Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

uncontacted tribe in Brazil

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

This is actually the one credible consideration in support of forbidding outsiders from making contact. It is analogous to the problem of a person with a virulent disease such as Ebola or smallpox walking around freely, infecting and killing people right and left, saying "Fine, send me the doctor's bill", especially when the fact of being a carrier of a disease dangerous to some is not self-evident.

Well, no, but you would have to prove that you pose no danger to their health. That is of course difficult, too, so you probably have to show up in some freaky yellow protection suit ;)

It is unlikely that a visitor who introduced such a disease could actually be held responsible, since to do so you would have to prove that it was specifically that person who caused the deaths, and that is probably impossible.

I'm no expert in biology/medicine, but I think bacteria / virusses are unique concerning their DNA, making it at least possible to prove whether a specific person was the transmitter of that disease. Of course making it standard legal practice to find the perpetrator of each disease is difficult and costly but common practice in some cases (just think of infectious biological weapons).

@K-Mac:

I don't know but maybe there is a vaccine or something like that.

Like handing out bulletproof vests before you enter their village with blazing guns ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's my understanding they would probably just die of disease, including the common cold. That has been a common occurrence when these types of tribes were confronted in the past. Why not just let them be? When/if society grows into their territory, they will be forced to confront it sooner or later anyway.

Hi Kelly,

Where did you hear that they die from the common cold?

I remember grammar school teachers telling me that the Americas were a disease free paradise of plenty until the white man came to exploit it and spread disease, but I had always chalked that up to the same old anti-wasp cultural relativity which is so prevalent.

Also, I don't remember the source, but I thought that I heard recently that there was evidence that the cold was here pre-columbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kelly,

Where did you hear that they die from the common cold?

I remember grammar school teachers telling me that the Americas were a disease free paradise of plenty until the white man came to exploit it and spread disease, but I had always chalked that up to the same old anti-wasp cultural relativity which is so prevalent.

Also, I don't remember the source, but I thought that I heard recently that there was evidence that the cold was here pre-columbus.

I think it says so in the article linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly, that's what I meant...

Ah, okay. I misunderstood.

@K-Mac: I don't know but maybe there is a vaccine or something like that.

I wish...I've had the common cold (which is a virus) several times since December and if I hear, "it just has to run its course" from another doctor, I might strangle them! ;)

Where did you hear that they die from the common cold?

It was in one of the articles I read. I honestly don't remember if it was from the link in this thread or the one on drudgereport.com or what. (It was a British website, I remember that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember grammar school teachers telling me that the Americas were a disease free paradise of plenty until the white man came to exploit it and spread disease, but I had always chalked that up to the same old anti-wasp cultural relativity which is so prevalent.

At least some experts think Europe picked up syphillis from the New World.

If Wikipedia is to be believed:

while there is indisputable evidence of syphilis' presence in the pre-Columbian Americas

In other words your grammar school teachers are full of organic fertilizer.

Also, I don't remember the source, but I thought that I heard recently that there was evidence that the cold was here pre-columbus.

If it got out into the Old World before about 12000 BC then it crossed the land bridge with the first migration (which according to some theories gave rise to most of the Indians); even if after that, it probably crossed with the later migration (that gave rise to the Navaho and the related tribes in NW Canada and the Alaskan Interior); it could have come over with the Inuit (third migration) as well.

Or the Vikings could have brought it.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think so? Would you choose to live in that tribe if they let you?

This is a pretty asinine post.

Answer to first question: The fact that isolated tribes have intentionally kept themselves isolated.

Answer to second question: No. But I wasn't raised in an isolated tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think so? Would you choose to live in that tribe if they let you?

I agree with Moose on this. I doubt that very many people would be willing to up and change their entire lives so easily. If they were of any significant age, they would probably be pretty indoctrinated into whatever beliefs the tribe has, and modernity would be alien and likely terrifying. Besides, the fact that they have spent so much time in that tribe probably has done a lot to impair their cognitive abilities, and they likely couldn't understand what civilization had to offer.

Asking whether or not someone who grew up in civilization would chose to join civilization if they weren't a part of it already is a loaded question, for the reasons above.

Answer to first question: The fact that isolated tribes have intentionally kept themselves isolated.

If they were truly uncontacted, they would never have known that there was a civilized world, and thus they wouldn't have intentionally kept themselves isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to imagine a scenario whereby every single person in the civilized world is killed. Why would these tribes be necessary to perpetuate the human race when the survivors of the nuclear holocaust could just do it? Survivors would do it much more efficiently since there would be some residual knowledge on topics of science and politics.

Here are three scenarios of the top of my head:

1 A supernova in our quadrant of the Milky way releases a gamma-ray burst that fries all the microchips that form the heart of modern technology.

A.) All information is now stored and transmitted electronically, even to the extent of replacing vocal interaction, so people are utterly unable to communicate or figure out how to survive.

B.) Human beings have chosen to replace some crucial organs with artificial analogs which fail when their chips fry. Only primitives still live with un-augmented bodies.

2) A nano-virus spreads and consumes all biomass within the range of the em-power relays used in 99.8% percent of human settlements. Only primitives survive outside the range of the power stations.

3) Humanity evolves and decides to out-migrate beyond the intense solar winds in the inner solar system, as they interfere with nano-computing now integrated into human minds. A few holdouts remain, but they are so utterly dependent on civilization that they choose to leave or die out. Savages reclaim the earth to rediscover civilization.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty asinine post.

Thank you.

Answer to first question: The fact that isolated tribes have intentionally kept themselves isolated.

I second Branden's above response to this.

Answer to second question: No. But I wasn't raised in an isolated tribe.

I'll address this by responding to Branden's response:

they would probably be pretty indoctrinated into whatever beliefs the tribe has, and modernity would be alien and likely terrifying. Besides, the fact that they have spent so much time in that tribe probably has done a lot to impair their cognitive abilities, and they likely couldn't understand what civilization had to offer.

That's right, but they still have free will, and I believe the truly moral among them (if there are any) will be eager to find out what civilization is and, once they did, it won't cross their minds for a moment to stay in that tribe.

And if they do have fears and doubts, shouldn't the persons contacting them try to allay those fears, and shouldn't they try to do their best to show them the incredible opportunities that civilization has to offer? Shouldn't they try to educate them? Remember that tribes of this kind tend to look upon everything new and inexplicable as a manifestation of the gods, so chances are that if you show them some of the capabilities that science has invested you with--like making fire at the touch of a button, or turning on your own "sun" at night, or taking pictures of the tribesmen--they will respect you as a god and take your word as gospel and be more than willing to listen to you. And if you tell them that they too can work those "miracles"--do you really think they won't be interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are three scenarios of the top of my head:

1 A supernova in our quadrant of the Milky way releases a gamma-ray burst that fries all the microchips that form the heart of modern technology.

A.) All information is now stored and transmitted electronically, even to the extent of replacing vocal interaction, so people are utterly unable to communicate or figure out how to survive.

B.) Human beings have chosen to replace some crucial organs with artificial analogs which fail when their chips fry. Only primitives still live with un-augmented bodies.

2) A nano-virus spreads and consumes all biomass within the range of the em-power relays used in 99.8% percent of human settlements. Only primitives survive outside the range of the power stations.

3) Humanity evolves and decides to out-migrate beyond the intense solar winds in the inner solar system, as they interfere with nano-computing now integrated into human minds. A few holdouts remain, but they are so utterly dependent on civilization that they choose to leave or die out. Savages reclaim the earth to rediscover civilization.

I guess I thought you were envisioning scenarios that could take place in the immediate future.

Thank you.

I second Branden's above response to this.

Except, as I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, "uncontacted" is an inaccurate word to use. I haven't found anything in my limited research to suggest that there are any tribes that have had literally no contact with civilization.

I'll address this by responding to Branden's response:

That's right, but they still have free will, and I believe the truly moral among them (if there are any) will be eager to find out what civilization is and, once they did, it won't cross their minds for a moment to stay in that tribe.

And if they do have fears and doubts, shouldn't the persons contacting them try to allay those fears, and shouldn't they try to do their best to show them the incredible opportunities that civilization has to offer? Shouldn't they try to educate them? Remember that tribes of this kind tend to look upon everything new and inexplicable as a manifestation of the gods, so chances are that if you show them some of the capabilities that science has invested you with--like making fire at the touch of a button, or turning on your own "sun" at night, or taking pictures of the tribesmen--they will respect you as a god and take your word as gospel and be more than willing to listen to you. And if you tell them that they too can work those "miracles"--do you really think they won't be interested?

Well, we can agree to disagree here, but I highly doubt you would be able to coax any of them away from their tribes. It took centuries for the Native Americans to even begin embracing modernity...and they were pretty much forced to have contact with more advanced civilizations. The current isolated tribes are much more cut-off than the Native Americans were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right, but they still have free will, and I believe the truly moral among them (if there are any) will be eager to find out what civilization is and, once they did, it won't cross their minds for a moment to stay in that tribe.

And if they do have fears and doubts, shouldn't the persons contacting them try to allay those fears, and shouldn't they try to do their best to show them the incredible opportunities that civilization has to offer? Shouldn't they try to educate them? Remember that tribes of this kind tend to look upon everything new and inexplicable as a manifestation of the gods, so chances are that if you show them some of the capabilities that science has invested you with--like making fire at the touch of a button, or turning on your own "sun" at night, or taking pictures of the tribesmen--they will respect you as a god and take your word as gospel and be more than willing to listen to you. And if you tell them that they too can work those "miracles"--do you really think they won't be interested?

I think you're right in that they would still have free will; however, I think that after a certain amount of indoctrination and a complete lack of exposure to any vaguely rationalist principles, most of their choices would err against civilization.

I also think the point regarding Native Americans is correct. I would also point out that they might be just as likely to view you as a demon/threat than as a god. The uncontacted tribe that was spotted in Brazil in the news report that started this thread attempted to attack the helicopter that spotted them, if I recall correctly.

Regardless, you're probably right that out of a large population, a very small minority would give civilization a chance.

Except, as I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, "uncontacted" is an inaccurate word to use. I haven't found anything in my limited research to suggest that there are any tribes that have had literally no contact with civilization.

Most tribes have probably been contacted to some degree. However, there are exceptions, like I think this tribe that was recently found it. Moreover, we might just not have documentation on the minority of uncontacted tribes (by the fact that they are unconctacted), which would account for the difficulty of finding evidence of them (this is a bad argument in general, but I think it might apply here to some degree).

Even if they weren't completely uncontacted though, the fact that they are contacted doesn't in-and-of itself really give them the understanding necessary to intentionally remain uncivilized. Contact as well as further efforts to communicate somewhat extensively would be necessary to allow them to really make the decision, and I think there are quite a few tribes that haven't been communicated with much. Wikipedia has an article listing some of them here. They refer to them as "uncontacted" although that term might not be completely applicable to some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it disturbing that these savage tribes still exist. What are we saving them from? Modern medicine? Industrial processes that would eliminate their need of subsistence farming? Education? Knowledge?

The misguided notions of the noble savage espoused by the granola munching ecoists and media would quickly disappear were they to actually experience what it is like to have a child die from a simple fever, or get gangrene from an insect bite and loose a limb.

what makes them savages? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that they're uncivilized.

savages - noun: a member of an uncivilized people

civilized - adjective: having a high state of culture and development both social and technological

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding they would probably just die of disease, including the common cold. That has been a common occurrence when these types of tribes were confronted in the past. Why not just let them be? When/if society grows into their territory, they will be forced to confront it sooner or later anyway.

Members of an isolated population co-evolve with the pathogens and other harmful organisms that live in -their- environment. Natural selection will produce a population that can survive the hazards and live long enough to reproduce (which is all natural selection "cares about"). A kind of dynamic equilibrium between the isolates and the pathogens is reached eventually. A certain number of the human isolates die from diseases but enough survive to insure the group lives on by way of natural reproduction.

It is pathogens brought in from the outside to which no immunity has devolved that have disasterous consequences to the previously isolated population. For example, the Aztecs were done in by small pox (germs) more than by Spanish guns and steel (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox). The Spaniards had developed either full or partial immunity to smallpox. The Aztecs had none. I have read that as many as six million Aztecs died of smallpox contracted from Spaniards. Sudden rapid exposure of this isolated population to disease pathogens common in more "civilized" environments could easily kill these folks off or do a major number on them.

So limiting contact with these isolates might be justified or sought on grounds of disease prevention.

In the fullness of time, habitat encroachment by the civilized folks may render the question of isolation moot. Civilized groups will move into territory that they need or want. Think of what happened to the Lokotah when gold was discovered in "them thar hills". Territory that had been ceded by treaty to the Lakotah was soon invaded and the Lokatah pushed out. That is the way it goes.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that they're uncivilized.

savages - noun: a member of an uncivilized people

civilized - adjective: having a high state of culture and development both social and technological

While I understand the distinction, I prefer to shy away from using such a loaded word. The word "savage" carries with it a certain moral connotation that I don't think is fair to apply to these people. I don't think you can really blame them for living the way they do, because they don't know anything different and the geography of their surroundings makes it pretty much impossible for any significant form of advancement. I think primitive is a better word to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add: So what?

Cultures great and small go "extinct" simply by changing. Colonial American culture is extinct, Roman imperial culture is extinct, Southern slave culture is extinct, German Nazi culture is extinct. But there's more. We don't live the same way we did 20 years go. Life, by which I mean certain aspects of the culture, have changed. We fly more often and more cheaply (in both senses of the word), we watch less TV, there are more movies available, we have cell phones, we have the internet, etc.

/quote]

Colonial Americans formulated the political doctrines under which we still live. How about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? German Nazi culture? There are still skinheads alive and obnoxious in Germany. Roman imperial culture? It has survived in modified form in the Catholic Church. Not to say anything of the Roman Imperial style of government buildings, which can be seen in Washington D.C. Even some of our legal doctrines are direct descendants (and not much changed) from Roman law.

While some things change (and do so rapidly in some cases) other things remain either unchanged or little changed. The language we speak today in the U.S. would have been well understood in America and England two hundred and even three hundred years ago. As to technical artifacts and gadgets, the telephone is an elaboration of the the magnetic telegraph invented in the 1840's, nearly 170 years ago. Printed books are still among us nearly five hundred years after Guettenberg.

If you saw the photographs of these isolated Amazon Jungle folk pointing their arrows upward at the planes overhead, think of the missiles pointed skyward to smite enemy aircraft. The area where I lived fifty five years ago bristled with Nike Missile sites. The attitude toward unwelcome strangers has not changed a bit - well hardly changed a bit.

La plus la change, la plus la meme chose.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand the distinction, I prefer to shy away from using such a loaded word. [...] I think primitive is a better word to use.

I think you might just as well call the word "primitive" loaded. Savage, primitive, uncivilized ... whatever you call them, the word is going to become "loaded"--loaded, that is, with the meaning of the referent, which is a savage, primitive, and uncivilized tribe. Politically correct word games are a futile attempt at evading the inferiority of the inferior and denying the superiority of the superior, and the only thing they will achieve on an Objectivist forum is expose you as a liberal progressive to anyone who may not yet have put two and two together from your posts on "global warming" and here on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The language we speak today in the U.S. would have been well understood in America and England two hundred and even three hundred years ago.

On the other hand, I have spent over a year and a half here in London now, but sometimes I still cannot for my life figure out what the heck they're saying. Plus ça Cockney, plus c'est la je ne sais quoi!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about "well" understood, but it would be understood. It works better the other way--their language would be more comprehensible to us than vice versa. This is primarily because we have a lot more concepts than they did due to the advancement of knowlege; we've also borrowed a lot more foreign words. I doubt any colonial (except perhaps one from Italy if there were any) would know what a pizza was; they certainly wouldn't know what a "blog" was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about "well" understood, but it would be understood. It works better the other way--their language would be more comprehensible to us than vice versa. This is primarily because we have a lot more concepts than they did due to the advancement of knowlege; we've also borrowed a lot more foreign words. I doubt any colonial (except perhaps one from Italy if there were any) would know what a pizza was; they certainly wouldn't know what a "blog" was.

But they would know what a shared journal is. As for pizza, how about "a piece of bread toasted with melted cheese on top". That should do the trick. For technological artifacts based on physics far in advance of (say) 1700, there might be a problem communicating. But a little circumlocution and analogizing could overcome some of the difficulties.

Think of it this way: little children who do not know a lick of physics or mathematics learn to use computers, adjust remote t.v. tuners and play electronic games. Surely an adult who lived 300 years ago in a literate civilized society could get the general idea.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand the distinction, I prefer to shy away from using such a loaded word. The word "savage" carries with it a certain moral connotation that I don't think is fair to apply to these people. I don't think you can really blame them for living the way they do, because they don't know anything different and the geography of their surroundings makes it pretty much impossible for any significant form of advancement. I think primitive is a better word to use.

you show "class" in your use of terms here :( Savage, sems to be a slur and there are many things in our modern civilized world that could be defined as "savage" WE still fight Wars, people are still dying from hunger and diease and how "civil" are we to one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of these definitions are relative and subjective! have we even reached a "high state" yet?
The definitions are objective and relative -- they are absolute in a chronological context. We have reached the highest state, for right now; we will reach the highest state. Those savages are at the lowest state (there are a few others who are down there with them, but not many). They probably are advanced compared to the extinct Neanderthals, who died out tens of thousands of years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...