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

The Forbidden Island

neatorama.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–288 of 288 posts

Re: The Forbidden Island

#281

Post by jeltz »

derleth wrote: post #30
dirktheman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they seem to be doing allright for the past 65,000 years... I'm the first to admit that I probably wouldn't last a week there. It seems quite romantic, living on a deserted island, without the antics of our society. But gathering food and water is hard, or even near impossible for us. These people however, seem to have found a way to survive. I'm assuming that, because they have lived in such a closed ecosystem…

> Well, they seem to be doing allright for the past 65,000 years... They've survived. Humans can survive terrible things. > I'm assuming that, because they have lived in such a closed ecosystem for so long, they have different diseases than we have. Not really, because their ecosystem is not closed. Birds and fish and so on still bring parasites, insects fly around, and malaria is malaria wherever you go. > I'm also…

> And they may well have to practice infanticide, and/or go on bloody campaigns to keep the population down low enough they don't starve.

Looking at their advanced weapon technology I would guess that they are very warlike, and have regular tribal wars.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#282

Post by cubancigar11 »

eshvk wrote: post #203
cubancigar11 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose what he/she means is that they are running it like a Mafia. 'was the fact they were "Italian" supposed to count against them?' Shouldn't it? Specially in an article where uncontacted people, literally, kill people to avoid being contacted?

> Shouldn't it? Specially in an article where uncontacted people, literally, kill people to avoid being contacted? What now? Are you trying to say that someone being of Italian ethnicity makes them more ready to contact other people or what?

If you mean to say that being Italian makes them more ready to look down on others, then of course YES. Euro-style nationalism and its other part known as Christianity are based upon the very idea of us-vs-them where 'we' are superior and have moral obligation to 'help' others.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#283

Post by userulluipeste »

true_religion wrote: post #265
userulluipeste wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (Star Trek's) Prime Directive is not something worthwhile to be considered here? The representatives of these people (the ones with bows and other kind of weapons that dare to face the outsiders) are stating clearly their policy. Maybe it is us that must get over our desires to intrude supposedly on someone else's benefit.

Representatives notwithstanding, I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice. 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.

"I think ever member of the community has a right to make their own informed choice."

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.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#284

Post by eshvk »

cubancigar11 wrote: post #282
eshvk wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shouldn't it? Specially in an article where uncontacted people, literally, kill people to avoid being contacted? What now? Are you trying to say that someone being of Italian ethnicity makes them more ready to contact other people or what?

If you mean to say that being Italian makes them more ready to look down on others, then of course YES. Euro-style nationalism and its other part known as Christianity are based upon the very idea of us-vs-them where 'we' are superior and have moral obligation to 'help' others.

This is categorically racist. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that just because a person is Italian, they have a tendency to be superior; they are christian.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#285

Post by cubancigar11 »

eshvk wrote: post #284
cubancigar11 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean to say that being Italian makes them more ready to look down on others, then of course YES. Euro-style nationalism and its other part known as Christianity are based upon the very idea of us-vs-them where 'we' are superior and have moral obligation to 'help' others.

This is categorically racist. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that just because a person is Italian, they have a tendency to be superior; they are christian.

"I'm like my mother, I stereotype. It's faster."

Seriously though, is there a way to be nationalist and not be racist? Nationalism, as a concept that started in Europe, is entrenched in racism. I can see that you are from USA from your anguish. But USA enjoys a very special history - that of no historical baggage that pits, say, French against the German, or Poland against Germany and Russia.

But back in Europe, 'racism', as it is taught, has been reduced to an outdated concept that has already been conquered. I can assure you it hasn't been. It has rather enabled many people to be racist without being called one.

Sorry, drifted away. Coming back to your point, people are racist. Italy and India share different narrated history - one of a old conqueror in decline and the other of a old underdeveloped civilization in turmoil after British left it out of pity. Everyone seems to believe it. All of their opinions are based upon it. It might be wrong to call Sonia (the Italian in question) racist because she is Italian, it is also not wrong to want to get rid of political bosses because they are Italian.

There is a lot that can be said here, but I guess I will have to resort to quoting from dusty books and running into abstract ideas.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#286

Post by Chris2048 »

ctdonath wrote: post #150
Chris2048 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: The Forbidden Island

#287

Post by knowaveragejoe »

alan_cx wrote: post #149
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Childhood diseases * 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.

You make some pretty shitty and arrogant assumptions. Don't judge other cultures by your own horrible standards. And thank you for illustrating my point better than me.

Please read the last few bullet points here and then kindly take your foot out of your mouth:

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

Re: The Forbidden Island

#288

Post by danparsonson »

eshvk wrote: post #275
danparsonson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say those are two different examples though - children in cultish societies are removed from society at large while the cult remains embedded in and aware of it; the islanders on the other hand have deliberately chosen isolation rather than having isolation forced upon them by any external agent. I would say it's really up to them to head into the outside world rather than for us to do anything, if they want…

> the islanders on the other hand have deliberately chosen isolation rather than having isolation forced upon them by any external agent. There is an implicit assumption that they are a democratic society where a decision was taken with the consent of everyone. You have no way of knowing that. For all you know, they could very well be a cult with some old fogey launching attack troops at the evil invaders whilst the…

> There is an implicit assumption that they are a democratic society where a decision was taken with the consent of everyone. You have no way of knowing that. For all you know, they could very well be a cult with some old fogey launching attack troops at the evil invaders whilst the young struggle mightily against the oppressive regime.

Or they could be communists. Or anarchists. Or whatever. We have only slight evidence to make any sort of judgement, that evidence being that every time a non-islander has gone near them, the visitor has been repelled or avoided. If that says anything to you besides 'go away' then you're projecting your own opinions onto them.

> That is rather patronizing. You have no way of knowing if they are interested in that. No one knows if they like blueberry pie unless they actually try blueberry pie.

I'm sorry that you chose to interpret it that way; that's not what I intended. The point I was trying to make was that I couldn't imagine these people engaging in any activities unrelated to their current way of life. The reason I make this statement is that they've had thousands and thousands of years to do so and yet apparently haven't. And yes, by your earlier argument, maybe they have a secret underground facility or perhaps they're the prisoners of some other advanced agent but I'm inclined to prefer the simplest explanation which is that they are a basic tribal society with no interest in the world outside their borders. The evidence, scant though it is, suggests nothing more than that without speculation on our part. It's not patronising to suggest that they don't think like others of us do.

Recall that the original post I replied to posed the question of whether or not it was unethical to withhold modern learning from them, and my point (which still stands) is that invading the home land of a group of people who are all shouting "we don't want blueberry pie" to give them blueberry pie because we think it's delicious but dammit, they haven't tasted it yet so how do they know? would be unethical, not the other way around.

If they want to meet us, and partake in the exciting wonders of the modern age - the rest of humanity is a boat ride away. All they need to do is develop oars. Or at least stop shooing away visitors.

Post reply on HN