That doesn't really matter. If a girl refuses to go out with you, she might not be in a position where she can make an informed decision. And she is possibly depriving her future children of a magnificent father, condemning them to life without you. But you should still respect her "NO".

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.

But if a man is jumping of a cliff because he thinks he can fly, you should not respect his 'NO' when trying to catch him.

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.

They're not jumping off a cliff. They've been doing fine (insofar as they're surviving with a small population) for some 60 thousand years. First contact alone will probably kill them with diseases (a well-documented phenomenon).

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.

It's not about their interests. It's about our interests of preserving that ancient culture for our research purposes.

I was going to say the same thing. Their scientific value as a primitive society preserved against all odds is something we will never see again. To destroy it on a whim would be akin to killing the last dodo for food.

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?

Having the scientific value of their society trump the need of their people to have better health and livelihood seems a bit utilitarian to me.

Would they be better off with a desk job in some western city? That's likely out of grasp, as they would have no competitive skills compared to westerners that have trained for our economy for their whole lives. They would likely be wards of the state in a strange land, and so would their children.

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

What about their grandchildren? They could get a good education, integrate into modern society and have the opportunity to live a way happier life than if they had stayed in the island.

> If a girl refuses to go out with you

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

I think he made the point quite well. "No" means "no", and they're saying "no" pretty emphatically and consistently - and no amount of "but I'll make your life so much better" trumps that.

That isn't the point, he specifically likened the situation to asking out a girl; and "no means no" is an emotionally charged idiom, for that matter.

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.

The adults are saying "no", the children just have to go along with that choice that was made for them. This is arguably a form of coercion because the children are being denied the opportunity to a better life.

"Even if they were, they have no right of condemning their children to such life"

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

Won't anyone think of the children?

/s

If someone was raising their children in a similar quality of life in a western society, they would have their children taken away by social security. Do you disagree?

No, I don't.

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?

I don't really understand this argument. Other cultures have survived contact with technologically superior civilizations. Examples are listed in your own post: Africa, Japan, etc.

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%?

For one, we don't know enough about their quality of life to say anything about it. I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet, in particular it is likely to be better than the majority of urban dwellers and subsistence farmers in the 3rd world.

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.

For those interested, the article below is a study on what happened to the inhabitants of the nearby island Little Andaman after it was settled by mainlanders. Infant mortality rose (to 40%), malnutrition and disease increased, and life expectancy, even excluding infant mortality, was approx 35 yr.

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

"I would assume they have a better quality of life than the majority of the planet"

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.

The United States is 35th in infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mor...) - and the US is 33rd in life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...). You just said you didn't know their two statistics in those categories, but a hunch may be enough to go in and shake things up for them.

Of course, many other countries cook the infant mortality books be not reporting premature babies that die shortly after birth or are "hopeless" because they don't have the medical tech that the US does. Consequently, that skews US life expectancy down.

All I'm saying is that the US isn't all sunshine and daisies. There are a TON of poor areas (rural and urban alike) where it's just not safe to live, kids don't get enough mental and physical nourishment, and there's a good chance you'll die before high school. That sucks. And that's a problem that should be fixed. As a US citizen, I care infinitely more about fixing these problems before trying to contact and civilize the inhabitants of some remote island.

As bad as the US is in those statistics, you'd expect this island to be 5 - 20 times worse looking at the range of third world countries on the list.

A lot of the infant mortality in the 3rd world is due to infectious disease or conditions like diarrhea. These are diseases common in crowded unsanitary places accompanied by poor nutrition.

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.

Excellent point.

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.

A small isolated population like that will be free of most infectious diseases. The number of Sentinelese isn't known, but may be as low as 100, since the Sentinelese, Great Andamanese, and Onge,(i.e. those on the island in question as well as the neighboring islands) have "a combined population of 400–500 individuals." [2].

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.

for all we know, they view infant mortality as a perfectly acceptable form of birth control. this would be an example of culture shock.

Because of the conditions, or because of how far removed their lifestyle is from western societal norms?

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.

Informed decisions are inside our rational [and egocentric] limitations, so in this case not take those decisions very seriously.

We are getting into politics here. We all have representatives and policy makers that are deciding all the time for us and we also have to support the consequences of their decisions, no mater how informed they were.