uncontacted tribe in Brazil

[Capitalism Forever]

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.

Not to mention that some of "us" are still learning how to use the Shift key! (Please refer to #5 under "Forum Etiquette" in the Forum Rules. Oh, and the headings "Purpose" and "Consistency with the purpose of this site" might also be of interest to you.)

[D'kian]

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.

Good one. But a gamma-ray burst like that would affect living tissue also, perhaps sooner than it would fry electronics. Therefore it kills or cripples the primitives too.

Not to mention that a supernova going off close enough to irradiate Earth with gammas would probably do more than that. We'd have to worry about runaway outer layers of the former star, other kinds of radiation, maybe even visible light strong enough to mess with plant biorhythms for months if not years.

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.

If savages did not bother to discover civilization when one thrived nearby, what makes you think they will on the second go round when all they have are ruins and corpses?

[DavidV]

Not to mention that a supernova going off close enough to irradiate Earth with gammas would probably do more than that. We'd have to worry about runaway outer layers of the former star, other kinds of radiation, maybe even visible light strong enough to mess with plant biorhythms for months if not years.

Gamma ray bursts are the most powerful event in the universe. They can be so powerful that just having one go off in our galaxy can wipe out most life on earth. The supernova might be on the other side of the milky way, way too far for any particulate matter or even visible light to cause any harm, but close enough for other frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (which altogether contain far more energy of the supernova that the visible spectrum) to irradiate the earth.

Good one. But a gamma-ray burst like that would affect living tissue also, perhaps sooner than it would fry electronics. Therefore it kills or cripples the primitives too.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

If savages did not bother to discover civilization when one thrived nearby, what makes you think they will on the second go round when all they have are ruins and corpses?

Well, it might take 50,000 years, but ultimately all species spread to the entire available environment. Human history is rich with examples.

Edited June 9, 2008 by GreedyCapitalist
update url

[D'kian]

Gamma ray bursts are the most powerful event in the universe. They can be so powerful that just having one go off in our galaxy can wipe out most life on earth. The supernova might be on the other side of the milky way, way too far for any particulate matter or even visible light to cause any harm, but close enough for other frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (which altogether contain far more energy of the supernova that the visible spectrum) to irradiate the earth.

I seriously doubt it. For one thing gammas from a supernova disperse as much as other EM radiation would. menaing one on the other side of the galaxy couldn't get too much of any radiation to Earth, not to mention the amount of matter between it and us which would absorb much of it anyway.

For another thing, there have been at least two supernovae in the Milky Way in historical times, neither of which wiped out life on Earth, and both of which were realtively close.

And lastly, supernovae, while uncommon, are plentiful in Earth's lifetime. If a single one regardless of location could wipe out life here, there'd be no life on Earth, or anywhere else.

In fact, we exist because of supernovae. The early Universe consited almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, It was the massive stars which, in their lifetimes and death throes, fussioned the heavier elements we are made up of (carbon, oxygen, sulphur, phosphorus) and the even ehavier ones we need in lesser amounts (iron, potassium, selenium, zinc). As Sagan liked to say "We are star-stuff."

Well, it might take 50,000 years, but ultimately all species spread to the entire available environment. Human history is rich with examples.

Ok. But why would they re-civilize the world?

Oh, they might, but then again they might not. How many years passed from the appearance of Homo Sapiens to the development of the first cities (which we can define as the earliest form of civilization)? You might argue the prescence of ruins would amke things easier, and I would agree. But there's the chance that ruins mixed with carload-lots of corpses might have the opposite effect. And there's the rather unkown factor of what ice ages might do.

BTW do these isolated Amazon tribes even have such a thing as writing? How about math? They tend to go together. I think the earliest known samples of writing consist of bookeeping entries of some sort.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

If savages did not bother to discover civilization when one thrived nearby, what makes you think they will on the second go round when all they have are ruins and corpses?

Our civilization was initially created by technically primitive folk. We are all descended (if you go back far enough) from savages.

What happened once can happen again (most likely), but it will take time. It took 5,000 years from the beginnings of agriculture to the development of complex city based societies (like Egypt and Babylon). Science based technology has emerged in the last 500 years. Mathematics as we know it (deductive axiomatic) is about 2500 years old. Our species evolved from its predecessors somewhere between 250,000 ybp and 500,000 ybp, so homo sapien has spent most of his time as a primitive and a savage. The transition from hunting a gathering to agriculture was the first major step toward civilization and that occurred maybe 10,000 years ago.

Being primitive (in the technological sense) and being preliterate is not the same as being stupid. The Clovis people, for example, crafted stone blades that rival the finest steel surgical knives for sharpness. The main drawback is that a Clovis blade had to be made one at a time. It could not be mass produced as can steel scalpels. They made excellent use of the materials they had to hand within the limitations of what they knew about the world. Humans of our species have been smart from the git-go, but they have been civilized for only a (relatively) brief period. All beginnings are hard.

ruveyn.

[DavidOdden]

Our civilization was initially created by technically primitive folk.

No, our civilization was initially created by the most technically advanced folk.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

No, our civilization was initially created by the most technically advanced folk.

Advanced for their time, primitive by current standards. I am sorry I did not make that clear to begin with.

Advances are made by the brightest and best who do good things with what they have to hand and who figure out ways to improve things. But progress is slow. The brightest and best of ten thousand years ago were probably genius level people (by any standard) but they did not know much. Knowledge is gained by steps and degree and the occasional leap. Which is why it took 5000 years to get from wooden sailing vessels to nuclear submarines. We are the recipients and beneficiaries of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge as well as current intellectual power. The human race did not know what light really was until 1865, when Maxwell figured it out. We did not have electromagnetic communication until Gauss and Morse figured out how to do it (the telegraph). That was 160 years ago. The One must see before the Many can follow and join in on the fun.

ruveyn

[DavidV]

For another thing, there have been at least two supernovae in the Milky Way in historical times, neither of which wiped out life on Earth, and both of which were realtively close.

There is no evidence of a gamma-ray burst (only a few supernova cause gamma-ray bursts) ever happening in our galaxy, much less nearby. Gamma-ray burst usually cause black holes, so they can be indirectly detected after the fact. In fact, scientists believe that gamma ray bursts could have been responsible for mass extinctions on earth.

For one thing gammas from a supernova disperse as much as other EM radiation would. menaing one on the other side of the galaxy couldn't get too much of any radiation to Earth, not to mention the amount of matter between it and us which would absorb much of it anyway.

Wikipedia:

A gamma ray burst at 6000 light years would result in mass extinction; a 1000 light year distant burst would be equivalent to a 100,000 megaton nuclear explosion. A burst 100 light years away would blow away the atmosphere, create tidal waves, and start to melt the surface of the Earth.

How many years passed from the appearance of Homo Sapiens to the development of the first cities

It took about 20,000-30,000 years from the development of culture to civilization. Civilizations developed independently in several places on earth (Levant, China, Egypt, Central America) around the same time, so the maturation period is quite predictable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleoli...0.9320.2C000_BP

Edited June 9, 2008 by GreedyCapitalist

[D'kian]

Our civilization was initially created by technically primitive folk. We are all descended (if you go back far enough) from savages.

Naturally. And if you back furhter, from pre-sapient animals, too. Ultimately from some sort of organic goo that somehow became self-replicating and adaptable.

What happened once can happen again (most likely), but it will take time. It took 5,000 years from the beginnings of agriculture to the development of complex city based societies (like Egypt and Babylon).

But why did it take that long?

You hear a lot about environmental pressures, geography, etc. But beliefs, philosophy and culture, as causes of the development of civilization, are talked about much less. For good, reason, too: little is known about them, and mostly they don't leave behind physical evidence.

However:

Science based technology has emerged in the last 500 years.

Right. And this we know was largely a philosophical matter. Plato's influence meant real observational science had a very hard time arising in the West. Just the same, some ancient Greeks almost developed science 2000 years earlier. Think of Archimedes who backed up his theories with experiments, or Aristarchus who used Euclid's postulates to measure the circumference of the Earth (and got it almost right).

Technology wise, the Greeks used machines and even steam engines of a sort a long time ago. Why didn't anything come off it? If not by the Greeks, then by the Romans, who were practical and utilitarian in their use of technology?

Largely the answer lies with cultural factors, beliefs and philosophical assumptions. Slave albor made labor-saving machines seem useless, for instance. The Roman penchant for conquering and holding their empire made even engineering be a secondary consideration.

Now, we're talking about epoples who had the leisure (that is to say, the time available apart from that needed for subsistence) to devlop science and art to a high degree. And we know they chose art over science. They also were capable of major engineering feats, but these were largely confined to those necessary for the conquestof a vast empire (roads, weapons, even aqueducts).

So what can we expect from tribes of primitives who choose to remain primitive when faced with modern civilization? the Greeks and Romans, at least, did not know what they were missing.

It's even worse than that. given the example of the United States, and to a lesser extent of Canada, Western Europe and the Asian "Tigers," why do Latin american countries persist in applying the same half-useful, half-bstructive policies that allow for modest development at best and to stagnation at worse?

[Capitalism Forever]

Wikipedia:

I don't wish to argue one way or the other about supernovas, but the Number One rule of survival in modern civilization is: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!

[The Wrath]

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.

Did you seriously just call me a liberal progressive? My coworkers and friends would laugh at you if they knew you had called me that. Find one post in the global warming thread where I came anywhere close to advocating the position of viros. Find me one place in here where I denied the superiority of Western civilization.

[D'kian]

There is no evidence of a gamma-ray burst (only a few supernova cause gamma-ray bursts) ever happening in our galaxy, much less nearby. Gamma-ray burst usually cause black holes, so they can be indirectly detected after the fact. In fact, scientists believe that gamma ray bursts could have been responsible for mass extinctions on earth.

Could be, sure. But 6,000 light years is hardly "the other side of the Galaxy." More like the other side of the neighborhood.

Now, gamma rays would disperse as much as visible light. So consider these factors: 1) how much light does a super red giant star put out? 2) how much of that light reaches a planet 100,000 light years away? 3) how much matter stands in the way of these two points? Aside from some of the radiation being absorbed, another portion would be bent by large gravitational sources. Something accross the galaxy from us would have to traverse the galactic nucleus, which is dense in matter and possibly hosts a very massive black hole.

So while 20 or so supernovae per year are common in a galaxy our size (or so I've heard), and you claim now only a few will come with massive gamma ray bursts, I propose not to worry about it, much less if it happens at the other end of the Galaxy.

In any case, my point was that a gamma burst big enough to fry all microchips on Earth would also probably fry all citoplasm and nucleotides on Earth, too, and therefore keeping primitives around as insurance against such an event is not such a good idea. Unless, that is, you care to keep them several meters underground inside a lead-lined habitat.

At that, miners, oil rig divers, and the more esoteric kind fo particle physics and mushroom farmers would survive a gamma ray burst. So would spelunkers and, I guess, some hermits. And that's not a bad idea for an SF story. Hmmm.....

[DavidV]

In any case, my point was that a gamma burst big enough to fry all microchips on Earth would also probably fry all citoplasm and nucleotides on Earth, too, and therefore keeping primitives around as insurance against such an event is not such a good idea.

Once again, I refer you to Project Starfish.

[D'kian]

Once again, I refer you to Project Starfish.

Ok. The EMP did dammage some distance away, and only to electronics. But EMP does not affect people the way it does electronics. Gamma rays do.

You'll notice too no mention of gamma rays in the article. They were there (it was a nuke, after all), but most should ahve been absorbed by the atmosphere (those that rained in Earth's direction, that is). Air may not seem like a good radiation shield, but 150+ kilometers of it. plus the ionosphere, work rather well.

Finally, the article states the device detonated at 400 kms. That's outside the atmosphere for all practical purposes, since the Shuttle, the ISS, and a lot of satellites orbit between 200 and 300 kms high.

A fussion bomb is as close as we can come up with experimentally to a supernova. There are many similarities, including uncontrolled transmutation of elements (partiuclarly trans-uranic elements from the uranium or plutonium in the primary). But that's not close enough. For one thing supernovae lack a primary (a fission bomb). For another, the scale is akin to comparing popping a paper bag to, well, detonating a fussion bomb.

Oh, there's also the Earth's magnetic field. It too offers some protection from radiation originating in outer space (and traps radiation in the Van Allen belt). Without it the Aurora Borealis would be a deadly rather than a beutiful phenomenon.

To summarize, a supernova going off nearby could destroy life and civilization on Earth, certainly. But not a supernova, even if it indulges in gamma ray bursts, on the other side of the galaxy.

So how many nearby stars are good supernova candidates? There ought to be other super red giants aside from Anters in the neighborhood.

[tribe me]

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.

You think they are inferior? You try living in the jungle and lets see how long you last?

[tribe me]

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.

In the context that they are called "savages", based on some level, of what is considerd to be a "higher state" is wrong. The fact that they hace some level of technological knowledge(i.e., weapon creation) and some level of social interaction, which creates culture means that they are "civilized". The definition you hold to, is totally elitist.

[Capitalism Forever]

Did you seriously just call me a liberal progressive? My coworkers and friends would laugh at you if they knew you had called me that. Find one post in the global warming thread where I came anywhere close to advocating the position of viros. Find me one place in here where I denied the superiority of Western civilization.

I'll change my mind on that as soon as you state on the other thread that you've been proven wrong and CO2 is indeed NOT a pollutant--and as for the superiority of Western civilization, here's a nice post by our tribal friend, why don't you reply to it for me.

[Zip]

In the context that they are called "savages", based on some level, of what is considerd to be a "higher state" is wrong. The fact that they hace some level of technological knowledge(i.e., weapon creation) and some level of social interaction, which creates culture means that they are "civilized". The definition you hold to, is totally elitist.

So, to follow your (flawed) logic, the ability to add two and two in your mind is equal to the skill and knowledge necessary for higher mathematics, or the ability to chop down a tree to cross a creek shows an equal understanding of the engineering required of the Golden Gate Bridge?

As for your comment about living in the jungle, it is proof of specific knowledge, but your extrapolation is ridiculous or are you arguing that Cro-Magnon man's knowledge of what berries were edible and his familial existence in caves indicates civilization too?

Elitist? Absolutely, also correct, demonstrable and verifiable. Ignoring the facts won't make them go away, however deep you bury your head in the sand.

[The Wrath]

You think they are inferior? You try living in the jungle and lets see how long you last?

In response to CF:

Yes, I think tribal cultures of this sort are inferior. I never suggested otherwise.

My problem with the use of the word "savage" is that, to me, it suggests moral deficiencies on the part of the individuals in the tribe, where they may not actually be immoral people...just stuck in a primitive society. I prefer the word "primitive" because it's more a description of their lack of advancement and social organization. It's just a semantics difference. It doesn't make me a progressive.

[K-Mac]

Granted, I haven't re read this whole thread, but I've been keeping up with it, and I do not recall anyone hating or insulting these people. No one is saying they don't have the capacity to think or learn. No one is saying they don't have emotions and interpersonal relationships. No one is saying they're violent, evil, immoral people. (Although they may be for all that we know.) I'm confused as to why some of you are getting so defensive about the rest of us using proper terminology to describe their state of being?

[The Wrath]

I'm not getting defensive. I just think primitive is a better word because, to me, savage is a morally-loaded word directed at the individuals rather than a culturally-loaded word directed at the tribe itself.

[Capitalism Forever]

In response to CF:

Yes, I think tribal cultures of this sort are inferior. I never suggested otherwise.

I was hoping you might substantiate your view by coming up with an eloquent response to the "How long would you last in a jungle?" part. Care to try?

[DavidOdden]

In the context that they are called "savages", based on some level, of what is considerd to be a "higher state" is wrong.

What do you mean it's "wrong"? Those savages are savages, in the technological and cultural sense (i.e. all relevant senses). They aren't superior to anyone, not even their more advanced neighbors in the jungle.

The fact that they hace some level of technological knowledge(i.e., weapon creation) and some level of social interaction, which creates culture means that they are "civilized".

Not even a little. We're talking about basic Neolithic primitives, none of the trappings of a civilivation. No reading or writing, no metal working, no agriculture or animal husbandry, nothing resembling science.

The definition you hold to, is totally elitist.

Is that a problem?

Hey, seriously, you do understand the purpose of this forum, don't you? I mean, it's not a multiculturalist, anti-technology hangout.

[DavidOdden]

I just think primitive is a better word because, to me, savage is a morally-loaded word directed at the individuals rather than a culturally-loaded word directed at the tribe itself.

I don't see any basis for distinguishing the two words. "Primitive" has taken on the same negative connotations amongst the multiculturalist progressinves, so that you simple can't talk about certain people at all. You can't say that so-and-so is a "primitive" because that has a negative evaluative connotation and we're not supposed to judge. You can't call Pygmies "pygmies" anymore, which leads to a complete lack of politically acceptable terms by which you can refer to the people. These people especially, who live in the woods, are most appropriately called "savages".

[DavidV]

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

Turns out my idea may not be that far-fetched:

In 2002, people were able to transmit 2 bits per minute to a computer. Four years later that figure had risen to 40 bits—that is, five letters—per minute. If this rate of progress continues, the argument goes, then by 2020 brain communication with computers will be as fast as speech.

...

The idea that an enhanced communication of thoughts will exceed speech can also be found in the 2002 report “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance,” issued by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce. It says that such methods “could complement verbal communication, sometimes replacing spoken language when speed is a priority or enhancing speech when needed to exploit maximum mental capabilities.”