones who are supposed to make these decisions about themselves, even if they make what to all intents and purposes look like the wrong choices. For any of the rest of us to step outside the system and start making choices for those involved is an awful affront to the dignity of man. (Sorry for the over-the-top rhetoric. Like I said, it's a pet peeve)

He is not making the decision. Uncontacted tribes are extremely aware of the western culture outside their area. Many tribes choose not to make contact, and when contact is forced, they might even kill the enemies who refuse to leave them alone.

There are few-to-none cases of tribes for whom forced contact with westerners* has been beneficial to them.

* If you don't like the term westerner, feel free to insert or state your own preferred term and move on rather than argue the term in an attempt to change the topic.

some uncontacted tribes.

I'm not sure you can speak for all of them ;)

I would assert that the problem is in the problem and not in Star Trek's analysis of the problem.

That is to say, the problem of interference and controlling choice is not an easy one. Star Trek portrays one viewpoint and its pitfalls. That's not muddying, that's _clarifying_ how muddy it already s.

You should really read the book "Ishmael". It explores the end-game of our "way of life" and gives thoughts to alternatives. It doesn't involve an extraordinarily intelligent alien showing us the way, but an alternatively evolved intelligence here on earth.

While I agree totally with the points you've made, I don't know how to balance that against the nearly unavoidable side effect that contacting them may very likely end up killing most of them from diseases to which they have no resistance.

there is medicine you know, we don't live in XV century?

it's the thought that kills indigenous tribes, not disease.

Pardon me, but while you are certainly well-spoken I cannot help but notice that you present two options only: either someone wants to keep knowledge and culture from "them", or "they" get to decide whether they want to partake in our ways.

I find that large parts of the discussion are missing another point of view: perhaps we could also learn something from them?

Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting. How do you know their lives are so bad? From what the video showed they seem to be doing just fine.

I would rather be A West coast armchair philosopher than an elitest who feels he is so superior to other people that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking.

FYI: one of the main justifications for slavery - Slavery was good for the slaves; the slaveowners took on the burden of caring for the interests of inferior beings, seeing that they would be fed, clothed and given religious instruction.

This is the post I'd give a 100 upvotes to.

Hypothetically what would you do if these tribes had a system of slavery?

What are you doing about the non-hypothetical slavery in the US right now?

You're talking about human trafficking/sex slaves?

It's already illegal. I leave that up to the cops.

I hope he was talking about something a little more subtle, like the fact that we have so many Hispanic people here without citizenship and have therefore created a sort of lower subservient class. But probably not, slavery's a bit too strong a term unless there's a somewhat-mitigating "wage" in front of it.

Actually I was thinking about both situations. Others as well but the sex slave trafficking and migrant slavery are two of them.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/mar/03/farmworker-slaver... and http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/modern-day-slavery-m... are some articles about recent situations in Florida.

There's also domestic servant slavery and even factory worker slavery, such as the slaves that are imported to US Territory Saipan to work in Chinese owned garment factories. (http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-01-22/news/17677080_1_garmen...) Workers there are raped by managers, kept in guarded chained enclosures, and have to undergo forced abortions when they get pregnant from the rapes.

There's also legal slavery, such as prison labor, which is explicitly permitted under the Constitution, although many legal experts believe that it actually has to be part of the sentence as punishment for the crime, and not just something that applies to all prisoners without a judge's approval during sentencing. To simplify things we'll skip those as being "OK" slavery since some believe there is legal justification for it even when not part of sentencing. Don't want to confuse the issue.

By slavery we mean you are not free to leave and you are not paid wages for your work. Many workers in the US are even shackled up and beaten.

Gosh look I even just now found a new book on Modern American Slavery.

http://www.amazon.com/Nobodies-Modern-American-Global-Econom...

Of course there was also slavery of black people in the US that lasted until the 1940s. Oh, didn't know about that? http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/

Most people prefer not to know why the goods and food they buy are so cheap.

It is possible to link all of these happenings by the single term "slavery" but that does not make it prudent for the course of communication. In your original post you elucidated images of chattel slavery, the actual written right to own another person within the law, which does not exist in the United States. In practice there are other forms of slavery, of course, as you demonstrate, some more subtle and some less.

But don't fall into the trap of over-applying the label, particularly one as loaded (in the US) as slavery.

Also, your smugness is... well, smug. Yes. Yes I did know about that. Stick to the information and cut out the assumption that you're delivering a revelation, because you're not.

However, I appreciate your bitterness and rage towards the unfairness of the world.

Huh, what's that word where someone describes themselves and applies it to others? Like a smug person calling another person smug? Oh yeah, projection, it's called projection.

Lots of real modern slavery in the US and elsewhere regardless of your personal opinions about it.

Yeah, I'm perfectly willing to admit I was being smug, though I might prefer the term coldly critical or openly irritated. Your deflection of my criticism does not address my criticism, it merely weakly attempts to declare it unimportant. "You're smug too!"

Additionally you have failed to address anything about my point concerning precision of definition, except perhaps _very_ obliquely by using the phrase "real modern slavery" to deselect chattel slavery.

I do not question that some (many) form(s) of slavery exist(s). I was the one that suggested a form of slavery you might have meant.

When your terms are overbroad, you fail to communicate (as has happened in this topic). Clarity is your responsibility as a writer.

The selection of chattel is your own arbitrary distinction. Being held against one's will, forced to labor, and not paid, is slavery.

Is your concern that slaves are not being bought and sold as property? Well they are bought and sold in many of these cases. Not all of them are, but not all slaves in plantation days were bought and sold either. You're trying to claim that slavery doesn't exist because you want to make it be only something exactly the same as plantation era slavery, which is an absurd claim for which there is no justification.

It is arbitrary but so far as it is my own, it is also most people's, tying into my point about clarity of definition. Chattel slavery means the public acceptance of slavery--slave markets, the fugitive slave act. Chattel is a legal term connoting legal approval of slavery.

It is also what people think of first when someone starts talking about slavery. Alongside chattel slavery was indentured servitude, which might well fall into your definition of slavery.

>You're trying to claim that slavery doesn't exist because you want to make it be only something exactly the same as plantation era slavery

No, I am not. I am asking you to be more precise in your language, because typing off a one-line post about non-hypothetical slavery was confusing. Notice how more people upvoted you when you were expanded the precision of what you meant by slavery?

Perhaps in your imagination. Speaking of clarity, I hope you will come to some clarity in your mind that you are the only person here trying to insert these qualifiers into this discussion.

there are two of us here, though this will be my last post. I already inserted the qualifier into the discussion, way back in response to Charuru. I clarified your point. Karma's not important, but it does demonstrate how many people resonated with concepts; and as I already said, the flow of karma demonstrates that when you actually communicated, people agreed with you more.

I've rarely seen more assumptions and projections made in a few paragraphs.

On the one hand, you judge these cultures as "primitive" and "caveman". Then in the next breath you decry pomposity and paternalism.

Yeah, we've found over and over again that contact with "primitive" cultures destroys the cultures. Tell that to Native Americans in both South and North America. Their "primitive" culture could have taught our "modernity" plenty...that is, if we'd taken a few minutes to listen to these "primitives" before we practiced a policy of systematic genocide.

Don't arrogantly assume there is anything wonderful about your "modern" life with carcinogens and pollution all around, man made global destruction of the environment, and nuclear destruction of the whole fucking planet just a half hour away. Talk about arrogance...and ignorance.

Since you seem to subscribe for the concept of "noble savage", I should mention that much of the "primitive" tribes indeed do wage wars upon neighbours. That they are not commiting acts of large scale genocide has more to do with their technical insophistication than with any inherent set of cultural values.