The very idea of having a way that "we" deal with "uncontacted tribes" is collectivist on both ends.

Individuals should do whatever they want without violating anyone's rights.

Your way of phrasing the situation has systematic collectivist bias that implies things like withholding access to some individuals in their tribe if a tribal leader doesn't want us. And it implies central planning/organization (what "we" do).

When you don't let any individual who wants to interact with them, without violating their rights, do as he pleases, then you are restricting access.

When you divide the world into different countries, tribes, etc, and restrict the free flow of people, information, trade, etc, worldwide across all borders, then you are restricting access. When you draw a sharp distinction between aliens and human, that is species prejudice. Making a big deal out of what collective group people are from is the real nationalism, xenophobia, racism, or whatever. I see all people as individual people and that's it.

I don't personally know what to do about that. I said I'd like to treat them as I'd like to be treated. Personally, I'm glad I have access to the Internet.

Ship in a bunch of doctors, and introduce them to disease under medically controlled circumstances. We can't isolate them forever to avoid an epidemic, but we can try to mitigate the impact when it occurs.

If you were about to meet this tribe, there is nothing you can do about the fact that you are a member of a Western culture meeting a member of a tribal culture, and your different groups--national, cultural, philosophical (in the sense of your strict individualism)--are interacting in important ways. Denying the problem by pretending there are no groups does not make it go away.

xenophanes says "Our way of life is better" and argues for "giv[ing] them access to technology and to our way of life" and against "[p]reserving their backwards culture", "actions that maintain them in that lifestyle", and "[t]rying to minimize contact". Then raganwald appears to hear "It's justified to force them to follow our way of life" appended to xenophanes's post and proceeds to argue against this (mentioning two historical examples); it takes another post by xenophanes to explain that he neither said nor meant that.

Elsewhere, d3x says "You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them", and the italicized part is, again, not part of what xenophanes said. xenophanes replies saying "I did not advocate forced conversion", plus a bit of ranting about a "left wing way of thinking" which probably led to enough downvotes to keep it at 2 and provoked a 10-point reply devoted solely to the "left wing" comment and a 9-point reply devoted half to it and half to the original topic.

Also, DanielBMarkham jumps in with a reply to d3x, making basically the same points as xenophanes--saying "If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, [etc....], if they want that life, let them have it", arguing to "show and tell them what they are missing and let them decide", arguing against "inaction" and "let[ting] people suffer when we can help them stop [i]f they so desire". And d3x replies arguing against "[the idea that] their lives are so bad" (which does address what he said), "feel[ing] ... that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life-" (which at least addresses his comment, though I think it's unfair) "-and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking" (which is not what he said). d3x also draws a comparison between DanielBMarkham's arguments and historical arguments to justify slavery, a reductio ad absurdum that might conceivably be aimed at Markham's actual arguments, but that I imagine was aimed at an argument d3x read into Markham's comment.

This entire tree of discussion is full of this sort of putting-words-in-your-mouth. Even xenophanes's reply to raganwald's original comment may be guilty of this--raganwald originally argued against "massacring technologically inferior peoples" and "keep[ing] them alive but destroy[ing] their culture and identity while mouthing platitudes about how we were helping them", which does not say anything about the deliberate "preserving their backwards culture" or "[t]rying to minimize contact" that xenophanes proceeds to argue against. xenophanes doesn't directly say something to indicate that this is intended as a rebuttal to raganwald's comment, and it was his first post in this thread (I think), so maybe he was just making a general statement of his position (which I personally would upvote)... but I could also interpret it as yet another misguided rebuttal to things someone didn't say and didn't mean.

So, guys, please become more autistic and interpret things literally; it would cut out the need for a lot of the anger and "No that isn't what I said" noise in this thread.

I'm joking about the autism, but seriously, there are 277 comments on this story and I think reading-and-replying-to-things-that-weren't-written is the reason for most of them.

I think it's pretty harmless to guess what people mean and reply to issues they didn't directly raise as long as you try to keep things pretty impersonal and focus on issues that are worth discussing in their own right. I don't think it's avoidable to make some guesses about what other people mean b/c writing is never 100% clear (plus lots of people are in the habit of being unclear so if you don't add substantial interpretation for them they blame you for being difficult).

I don't particularly object to Raganwald misunderstanding me at first. We got on the sort of the same page in only a couple comments. Honestly I consider that fast/good. It's the 3 people who assumed or wanted me to be joking b/c they disagreed with me that I have a problem with... The guy posting intentional ad hominems against me. The guy posting that he's lowering his opinion of HN b/c I got upvoted. All the people who take or make stuff personal and don't focus on the issues and post nasty stuff without argument and don't correct their misunderstandings even after clarifications...

In a sense it also isn't our place to _care_ if _they_ decide to fundamentally reshape their culture based on what we "give" them.

Both of these viewpoints have been important in world history. Would Africa be so violent if there were less people selling them guns? Is it our right to _not_ sell guns to people if we know they're going to be used for violence that is, in our eyes, senseless?

Mostly I see polite disagreement in this topic. If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective.

A numerical majority of comments are probably polite, yes, but here are some quotes...

  "Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting."
  "Talk about arrogance...and ignorance."
  "I really hope you are kidding. If not this is so typical..."

Obviously that wasn't the conclusion of the person who holds this opposite perspective. If you think their words imply a monstrous conclusion, then either they must be a monster, or their thought process leads to a different conclusion, and if you want to carry out a constructive conversation, you should assume the latter and press them. Here's a part of my above post that I didn't include, but I will now:

--

Probably it would help if you a) noticed when you read things into comments (be on your guard when discussing politics or morals) and b) explicitly said so when you addressed a claim someone didn't make. For example, d3x could have said something like, "You say that our lives are so much better than theirs, that contact with primitive cultures destroys those cultures, that you'd have to be a flaming idiot to want to live like that.... Do you therefore advocate forcing them to live like us? [You could answer that by reading the third paragraph of Markham's post--"let them decide"--but perhaps d3x thought that was a sarcastic quip, which I suppose is believable. Another tip for navigating rocky topics: don't assume sarcasm unless you're quite sure.] If so, then I've got a lot to say about that. <insert text of d3x's original post> If not, then precisely what do you advocate?"

And then DanielBMarkham could have said something like... well, I'm not him and I don't speak for him, but perhaps he'd say something like, "No, I don't advocate that. What do I advocate? Well, I don't prescribe a particular course of action, but let's take an example. A group of people who felt generous might visit them in a boat, set up a demonstration of modern technology on the shore, and offer to teach anything to natives who wanted to learn."

And maybe d3x would reply, "They'd just stay on the shore, teaching them and getting nothing in return? Who'd be that generous? They'd only do it if they had an ulterior motive--to convert them to their religion, to get cheap unskilled labor from them, to trick them into selling their natural resources for much less than they're worth, and everything else that's gone wrong in the past."

And maybe Markham would say, "Oh, snap, that's a problem," or he'd say "Maybe a rich billionaire who felt charity-minded (or PR-minded) would fund the whole effort, and these teachers would follow through with it because they'd be paid," or he'd say "Dude, doing unskilled labor for a price that's ridiculously cheap to us might look like horrible exploitation to you, but in fact it's better than the lives they currently lead. The fact that they choose it over their current lives is proof that it's better, unless you wish to argue that you know better than them, which is hypocritical given your earlier argument." But this is just me talking now.

--

Regarding guns: I would recommend being careful and slow about giving them war materials (or the capability to make them) in case one party gets hold of them and attempts to conquer the rest of the island. But it's not a moral/legal imperative, any more than it is to be careful about introducing college kids to alcohol. (People may hate you if you do it badly, but they can't really stop or punish you.) I'll comment that any civilization that advances in science and has access to plentiful resources will eventually develop all sorts of weapons, including guns; and that the developments of fire, bronze, iron, steel, flight, nuclear physics, and many more things all led to weapons as well as productive tools, and I think it was worth it.

Disease is the objection I find most potentially problematic. Also, one part of me says it would be interesting to let them be so we could watch them, study them; another part says that if I knew someone in there, and she was sick with a disease that modern medicine could cure, I would sure as hell want to save her. Or if I knew someone working his butt off, and I knew I could give him some technological tools that would make it ten times easier for him, I'd do that.

I think that's the best way it can happen: if some individual people from one society are connected with some individual people in the other, and they get and use some advanced things whenever they feel the need. Then their neighbors might see the results, decide they want some advanced things too, and try to work out a way to get them. Maybe a few families would want to send their (young adult) kids out to the advanced society so they could stay for a while, learn things and get things, and bring them back home. Or maybe they'd move out with their kids, young children, and raise their family and run a career for a decade or two, periodically sending gifts and maybe visiting their extended family in the old country, perhaps moving back eventually. You know, this is sounding a good deal like what some immigrants from poor countries to the U.S. do today.

And how do we tell?

They can't know about us unless they... know about us (contamination: our existence, and any visual differences). They can't contact us unless they know where we are (contamination: we're watching them, and they see us doing so). Then they can't express desires until we understand each other (contamination: language and ideas). At that point, you've already significantly altered their culture, at least for the individual(s) you directly dealt with, and any they told. If we "must not contact them", then we must not contact any, because every person is part of a group, and arguably is a group of one, so you've already contaminated a person, a group, a sub-culture, a unique society that will never be the same again.

We either force contact, or we deny them the knowledge of our existence. There is no middle-ground, because any step away from zero contact is contact. Inaction is just delay of choice; what happens if they literally walk in a straight line until they hit a city? We are forcing contact by our mere existence, we could pick up the city and move to avoid contaminating them against their choice, since if they didn't know about us they couldn't have chosen to contact us.

And if we were to know if they think other humans than themselves / those they immediately interact with exist, we've probably exposed ourselves to them, as that would be hard to know through un-detected observation alone.

Our existence is interference if they become aware of it. Absolute non-interference is impossible if they ever become aware of us in any way. If we "must not contact them" unless they want it, we cannot impose ourselves on any who do not wish to contact us, which means complete isolation until they magically express their desire to contact that which they cannot know exists.

My point is that "We must not contact them, unless they want to contact us." is a logical impossibility, not something one can actually achieve, and it makes no sense to hold such an impossibility as an ideal.

What if they are? Can you see the diference between giving them, a group with far fewer resources to defend themselves, the chance to remain isolated if they want it so, or contact us as well, against forcing our presence there?

"Our existence is interference if they become aware of it"

I concede you that point. Can I rephrase "must not contact them" with "should minimize points of contact from our side"? Those planes have their purpose: to make us aware of their presence, because we're about to wipe out their environment. Should we keep our distance? Yes. Should we do nothing and let companies run them over? No, absolutely not. Then I go for flying over them and take pictures.. It's the lesser of two evils.

There's no magic. Once they discover us, instead of we discovering them, they can take the step to communicate wth us.

Modern man is taking away their land to oil drilling and logging. Personally, I think we should treat it as tribal leaders once did. We are the enemy. If we want to preserve them, then we should not study them as subjects either. That is their land, their home. Let them be.

Or they may see them as a manufactured tool for flying

They have human rights, but theirs haven't teeth until they're in communication with a world ready to honor them. The real issue is how can we safely open a dialog.

With the daily stories of decapitated bodies and mass slayings in connection with the drug cartels in Mexico, sometimes a wonder about the cultural link back to the Aztec ways.

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/Americas/Cortes.CP.html

But let's not quibble a minor point like that. The question I raised was simply how our perspective today differs from their perspective back in colonial times, with an eye to considering the possibility that we are fallible and that what we sincerely believe is in someone else's best interests may not be in their best interests.

I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't contact or help them, I'm saying we should be careful, because it may be that what we think is good for them today turns out to be bad for them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act, but isn't it worth thinking carefully before making choices?

As to the comment above - are you suggesting the Spanish deliberately spread diseases? It seems a little unfair to accuse the Spanish invaders of bio-warfare.

the inquisition &etc were as much about cultural conformity and control than about espousing a culture of violence. while ridiculous the question is not to compare ridiculousness levels but to compare the _reasons_ that people were doing the ridiculous things they did.

killing people for the express and explicit purpose of killing people is bad mojo.

They shouldn't have done it...

..at least by our standards today. It is always difficult to judge historical people because we are, even from an early age, in possession of more facts than they were.

You're actually right, there's little evidence or even mention of biological warfare until much later, and truly only in the North American field. However, bio-warfare likely dates back at least three-thousand years, so it would be hard to tell.

Furthermore the Spanish didn't really need biological warfare, "for with fifty men one could keep the whole population in subjection and make them do whatever one wanted." However, given that the Spanish had some of the harshest policies on forced labor, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't want to use biological warfare. The encomienda system offered protection to tribe members in exchange for tribute through labour, this didn't effect tribes like the Incas where they had a system like this long established, but for the Arawak it is thought to be why they ended up with large populations on the south american mainland.

I think the Spanish deliberately chose not to spread disease so as to make the most profit, which is easy to see considering Spain basically took on the policy of strip-mining south America to send every ounce of gold they found back to Spain.

Given that most native populations at the time had nothing more than bronze-age technology, they couldn't even take a stand against the Spanish. The Spanish in their war with the Incas managed to kill easily ten times their amount of men, but there's few reports of Spanish casualties in their fights against thousands of natives. In many battles they achieved 400:1 ratios of Indian:Spanish deaths in battle.

Consider that at the Battle of Thermopylae the Spartans only managed 10:1, despite the home-turf advantage, better tactics, land advantage and far superior training as they were fighting against a largely conscripted army. Considering the Spanish achieved a 40-fold increase in advantage, it shows how unbelievably powerful steel armour, muskets and cannon were. Not to mention the Spanish made extensive use of horses.