The real question is: what do we do? What can we possibly do with these people?
Do we quarantine them forever from our society? Do we try to assimilate them? Whatever we do, we can't simply leave them be and expect everything to work itself out. They will eventually discover the outside world and, barring an actual, physical, permanent quarantine, they will some day have to deal with this. If we simply leave them be, the likelihood of a positive outcome is low. If we intervene, we will effectively destroy their world.
What can we possibly do?
The idea that we need to "do" something seems odd to me. Why do you assume that the outcome will be bad if the tribes eventually discover modern society?
You don't think that his amigos would help him out if he got sick?
Amigos might lend him a few bucks when he's getting over the flu. That's cool. What are amigos going to do when he needs two million dollar surgery to remove a tumor from his brain? What is his family going to do if he dies?
Oh please, the supercollider is just representing technology in general, and there is no way you can deny the role of technology in feeding us. Also, the supercollider doesn't really fall under "astronomy".
I am not saying that science doesn't feed, nor that an astronemer can't clean a toilet. My statement was poorly made. I am just stating that the FUNCTIONS are both important to society (not necessarily the specific people that do them).
It like saying that the person who cleans toilets is less necessary than an astronomer. If we had a glutton of astronomers and no toilet cleaners, we would be in the shit. That doesn't negate the importance of astronomers, but it does highlight the importance of the simple, but more immediately necessary function.
But what about when we eventually automate all menial tasks with machines?
I both look forward to and fear the day when the majority of the working economy is no longer necessary.
Since the junglemen won't have robots, it will hardly effect them.
What are amigos going to do when he needs two million dollar surgery to remove a tumor from his brain? What is his family going to do if he dies?
O.K. so we are talking worst case scenarios. The Millionaire path also pretty much falls flat if he gets a brain tumor because he will be out of commission. What if he as nobody to take his place while he is gone? Or a bad business decision or simply very bad luck makes him lose everything he has? In worst case scenarios, both paths are equally bad. That's why it isn't a measure for which one is better.
Why do you assume that the outcome will be bad if the tribes eventually discover modern society?
When in human history have technologically primitive people ever benefited from their interactions with a vastly more advanced society? It has almost every time resulted in dissolution, displacement, subjugation, or extinction.
How do we explain the world, or even ourselves, to a people with no linguistic ties and an effectively alien culture? To a Roman, they could see a highway and understand it as an advanced road. What of a people who likely have never seen metal or masonry?
If we do nothing, these people will eventually just be destroyed by the forces around them. They will never enter our society, and eventually they will all die. That land will not remain unspoiled indefinitely, and there is no way, short of an enforced and permanent quarantine backed by force, to prevent this.
O.K. so we are talking worst case scenarios. The Millionaire path also pretty much falls flat if he gets a brain tumor because he will be out of commission. What if he as nobody to take his place while he is gone? Or a bad business decision or simply very bad luck makes him lose everything he has? In worst case scenarios, both paths are equally bad. That's why it isn't a measure for which one is better.
A millionaire can have fallbacks in case of bad scenarios. He can have a set amount of money in an incredibly secure account. That way if everything else sucks, that money will still be there. The millionaire can also buy insurance. He might also die of a brain tumor, but the odds of that happening are a lot less since he is very likely to receive the best surgery available. It will take complete and total economic collapse to put the millionaire in the same situation as the fisherman. The fisherman is much worse off. Even if the fisherman is happy right now, his happiness is on much more fragile footing.
Why do you assume that the outcome will be bad if the tribes eventually discover modern society?
When in human history have technologically primitive people ever benefited from their interactions with a vastly more advanced society? It has almost every time resulted in dissolution, displacement, subjugation, or extinction.
How do we explain the world, or even ourselves, to a people with no linguistic ties and an effectively alien culture? To a Roman, they could see a highway and understand it as an advanced road. What of a people who likely have never seenmetalormasonry?
If we do nothing, these people will eventually just be destroyed by the forces around them. They will never enter our society, and eventually they will all die. That land will not remain unspoiled indefinitely, and there is no way, short of an enforced and permanent quarantine backed by force, to prevent this.
The Bushmen are an excellent example of a primitive culture that interacts with modern society (now) yet is still maintaining itself.
There is always friction and culture clash, and it can end badly on the side of the primitive man, but all things come to an end and all societies (given enough time) eventually blend. I do not see this as bad as much as natural. Also, to assume that the jungle-men will just die off is a big assumption - they have survived until now, haven't they?
Scott, you are assuming that he already is a millionaire. I'm debating the decision of trying to become a business man and eventually a millionaire within the fishing industry or staying the small mexican village.
Scott, you are assuming that he already is a millionaire. I'm debating the decision of trying to become a business man and eventually a millionaire within the fishing industry or staying the small mexican village.
That depends on the individual person. You have to decide how much security you want in life, and how much risk you want. You also have to decide how hard you are going to work in order to mitigate the risks you don't want to take. You also have to decide if you want to work a lot now, so you won't have to work so much later in life. Or you can decide to work a little bit at a time until the day you die.
The Bushmen are an excellent example of a primitive culture that interacts with modern society (now) yet is still maintaining itself.
There is always friction and culture clash, and it can end badly on the side of the primitive man, but all things come to an end and all societies (given enough time) eventually blend. I do not see this as bad as much as natural. Also, to assume that the jungle-men will just die off is a big assumption - they have survived until now, haven't they?
Let's avoid the "white man's burden" mentality.
One needs only to research Cargo Cults. The followers of John Frum don't seem to get the picture.
Why do you assume that the outcome will be bad if the tribes eventually discover modern society?
When in human history have technologically primitive people ever benefited from their interactions with a vastly more advanced society? It has almost every time resulted in dissolution, displacement, subjugation, or extinction.
How do we explain the world, or even ourselves, to a people with no linguistic ties and an effectively alien culture? To a Roman, they could see a highway and understand it as an advanced road. What of a people who likely have never seenmetalormasonry?
If we do nothing, these people will eventually just be destroyed by the forces around them. They will never enter our society, and eventually they will all die. That land will not remain unspoiled indefinitely, and there is no way, short of an enforced and permanent quarantine backed by force, to prevent this.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's why we need to send in missionaries, hard liquor, and cholera-infested blankets to eradicate their society as quickly as possible. Then we should take their land.
As is how evolution works, right? But remember, one group's pursuits are no less superior to the other.
This isn't about biological evolution, we are the exact same as they are. Nor am I saying our pursuits are more superior. This is about how one species can be separated by a couple miles of forest creating an massive disparity in knowledge. When you look at it from the scale of the universe, we are right on top of each other. We are the same people, yet how can a few miles make us so different? Just something to think about I suppose...
Well, you can share an incredible amount of genetic homology and still be totally different.
As a microbiologist, the biggest sticking point in bacterial nomenclature is where to draw the lines of "species." There are numerous examples of this: take E. coli O157:H7. This is the famous pathogenic strain of E. coli that has been responsible for numerous outbreaks of foodborne illness across the nation, typically associated with the consumption of undercooked ground beef.
O157:H7 is a serotype; it's a further categorization of E. coli based on some external features. It winds up that these external features are linked with its pathology; that is, O157:H7 is almost genetically identical to the rest of E. coli, but is VERY functionally different. It has different growth characteristics and substrate utilization, and causes a severe diarrheagenic illness.
Additionally, E. coli O157:H7 is actually very close, genotypically and phenotypically, to the Shigella species. Shigella spp. cause a severe bacterial dysentery because they express a toxin called the shiga toxin (scientists are creative). E. coli O157:H7 expresses a toxin that is virtually identical to the shiga toxin (called the vero toxin or the shiga-like toxin) that causes the same illness. Despite its near total similarity to Shigella spp., O157:H7 is still classified as an E. coli serotype, for what essentially amount to arbitrary reasons.
The whole concept of a "species" in biology is fairly arbitrary; there are guidelines as to how we decide if something is a new species or not, but these rules are often broken by consensus. So, ultimately, we draw the line where we decide to draw the line (in some cases).
So what am I saying? Every human population is Homo sapiens, but globally, people are divided into subgroups, generally distinct enough that we could probably call them subspecies of each other. When drawing subgroup/species/population lines, you have to take into account not just differing genotype, but differing phenotype as well. And again, drawing those lines becomes somewhat arbitrary.
I would say, functionally speaking, that African bushmen aren't human, at least not in comparison to the modern human; their culture is so disparate that to change it would irrevocably change the people themselves. So what does this mean?
Essentially, there's no way to incorporate something so disparate without totally destroying it. The bushmen and similar very primitive tribes will either survive as they have forever, or be destroyed by assimilation. I'm all about cultural preservation in the modern world, but you can only do it so much before evolution forces you apart. That's what we're seeing now.
I would be willing to make a bet that, given continued separation and sufficient time, the genetic differences between modern man and primitive man will grow to the point that we will, arguably, be two totally different species.
Who knows, perhaps our Solar System is a wildlife preserve controlled by a much larger species that spans our galaxy.
Wait, are you the same Andrew that was just arguing against some kind of "god"? All joking aside, I suppose "studying" might prove to be worthwhile, if they have indeed been without contact. I don't think there is a good solution to assimilating these kinds of people.
Wait, are you the same Andrew that was just arguing against some kind of "god"? All joking aside, I suppose "studying" might prove to be worthwhile, if they have indeed been without contact. I don't think there is a good solution to assimilating these kinds of people.
There is a significantly greater chance that life exists elsewhere in the universe than that a god exists.
Well, maybe I wasn't clear in my argument, but I meant some other species playing "god" with us. Something more like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy than the Christian god. Yeah, I'm not so great at explaining things.
Wtf! All good stories on the internet recently are turning out to be fake. Good job reporters.
Well, calling it a "hoax" is a little misleading. As Omnutia pointed out, the tribe actually exists; they were not an "undiscovered" tribe, though, as their existence had been known about since like 1910. They're still an actual remote isolated tribe.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I meant the "OMG! Tribe never seen before!" was a hoax. Though hoax might have been a bit too strong of a word. More like misleading report?
Comments
In worst case scenarios, both paths are equally bad. That's why it isn't a measure for which one is better.
How do we explain the world, or even ourselves, to a people with no linguistic ties and an effectively alien culture? To a Roman, they could see a highway and understand it as an advanced road. What of a people who likely have never seen metal or masonry?
If we do nothing, these people will eventually just be destroyed by the forces around them. They will never enter our society, and eventually they will all die. That land will not remain unspoiled indefinitely, and there is no way, short of an enforced and permanent quarantine backed by force, to prevent this.
There is always friction and culture clash, and it can end badly on the side of the primitive man, but all things come to an end and all societies (given enough time) eventually blend. I do not see this as bad as much as natural. Also, to assume that the jungle-men will just die off is a big assumption - they have survived until now, haven't they?
Let's avoid the "white man's burden" mentality.
As a microbiologist, the biggest sticking point in bacterial nomenclature is where to draw the lines of "species." There are numerous examples of this: take E. coli O157:H7. This is the famous pathogenic strain of E. coli that has been responsible for numerous outbreaks of foodborne illness across the nation, typically associated with the consumption of undercooked ground beef.
O157:H7 is a serotype; it's a further categorization of E. coli based on some external features. It winds up that these external features are linked with its pathology; that is, O157:H7 is almost genetically identical to the rest of E. coli, but is VERY functionally different. It has different growth characteristics and substrate utilization, and causes a severe diarrheagenic illness.
Additionally, E. coli O157:H7 is actually very close, genotypically and phenotypically, to the Shigella species. Shigella spp. cause a severe bacterial dysentery because they express a toxin called the shiga toxin (scientists are creative). E. coli O157:H7 expresses a toxin that is virtually identical to the shiga toxin (called the vero toxin or the shiga-like toxin) that causes the same illness. Despite its near total similarity to Shigella spp., O157:H7 is still classified as an E. coli serotype, for what essentially amount to arbitrary reasons.
The whole concept of a "species" in biology is fairly arbitrary; there are guidelines as to how we decide if something is a new species or not, but these rules are often broken by consensus. So, ultimately, we draw the line where we decide to draw the line (in some cases).
So what am I saying? Every human population is Homo sapiens, but globally, people are divided into subgroups, generally distinct enough that we could probably call them subspecies of each other. When drawing subgroup/species/population lines, you have to take into account not just differing genotype, but differing phenotype as well. And again, drawing those lines becomes somewhat arbitrary.
I would say, functionally speaking, that African bushmen aren't human, at least not in comparison to the modern human; their culture is so disparate that to change it would irrevocably change the people themselves. So what does this mean?
Essentially, there's no way to incorporate something so disparate without totally destroying it. The bushmen and similar very primitive tribes will either survive as they have forever, or be destroyed by assimilation. I'm all about cultural preservation in the modern world, but you can only do it so much before evolution forces you apart. That's what we're seeing now.
I would be willing to make a bet that, given continued separation and sufficient time, the genetic differences between modern man and primitive man will grow to the point that we will, arguably, be two totally different species.
All joking aside, I suppose "studying" might prove to be worthwhile, if they have indeed been without contact. I don't think there is a good solution to assimilating these kinds of people.