I get your point, and I think we can all agree that our standards of living are WAY better than theirs, but by OUR standards. Yes, our life expectancy is better, we have better teeth, we are healthier, we get to use all the shiny stuff that comes with our civilization. But those are our standards, not theirs. So there's no 'winner' here.

Look at native Americans. They were also 'savages', and we didn't do very well imposing our superior western civilization upon them. That kind of thinking is old-fashioned and harmful. We can't just assume that our culture, civilization is somehow 'better'. Of course, I wouldn't like living the way they do, but given the ferocity of their defense against others, this goes the same for them.

They seem to live their lives essentially worry-free and they take care of each other. There are records of elderly population.

They seem to like it the way they have it and seeing that their neighbouring tribesmen were either massacred or suffered extremely lethal epidemics, they seem to have achieved the most evolutionarily intelligent behaviour of the region by keeping strangers the fuck away from their island.

> But those are our standards, not theirs

I think it is fair to assume that health and life are universal standards. I'm willing to bet on in.

Maybe it depends whether you look at it from a collective or individual point of view? Individually we are probably healthier, but as a population they well may be healthier since infirmity is naturally eliminated by death. That sounds pretty bad, but it might not be bad if they have a different, more accepting, view of death than us.

What does this even mean? Talking in platitudes about health and life are all fine and dandy, and yet the in US there are tremendous issues with poverty, health care access, and control of one's own body. Societies do things very differently even if they say they promote life or health, but that kind if wishy washy dialog is useless, what matters are the details.

> Talking in platitudes about health and life are all fine and dandy, and yet the in US there are tremendous issues with poverty, health care access, and control of one's own body.

I think health care access is an even greater problem on that island.

Perhaps age is a universal standard and therefore health and life can be associated to it.

On the other hand, if our contact wipes out a share of their population, it reduces their life expectancy. Furthermore, they survived the 2004 Tsunami, so possibly they are doing better than others in the region.

If an asteroid hits the Earth, who do you think will be best equipped to survive? Pretty sure whoever dies in that circumstance is the loser.

I'm sure the dinosaurs were happy by their standards as well, but they're basically irrelevant now.

> If an asteroid hits the Earth, who do you think will be best equipped to survive?

Them, obviously. You and I would die a painful death in a few days without sanitation, proper housing and supermarkets. They on the other hand, are perfectly used to manage with extremely scarce resources.

Er... no. We would have a better chance of deflecting the asteroid if our technology is sufficiently advanced. Therefore, technological progress is objectively superior for survival.