What do you think about uncontacted tribes like the Sentinelese? Is there a moral duty to bring them into the international community? How should we think about ethnic groups wanting to preserve themselves into the future?
Moral duty to leave them the hell alone, they've already likely been poisoned with microplastics but they don't need our loneliness and micrbiome depletion and aspirated particulate and screen time and diabetes, etc...
The Sentinelese islanders have no "resource curse," i.e. the material and area desired by technological society. Also, expeditionary sailing parties didn't land on their shores (or were killed upon disembarking). If they were known to reside atop coltan or bauxite or silver deposits, they would surely be eradicated or assimilated.
That certainly isn't true. They're obviously tool users and can do basic manufacturing. You can certainly claim their resource demands are far, far lower than the rest of human society, but it isn't none. I also don't want to single them out; I could also have pointed to some Amazonian tribes.
I'm also not even saying that I disagree with you. I'm trying to get to a point about what Paul Kingsnorth calls "The Machine" and globalisation. I think there is an argument to be made that, given the choice, some of these tribesman may choose to join the global society.
The question I have is more how do those of us who oppose the global order and resource use get the same status as these tribes to be left alone?
I don't say they have nothing with which to make spears and arrows and bows, but they have nothing desirable to techno-industrial society so that they can be left unbothered. There are no corporations vying to gain access to Sentinel Island, the Indian govt isn't sacrificing economic gains or technological powers by protecting the Islanders and their home from exploitation. People in the Amazon Rainforest have suffered "the resource curse" due to having desired lumber, oil, gold, vast land, etc. - things which The Machine (or Technology or "the techno-industrial system" (Kaczynski)) must constantly consume in order to advance.
Nobody can opt out from exploitation and transformation by Technology; the whole of civilization exists to serve Technology's advancement. Sometimes people can fight and be fierce enough to deter or delay the steamroller of "Progress" (see the Comanche, or the Pawnee), but the Sentinelese didn't choose to be left alone, they were bypassed by The Machine, unneeded. And you can be certain that if something natural on Sentinel Island is found useful to Technology or humanity's elite class, the Sentinelese and their land will be exploited.
So what are you arguing with? We seem to have similar positions.
I would say that of lot of the pro-immigration arguments are about improving the economic conditions of the immigrants. That is exactly the same thing as saying there is a moral duty to bring the Sentinelese into the global order. To be clear, it isn't my position, but I am interested in hearing from someone like Junger what he thinks about these lines and where they get drawn. I tried to phrase my question in a neutral way that didn't make it obvious which side I was coming from.
Personally, I think the Amish have the correct idea, although I would draw the lines in different locations. Every new technology should be examined and only adopted where it enhances your life and not just adopted for the sake of it.
Can humans survive without all the modern technological clutter? If so, and if we are finding so many problems (to individuals and our societies) from the development of all these gadgets, why is Technology continually being advanced contrary to human interests?
Are you familiar with Bruce parry and his show tribe where he fully immersed himself in different tribal cultures? One thing that was very clear is almost all cultures have drug/transcendence rituals, do you think losing these kinds of rituals in the west has a direct link to our loss of cultural cohesion?
Another thing they have are enemies; in civilization, in order to be dedicated to the unimpeded advancement of Technology, we are not allowed to have enemies and must all cooperate and be tolerant of everyone else. But it has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the human psyche to have an enemy.
It would seem that tribalism writ large is what I (but not many others) would call nationalism -- which properly involves a deep sense of belonging and commitment to and pride in your "people," (read "nation"). First world nations are too large for true tribalism, but are none-the-less being undermined by the tribal roots and practices of millions of third-world immigrants. My question is, WHY are the UK, EU, and US suppressing our own "tribalism/nationalism" and promoting those of the third world? Is there an historical precedent for such bizarre behavior?
Why do you think that the West is so negative against its own culture and history, but venerates other cultures, partially less technologically developed cultures such as Native American, Aboriginal and Maori?
With that being said, do you think the trite and overused phrase, "sources familiar with the matter", will ever be sent out to pasture? To me that horse clearly cannot race anymore.
Showing preference for one's ethnic group is frequently portrayed as xenophobic and ignorant. The word "tribalism" is used as a pejorative, but "finding one's own tribe" is all the rage. Please speak to the differences in function and functionality of "genetic" groups and social groups.
Humanity is inherently tribal and will always seek ways to make ingroups and outgroups. Therefore, in the long run, for the majority, it is better to be a member of a strong and dominant ingroup and ensure its continued dominance, rather than a weaker outgroup?
What is the 'moral equivalent to war' that William James talks about? To use your example of a war-movie cinema experience, watching porn is not the same as having sex. What are the best things that military and civilian people can do to stimulate the thirst for war, without entailing the destructive consequences?
Be honest, all this analysis of third world tribes so giving of their 'cultural nouse' is a one way street and comes from a liberal western-centric perceptive that has no purchase in the cultures that you purport we can learn from. Obama said in Egypt that America and the west uniquely and openly admit its faults and change...can they?
What do you think about uncontacted tribes like the Sentinelese? Is there a moral duty to bring them into the international community? How should we think about ethnic groups wanting to preserve themselves into the future?
Moral duty to leave them the hell alone, they've already likely been poisoned with microplastics but they don't need our loneliness and micrbiome depletion and aspirated particulate and screen time and diabetes, etc...
That's what I'm trying to get to. Why do some humans get that dispensation and others don't?
The Sentinelese islanders have no "resource curse," i.e. the material and area desired by technological society. Also, expeditionary sailing parties didn't land on their shores (or were killed upon disembarking). If they were known to reside atop coltan or bauxite or silver deposits, they would surely be eradicated or assimilated.
That certainly isn't true. They're obviously tool users and can do basic manufacturing. You can certainly claim their resource demands are far, far lower than the rest of human society, but it isn't none. I also don't want to single them out; I could also have pointed to some Amazonian tribes.
I'm also not even saying that I disagree with you. I'm trying to get to a point about what Paul Kingsnorth calls "The Machine" and globalisation. I think there is an argument to be made that, given the choice, some of these tribesman may choose to join the global society.
The question I have is more how do those of us who oppose the global order and resource use get the same status as these tribes to be left alone?
I don't say they have nothing with which to make spears and arrows and bows, but they have nothing desirable to techno-industrial society so that they can be left unbothered. There are no corporations vying to gain access to Sentinel Island, the Indian govt isn't sacrificing economic gains or technological powers by protecting the Islanders and their home from exploitation. People in the Amazon Rainforest have suffered "the resource curse" due to having desired lumber, oil, gold, vast land, etc. - things which The Machine (or Technology or "the techno-industrial system" (Kaczynski)) must constantly consume in order to advance.
Nobody can opt out from exploitation and transformation by Technology; the whole of civilization exists to serve Technology's advancement. Sometimes people can fight and be fierce enough to deter or delay the steamroller of "Progress" (see the Comanche, or the Pawnee), but the Sentinelese didn't choose to be left alone, they were bypassed by The Machine, unneeded. And you can be certain that if something natural on Sentinel Island is found useful to Technology or humanity's elite class, the Sentinelese and their land will be exploited.
So what are you arguing with? We seem to have similar positions.
I would say that of lot of the pro-immigration arguments are about improving the economic conditions of the immigrants. That is exactly the same thing as saying there is a moral duty to bring the Sentinelese into the global order. To be clear, it isn't my position, but I am interested in hearing from someone like Junger what he thinks about these lines and where they get drawn. I tried to phrase my question in a neutral way that didn't make it obvious which side I was coming from.
Personally, I think the Amish have the correct idea, although I would draw the lines in different locations. Every new technology should be examined and only adopted where it enhances your life and not just adopted for the sake of it.
Can humans survive without all the modern technological clutter? If so, and if we are finding so many problems (to individuals and our societies) from the development of all these gadgets, why is Technology continually being advanced contrary to human interests?
Are you familiar with Bruce parry and his show tribe where he fully immersed himself in different tribal cultures? One thing that was very clear is almost all cultures have drug/transcendence rituals, do you think losing these kinds of rituals in the west has a direct link to our loss of cultural cohesion?
Another thing they have are enemies; in civilization, in order to be dedicated to the unimpeded advancement of Technology, we are not allowed to have enemies and must all cooperate and be tolerant of everyone else. But it has been demonstrated to be beneficial to the human psyche to have an enemy.
It would seem that tribalism writ large is what I (but not many others) would call nationalism -- which properly involves a deep sense of belonging and commitment to and pride in your "people," (read "nation"). First world nations are too large for true tribalism, but are none-the-less being undermined by the tribal roots and practices of millions of third-world immigrants. My question is, WHY are the UK, EU, and US suppressing our own "tribalism/nationalism" and promoting those of the third world? Is there an historical precedent for such bizarre behavior?
Why do you think that the West is so negative against its own culture and history, but venerates other cultures, partially less technologically developed cultures such as Native American, Aboriginal and Maori?
Did you notice any difference in tribalism or loyalty between nationalities? Which are more loyal or less loyal?
Hello Sebastian,
Thank you for taking our questions.
Does anyone in media use the SPJ Code of Ethics?
With that being said, do you think the trite and overused phrase, "sources familiar with the matter", will ever be sent out to pasture? To me that horse clearly cannot race anymore.
Thank you,
Jen W, a source familiar with the matter
Showing preference for one's ethnic group is frequently portrayed as xenophobic and ignorant. The word "tribalism" is used as a pejorative, but "finding one's own tribe" is all the rage. Please speak to the differences in function and functionality of "genetic" groups and social groups.
Humanity is inherently tribal and will always seek ways to make ingroups and outgroups. Therefore, in the long run, for the majority, it is better to be a member of a strong and dominant ingroup and ensure its continued dominance, rather than a weaker outgroup?
What is the 'moral equivalent to war' that William James talks about? To use your example of a war-movie cinema experience, watching porn is not the same as having sex. What are the best things that military and civilian people can do to stimulate the thirst for war, without entailing the destructive consequences?
Be honest, all this analysis of third world tribes so giving of their 'cultural nouse' is a one way street and comes from a liberal western-centric perceptive that has no purchase in the cultures that you purport we can learn from. Obama said in Egypt that America and the west uniquely and openly admit its faults and change...can they?
What kind of things give us an other group to compete with in a way that doesn't fracture or even bring together society?