It’s a real loss when we lose tribes like this because we also lose 50,000 years of accumulated knowledge.
How is that knowledge accumulated? I suppose these tribes lack writing?
[deleted]
Man of the Hole
21–30 of 89 posts
Re: Man of the Hole
#22It’s a real loss when we lose tribes like this because we also lose 50,000 years of accumulated knowledge.
How is that knowledge accumulated? I suppose these tribes lack writing?
Indigenous Australians are known for their use of songlines: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/s...
Re: Man of the Hole
#23It’s a real loss when we lose tribes like this because we also lose 50,000 years of accumulated knowledge.
How is that knowledge accumulated? I suppose these tribes lack writing?
Probably differs a lot, but the Navajo have a massively developed story-telling tradition to pass on wisdom across generations. Iirc these are symbolic and has moral or philosophical contents, similar perhaps to fables and religious miracle-stories. Encoding information in narratives is highly effective for memorization, and I believe deliberate so. Literal interpretations can be fun, but a deeper semantic interpretation can really unlock ancient wisdom. It's fascinating.
Re: Man of the Hole
#24So, philosophical question here: Human zoos are racist and wrong, right? How is leaving uncontacted tribes alone to live in isolation (but under remote observation) any different? Fun diversions include: the prime directive from star trek and potential diseases spreading from first contact being equivalent to genocide. I think that in the end, none of debate will matter and that all remaining tribes will either be de…
These people usually know exactly how to get to civilization if they wanted to. Many have "walked out" of the forest and into civilization, and they generally become what people would recognize as bums and layabouts since they have basically no skills that are relevant to city life.
And they're observed remotely merely to help ensure that violent people don't disturb them - making sure they aren't killed or driven to civilization unless they want to go.
Re: Man of the Hole
#25Re: Man of the Hole
#26Re: Man of the Hole
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zoos are artificial environments constructed to put things on exhibit outside of their natural environment for the education and entertainment of others. A preserve is an area carved out to prohibit the others from going in and screwing with someone or something. So basically, they’re polar opposites.
If we had a nature preserve filled with human beings that are unaware of the modern world, left to their own devices and hard lives, the difference in ethics is the entertainment factor? Say their lives aren't broadcast for consumption, is that okay? What about 10, 100 or even 1,000 years from now?
The primary difference in ethics is whether you've forcibly relocated them. You're picking a really weird aspect of the human zoo thing to fixate on and ignoring the huge flashing sign that says "liberty". There's really no good reason to compare the scenarios. I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor but this is the kind of obtuseness that raises genuine questions of whether you're speaking in good faith.
Re: Man of the Hole
#28So, philosophical question here: Human zoos are racist and wrong, right? How is leaving uncontacted tribes alone to live in isolation (but under remote observation) any different? Fun diversions include: the prime directive from star trek and potential diseases spreading from first contact being equivalent to genocide. I think that in the end, none of debate will matter and that all remaining tribes will either be de…
There are many differences but first and foremost: the purpose of human zoos was entertainment, in this case it was to protect (and potentially scientific enquiry)
For others who, like me, had no idea these were ever a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
Jeeze.
Re: Man of the Hole
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we had a nature preserve filled with human beings that are unaware of the modern world, left to their own devices and hard lives, the difference in ethics is the entertainment factor? Say their lives aren't broadcast for consumption, is that okay? What about 10, 100 or even 1,000 years from now?
The primary difference in ethics is whether you've forcibly relocated them. You're picking a really weird aspect of the human zoo thing to fixate on and ignoring the huge flashing sign that says "liberty". There's really no good reason to compare the scenarios. I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor but this is the kind of obtuseness that raises genuine questions of whether you're speaking in good faith.
Where is the liberty though? By definition, a native from an uncontacted tribe can't make an informed choice.