Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

[FlyingCloud1937]

WHY BE FRIENDS?

[Wotname]

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.

[virginia boy]

Originally Posted by Wotname

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!

[JPA Cate]

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

[dana-tenacity]

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.

[thelifenomadik]

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!

[zeehag]

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.

[virginia boy]

Originally Posted by zeehag

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.

[DumnMad]

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?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

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

[DumnMad]

If I were them I'd choose a Marina development for transient cruisers. Owned by the themselves of course.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

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???

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

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.

Originally Posted by virginia boy

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).