Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 29-11-2013, 20:18   #46
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,205
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

WHY BE FRIENDS?
__________________

__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 01:52   #47
Certifiable Refitter/Senior Wannbe
 
Wotname's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of 43 S, Australia
Boat: Van DeStat Super Dogger 31'
Posts: 7,331
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

What I don't get is the argument that "because x is going to happen to someone else sooner or later, then why don't we do x to them right now"

In this argument, x is usually considered a bad thing for the other party and the "we" usually benefits in some manner for doing x.

If its a bad thing, one should not do it even if someone else does it and gains a benefit.

I am sure there is a fancy name for this process but bad is always bad IMO.
__________________

__________________
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangereous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. T.E. Lawrence
Wotname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 04:34   #48
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Deale, MD
Boat: Westsail 28
Posts: 684
Images: 12
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wotname View Post
What I don't get is the argument that "because x is going to happen to someone else sooner or later, then why don't we do x to them right now"
In 1806 the population of the world was 1 billion; in 2100 it is estimated to be 11 billion!

Where the heck is everyone going to anchor?! Either we're gonna need some crazy lotta room or we're gonna have to learn to squeeze in tighter. Some of us might even have to give up boating. (Or some tribes give up their private islands?)

Like you, I also have a desire to keep things from changing any faster than they have to and I would like to delay the inevitable (1st world contact) as long as possible, but avoiding realistic and practical solutions such as controlled, yet gradually increasing contact for these people is doing them a greater disservice than allowing the evil white man to have their way with them.

Isolating and protecting these tribes sounds like the kind and loving thing to do, and you get to sleep well at night, but with no long term vision the islanders get hurt worse in the end.

We're not talking about a nest of red billed sap suckers that need protecting here...we're talking about a desperate and terrified mother who's infant child is dying from an easily treatable bacterial infection. She doesn't know that her baby can live! Tell her...show her...save her infants life!
__________________
virginia boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 09:27   #49
Moderator
 
JPA Cate's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: aboard, cruising in Australia
Boat: Sayer 46' Solent rig sloop
Posts: 10,685
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Virginia Boy,

Your last paragraph is quite eloquent about the suffering of the isolated mother and child. And yet, is that suffering not one of the prices those people pay for choosing to remain isolate? Is not life always dangerous, and does it not end in death?

Personally, I do not think that that imagined suffering would justify interfering with those people. Our (meaning the West's) efforts towards interfering with others for their benefit have not worked out very well--and that's what I was writing about when I referred to the law of unintended consequences.

Those people want to be left alone, let's just do that. As cruisers, we can limit ourselves to places that want us, and as to helping the locals, let's ask them what they want, if anything, eh? not impose "for their own good" projects on them.

Ann
__________________
Ann, with Jim, aboard US s/v Insatiable II, in Oz, very long term cruisers
JPA Cate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 12:57   #50
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Whangaparaoa,NZ
Boat: 63 ft John Spencer Schooner
Posts: 956
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

If we "saved" every sick person/child on the island the population would increase beyond the carrying capacity of the resources on the island, unless we also introduced contraception. All in favour say AYE.
__________________

dana-tenacity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 13:15   #51
Registered User
 
thelifenomadik's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rio Dulce, Guatemala
Boat: Robertson&Caine Leopard 38
Posts: 41
Images: 26
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

nice to her such places still exist... i would love if there were more of these islands.
They have to be radical to survive for sure.

Thanks for sharing!
__________________
www.thelifenomadik.com
thelifenomadik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 13:50   #52
cat herder, extreme blacksheep
 
zeehag's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: furycame alley , tropics, mexico for now
Boat: 1976 FORMOSA yankee clipper 41
Posts: 17,771
Images: 56
Send a message via Yahoo to zeehag Send a message via Skype™ to zeehag
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

there are suffering mommies and babies in our own suffering nation.

why must all bleeding heartedly invade other places to deal with someone elses suffering babies and mommies when our own are still suffering and dying prematurely.

help those at home then help others.

most times interfering at all is essentially wiping them out.
zeehag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 14:56   #53
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Deale, MD
Boat: Westsail 28
Posts: 684
Images: 12
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeehag View Post
there are suffering mommies and babies in our own suffering nation.

why must all bleeding heartedly invade other places to deal with someone elses suffering babies and mommies when our own are still suffering and dying prematurely.

help those at home then help others.

most times interfering at all is essentially wiping them out.
What a load of crap. To compare the suffering of a third (or fourth) world population that lives with warfare, famine, slavery, and pestilence as a matter of course in their daily lives with the level of suffering found in 1st world countries is absurdity beyond the pale. Our poor have cell phones, computers, and plenty of food (as evidenced by extreme obesity in our ghettos.) 60 percent of our poor support a smoking habit, a daily bumper of beer, a monthly hair weave and a mani-pedi. Give me a break...sheesh! To suggest that we withhold assistance from the desperately poor around the world because you think we need to raise our people's standard of living first is....oh what's the use?

Countless lives have been saved in third world countries around the globe thanks to those "bleeding hearts" sending vaccines, food, clothing, medicine, military aid etc. The reason many of these isolated populations are so small to begin with is because they either kill each other through constant warfare, or they die from a lack of adequate nutrition and healthcare.

I'm not bleeding Zee, trust me. I'm pragmatic about these kinds of things. Since these island people are now known to exist, they WILL be exposed to the modern world. Let's try it again since you missed it the first time....they WILL be exposed to the modern world. We can decide to allow them a more comfortable transition, or we can let the chips fall where they may. Which is the more loving path?

Maybe with some training, an Obama-phone, and some gubbmint cheese, they could open a marina that would allow them to support all the babies that didn't die...or alternatively, some decent automatic weapons with which to back up the "No Trespassing" signs.

I'm done playing whack-a-mole. Out.
__________________
virginia boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 15:08   #54
Registered User
 
DumnMad's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nelson NZ; boat in Brisbane
Boat: 45ft Ketch
Posts: 1,247
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

I try to live by the maxim "do to others as I would have them do to me"

Now what would they do to me?
__________________
DumnMad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 15:26   #55
Moderator
 
Pete7's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 8,561
Images: 14
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumnMad View Post
Now what would they do to me?
Give you a bath in a large pot with a fire under it. The time to worry is when they start putting the other ingredients in the pot.

Pete
__________________
Moody 31 - April Lass
Pete7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 15:29   #56
Registered User
 
DumnMad's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nelson NZ; boat in Brisbane
Boat: 45ft Ketch
Posts: 1,247
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

If I were them I'd choose a Marina development for transient cruisers. Owned by the themselves of course.
__________________
DumnMad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 15:30   #57
cat herder, extreme blacksheep
 
zeehag's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: furycame alley , tropics, mexico for now
Boat: 1976 FORMOSA yankee clipper 41
Posts: 17,771
Images: 56
Send a message via Yahoo to zeehag Send a message via Skype™ to zeehag
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virginia boy View Post
What a load of crap. To compare the suffering of a third (or fourth) world population that lives with warfare, famine, slavery, and pestilence as a matter of course in their daily lives with the level of suffering found in 1st world countries is absurdity beyond the pale. Our poor have cell phones, computers, and plenty of food (as evidenced by extreme obesity in our ghettos.) 60 percent of our poor support a smoking habit, a daily bumper of beer, a monthly hair weave and a mani-pedi. Give me a break...sheesh! To suggest that we withhold assistance from the desperately poor around the world because you think we need to raise our people's standard of living first is....oh what's the use?

Countless lives have been saved in third world countries around the globe thanks to those "bleeding hearts" sending vaccines, food, clothing, medicine, military aid etc. The reason many of these isolated populations are so small to begin with is because they either kill each other through constant warfare, or they die from a lack of adequate nutrition and healthcare.

I'm not bleeding Zee, trust me. I'm pragmatic about these kinds of things. Since these island people are now known to exist, they WILL be exposed to the modern world. Let's try it again since you missed it the first time....they WILL be exposed to the modern world. We can decide to allow them a more comfortable transition, or we can let the chips fall where they may. Which is the more loving path?

Maybe with some training, an Obama-phone, and some gubbmint cheese, they could open a marina that would allow them to support all the babies that didn't die...or alternatively, some decent automatic weapons with which to back up the "No Trespassing" signs.

I'm done playing whack-a-mole. Out.
there are many souls in usa who are not on welfare roles because they are too proud. these souls also do not seek free healthcare as there is no such thing. there is much wrong with this usa that comes directly from your point of view, which is unfortunately suffered by many others. FACT--united states if hysteria cannot support its own population.- why go out and befoul others when home is so befouled. lol is a little off balance ye think???
zeehag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2013, 15:44   #58
Certifiable Refitter/Senior Wannbe
 
Wotname's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of 43 S, Australia
Boat: Van DeStat Super Dogger 31'
Posts: 7,331
Re: Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virginia boy View Post
In 1806 the population of the world was 1 billion; in 2100 it is estimated to be 11 billion!

Where the heck is everyone going to anchor?! Either we're gonna need some crazy lotta room or we're gonna have to learn to squeeze in tighter. Some of us might even have to give up boating. (Or some tribes give up their private islands?)

Like you, I also have a desire to keep things from changing any faster than they have to and I would like to delay the inevitable (1st world contact) as long as possible, but avoiding realistic and practical solutions such as controlled, yet gradually increasing contact for these people is doing them a greater disservice than allowing the evil white man to have their way with them.

So let's work hard at slowing down the change and work harder to provide more delay rather than caving in with "controlled contact". Heck, who is going to in charge of that. The road to hell is paved etc etc.

Isolating and protecting these tribes sounds like the kind and loving thing to do, and you get to sleep well at night, but with no long term vision the islanders get hurt worse in the end.

But better off right now

We're not talking about a nest of red billed sap suckers that need protecting here...we're talking about a desperate and terrified mother who's infant child is dying from an easily treatable bacterial infection. She doesn't know that her baby can live! Tell her...show her...save her infants life!
To be the devil's advocate: this just compounds the problems alluded to in your first sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by virginia boy View Post
What a load of crap. To compare the suffering of a third (or fourth) world population that lives with warfare, famine, slavery, and pestilence as a matter of course in their daily lives with the level of suffering found in 1st world countries is absurdity beyond the pale. Our poor have cell phones, computers, and plenty of food (as evidenced by extreme obesity in our ghettos.) 60 percent of our poor support a smoking habit, a daily bumper of beer, a monthly hair weave and a mani-pedi. Give me a break...sheesh! To suggest that we withhold assistance from the desperately poor around the world because you think we need to raise our people's standard of living first is....oh what's the use?

So why are we going to expose these people to this future 'cause that is the outcome of every other interaction between we "civilised folk" and "primitive folk". Surely you don't think that we could suddenly do it better this time round. Again, who is going to be in charge.


Countless lives have been saved in third world countries around the globe thanks to those "bleeding hearts" sending vaccines, food, clothing, medicine, military aid etc. The reason many of these isolated populations are so small to begin with is because they either kill each other through constant warfare, or they die from a lack of adequate nutrition and healthcare.

Again, this compounds your high population argument; somewhere the logic has been lost or so it seems to me.

I'm not bleeding Zee, trust me. I'm pragmatic about these kinds of things. Since these island people are now known to exist, they WILL be exposed to the modern world. Let's try it again since you missed it the first time....they WILL be exposed to the modern world. We can decide to allow them a more comfortable transition, or we can let the chips fall where they may. Which is the more loving path?

I vote for letting the chips fall as "we" have a very sad track record and "we" haven't changed so "our" way will be the same as before. Letting the chips fall gives them a fighting chance.

Maybe with some training, an Obama-phone, and some gubbmint cheese, they could open a marina that would allow them to support all the babies that didn't die...or alternatively, some decent automatic weapons with which to back up the "No Trespassing" signs.

I'm done playing whack-a-mole. Out.

Can't respond to this as I am from a second or third world country and don't understand the meaning - and I want to stay this way so please don't explain. Let me live in this ignorance, I will remain happy trust me.
VB, I have some sympathy with your reasoning but I am not swayed by it (yet).
__________________

__________________
All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangereous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. T.E. Lawrence
Wotname is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cruise, cruiser

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.