About a week ago pictures were released of an unknown and uncontacted Amazonian tribe. And just the other day, a video was released.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/uncontacted-tribe-video/
You can see the excitement in some of the young ones as they look up in amazement at the plane.
The comments section of the article is typical -- a bunch of Rousseauans who think the tribe prefers living at subsistence level and wants the government to keep them isolated and prevented from being contacted.
I've made a few comments out of frustration. This is one of them:
I think there are far too many people getting a hard-on over the idea of an uncontacted tribe. A lot of you are assuming too much on their part and inventing reasons why they shouldn't be contacted, probably so you can keep the pleasure you get from this. For all you know they would find it fascinating to meet others from more developed parts. Just because they haven't taken it upon themselves doesn't mean squat. The jungle which surrounds them is vast and they likely have no idea which way to even travel to make contact; or perhaps they have attempted and have failed. Perhaps they're desperate for better materials for farming, hunting and protection from annoying bugs and animals, and would enjoy trading with others. Again, there is far too much assuming going on. If people voluntarily want to go there and make contact with the tribe, then there's nothing "wrong" with that. You can then voluntarily shun those people if you really want. But are you going to use violence against anyone attempting this? Bringing the government into the matter IS condoning violence, since by definition that is how the government must uphold any legislation it passes. Let people voluntarily decide, leave the State out of it and quit assuming so bloody much.
If you want to see a tribe that doesn't want visitors check out the Sentinelese on North Sentinel Island.
That woman in the video sounds as if the tribe has to be protected from the evils of industrial society. It has an almost religious sound to it. Is it that they are "connected with nature"? And then they film from a kilometer away to "minimize disturbance". Why? To not spoil them with our carbon debt? (I guess because they can't land there too.)
It's a little too convenient though. They just happen to find a new unconnected tribe where they want to ban logging? Let me be the first one to suggest that this tribe is just hippies who dressed up to convince the government to protect the rain forest.
Le Master: The comments section of the article is typical -- a bunch of Rousseauans who think the tribe prefers living at subsistence level and wants the government to keep them isolated and prevented from being contacted.
I'm having a similar type of conversation with a leftist on youtube regarding the living conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. I initially made the case that their culture, which is characterized, at least in part, by perpetual and extreme material deprivation, is what we should expect from a non-capitalistic society (or a pre-capitalistic society).
She responded with:
or you can accept that there are people in this world who do not feel pressured to be conform to the modernization we have in this society, they are happy the way they are as they can feed themselves which at the end of the day is the most important thing in every society no matter what culture you have
And I responded by saying:
First of all, who are you to speak for them? Have you taken a poll? Did you ask them what they think about their current standard of living (which hasn't changed much in hundreds, if not thousands of years)? What makes you so sure that they prefer a condition of material deprivation over one of relative abundance? Common sense and torrential experience tells us that people prefer living past the age of 44, eating multiple meals a day, drinking clean water, etc.
The fact that you presume to know their preferences is fairly interesting, but what's even more interesting, if not disturbing, is your attempt to glorify their poverty. As if poverty, disease, and famine are somehow noble; as if their culture is more advanced than our "materialist" one, where individuals work and produce the goods and services that are demanded by society. By the way, it's our "materialist" culture that sends them billions of dollars in foreign aid every year.
Mises does a great job demolishing this sort of Romanticism in Theory and History.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I just want to say to Le Master and Esuric that those responses were really good. They sounded very inviting to others who may read the comments.