Should "uncontacted" tribes be left alone?

jackie1974 wrote: »

We have no right to push our philosophies on a tribe that has a whole other different way of living, nor do we have any right to invade them with cameras for our own entertainment. What should we do, tear into their homes with vaccines they don't need, spray their homes with anti bacterial solutions they don't need, give them mobiles and internet connections they don't need, television stations they don't need, transport they don't need, a drug trade they don't need (actually they probably have that already for free) Our society could probably learn a thing or two from them, we're the ignorant ones, not them.

I totally agree with you.

Orando Broom wrote: »

These tribes need modern medicines, education, ipads and laser discs. It's high time these savages were taught some civility.

Can you call to my house? I've no ipad,pod,laser discs and I dunno what a blue ray is ..and dont care either!

In our earliest societies, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The first step towards civilization is the move from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, with the domestication and farming of wild crops and animals. Agricultural production leads to food surpluses, which supports sedentary societies, specialization of craft, rapid population growth, and specialization of labor. Large societies tend to develop ruling classes and supporting bureaucracies, which leads in turn to the organization of empires.[2]

Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, the Middle East had by far the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.

In contrast, Native American farmers had to struggle to develop maize as a useful food from its probable wild ancestor, teosinte, but it provides few nutrients and must be planted one by one – an extremely cumbersome task. It should be noted that as they grew agricultural surpluses in (for example) the Mississippian culture about 1000 AD, they created more dense and specialized settlements. Eurasians had wheat and barley, which are high in fiber and nutrients and can be sowed en masse with just a toss of the hand. They generated massive food surpluses which supported exponential population growth. Such growth led to larger workforces and more inventors, artisans, etc. Grains can also be stored for longer periods of time unlike tropical crops such as bananas.

Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all. Diamond describes the small number of domesticated species (14 out of 148 "candidates") as an instance of the Anna Karenina principle: many promising species have just one of several significant difficulties that prevent domestication.

Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants[2][3]; goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, through geographic coincidence, had to deal with lions, leopardsNew Guinea came from the East Asian mainland when they were transplanted during the Austronesian settlement some 4,000-5,000 years ago. are tameable, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity. etc. Diamond points out that the only animals useful for human survival and purposes in

Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons. In contrast, Australia suffered from a lack of useful animals due to extinction, probably by human hunting, shortly after the end of the Pleistocene. The Americas had difficulty adapting crops domesticated at one latitude for use at other latitudes (and, in North America, adapting crops from one side of the Rocky Mountains to the other). Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.[2][3]

The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries by using the "Guns" and "Steel" of the book's title.

Eurasia's dense populations, high levels of trade, and living in close proximity to livestock resulted in widespread transmission of diseases, including from animals to humans. Natural selection forced Eurasians to develop immunity to a wide range of pathogens. When Europeans made contact with America, European diseases (to which they had no immunity) ravaged the indigenous American population, rather than the other way around (the "trade" in diseases was a little more balanced in Africa and southern Asia: endemic malaria and yellow fever made these regions notorious as the "white man's grave";[4] and syphilis may have spread in the opposite direction[5]). The European diseases – the "Germs" of the book's title – decimated indigenous populations so that relatively small numbers of Europeans could maintain their dominance.[2][3]"

scientific1982 wrote: »

Not really. Theres a few fundamental things that every kid needs, two of them being adequate medical care and an education. Dont think their current situation provides that. Thats not to mention proper food, clothing and shelter.

As I said already..all down to your perception.

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah they probably do provide forms of shelter, education, clothing and food for their kids, but its likely poor. If you had a kid would you prefer them to be raised as hunter gatherers or in modern society. We could spend all night weighing up the pros and cons of each, but modern society obviously wins out.

Only if you let it

SuperInfinity wrote: »

In sub-tropical Africa every day is warm and sunny. That is how humans were evolved to live and why we hate the cold. Cold isn't natural for Humans IMO, which is why I always try to avoid it.

I chase the cold now in my middle years! Its better cold than the miserable cold in Ireland. I'm just a b!tch for goin against the grain though