Cruiser unfriendly? You betcha.

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I've been reading a book about Capt. Cook's voyage, and now this. I have mixed feelings. Cook bought Western disease and exploitation to a number of "paradise" South Sea islands. But what if he hadn't? Wouldn't some other nation have done the same?

It bothers me when an old building is torn down. It bothers me to see a "native" culture overrun by modernity.

But is it fair to deny them the progress humans have made? With the possible exception of the iPhone, there are a lot of good things we've developed. Better nutrition, longer lives, lower infant mortality, ways to interact with and learn about other cultures. Options and opportunities for thinkers, artists, craftsmen and just about every talent imaginable. Things that just aren't available in ultra-primitive cultures. All those talents remain unused.

If they know all this, and make the informed choice to live a simpler life, then they certainly have that right. .But do we have a duty to offer them that choice?

IMHO the answer would be no. But I suspect that they have done recon
missions over the years. Didn't care that much for what they saw, and
have elected to stay isolated. I truly admire them, and think that they
must get along pretty well, and do much better in their OWN ways than
most other cultures. They well may know at hell of a lot more than we
know. A simpler, maybe shorter life doesn't make it less of a life.
Genetically there might be some health problems that will do them in
eventually. Then again who's to say their not smart enough to capture
some new male, and female blood lines periodically ?


Live, and let live...

[Nicholson58]

My cousins visited the Adammans 10 years ago. there were "off-limits" islands in the group. They had a great time at the permitted destinations.

[bobconnie]

Sorta seems to us that we should just leave em alone and let them make the choice of how they wish to live !! When did anyone get elected God ?? I musta missed the head lines on that one !! Musta been sailin !!

[zeehag]

seems we should be able to leave SOMEONE alone.
geez....

[CaptTom]

I can't disagree with anything that's been said here.

Still... I have to wonder.

Suppose there is an alien race watching us right now. Their "prime directive" says they can't interfere. They could easily teach us how to cure cancer, eliminate war, provide nutrition for every human, save our environment and generally make our lives better. All without taking over our planet, forcing us into slavery or otherwise exploiting us.

Instead, they have to watch so many of us suffer and die needlessly.

If your child were starving, or you had a loved one dying of cancer, wouldn't you want the aliens to forget their prime directive?

Maybe it's inevitable that we'd end up exploiting the islanders. Certainly their culture would change dramatically. Could it still be THEIR culture? Could they make only the changes THEY wanted to make? I don't know.

I still like the way they taunted the folks who came to make contact. You gotta love their spirit!

[virginia boy]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

I think the UN aught to come out with a prime directive that states you cannot interact with these tribes unless:
1. You are completely free from any diseases, even the common cold may be deadly to these tribes...
2. You dress up like they are
3. you use no technology that is superior to what they use.
In other words- you want to interact with these people get your bows and arrows (made from local material- just like theirs) and strip down to your loin clothes before seeing a local doctor for clearance.
Didn't any of you see Star Trek?

Well Newt, we already have similar policies in place all over the world to preserve natural habitats. We call them game preserves. Maybe we could have photo safaris so all the civilized people could gawk at the throwbacks. I'm not convinced that choosing to wall these people off from the rest of the world is our decision to make. This attitude seems a little arrogant to me.

While it's not nearly as quaint as before, I kind of of like my new gentrified neighborhood in wash DC, and I suspect the previously poverty stricken, now employed and well fed, indigenous population mostly agrees too.

[MBLittle]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

Well Newt, we already have similar policies in place all over the world to preserve natural habitats. We call them game preserves. Maybe we could have photo safaris so all the civilized people could gawk at the throwbacks. I'm not convinced that choosing to wall these people off from the rest of the world is our decision to make. This attitude seems a little arrogant to me. While it's not nearly as quaint as before, I kind of of like my new gentrified neighborhood in wash DC, and I suspect the previously poverty stricken, now employed and well fed, indigenous population mostly agrees too.

It's pretty arrogant to presume they would be benefitted by assimilation into modern society. In fact, I'm confident that throughout history most indigenous people (what's left of them after disease, rape, torture and genocide) are far from better off after Europeans "made contact." Whose to say that their way of life is less of a life than mine?

[Jimbo485]

About 15 years some Australian aboriginals had their first contact with "civilisation" and were introduced and accepted. Asked a few years later whether they were happy about it, they replied that surviving in the desert was hard and that they were pleased that their distant rellies had tracked them down and brought them in.

It might be different in the Indian Ocean Islands where the fruit falls from the trees and the fish leap into your nets...

[s/v Beth]

As much as I like you Virgina Boy, I think quality of life is a slippery thing. I have meet natives in the Amazon who were happy and had rich lives without anything we would call civilized. I say only contact should be on their level. If they decide to move off their island that should be their choice, not ours ramming "improvements" down their throats. And I think they should be left alone unless they initiate contact.

[JPA Cate]

It seems to me that they have made their decision, and been rather open about it. Who among us wants to be dictated to?

As to perceived duty-boundness to "help" them...the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Best to not go there.

Now, if they asked for help, that's different, but to try and lay our notion of help on them...nope, not on. Seriously, consider the "law of unforeseen consequences", and just let this one lie.

If the prime directive is "do no harm", non-interference is the best policy.

Ann

[dana-tenacity]

And when western civilisation collapses they are more likely to survive to repopulate our barren planet.

[virginia boy]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

As much as I like you Virgina Boy, I think quality of life is a slippery thing. I have meet natives in the Amazon who were happy and had rich lives without anything we would call civilized. I say only contact should be on their level. If they decide to move off their island that should be their choice, not ours ramming "improvements" down their throats. And I think they should be left alone unless they initiate contact.

No demographic, political boundary, tribal affiliation, disease, etc., ever remains in stasis. As sad as it is to see Germany, the country of my childhood, heading for a civil war with Islam, or a similar fate for my father's country Sweden, what can I, or even should I, do? Large swaths of America are now predominately Spanish speaking and hardly recognizable to me. I dare say that there is no longer an identifiable indigenous population in England anymore. Years ago my Viking ancestors were peacefully plying their trade around the Baltic, loafing at the nudist beach and working on getting a tan when those pesky Normans changed our whole way of life.

I can't stop my kids from growing up, and you won't stop the world from eventually dropping a coke bottle on that island, or offering modern medical care. Acceptance of that fact and gearing policies toward that eventuality would be more helpful IMHO than attempting to institute some weird paternalistic, fiduciary relationship with these people so as to keep them as they are. Who in the entire world has the moral right to be these people's gatekeeper? Not I, for sure.

[Andrew B.]

I believe "they" have made it abundantly clear that they want to be left alone.

As I said in a earlier reply I would bet the farm that they know much more about
"us" than we do them.

If a 'coke' bottle, or maybe a space ship happens to land there, and who's
really able to say that both, or some other contact hasn't already been made.
Then so be it. Then it would be entirely up to "them" in making what
decisions they wanted to make. Not someone from a foreign culture 'forcing' their
ideas on them by invasion. One might call it cultural rape to insist on encroaching
on their way of life.

In the only way they know to say so They have posted "No Trespassing"
signs every time someone encroaches on their little island.

But then again I spent my formative years during a time, and in a area that
knew what privacy was, and that No Trespassing meant No Trespassing.

If they need help I feel sure they are more than capable of letting
"us" know.

[virginia boy]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

I believe "they" have made it abundantly clear that they want to be left alone.

Yes, they've made it abundantly clear and I agree; in a perfect world they would, and should be left alone, but it ain't gonna happen. Just sayin.

"[COLOR="yellow"]But then again I spent my formative years during a time, and in a area that
knew what privacy was, and that No Trespassing meant No Trespassing."[/COLOR]

Nope...you didn't. Here's the proof.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y46sZQQeEaY

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by virginia boy

Yes, they've made it abundantly clear and I agree; in a perfect world they would, and should be left alone, but it ain't gonna happen. Just sayin.

"[COLOR="yellow"]But then again I spent my formative years during a time, and in a area that
knew what privacy was, and that No Trespassing meant No Trespassing."[/COLOR]

Nope...you didn't. Here's the proof.

Cool stuff. But nothing to do with central Kentucky during the '50s.

I went to HS and learned about Indochina, served with the US Army in
1966 in what had become South Vietnam, although I know it was written
like this during my tour;Viet-Nam. It's now known as the "Socialist Republic
of Vietnam". I am betting Kentucky will always be known as Kentucky. Land
of pretty horses, and fast women...

And your correct. Sooner, or later some azzhat will insist on invading them.
I hope and pray for much later...