Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

uncontactedtribes.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 378 posts

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#311

Post by _djo_ »

Mz wrote: post #297
jordan0day wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"BTW: you to know that Western medicine is not the only medicine in the world. " First off, can we not call it "Western medicine?" Because what you're calling "Western medicine" happens to be practiced all over the world. I'd prefer to call it "science-based medicine" or "evidence-based medicine", although I will admit the applicability of those labels is more range-based than absolute. However, you're right. Western…

Actually, I've pursued "alternative" medicine for treating my (very deadly) medical condition and gotten much better results than "modern" medicine can promise. I have a form of cystic fibrosis, as does my 23 year old son. I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I have not been on antibiotics for about 7 years. I have been drug free for about 18 months. My son has not been on antibiotics in nearly 13 years. He h…

If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious about what alternative medicine you used.

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#312

Post by yummyfajitas »

raganwald wrote: post #113
xenophanes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I readily acknowledge we may agree more than it first appears given the particular emphasis we each chose. But I do think there is substantive disagreement here within the realm of non-violent (and, dare I say it: civilized) ways to approach the matter. 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…

I suspect we still agree on the principles. The only thing I am advocating is thinking things through. For example, it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do? Nothing, and let people figure it out for themselves? Put up signs? Or restrict the area to anthropologists who have training in the matter? I don't personall…

...it is very difficult to interact with them without violating their right to life because it is easy to infect them with a disease. What do we do?

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.

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#313

Post by Mz »

_djo_ wrote: post #311
Mz wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I've pursued "alternative" medicine for treating my (very deadly) medical condition and gotten much better results than "modern" medicine can promise. I have a form of cystic fibrosis, as does my 23 year old son. I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I have not been on antibiotics for about 7 years. I have been drug free for about 18 months. My son has not been on antibiotics in nearly 13 years. He h…

If you don't mind me asking, I'm curious about what alternative medicine you used.

I put "alternative" in quotes because I don't see a practitioner of any kind of medicine. I hang out on a forum where folks know all kinds of interesting things (about non-drug treatments and other related stuff) and I do a lot of research and have made it up as I go. It's basically a diet and lifestyle based approach. There is a little info about what I have done here:

http://healthgazelle.com/

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#314

Post by glenjamin »

With the amount of comments on this page it's unlikely anyone will even see this, but am I the only one surprised at how many people still use the term "Indian" to refer to natives populations who look a bit like Indians?

As far as I'm aware, this is the sole reason for the origination of the term in this context (as opposed to, you know, people from India).

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#315

Post by lwhi »

lyudmil wrote: post #263
lwhi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" No, they're saying that they believe their beliefs and way of life are superior, therefore they have a moral obligation to improve the lives of those less fortunate than them. " " Whether they're right or not is another issue [..] " Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. -- The OPs belief is entirely objectionable. Have none of us learnt anything from history? EDIT: Actually, maybe that…

" Morals are all about right or wrong - you can't have it both ways. " Bullshit! While morals are about distinctions between right or wrong, the only moral debates worth having are ones that are about conflicting moral principles. In this case, between the moral principle that says we should allow people to determine and preserve their own culture and the principle that we want people to have the highest quality of l…

I was referring to the fact that two opposing statements had been made.

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#316

Post by electromagnetic »

deadmansshoes wrote: post #215
Naga wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double…

Yes but those executions weren't a ridiculous attempt to appease some "sun god" - many of the those executed in England were witches. 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.

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

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.

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#317

Post by DanielBMarkham »

sliverstorm wrote: post #294
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is so bad about leaving them alone? I would bet they are much happer than the majority of the FB and Twitter obsessed narcissist that I run into every day. What is so bad is you making the decision for them -- one way or the other. It's that kind of pompous paternalistic attitude that caused all kinds of pain and misery. If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, of having mothers die in childbirth commonly…

What is so bad is you making the decision for them -- one way or the other. It's that kind of pompous paternalistic attitude that caused all kinds of pain and misery. On the other hand, can they even make an informed decision? I mean, heck, we let the FDA make decisions for us every day. 99.9% of us are not chemist or biologist enough to make a real decision on many consumables and drugs, so we let the more informed…

If it were unethical, then the entire system of voting in a democracy would be unethical.

The simple fact is: nobody is informed enough to make the kinds of decisions they are responsible for making in life. Many times doctors don't know what the heck they are doing, lawyers have no idea which way the court might rule, economists can theorize all day long but couldn't tell you the GDP five years out. I would say something pithy like "we live in a complicated world that nobody can master", yet the sad fact is that we reach the limit of understanding possible consequences to social changes after the number of people involves climbs past one or two. There simply is no way for anybody to make an informed decision about these folks -- us or them. We can cite statistics or tell stories about similar situations, but that's about it. But whether or not an informed or good decision can be made is a completely different question than who's responsibility it is to make one. If I am very sick, there might be nobody on the planet that can tell me how my treatment might work out, but that doesn't mean that somehow I should surrender that decision to a doctor. In fact, just the opposite is true: the more unknown and hard-to-understand the situation, the more important it is for all of us to let the individuals involved make the choices. It is, after all, those people who are going to have to live with the consequences.

EDIT: Also remember that it's not just the individuals who are affected: it's also all of their descendants. My great ancestor who fought the Roman conquerors in Europe probably had a much different opinion of the Romans than I do today. He and I disagree, but I fully support the fact that it was his decision to make, not the Romans'. I also feel that it was best that the Romans won. These opinions are not self-contradictory: I fully believe that individuals are the ones who are supposed to make these decisions about themselves, even if they make what to all intents and purposes look like the wrong choices. For any of the rest of us to step outside the system and start making choices for those involved is an awful affront to the dignity of man. (Sorry for the over-the-top rhetoric. Like I said, it's a pet peeve)

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#318

Post by colanderman »

Naga wrote: post #207
rubashov wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the missionaries who stopped indigenous peoples' crazy blood soaked ways and widespread human sacrifice rituals? The Aztecs in particular were quite psycho. 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.

The scope of human sacrifice was largely exaggerated. The book 1491, by Charles C. Mann, puts the amount of people sacrificed per year by the Aztecs at 3000-4000, out of around 30 million people. He compares that to England, which executed 75000 people between 1530 and 1630. England had about 1/10th the population of the Aztecs, and if it had the same, it would have been executing 7500 people each year, around double…

I think your math is off somewhere... if England had the same population (10x more) wouldn't that be 750000 people each year?

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#319

Post by edanm »

glenjamin wrote: post #314

With the amount of comments on this page it's unlikely anyone will even see this, but am I the only one surprised at how many people still use the term "Indian" to refer to natives populations who look a bit like Indians? As far as I'm aware, this is the sole reason for the origination of the term in this context (as opposed to, you know, people from India).

I think the term has nothing to do with looks. It originated because, when Columbus first came to America, he thought he was in India (that was his destination, after all), so he called the people there "Indians". Now the term tends to mean "natives".

Re: Aerial footage of uncontacted Amazon tribe

#320

Post by alecco »

raganwald wrote: post #9

You know that Golden Rule?" Not the one that VCs quote, but the one that goes "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" We should think about that when we choose how to deal with uncontacted tribes. It may be that one day another intelligence will need to decide how to deal with us, and on that day I hope we can say, "Yes, we used to have a habit of massacring technologically inferior peoples we encounte…

You should have picked the Silver Rule, then. ""Do not do to others as you would not have others do to you."

Much better than Golden Rule, IMHO.

Post reply on HN