TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why do we allow primitive tribes to still exist ?

I think this is extremely uncivilized and inhumaneness that we still allow primitive tribes to exist in in the 21 century. Do we not help them under the pretext that '' they are happy that way'' ? But this would be the same as saying lets give candies to a baby and allow him to eat sugar as much as he likes because he is happy that way ? Or, lets allow babies to run around naked in the cold because he is happy that way ? Of course he is feeling happy, a uneducated baby doesn't care about illness and stuff like that. It is our responsibility to protect and educate our children right ? I see the same thing with the tribes. We should bring them to our cities and educate them, and if after that they still want to go back to the jungle and hunt fish, then it would be their freedom or choice. But i guarantee you they would not go back to the jungle, as they will be educated. It is our obligation as humans to bring them our of the primitive environment they are living in, and educate them, help them learn and become civilized, and only then they would have more tools of making decisions. I can't believe we are allowing primitive tribes to still exists.. This is like giving a birth a child and then leave it in the jungle and watch him grow because he LOOKS happy. What the hell ? This extremely inhumaneness act and should rethink our actions immediately.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 19 2012: Tisho, this is a pretty ignorant and also arrogant view of things.
    How can you know what makes anybody happy ? Bringing people who used to live with and in nature for their whole life into our high tech cities would certainly do more harm than good. Assuming they would be happy with such a change is a real stretch of imagination. Did it ever occur to you that such people might actually think that you are a representative of some primitive tribe ? Perhaps they find it completely incomprehensible that somebody could spend hours sitting on a couch slurping some cans of beer and watching TV instead of being surrounded by nature, hunting, fishing, enjoying the odors, sounds and views of the jungle.
    • Mar 19 2012: I don't know what makes anybody happy, but i know living in a constant fear of being eaten by a bear or bitten by a scorpion or a snake, hunting fish to survive, dying by a primitive decease that can be easily cured, is not a happy life. If a 12 year old child tells you '' im in love forever ! '' would you believe him ? Of course not, because he doesn't know what love is, its a primitive way of thinking. We used to live in the wild nature too, and then we slowly developed, and now we are on the right track. And we should help those who couldn't developed. Why do you think educating and giving knowledge and information about our surrounding to people will bring more harm than good ? Do you think it would be bad if we educate people and give them a start point in life ? It would be a chance to develop. Of course at first it would be a pain, thats for sure. But once they start learning about the reality and the environment and life and everything, life will become much easier. There is no basis to think that primitive tribes would think that i am representative of a primitive tribe. When it gets dark, i turn on my electricity that i build. When i got hungry, i cook food with my machines that i build. When i have problem, i solve it with my knowledge and information, and if i don't have enough, i can always get what i need. We go to space, we learn how to solve problems, we are developing with every day. I think it is very uncivilized for us to leave all the tribes and poor people and not help them. We are all humans and we should develop together. We should provide equal education to everybody in the world. Happiness would mean to have access to all the necessities in life you need. In the jungle, when you can't have something, you just learn to live without it and adopt to a such an environment. This is not happiness.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: You don't know about the wishes people in a primitive tribe might have. You can't look at it from your perspective and assume you know what the desire.
        It's like catching a bird and putting it into a golden cage, assuming that now it must be happier because it hasn't any predators to fear nor does it have to worry about food and water.
        You can give people choices (and even that has to be done carefully), but then everybody has to decide on his own.
        • Mar 20 2012: Are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are? I.e. they are aware that 'we' have cures for a lot of diseases that would otherwise kill them?

          Becuase I find the thought that 'we' decide that 'they just shouldn't be interfered with because the tribe is so cultural and amazing' repulsing. As if they're some different breed that just couldn't cut it with todays world. Yet you talk about a cage, what do you mean that they are in now?
        • Mar 21 2012: Like i said before, i don't and im not claiming that i know what people wish for. I am saying that their wishes are limited by their environment. They cannot improve, they cannot develop. They do not know what necessity is. They do not have any access to any necessities in life. They are being exposed to a primitive environment and therefore their wishes is also shaped by the environment.
          Like you said, we must give them a choice. We must educate them and then if they still want to go back to the jungle its their own choice. But first i think its our obligation as humans to show them the all the goods and possibilities of life. That is why i think.
      • Mar 20 2012: isn't nature the right track? taking into account that it is our way of life that endangered the environment and not theirs shouldn't we accept the fact that NOT DAMAGING YOUR HOME (the world) is a better track than damaging it?
        • Mar 21 2012: Im not sure how is this related to my question ? Please clarify your answer. In what way you think nature is the right track ? Right track for what ? It is true that our corporations and government are polluting the environment but that have nothing to do with my question.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2012: Pontus, as a matter of fact "civilization" actually brought a lot of diseases to primitive tribes that eventually became even extinct because of those diseases.
        Another example of the "good!" influence of civilization is what alcohol did to native American tribes.
        Who are we to tell anybody how they should live ?? Those tribes, wherever they might be are not locked up. They have choices. Actually they probably have more choices than, let's say, people of Cuba, North Korea or Iran just to name a few.
        • Mar 20 2012: Everything has pros and cons, but I think it's a great advantage to be aware of all of them and then make a decision. And are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?

          I'm not talking about telling anyone how to live, but to introduce the changes we've made over the years to reach the society we have now. With pros and cons. Then they have the information available and can make an educated decision how they would like to relate to it.

          And what's the point in mentioning a bunch of third-worldish countries?
        • Mar 21 2012: Yes, and the reason they couldn't cure them selves is because they don't have the tools and knowledge to do it. We have the medicine and technology to cure our selves from diseases, and it is our obligation to use our technology to help them.
          Who are we NOT to tell them how should they live ? We are not going to tell them, rather we should SHOW them. Teach them. Give them knowledge. And then they should decide on their own what to do, just like everyone of as is doing.
          What choices do they have now ? They don't even know that we can go to space. They don't even know that the earth is not flat. Please tell me what choices exactly do you think they have ? Their choices are shaped by their environment. What kind of choices would you have in a jungle ?
      • thumb
        Mar 21 2012: Tisho, if you'd never heard of the existence of cell phones, would you miss them ? Just because some things are indispensable for us (because we got used to them), doesn't mean others also need them.
        As a matter of fact, there are very few needs. Most things we think we need are actually things we want.
        What would be the point of introducing our way of living to people that are apparently living at least as happy as we do, following their way of living ?
        Do you think they miss something not knowing that we can go to the moon ? Do you think the care whether the earth is flat or not ? Their knowledge is reduced to the habitat they occupy.
        About diseases: as I said in another post, many diseases we know are actually unknown to indigenous people and only when they got in touch with civilization, these diseases caused havoc, because they had no immune system for them. It seems native tribes are in general healthier than our societies.
        Again, don't look at things from your perspective. You can't understand their way of life as much as you can't understand the life of mountain gorillas, lions or elephants. (unless you spend time living with them)
        Beside, assuming they are leading a happy life, why would you want to change they way they live ?
        • Mar 21 2012: The cell phone is not a necessity of life. It is only a benefit and advantage. Necessities of life would be all the things we need to survive and live a good life. A life without scarcity. A enjoyable life with all the benefits and advantages. Like for example, electricity, machines, energy, food, knowledge on how to solve a problem, information etc. All those things are unknown to them. You said it yourself - '' Their knowledge is reduced to the habitat they occupy. '' ! Exactly my point. Their values are shaped by the environment. They don't have access to the goods of life. They don't even know there is such ''access'' they don't even know there are such ''goods'' of life. I am talking about all the basics human needs and goods that we make possible to access because of our technologies and knowledge. They should have that too. If they see the feel the benefits and advantages i am sure they would want more.
          About the diseases, i am not a doctor and i don't have much knowledge of medicine, but i do know that the source of all the diseases are the viruses, and i do know that most viruses are in the jungles and such an environments. I can only assume a lot of the people living in the jungles die from a primitive diseases which we can easily cure.
          I don't think they are living a happy life. A life of scarcity and lack of access to all the necessities and goods of life is not a happy life. Would you be happy living in the cold without electricity and food ?
        • Mar 22 2012: If you learn about cellphones and can access them, you can make the decission if you'd like to have long-distance wireless communication or not. It's true that we need very little, food, water and heat, then we can sit in our own shit all life.

          The probelm is if you engage in prohibiting people from learning. You are using a position where you can observe them, but they can't observe you. Then you make decisions for them about their life. You are forcing them into a specific life. More to that later.

          Happiness is something we adapt to, I think there was a ted-talk a while ago about it. People who become paralyzed or loses a leg or something horrible like that are sad for some time, then they go back to their normal happiness.

          That people before 1800 didn't know about quantum mechanics, does this mean we should avoid it to preserve happiness? Of course not. Does it mean that we should hide it from others because we decide that they should be happier without it? Of course not, that would be silly. Yet you want people to play God in a similar fascion when it comes to tribes.

          When it comes to medicine, if you fall and land unfortunately, you can break your scaphoideum (or if it's the area of the hand) and that's both bad and dangerous. If you look at the amount of competence required to treat it (secretary, nurse, doctor, x-ray engineer, medical transport personel, etc.), it comes down to quite a lot of knowledge that we need, perhaps to survive. And that's all free from decease. Something that some countries considers rights. You are denying them the knowledge about the help available, such as medical treatment.

          I bet kleptomaniacs are happy sometimes, doesn't mean I want to waive it off as "that's just their way of living".

          But I guess it still comes down to; are you saying that most primitive tribes are fully aware of the alternatives that modern society would bring to their life, yet they make the choice to stay where they are?
      • Mar 21 2012: read your own stuff " We used to live in the wild nature too, and then we slowly developed, and now we are on the right track." that's what I mean by the right track... however if you still fail to see the connection then I think it is impossible for me to show it to you
        • Mar 21 2012: Yes, by that i meant that we are on the track of development. We are developing with every single day. We advance our technologies so fast that it would take all day reading news and you still wouldn't see all whats new today. All those technologies that benefit as and make our lives easier. Technologies that we make with our knowledge to eliminate the scarcity and bring us access to everything we need. I think this is the right track. And i think allowing primitive tribes to still exist is not right and we should feel obligated to give them our advantages and benefits of our technologies and development. There isn't a living creature that would choose to live in a scarcity without access to the necessities of his life, rather than have access to all the necessities and goods and benefits of life.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.