The disease part can be handled today. We could go visit them in hazmat suits. And I know I'm being really generous when I'm comparing the modern world to benign aliens, but properly managed (as access to the island already appears to be) surely we can approach them in a decent way?

That they violently defend themselves is of course a highly complicating factor.

I guess all I'm saying is that not establishing contact is also a choice that we're making on their behalf. Is deciding that they can't parttake in modern society any more OK than deciding they must? Can we not contact them in a way where they get to choose?

Edit: I certainly agree that we as humans have an absolutely horrible track record on these kinds of things. But it's been a while now, hasn't it? Can't we pull this off by now? These guys are our brothers and sisters - should we at least not have a chat with them to see if they really want to be left the fuck alone, or if they might want to not die whenever they get an infected wound, or half the time they have kids, or whenever they break a leg? Hell, it might well be that some of them want to be left the fuck alone, while some would like to see the world. How come those latter ones have to stay on that island just because we say so?

Most of the Australian aborigine people had walked out of the desert by the 1960's, but in 1984 a family of 9 that had lived in the desert, finally also walked out to reunite with their relatives [1]. The relatives had already lived ca. 20 years in an Australian village nearby.

When they finally saw the comfortable lifestyle their relatives had enjoyed already for 20 years, they were quite angry [2] that they had been left living in the desert, and not contacted earlier:

"They told us there was plenty of food and water came out of pipes," Yardi said.

"The older ones were angry that their long-lost relatives – who they had not seen for nearly 20 years – had left them out in the desert eating lizards while they lived in what they saw as the lap of luxury,"

"I like this life," Yardi said. "I much prefer it to the old ways."

Warlinipirri said: "I wouldn't go back."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintupi_Nine

[2] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/lost-tribe-happy-in...

The Sentinelese people (of the article) are not the only indigenous people around there, they are just on the most distant island.

On nearby larger islands there live e.g. the Jarawa [1] and Onge [2] people and some others [3].

The Jawara inhabit jungle areas of a larger island, that has also for already very long time been settled by Indian farmers. The Jarawa used to stay in the jungle, and there were occasional violent encounter and conflicts. But in 1997 the Jarawa started to make peaceful visits to nearby villages, wanting food and gifts.

The farmers see the Jarawa as a nuisance. They don't want to escalate violence, but they also don't want the Jarawa to learn that they could walk in people's homes and steal whatever they want.

Apparently [4,5] the Jarawa and Onge languages are not very well studied, either.

So, whatever anthropological, cultural and humanitarian interest anyone might have toward the un-contacted people on the North Sentinel island, they could first direct their interest and charity toward these other nearby tribes who have already had some contact with civilization for last decades or centuries, but are apparently not faring very well at the moment.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarawa_people_%28Andaman_Island...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onge_people

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_Islands#Indigenous_Anda...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarawa_language_%28Andaman_Isla...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onge_language

I never liked the prime directive in any case. Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved at the cost of the health and comfort of human beings.

Point taken. For now all we have are members of their community that made contact with external world and expressed an isolationist stance. Of course we may not like it and consider that (regardless whether they want or not) they should be exposed again and again until we'll finally get out of them the buyer's "yes". I also guess that only then we'll call their decision "right" and "informed". If we may somehow disable our influence as actors in their decision then yes, I agree with you that individuals that desire the freedom of making informed choice should have it. For those who chose (having peaceful reasons) to willingly get in contact with external world, there should be left a door somewhere in their reach.

"Culture is not a tangible thing to be 'lost' nor something that need be preserved"

Here I doubt that you got in contact with enough cultures to make for yourself an informed opinion.

On a more serious note, given some historic evidence how our contact with other tribes ended (pick any tribe, anytime, anywhere) I am both surprised and happy that they exist. I hope they stay the same for as long as possible and may we never learn anything about them.

Your serious argument is one of the little valid points raised so far. And I agree, we might not be in a position to help them now. But the statements that even if we could bring them to our society in a humane manner we still shouldn't, because they're clearly fine as they are... That just disgusts me.

More akin to a guy standing on a ledge of a cliff, albeit precarious but doing fine; if you try to help him, he'll probably fall and die fast. He knows this, and he's telling you to stay the he11 away.

That said, I am sympathetic with your basic view. Les Stroud's Beyond Survival was fascinating, but the recurring theme of "and this ancient people is about to die out or lose their culture" struck me as "well, if doing stupid things[1] isn't survivable then maybe those ways should change, and the consequences of sticking to them are natural." The Sentinese however seem to be holding it together pretty well; not advancing, but living on what is otherwise a stereotypical tropical paradise island (food growing on trees, good climate, water), methinks they've achieved some form of comfortable equilibrium and are doing pretty well (I'm sure some here on HN are thinking "I'd like to join them").

Someone mentioned above "your 100 kids will leave the island, move to India, and become call center employees". That vs. where & how they're living now, I'm not so sure "bring[ing] them to our society in a humane manner" really is. Someday it will happen, someday modern life will crash into their ancient and stable culture, someday they will have to deal with new diseases and cell phones and high-speed transport, and "someday" probably isn't very long from now.

"But the kids need to do X and Y and Z!" my wife declares. "They're content and playing nicely with their toys and crayons," I'll reply. "Let them enjoy it a little longer."

[1] - the clincher was a tribe that fishes by dangling bare hooks in the ocean for hours while sitting on poles. I'm amazed that culture lasted so long. Yeah, they need some help.

Some type of hidden observation as in the movie Insurrection might be worthwhile though? Someone should ask the NSA, are they really comfortable with these people NOT being monitored constantly? They could be a terrorist threat?

Or, you know, they could live a life that makes them happy.

I think you're unnecessarily conflating this with another topic entirely.

So "you should still respect her \"NO\"" - How is this relevant? He doesn't expand on why you should do this, so we can't link that logic to the situation and and, all we have is "You'd accept 'no' if you asked someone out, so you should also do so here", with no further reasoning on how the two are similar.

So who does? You? Western society? Don't you find that thinking a bit arrogant?

/s

But these people don't live in a western society. They don't share our cultural beliefs of what is good or civilized. They live by a whole different set of rules and conventions. We can't just go there, impose our vastly superior beliefs upon them with the argument that it's for their best because WE believe that.

Have you ever travelled to another continent? If you're American or from Western Europe, try going to Japan. Or somewhere in Africa, off the beaten path. You're likely to experience a culture shock, right? You can do two things. You can think 'I can't believe these fucktards, why the hell would they want to live like this, now where's the nearest Motel 6' or you can accept the fact that their culture is just different. I'm not speaking in terms of better or worse, just different.

They don't need our help and they don't want our help. We have showed time after time that 'helping savages' does not work. Native Americans? Unless you think the inabriated guy with the poncho selling roadside flatbread is actually happier than his ancestors, it's hard to argue we did a good job helping them. Numerous tribes in South America now have to deal with alcoholism, crime, murder. The ones that don't are just smart enough to evade us.

Ask yourself this: should we contact these people if we were certain that our contacting them would lead to their loss of culture, and most likely would wipe them away? Do you think that, despite ALL the times where we screwed up entire tribes, this time it will be different? Why is it our responsibility anyway to 'help' them, even against their will?

People can negotiate how much an outside culture influences them. Even in cases where campaigns are made to stamp out culture (e.g. W. Africa, wherein anyone in schooling was given Western names and forbidden to speak their native language in school), the old mores still prevail if people where were willing to fight for it.

And how can you measure that the parts of the culture that are lost, are more important than the practical benefit of say.... modern medicine dropping the early childhood mortality rate by 90%?

If you wanted to give them the quality of life enjoyed in the nicer parts of the US or Europe you would have to provide all those amenities for them, and it is in any case unlikely that they would appreciate them the same way that you do.

The only likely benefit that "we" could provide would be medical care for infections or easily treated disorders. That would have to be balanced with the high likelihood that contacting and attempting to integrate them would actually kill most of them. Anything else is a egocentric view of what is good for mankind.

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/...

I'd agree with you that they probably have a more enjoyable day to day experience, however I also would bet that they have an infant mortality rate that is astronomical even by 3rd world standards. And that they have an average life expectancy which isn't hard to beat in the 3rd world. I'm not saying that these 2 things justify us forcing contact with them, just that it is hard for someone to justify that lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy are always positive things for our species to strive for. Its not just an issue of culture.

It would be mistaken, therefore, to assume that the same conditions would prevail in isolated places like North Sentinel Island, where the people are apparently well nourished. So the infant mortality rate there may be above the best found elsewhere, but it is probably lower than many other places.

Is ~400 people a large enough population to support most diseases, or is it possible that they essentially (infectious) disease free by virtue of their tiny population?

I'm also curious what the genetics of a 400-person island look like. I always assumed that the minimum viable population was larger than that -- somewhere in the thousands -- but if the population estimate is correct, and has been for tens of thousands of years, then that's pretty concrete evidence that it's no more than 400.

Several studies, two on the genetics of the Andamanese [1,2] and the other on their linguistics [3] suggest that they have been isolated for 50-70,000 yr. The genetics studies also showed a very low population diversity, so in common parlance they are "inbred". Oddly enough, if they have been isolated for long enough, they will therefore be free of most genetic diseases, since the rare ones will be manifested early on in their isolation due to inbreeding, and then selected against. Genetic conditions that don't affect reproductive fitness could be common, though. Genetic isolation can also result in increased susceptibility to pathogens later introduced from outside said population.

[1]Kashyap, V. K., et al. "Molecular relatedness of the aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations." International Journal of Human Genetics 3 (2003): 5-11.

[2] Thangaraj, Kumarasamy, et al. "Genetic affinities of the Andaman Islanders, a vanishing human population." Current Biology 13.2 (2003): 86-93.

[3]Abbi, Anvita. "Is Great Andamanese genealogically and typologically distinct from Onge and Jarawa?." Language Sciences 31.6 (2009): 791-812.

What if the tribe decided our children were being severely mistreated with glowing distraction screens, processed corn sugar, helicopter parenting, etc.? Surely you'd let them take our kids away.

We could send William Shatner to fool around with their women...

They are a self-sufficient people that don't seem to be screwing up the world nearly as much as we are... why would we even assume we're superior? Maybe we're just jealous?

Or die. Because, you know, a lot of them die.

However, if the greener grass turns out to be a Mumbai slum or an e-waste site in China, or one of many other terrible but more realistic fates, maybe you'd pass on that opportunity... because, you know, a lot of people die there too.

People in the first world romanticize ancient ways of life, but the reality is that life without basic technology is nasty, brutish, and short.

Another blind spot is that there are degrees of bad. Living in a village in northern Afghanistan is better in a lot of ways than living in Darfur, which is better than Somalia. Honestly, people didn't choose to live in cities and work long hours in factories because we tricked them. They do it because it's better than their previous existence.

Something to consider is that if some members of a society choose the new existence (provided by the new outsiders), then it can undermine the rest of the society.

Also, with advanced technology comes advanced ways of self destruction. Maybe we don't poses the cultural requirements for being accepted in that club?

I would argue the same for the Sentinese (there are good historical examples for this[1]). Maybe if we give them weapons, they will kill themselves, or end up in constant warring state or something else.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Tahiti

At that moment, we aren't the world-conquering successful species we love and proclaim to be. We're the little tribe living on the little island that's quietly being protected by the corrupt government of a minor power in the universal state of nations and empires that we just are now learning about. There's a lot of euphemisms in my last few sentences. Figure them out.

Leave these people alone.

This is kind of in response to your second point. Think about the scale of what we're talking about. We have a massively global, interconnected society of both economy and knowledge comprising billions of people. Even the poorest person in the most desolate parts of the world can, with some inconvenience, get on to the Internet. The people on this island, 400-1000 souls that they be, don't even have the understanding of modern society that the poorest person in the modern world has. Where do you start with that?

So suppose your friendly aliens show up and say "Hi!". What then? We're the people that struggle to maintain ONE space station. We have no extra-terrestrial colonies or establishments. Aliens decide to claim Mars? What are we going to do? The Moon? Its theirs. Pretty much anything outside of our little island Earth is open for claim, and not by us necessarily. The fucked up part is that if you traveled tens or hundreds of light years to get here, Earth itself is probably not the main goal. Its just the natural resources of the system. And what happens in a few hundred years when we decide to get off our asses and go into space? Nothing's left, because fucking Zork claimed it all.

So when you think about all of this together, what options do you present to these people even if they were interested? Medicine, food? Sure. Maybe we can get them vaccinated before the common cold or bird flu wipes them out. Education? Here's some books representing external human history from the perspective of the people supplying the money. Oh, check out our religion too! By the way, did you know that your island is one of several others claimed by India? Its a big island (not really) with over 1 billion people. Too many to count? Don't worry, once your 100 kids have moved to Bangalore to become tech support reps and within 20 years your entire culture has died they'll be able to explain.

I know this is a bit rambly, but hopefully you can see where I'm going. There is no benefit to the people in question to be contacted by us. It only changes and hurts them.

You can romanticize how much better their situation will be all you want, but there's plenty of evidence it won't be.

I read an article years ago on feral surfers who were basically turning indigenous peoples into diseased addicts, sex workers, and slaves. Not because they intended to, but it just happened to be convenient. I'll try and dig it up.

I don' think they need our medicine, housing or plumbing.

Uh, we have.

You're assuming that they've lived for 65,000 years with no social or cultural or technological upheaval within their own little sub-civilization. While at that same time drawing arbitrary end-points in ours.

At this point, they're only surviving because of the benign interests of outsiders. Do you really think they could survive a hypothetical contest of "what society can survive the longest?". If our culture hadn't evolved to accept and respect indigenous people like this, or if there was any economic value on that island, they'd be dead or subjugated by now. So how can you claim that they've figured out better civilization survival instincts than the rest of the world?

By that measure, should western governments be liberating various cultures who don't live in a manner consistent with western ideals?

Individuals might want to get out and wonder as you say, but some makes a choice for them - their leaders. For one reason or another good or bad.

Just like people make choices for you and you have bare minimum say. They way your government, state government, mayor they all make choices that impact your life one way or another, some highly, some to a low degree.

>I guess all I'm saying is that not establishing contact is also a choice that we're making on their behalf. Is deciding that they can't parttake in modern society any more OK than deciding they must? Can we not contact them in a way where they get to choose?

so NO!

it's therefore easy to see other cultural views as falling into these categories: odd/silly, needlessly restrictive (possibly also immoral), or downright immoral [1].

that's a mental trap, though, much like believing yourself to live at the center of the universe.

once you remove the "superior culture" argument, it becomes quite hard to formulating a reason to touch this island.

for instance: we have medicine! but we only value it because we fear death, etc.

[1] examples come to mind: some cultures believe using birth control is like murder (silly). some cultures believe a woman should not exposition her shoulders in public (no rights). some cultures believe infanticide is acceptable, others find it natural for men to have romantic relationships with boys (immoral). these are all examples from a western perspective, of course.

I could understand that argument when considering prolonging of life when you're already really old and pretty much falling apart, but for completely preventable deaths?

I remember reading somewhere that a cult of death is considered a pretty universal value.

It's also a choice that they are making for themselves. It may or may not be a fully informed choice, but they are making their opinions pretty clear. They certainly aren't coming across as a group of people looking desperately to some outside group to save them from anything.

Assimilating a culture is an irreversible action. Once it's assimilated, there is no going back. Once we assimilate everyone on the planet, there will be no enclaves. Nothing to learn or wonder about. Is it not scary? To be a complete monoculture?

If everyone on Earth could join advanced aliens any time, could Earth be considered an independent society?

I feel that this is a choice of theirs that should be respected rather than considered as an inconvenient obstacle. True, it's an ignorant choice, but nothing is preventing them taking a more curious stance.

1. These tribes have not developed medical immunity against the kind of diseases we're host to.

2. They're truly wild and curious like us too. Protecting the former quality needs a restraint from our side.

I've been to Andaman & Nicobar in 2004 and did feel a sense of excitement and curiosity when at the edge of our side of world. Check out this fifteen year old video on these tribesmen, their walking manners and the gap that we're talking about here [1].

Andamans have a tremendous diversity with its colonial history, modern day torture equipment at Cellular jail that the Brits used during their rule of the region, and exotic tribes like these. Apart from blue beaches and coral life that most tourists love to see.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaPYwlXOTzQ

We really do need to fight the urge to put nike's on them, although I must admit to being interested the number of things we might learn about ourselves from studying these people. But then again, I understand the Schrodinger's "People" analogy.

North andaman (Jarwa) tribes at the time were hostile, which I believe since the construction of the Andaman grand trunk road have become more subdued.

Compared to Jarwa, the sentilese have it better, they dont share their island.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLf0rxicKr0

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlRSsvB4iLE

On balance though, I think all countries should leave one another alone. Foreign intervention frequently seems to do more harm than good.

These people though are now living in a constructed reality like 'The truman Show', we just haven't put the cameras in yet.

I'd argue that their attitude to the outside world can only be based on very little information most of which is probably no longer relevant

And suppose that the people of that island began showing signs that they wished to make contact. What then?

What can they trade ? Knowledge about their way of living, genomic studies, dieting habits, linguistic analysis, anthropological studies of they way they represent the world. Last both are really dangerous to them because those interactions will alter their culture in significant ways. The first one are highly valuable.*

What can we trade ? A lot. What can we trade that wouldn't annihilate their core identity ? I can't think of anything yet.

* but not yet as valuable as oil, diamonds or uranium otherwise the Indian authorities would have adopted a very different set of directives.

Phrased like this, it's a really good reason why we should not make contact, because ultimately the primary thing we would gain from such contact is exploiting the people themselves.

Frankly, I am more concerned about this argument I read in this thread : "We should do it for their children because they aren't given a choice by their parents get in touch with us and it isn't fair." That, is supremacy and way more dangerous than curiosity as an ideology.

and interesting genes will be stolen from them and patented.

What is your expertise in this area? Are you a anthropologist??

I suspect you are just one of these sick people who like the idea mini zoos with humans in them.

These are human beings. They deserve access to modern medicines like the rest of us of the world even if you lose this precious zoo.

How are their women treated? That is the ones who don't die in child birth? Going off other primitive societies probably not great no matter what the Hollywood idea of how these societies operate and everything is great.

This sickness of how the majority of the population would never ever want to live like this if they had a choice but somehow the people living it are having the time of their lives is bizarre.

For all we know this island is just another North Korea and although I respect nations statehood I don't pretend it's somehow a moral decision not to get involved.

I'm positive you don't need to be an anthropologist to realize this.

I don't even understand the zoo reference. This is not a man made entrapment, it's their home. "Leave them alone" doesn't mean starting island tours.

This world cop attitude is incredibly egotistic. It assumes that we've found the superior way of life. Evidence points to the contrary when you consider the number of species we've played a key role in extinguishing and endangering with our super amazing society.

Why should we focus on them? Your logic is that modern medicine is not an improvement or a factor in relieving suffering, but is only an illusion of our egotistical viewpoint. Why would it help those who are 'part of our world' that have insufficient access?

It's the opposite of a zoo that the op is talking about.

Also, if it's no one's call to determine whether they leave or not, why would it be anyone's call to unilaterally interject into their society? Besides, I figure if some of those people do really want to leave, they can set up camp near the beach/wreck unarmed (probably at the risk of civil war, but hey, it's their call). One of us will probably notice eventually.

And to build on that, if you really want to give them free choice, rather than going into their island to forcibly "enlighten" them, build them a removed, but easily reachable dock in the reef/wreck or something like that. From there you can do all sorts of things. A mini library, a vessel, etc. Though I wonder if any of them have even bothered to explore the extant wreck.

For all we know this island is a tropical paradise.

Reading further down the comments on the linked page (you did read the whole thing, right?) there's an additional encounter described which, shall we say, indicates they're quite content.

I'm all for providing guidance and assistance to the poor, and intervening when serious moral problems are systemic (abuse, wanton violence, diseases untreated, etc.). I'm also all for leaving people alone when they make it very clear they've got things under control, are content with their situation, want you to leave them alone, and there is no indication of moral problems.

You want to bring them medicine, but with that comes illnesses they have never been exposed to, you want to bring them food, excellent take along obesity with you. You want them to have access to modern amenities that they have never required but could become dependent on.

Tell you what go drop a couple of crates of jack daniles and few 1000 packs of marlboro and some mcdonalds just so they know what they are missing out on.

There is a vast difference between these people and their society and North Korea. In NK the ruling elite have access to everything youmention and the general population do not. On this island they all have equal access to the same stuff, sure some tribal leader may get the "big bit of chicken" or first choice when it comes to games night, but there is not the inequality that exists in NK.

If you are concerned about their health, then it is best that we stay away anyway. History (and even this article) has taught us that isolated cultures are incredibly susceptible to our diseases (a.k.a. diseases they have never had contact with), and often times the results are fatal.

People upvoted this guy because they agreed with his fundamental points despite the baiting, and in turn he received positive feedback. I think maybe you underestimate the effect karma has on posting behavior; it's not just about pushing comments up and down the page.

This doesn't matter. Doesn't work on reddit, doesn't work on StackOverflow, and won't work anywhere else.

http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette

I also found this discussion, which says that in practice there will always be a middle ground between moderating based on quality and moderating based on opinion:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/1g14yo/is_th...

because our ego bias is to moderate based on opinion. However that's why a guideline to moderate based on quality pulls things towards the middle.

These people want to be left alone and should be left alone. They've survived for 65000 years on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean. I'd say the rest of the "developed" world has something to learn from the way these people sustain themselves without, looking from the outside in, destroying a beautiful tropical island.

For 65000 years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/what-happen...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024011/Uncontacted-...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaPYwlXOTzQ Just fine it would seem

(I have my own reasons why they should or shouldn't be left alone. I am just curious to figure out why you are so insistent that they be left alone.)

B. contact with us is likely to be deadly to them.

We all encounter at times fellow humans who want something that clearly is based on lacking information. Of course we respect such things, but only up to a certain point. We often do try to help people see the bigger picture - sometimes we do say "I hear you say that that is what you want, but have you considered the fact that...".

> B. contact with us is likely to be deadly to them.

This can be remedied with technology. A crude solution would be to land in hazmat suits and have a chat. I don't know how we should deal with the bows and arrows though.

Yes, our 'oh so clever technical ways' are not perfect. But they are so much better. Perhaps these people are just as happy as we are. Even so, their stillborn children are still dead. They almost certainly see more murder and rape. How can you condemn people to living like that, even if they want to because they don't know any better?

Oh the children? Whats next, terrorists and pedophiles? Go get an education.

OK, how many kiddies in the fabulous USA live under the international levels of poverty? Around 9,000,000 ,right? 9M kids "condemned" just for living in the wrong country? And you want to interfere with proud people living their way on a island? You want to wade in and force western ideals and so on on to them?

And how dare you compare western happiness to that of a tribes people. You sound as arrogant and disgusting as we Brits must have 400 years ago. Please learn from our mistakes.

And just because your culture might well rape and murder their way to a false sense freedom, it does not mean others will or do.

How dare you so arrogantly and ignorantly judge them. People have the right to self determination, whether the West likes it or not. That is actually something I would risk my life for. That is freedom.

If the people venture out and want to be part of us, of course, we open our arms to embrace them. Mean while, leave the the hell alone.

These people, if the suppositions are to be believed, have been able to survive and reproduce for tens of thousands of years. They don't need your pity or "help".

If you sit back for an hour or so and re-read your comment 10-20 times, you'll realize what a Western missionary statement it is. Basically, your mindset seems to be similar to the "save the heathens" mindset of 18th - 19th century Europe in regards to the US and Australia, among other places.

Surely we can't save them in body, but if we convert them before they die then they'll be saved in the light of the Lord. Hala loola or whatever.

Yeah, I'm serious. Leave them alone.

Yes, and it's a problem! We should be doing everything we can so that people finally STOP DYING. And we should strive especially hard when it's children dying because their parents are too used to everyone dying to ASK FOR HELP.

Now, in some cases it's difficult. We can't do it for everyone just yet. But in this case it's not.

>These people, if the suppositions are to be believed, have been able to survive and reproduce for tens of thousands of years.

Oh, that makes it all right then! Let's stop any kinds of aid, it's not like people will go extinct. Most of them will die, but some will survive and reproduce, and that makes it all right!

There is a difference between dying as a result of problems in our society and dying as the inevitable result of having been born. Societies generally have fix their own issues, other people cannot do it for them. As outsiders who know nothing of the society of the people living on this island, we cannot and should not attempt to change their society to a way we feel more appropriate, that is literally genocide.

Dying is not the inevitable result of having been born (or rather, dying before the heat death of the universe is not).

>As outsiders who know nothing of the society of the people living on this island, we cannot and should not attempt to change their society to a way we feel more appropriate, that is literally genocide.

Genocide: ..any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It's definitely not literally genocide.

> (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

> It's definitely not literally genocide.

That is such an incomplete definition of genocide. No doubt genocide commonly is used to refer to physical violence, but cultural genocide is a real and well documented phenomenon. Pulling a dictionary definition of a large concept like this is insulting and is a farce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide

* Stillborn children

* Murder

* Rape

Good point. Since in joining modern society they'd be missing out on those things those things that no longer ever occur, a fair trade would be to introduce them to consumerism and all of the lovely, healthy, meaningful things that includes.

And thank you for illustrating my point better than me.

http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/articles/3109-questions-and...

Especially when these people(and possibly a handful of others in the Amazon) are literally the last remaining people on earth to be unaffected by modern man.

Edit: See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6069163

Can you explain how this specific 65,000 years of history, in the context of a history that may go on for millions of years in the future for these people, is any more important than any other, and vital to protect?

Maybe a million years from now their ancestors will look back to the time they "joined the real world" as the biggest, most important positive development in their history. Kind of like how the spread of language, the alphabet and math worked for us.

There seem to be two types of people in this world: those who romanticize about the past and think that everything was better in simpler times, and those that think that things are just getting better as we go. I'm of the latter.

Do you ever wish you were still a hunter gatherer? I don't, nor do I know anyone who does. Why is that?