‘Uncontacted’ Amazon Tribe Members Are Reported Killed in Brazil(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
‘Uncontacted’ Amazon Tribe Members Are Reported Killed in Brazil
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/world/americas/brazil-amazon-tribe-killings.html
205 comments
One of my favorite poems, by the late great Gil Scott-Heron, "Whitey on the moon"
A rat done bit my sister Nell, with whitey on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY
I think it's obviously short-sighted to not budget for advancement, but it's important to remember this disparity exists.
A rat done bit my sister Nell, with whitey on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY
I think it's obviously short-sighted to not budget for advancement, but it's important to remember this disparity exists.
[deleted]
Consider if a really big disaster happens or total nuclear war etc., who have better chance to survive it, our modern civilization or some remote tribe in Amazon? And from that point of view a rover on Mars is not that impressive. If it will be a human colony there that can survive without Earth, then we are talking. But it requires a lot more advances and political will.
> our modern civilization or some remote tribe in Amazon?
They won't make it either. Nuclear war is a game ender. Also this has kinda already happened on a tiny scale, namely the British testing of weapons in the Australian Outback in the 50s and 60s. It wasn't very good for the natives:
"He said, 'We thought it was the spirit of our gods rising up to speak with us'," she said.
"[He said] 'then we saw the spirit had made all the kangaroos fall down on the ground as a gift to us of easy hunting so we took those kangaroos and we ate them and people were sick and then the spirit left'."
Mr Morgan is sharing his story, in his words, so it won't ever be forgotten.
"After the explosion the fallout went north," Mr Morgan said.
"Powder, white powder killed a lot of kangaroos [and] spinifex [grass]. Water was on fire, that's what we saw."
Mr Morgan said water "died" but that he and the two men he was with drank the water, even though it was still hot.
"The smoke went into our noses, and other people still have that poison today," he said.
"We all poisoned, in the heart, in the blood and other people that were much closer they didn't live very long, they died, a whole lot of them."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/aboriginal-mans-story-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maral...
They won't make it either. Nuclear war is a game ender. Also this has kinda already happened on a tiny scale, namely the British testing of weapons in the Australian Outback in the 50s and 60s. It wasn't very good for the natives:
"He said, 'We thought it was the spirit of our gods rising up to speak with us'," she said.
"[He said] 'then we saw the spirit had made all the kangaroos fall down on the ground as a gift to us of easy hunting so we took those kangaroos and we ate them and people were sick and then the spirit left'."
Mr Morgan is sharing his story, in his words, so it won't ever be forgotten.
"After the explosion the fallout went north," Mr Morgan said.
"Powder, white powder killed a lot of kangaroos [and] spinifex [grass]. Water was on fire, that's what we saw."
Mr Morgan said water "died" but that he and the two men he was with drank the water, even though it was still hot.
"The smoke went into our noses, and other people still have that poison today," he said.
"We all poisoned, in the heart, in the blood and other people that were much closer they didn't live very long, they died, a whole lot of them."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-07/aboriginal-mans-story-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maral...
at the end of the day life is not about being impressive. life is about living. and I have not doubt those tribes are happier than 90% of the people belonging to advanced civilizations.
> I have not doubt those tribes are happier than 90% of the people belonging to advanced civilizations.
I have just spent a year in 16 countries in West Africa.
On the whole, people here are extremely happy / content / friendly.
In all honesty, they make Canadians look unfriendly and unhappy.
I know you strongly believe everything we have invented in the modern world makes us happier (almost everyone does) You really, really, REALLY need to see with you own eyes, not just listen to what you have been told.
I have just spent a year in 16 countries in West Africa.
On the whole, people here are extremely happy / content / friendly.
In all honesty, they make Canadians look unfriendly and unhappy.
I know you strongly believe everything we have invented in the modern world makes us happier (almost everyone does) You really, really, REALLY need to see with you own eyes, not just listen to what you have been told.
I personally am much happier than I would be as a hunter-gatherer.
Your mistake is thinking the alternative to the life you have now is 'hunter-gatherer'.
Hundreds of millions of people live with a lot less technology and stuff that you, are extremely happy, and are not hunter-gatherers.
Hundreds of millions of people live with a lot less technology and stuff that you, are extremely happy, and are not hunter-gatherers.
The article in question concerns an "uncontacted" Amazon tribe, and these discussions usually lead to paeans to the pre-agricultural life. I'm sorry if I jumped to conclusions.
On the other hand, the Symbicort I inhale daily to avoid COPD (and the emergency room treatments I received when I was younger) are pretty high tech.
On the other hand, the Symbicort I inhale daily to avoid COPD (and the emergency room treatments I received when I was younger) are pretty high tech.
No, really.
My eyesight is very crappy and I have spent some asthma related evenings in the emergency room. Assuming I survived infancy, I would not have survived to adulthood and I wouldn't have enjoyed the process.
My eyesight is very crappy and I have spent some asthma related evenings in the emergency room. Assuming I survived infancy, I would not have survived to adulthood and I wouldn't have enjoyed the process.
The OP would argue that we know myopia is chiefly caused by childhood visual experience and that Hygiene Hypothesis may explain asthma, which is definitely exacerbated by air pollution.
IMHO, however, people who talk about how happy people are in subsistence and developing societies haven't actually spent much time in them.
IMHO, however, people who talk about how happy people are in subsistence and developing societies haven't actually spent much time in them.
> I know you strongly believe everything we have invented in the modern world makes us happier
It also raises our threshold for happiness in the long term, and we spend more and more of our time working to sustain that. It's kind of like a never ending drug addiction. I'm not surprised to hear people living simpler lives appear happier.
It also raises our threshold for happiness in the long term, and we spend more and more of our time working to sustain that. It's kind of like a never ending drug addiction. I'm not surprised to hear people living simpler lives appear happier.
@grecy you seem to have reversed the meaning of the parent post. You are strongly agreeing with the parent.
Happiness wasn't invented in the last decade of the 20th century... or at any arbitrary point in the development of civilization.
Pretty much any time things aren't just horrible and desperate, people are more than capable of being happy. People are very adaptable in that regard.
The other thing we tend to do as human beings is tell ourselves that people who are better off can't be (that much) happier. Or people who are better off convincing themselves that because their lives aren't perfect that all circumstances are essentially the same as far as happiness goes and that people with less or who are living closer to the edge are actually happier than they are.
There's a wide range of circumstances people can live with and still find happiness. Very few of us have a hard requirement of being on the very top rung of the ladder to be happy. And there's no particular rung on the ladder where happiness becomes possible.
Pretty much any time things aren't just horrible and desperate, people are more than capable of being happy. People are very adaptable in that regard.
The other thing we tend to do as human beings is tell ourselves that people who are better off can't be (that much) happier. Or people who are better off convincing themselves that because their lives aren't perfect that all circumstances are essentially the same as far as happiness goes and that people with less or who are living closer to the edge are actually happier than they are.
There's a wide range of circumstances people can live with and still find happiness. Very few of us have a hard requirement of being on the very top rung of the ladder to be happy. And there's no particular rung on the ladder where happiness becomes possible.
Which countries or regions did you find the most happy and friendly? I'd love to hear about your experiences.
I mean, there are happy people in every region of every country. Very happy people in Togo, in Gabon, in Congo. But that just might be because I connected with them. Also Burkina Faso. Ahh, there are so many.
Lots of details on my site if you want to know more theroadchoseme.com
While I agree it's a possibility, let's be careful not to fall in to the noble/happy savage trap.
the noble/happy trap is closer to reality than the primitive/pitiable trap.
Based on what objective measurement?
Happiness does not change much as long you can meet the basic needs for food / water / safety. So, the general assumption that people are about as happy works across a huge range of lifestyles.
On the other hand primitive lifestyles have significantly shorter lifespans which is objectively an issue.
Happiness does not change much as long you can meet the basic needs for food / water / safety. So, the general assumption that people are about as happy works across a huge range of lifestyles.
On the other hand primitive lifestyles have significantly shorter lifespans which is objectively an issue.
Not necessarily, happiness (in a meaning of long lasting sense of personal satisfaction) is mainly about meeting the expectations (yours, of your family, peers, etc.). IMHO it primarily depends on to whom you choose to compare yourself. People in isolated environments have less peer competition and much lower expectations as everyone they know about is living the same way. If you and everyone you know expect to die at age 40, then it's merely a fact of life, like dying at 80s is for us. You don't think of it as injustice as you;re not aware of any other way. If you are poor your whole life, just like everyone around you, you still can feel extremely accomplished and successful in life, if you manage to get just a few chickens or a goat or more children or whatever more than your neighbors. It's one of the evils of the Internet that now we all compare ourself with the richest and the most successful people world-wide, and not just from within our local communities as before. I know it makes me unhappy quite often. People who never been in civilization are probably more content with their lives, as what else could they wish for, other then what they already have? Of course, just statistically speaking of the whole population, each individual has it's own ups and downs and unique ways, jealousies and envies and everything...
There is actually a lot of happiness research so you don't need to stuck with gut feelings.
The most shocking difference from expectations is happiness tends toward a steady state even after major life changes such as winning the lottery. People in prison for example are often happier than you might assume as long as their personal safety is not at issue and they can socialize.
The most shocking difference from expectations is happiness tends toward a steady state even after major life changes such as winning the lottery. People in prison for example are often happier than you might assume as long as their personal safety is not at issue and they can socialize.
>Based on what objective measurement
Happiness is subjective, not objective.
>Happiness does not change much as long you can meet the basic needs for food / water / safety.
See Maslow's Hierarchy.
>On the other hand primitive lifestyles have significantly shorter lifespans which is objectively an issue.
What do you mean "objectively an issue"? One does not need to live a long life to live a fullfilling life. Many of these tribal socities have survived far longer than other civilized societies because they live in equilibrium with their environment.
Happiness is subjective, not objective.
>Happiness does not change much as long you can meet the basic needs for food / water / safety.
See Maslow's Hierarchy.
>On the other hand primitive lifestyles have significantly shorter lifespans which is objectively an issue.
What do you mean "objectively an issue"? One does not need to live a long life to live a fullfilling life. Many of these tribal socities have survived far longer than other civilized societies because they live in equilibrium with their environment.
Research disagrees, you can measure happiness of other people. Much like you can test for depression even if the difference is not subjectively obvious.
>Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
There are no objective biological tests for depression (or happiness), the psychiatric diagnosis relies exclusively on subjective observations (i.e. asking the person about their feelings).
>"psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests."
-Allen Frances
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances
The idea of happiness as a purely material objective phenomenon has been complicit in the exploitation and destruction of the Amazon and its inhabitants over the past centuries.
There are no objective biological tests for depression (or happiness), the psychiatric diagnosis relies exclusively on subjective observations (i.e. asking the person about their feelings).
>"psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests."
-Allen Frances
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances
The idea of happiness as a purely material objective phenomenon has been complicit in the exploitation and destruction of the Amazon and its inhabitants over the past centuries.
It's common to order blood tests when people show symptoms of depression. Hypothyroidism is the most common medical condition associated with depressive symptoms, but there are others.
Depression is considered when people have a null result on those tests, therefore there are physical tests for depression. Just not in the way testing is normally thought of.
Depression is considered when people have a null result on those tests, therefore there are physical tests for depression. Just not in the way testing is normally thought of.
Raise your hand if you wouldn't have survived childhood without modern technology. Yes, you there with the glasses, get your hand up.
based f.x. on suicide statistics and common sense.
measure your own well-being by spending a week programming vs spending a week in a hut in a forest.
measure your own well-being by spending a week programming vs spending a week in a hut in a forest.
I very much prefer a week programming so I don't think common sense has much to say. As to subside rates they are generally higher among tribes. However, it's been an enduring misconception that they are low.
Imagine a refined form of lobotomization were possible such that the individual who underwent the treatment would be reduced to an infantile level of IQ. They would retain sufficient intelligence to maintain basic hygiene and preservation, but little beyond that. However, it also resulted in the subject of said procedure receiving enormous pleasure engaging in simple repetitive tasks - such as, for instance, flipping burgers.
I would, in no way whatsoever, be interested in such a procedure and I think it's safe to say that applies to the vast majority. Thus, it must be presumed that the happiness of an individual or a group is not really a measurement of their 'fulfillment' even if it sounds like a reasonable premise in a vacuum.
I would, in no way whatsoever, be interested in such a procedure and I think it's safe to say that applies to the vast majority. Thus, it must be presumed that the happiness of an individual or a group is not really a measurement of their 'fulfillment' even if it sounds like a reasonable premise in a vacuum.
I'm reading 'The Fatal Shore' by Robert Hughes at the moment, it's description of the customs of one primitive tribe might lead you to question how happy the women are in those Amazon tribes.
Is an interesting question. The people in the former modern civilization would be probably better fitted for glaciation events and living in a changing environment. On the other hand the battlefield of a nuclear war would be most probably the north, making more difficult to survive the first months and to find safe (non poisoned) places at long term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island
> It is home to the Sentinelese who, often violently, reject any contact with the outside world, and are among the last people worldwide to remain virtually untouched by modern civilization. As such, only limited information about the island is known.
They are the control group. (And they live on Sentinel island! Get it?)
> It is home to the Sentinelese who, often violently, reject any contact with the outside world, and are among the last people worldwide to remain virtually untouched by modern civilization. As such, only limited information about the island is known.
They are the control group. (And they live on Sentinel island! Get it?)
[deleted]
It is also a little scary.
Human civilization and progress associated with it is a function of continuity and inertia. And that requires all the right inputs . Else it is perfectly possible to keep going in infinite loops between the past and the current.
I remember reading somewhere the human race would be way more advanced had the hellenistic period continued.
War, politics, economics, social conditions, religions they have to be all perfect.
Human civilization and progress associated with it is a function of continuity and inertia. And that requires all the right inputs . Else it is perfectly possible to keep going in infinite loops between the past and the current.
I remember reading somewhere the human race would be way more advanced had the hellenistic period continued.
War, politics, economics, social conditions, religions they have to be all perfect.
>I remember reading somewhere the human race would be way more advanced had the hellenistic period continued.
I find those claims unconvincing. You can't just look at all the ups and downs in human social and technological development, pick and arbitrary upswing way back in the past, then project a continuous upward slope from that and pretend it was a realistic possibility.
Individual technological achievements that long ago were a fine thing, but as you say yourself a lot of different factors and technologies and situational chances have to come together to reach the industrial age. Maybe a few extra nudges in the right direction here and there in history might have helped things along a bit, but realistically it was still going to take a very long time for all the different pieces to come together.
I find those claims unconvincing. You can't just look at all the ups and downs in human social and technological development, pick and arbitrary upswing way back in the past, then project a continuous upward slope from that and pretend it was a realistic possibility.
Individual technological achievements that long ago were a fine thing, but as you say yourself a lot of different factors and technologies and situational chances have to come together to reach the industrial age. Maybe a few extra nudges in the right direction here and there in history might have helped things along a bit, but realistically it was still going to take a very long time for all the different pieces to come together.
It wasn't an arbitrary upswing. Hellenistic period lasted a good 300 years, and there was a decent prelude to it. Note the civilizations that came after it, although great in their own right. Including the Roman civilization had its own goals(Territorial expansion, cities, entertainment, Urban living etc etc).
Now to give you another example as to how things could reverse and take forever to recover. Take a look at USSR and its space program. They were once in race to putting man on the moon and sending probes to Venus. Today? Not really that ahead of the pack.
NASA on the other hand, has had relatively a lot more success. But a lot could change if there is some unanticipated political or economic crisis that could set back US as a country. Of course a new country will likely replace it, but the end and start points won't be exactly the same.
The point being you need continuity and need to keep the inertia going to achieve stellar growth.
Now to give you another example as to how things could reverse and take forever to recover. Take a look at USSR and its space program. They were once in race to putting man on the moon and sending probes to Venus. Today? Not really that ahead of the pack.
NASA on the other hand, has had relatively a lot more success. But a lot could change if there is some unanticipated political or economic crisis that could set back US as a country. Of course a new country will likely replace it, but the end and start points won't be exactly the same.
The point being you need continuity and need to keep the inertia going to achieve stellar growth.
Doesn't NASA use Russian rockets to actually get to space?
I can't put into words how ashamed I am as a Brazilian.
Our country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Our country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Your countrymen are just playing catch-up, on top of what the European colonialists did for centuries.
And not just "settlers" and miners acting on their own - but acting on the direct behalf of, and and funded by their local governments:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/revealing-the-history-of-ge...
And not just "settlers" and miners acting on their own - but acting on the direct behalf of, and and funded by their local governments:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/revealing-the-history-of-ge...
They're catching up to where Europe was 200 years ago? Kind of insulting to Brazilians, don't you think?
I actually meant it more in this vein: "Given that the current descent into barbarbarism -- enacted by an outlier minority of their population, in one tiny corner of their country -- is still but a tiny fraction of what the Europeans, Arabs and their local proxies did, and much more as a popular and broadly-supported effort across pretty much the entire globe, across literally tens of generations, from about 500 until about 50 years ago -- as a people and a culture they aren't looking so bad."
Barbaric and shameful though it is.
Barbaric and shameful though it is.
Nah, it's not going anywhere.
Oh well, there goes potentially thousands of years worth of medical knowledge, linguistic insight, etc.
> thousands of years worth of medical knowledge
If that can somewhat reassure you, most of the "traditional medicines" once tested in proper clinical trials, are just about the same as placebo. I'm not saying all, but a good majority. And people used to die from simple infections way more before we had modern medicine with antibiotics and the like, so I'd rather count on modern medicine any day for discoveries and treatments.
If that can somewhat reassure you, most of the "traditional medicines" once tested in proper clinical trials, are just about the same as placebo. I'm not saying all, but a good majority. And people used to die from simple infections way more before we had modern medicine with antibiotics and the like, so I'd rather count on modern medicine any day for discoveries and treatments.
Most might be ineffective. But it only takes one effective one.
That is not the point.
Staying in the jungle for a few thousand years leads you to optimize locally sourced flora and fauna to amazing levels to solve a range of medical conditions. That could be helpful to a lot of people in many social and financial conditions.
Staying in the jungle for a few thousand years leads you to optimize locally sourced flora and fauna to amazing levels to solve a range of medical conditions. That could be helpful to a lot of people in many social and financial conditions.
> Staying in the jungle for a few thousand years leads you to optimize locally sourced flora and fauna to amazing levels to solve a range of medical conditions.
Do you have a source to back that up?
Do you have a source to back that up?
Source is thousands of years of human civilization before the industrial revolution.
We weren't always taking asthma inhalers from Walgreen for the several thousands of years of our existence on this planet.
We weren't always taking asthma inhalers from Walgreen for the several thousands of years of our existence on this planet.
That's a specifically auto-immune issue, which has more to do with growing up in a mostly-sterile environment than with the loss of any ancient medical knowledge.
Do you have a source to rule it out ??
That is not how an argument work. It's much harder (to the point of impossibility most often) to prove a negative, the burden of the claim always lies with the claimer.
From what I recall the big issue is that tribal medical conditions are usually for things like parasites. Not for the sort of first world diseases we're looking for.
The only exception is diabetes, because that's easy to spot by looking for sugar in urine.
The only exception is diabetes, because that's easy to spot by looking for sugar in urine.
that's not true. Look around you. Turmeric for eg a "traditional medicine" coming flying through in most clinical trials. At least lot better then artificially high sample size to show some kind of statistical significance. This is just one example there are thousands more like these.
Perhaps the reason they're running around in loincloths in the year 2017 is because they don't prioritize 'knowledge' and 'insight' the way we do?
If these are similar to other "uncontacted" tribes I've read about, they seem to react quite violently/aggressively when confronted (it doesn't matter if it's a reaction to fear... if someone's shooting arrows at you first and asking questions later and you have a gun... most people are going to return fire), so if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.
The ridiculous thing is that they were allowed to go there in the first place. It's relatively common knowledge that these tribes are extremely hostile to outsiders and should be left alone, allowing gold mining there is basically signing their death warrants.
If these are similar to other "uncontacted" tribes I've read about, they seem to react quite violently/aggressively when confronted
As you would do, if a bunch of assholes started encroaching on your ancestral property.
So if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.
No -- what they needed to do was just GTFO out of there, being as they clearly had no business being in those areas in first place. Paycheck, or "boss's orders" be damned.
As you would do, if a bunch of assholes started encroaching on your ancestral property.
So if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.
No -- what they needed to do was just GTFO out of there, being as they clearly had no business being in those areas in first place. Paycheck, or "boss's orders" be damned.
Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you. If the bank or government forecloses on my mother's house, I can shoot whoever comes to take ownership?
If the bank or government forecloses on my mother's house, I can shoot whoever comes to take ownership?
That's clearly not a relevant analogy.
Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you.
Look, it was the person above me who was saying, basically, that it was the miners' violence against the tribespeople that was "acceptable" (paraphrasing, but that's what they basically said). So perhaps you should take up this line of discussion with them, instead.
All I'm saying is - if you knowingly invade territory known to be inhabited by an "uncontacted" community -- that is to say: by definition, a fully sovereign community, and not bound by any treaties with your own government -- and you don't expect the same kind of response (i.e. violent) any self-respecting community would make when not just their land, but their very survival comes under direct attack -- then at the very least, you're pretty damn naive.
And on top of that, it becomes really, really hard to see why you might deserve any sympathy.
That's clearly not a relevant analogy.
Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you.
Look, it was the person above me who was saying, basically, that it was the miners' violence against the tribespeople that was "acceptable" (paraphrasing, but that's what they basically said). So perhaps you should take up this line of discussion with them, instead.
All I'm saying is - if you knowingly invade territory known to be inhabited by an "uncontacted" community -- that is to say: by definition, a fully sovereign community, and not bound by any treaties with your own government -- and you don't expect the same kind of response (i.e. violent) any self-respecting community would make when not just their land, but their very survival comes under direct attack -- then at the very least, you're pretty damn naive.
And on top of that, it becomes really, really hard to see why you might deserve any sympathy.
What if they did expect a response, and then simply answered violence with violence?
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.
In deciding to encroach upon those tribal properties (and hence, implicitly threatening the long-term physical survival of the people currently living there), clearly it's the miners who initiated violence, in this case.
Trespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you?
That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
Trespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you?
You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.
But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.
Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.
You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.
But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.
Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.
Should we not defend against military invasions? There is no neutral arbiter in these cases.
Their self-defense claim is one thing, but it's a whole other thing to brag about it, claim to have a trophy and to have desecrated the bodies.
Could be a rationalization to cope with the trauma/horror of having killed someone, similar to "inappropriate" wartime or gallows humor; depersonalizing your victim is one way to avoid the full guilt of what you did and is a common psychological coping mechanism (that's not saying it's good...)
I admire your dedication to the principle of charity
I was a Psych major. Apparently the essence of what it taught me was "empathy for others" and "intolerance for bullshit" :) I am now seemingly surrounded by the un-empathetic (and the uncritical-thinking...)
Probably the one piece of information that would make one more empathetic is reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias#Fundamental_a...
Probably the one piece of information that would make one more empathetic is reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias#Fundamental_a...
> I am now seemingly surrounded by the un-empathetic (and the uncritical-thinking...)
Then you cite fundamental attribution error...
Perhaps what's really happening is other are recognizing that the statement "it was kill or be killed" is not enough to determine what exactly happened, and does not necessarily mean the miners were attacked.
Even if the miners were attacked and had to kill in self-defense the other claims would still be crimes. If they were a "psychological coping mechanism", that would not absolve guilt, but only be relevant for determining punishment.
Then you cite fundamental attribution error...
Perhaps what's really happening is other are recognizing that the statement "it was kill or be killed" is not enough to determine what exactly happened, and does not necessarily mean the miners were attacked.
Even if the miners were attacked and had to kill in self-defense the other claims would still be crimes. If they were a "psychological coping mechanism", that would not absolve guilt, but only be relevant for determining punishment.
you've never been (or perhaps don't know the culture) in Brazil. Had you been you might recognize this for what it was most likely was - murder.
So 10 people were killed and possibly loads of culture destroyed because people wanted more shiny rocks. It goes to show that as advanced as we think we as modern humans are we are pretty damn primitive.
> we as modern humans
Most humans had literally nothing to do with this.
Most humans had literally nothing to do with this.
> Most humans had literally nothing to do with this.
It's impossible to apply effective collective guilt and to properly human-bash, if the "we" isn't used, that's why it is so frequently invoked that way. They know that the extreme majority of people had nothing to do with it when they use that phrasing, it doesn't have any captivation what-so-ever if you say: an extraordinarily small number of people out of seven billion are/were the problem/cause. It applies similarly to nearly every popular topic of human bashing, from animal cruelty to war (just as when people say their faith in humanity has been restored because of the act of one person, they're making a similar intentional error of collective application).
It's impossible to apply effective collective guilt and to properly human-bash, if the "we" isn't used, that's why it is so frequently invoked that way. They know that the extreme majority of people had nothing to do with it when they use that phrasing, it doesn't have any captivation what-so-ever if you say: an extraordinarily small number of people out of seven billion are/were the problem/cause. It applies similarly to nearly every popular topic of human bashing, from animal cruelty to war (just as when people say their faith in humanity has been restored because of the act of one person, they're making a similar intentional error of collective application).
> just as when people say their faith in humanity has been restored
I don't find that convincing at all though.
I don't find that convincing at all though.
True and the peaceable majority are irrelevant.
Well, one could argue that collectively we've created (or at least allowed to exist) the conditions for this to happen.
What happened was a crime. What are we as a collective supposed to do? Routinely exterminate criminals? Develop pre-crime police units? Build a large well-monitored wall around protected areas? What is the big insight that we as as a collective are supposed to learn from the supposed collective guilt?
There's literally a very small amount of people responsible for this atrocity and I hope they serve adequate sentences in prison for their crimes.
There's literally a very small amount of people responsible for this atrocity and I hope they serve adequate sentences in prison for their crimes.
We as humans set the larger context for greed and the use of force to achieve that greed. We don't need those trees in the ever expanding amount of forest we cut down, but we can trade money for it, and thus the present robs from the future in the same way it robs those villagers of their life.
When a child gets run over by a car, all of society is at fault for valuing the driver, car and road over everything else. Self driving cars or better traffic design is simply an optimization and not a re-examination of the underlying contract.
When a child gets run over by a car, all of society is at fault for valuing the driver, car and road over everything else. Self driving cars or better traffic design is simply an optimization and not a re-examination of the underlying contract.
We as a collective think we're so wise and helpful by discussing how guilty we are in a mostly tech-oriented message board.
> What are we as a collective supposed to do? Routinely exterminate criminals?
There are a zillion ways to reduce crime in a more friendly manner. I'm not an expert but what comes to mind are reducing the incentive to engage in criminal activity in the first place (economic factors could be at play), proper education, social projects, gun control, early psychopathological diagnosis, ...
There are a zillion ways to reduce crime in a more friendly manner. I'm not an expert but what comes to mind are reducing the incentive to engage in criminal activity in the first place (economic factors could be at play), proper education, social projects, gun control, early psychopathological diagnosis, ...
Humans, the salt of the earth.
It's worth noting that in the original context, humans aren't the salt of the Earth.
I saw that as Amazon Prime members...
The level of ignorance and /r/iamverysmart-worthy pontificating that's on display in this thread is truly embarrassing.
Worse than embarrassing, it's the embodiment of banal evil; because it's precisely this ignorance and blitheness that's enabling the atrocities that continue to go on in South America.
For Christ's sake, people, travel -- or read a damn book at the very least before sharing such ill-founded opinions.
Except for rare uncontacted tribes, South American natives are actual people you can meet and talk to. Ask them yourself why they choose not to join our wonderful shiny way of life.
Worse than embarrassing, it's the embodiment of banal evil; because it's precisely this ignorance and blitheness that's enabling the atrocities that continue to go on in South America.
For Christ's sake, people, travel -- or read a damn book at the very least before sharing such ill-founded opinions.
Except for rare uncontacted tribes, South American natives are actual people you can meet and talk to. Ask them yourself why they choose not to join our wonderful shiny way of life.
Gee mister, I sure hope that I can be as smart as you one day!
This makes my heart ache so much that I can hardly bear to read it. I also feel like I detect a note of insecurity in many of the comments - it's as if the idea that our modern lifestyle and its impacts may be problematic and or in some aspects inferior to pre-modern ways of living is somehow threatening, and must therefore be rejected. I think it's massively ignorant and brutish to view earlier civilisations with such contempt, and collectively suicidal for humanity for us to carry on regardless when the Earth seems to be giving us plenty of signs that we are heading for disaster unless we change.
Topical, I watched a movie last night that covers a lot of the things you mentioned - Lost City Of Z http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212428 it didn't get great ratings but was good, cinematic and thoughtful imho
Cheers for the tip, looks right up my street and is on Netflix
If you're interested in the idea that primitive people had something there you should read the unabombers manifesto
Mikeb85(1)
Why is this article considered worthy of being posted on "Hacker News?" I fail to understand how this is at all relevant to "Hackers."
Innocent until proven guilty. Gotta love this paragraph: “There is a lot of evidence, but it needs to be proven,” she said.
What's the evidence?
What's the evidence?
> What's the evidence?
You quoted the article, so I assume you read it. It states that "… the gold miners went to a bar in a near the border with Colombia, and bragged about the killings." Also, that "[t]he indigenous affairs bureau conducted some initial interviews in the town…"
In this case, the evidence appears to be a report of public acknowledgement of the crime and statements given in private interviews.
Perhaps you were asking about the content of the interviews, but you didn't specify.
You quoted the article, so I assume you read it. It states that "… the gold miners went to a bar in a near the border with Colombia, and bragged about the killings." Also, that "[t]he indigenous affairs bureau conducted some initial interviews in the town…"
In this case, the evidence appears to be a report of public acknowledgement of the crime and statements given in private interviews.
Perhaps you were asking about the content of the interviews, but you didn't specify.
That's not evidence. Hearsay most likely. Definitely suspicious.
I could walk into a bar tell everyone I killed someone and boast about it. I may become a suspect or person of interest to the police, but they're gonna have an awfully hard time pinning me with murder based on purely bar talk. Now if the police have bodies or weapons etc. then this is a different story.
OTOH who knows how rigorous the Brazilian court system is...
I could walk into a bar tell everyone I killed someone and boast about it. I may become a suspect or person of interest to the police, but they're gonna have an awfully hard time pinning me with murder based on purely bar talk. Now if the police have bodies or weapons etc. then this is a different story.
OTOH who knows how rigorous the Brazilian court system is...
No idea what Brazilian law is regarding hearsay or even if they have a rule disallowing it, but at least in the US, this instance of hearsay would be allowed as evidence in court under the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule.
They also said that they had to either kill or be killed. Which you conveniently omitted. And given everything I've read about many of these tribes, they will not hesitate to fire arrows at you even if you're a futuristic helicopter hovering 300 feet above them simply observing
Ah, seems like an open and shut case. Some drunk braggarts combined with some loose talk around town. I'm convinced!
Innocent until proven guilty.
This is a principle of the US criminal justice system not a law of newspaper reporting and/or nature.
This is a principle of the US criminal justice system not a law of newspaper reporting and/or nature.
It's a principle of the US criminal justice system that is derived from a moral intuition of justice. I hate seeing the US policy discarded because it's "irrelevant" to the context. The basis of the law is a moral issue that is always relevant. If murder wasn't illegal it'd still be wrong.
If you want to disagree with the moral principle, go ahead (but I suspect you'll sound like a tyrant).
If you want to disagree with the moral principle, go ahead (but I suspect you'll sound like a tyrant).
Morality, morality morality, right, wrong, good, evil, bla bla bla... oh and if you disagree with me you should be shamed and ridiculed.
This is just an appeal to the mob to punish those that have a different value system then you. It works because there are enough people in the mob that agree with you that they know the absolute sense of what right and wrong is, that they all will punish those that don't share the same belief system, and praise you for sharing theirs.
So you get that tiny instinctual reward because you have shown yourself to be a valued member of the crowd through upvotes. And you'll also get an instinctual reward due to the sense of power, because those that oppose you are punished get downvoted to oblivion. This completes the circle, and keeps the mob mentality self sustaining. However, no intellectual progress comes out of it, and in fact it makes everyone dumber by rewarding only those who praise the mob.
This is just an appeal to the mob to punish those that have a different value system then you. It works because there are enough people in the mob that agree with you that they know the absolute sense of what right and wrong is, that they all will punish those that don't share the same belief system, and praise you for sharing theirs.
So you get that tiny instinctual reward because you have shown yourself to be a valued member of the crowd through upvotes. And you'll also get an instinctual reward due to the sense of power, because those that oppose you are punished get downvoted to oblivion. This completes the circle, and keeps the mob mentality self sustaining. However, no intellectual progress comes out of it, and in fact it makes everyone dumber by rewarding only those who praise the mob.
Wonderfully worded, thank you.
[deleted]
The alternative is to live in a world where a few "strong men"/alpha males dominate over many people through fear and intimidation. I can't say one system is inherently more moral than the other but it does seem obvious which system is better for the average person
There are two factors that go into "innocent until proven guilty". One is basic reasoning: if you only know that a crime was committed, anyone is just as likely to have done it, so you need evidence to find the perpetrator. The other is the idea that it's worse to punish someone innocent than to let the guilty go unpunished.
The second part is quite interesting, because it would be suboptimal for rational agents. If humans were rational decision makers, the reaction to a crime should be chosen to balance out the damage, so that nobody can derive a benefit from criminal behavior. Then failure to punish would be equally severe as unjust punishment, and everyone should be treated according to their probability of guilt.
However, humans react much more strongly to losing something they already have than to not gaining it in the first place. So if you have a fine of $10,000 to distribute among 100 people with 1% probability of guilt, they will complain much more about the $100 they have to pay than when nobody pays anything, which means that one of them gets away with whatever crime deserved the $10,000 in the first place.
If the situation is different, e.g. when you are just deciding whether to write an article about some as yet unproven allegation, the same considerations don't necessarily apply. That doesn't make the general principle completely irrelevant, but it does mean that your standard of proof doesn't have to be quite as strict.
The second part is quite interesting, because it would be suboptimal for rational agents. If humans were rational decision makers, the reaction to a crime should be chosen to balance out the damage, so that nobody can derive a benefit from criminal behavior. Then failure to punish would be equally severe as unjust punishment, and everyone should be treated according to their probability of guilt.
However, humans react much more strongly to losing something they already have than to not gaining it in the first place. So if you have a fine of $10,000 to distribute among 100 people with 1% probability of guilt, they will complain much more about the $100 they have to pay than when nobody pays anything, which means that one of them gets away with whatever crime deserved the $10,000 in the first place.
If the situation is different, e.g. when you are just deciding whether to write an article about some as yet unproven allegation, the same considerations don't necessarily apply. That doesn't make the general principle completely irrelevant, but it does mean that your standard of proof doesn't have to be quite as strict.
> If humans were rational decision makers, the reaction to a crime should be chosen to balance out the damage, so that nobody can derive a benefit from criminal behavior
Your example doesn't follow from this. In your example 99 innocent people are losing $100 because of a crime they didn't commit, and the perpetrator is making $9900 from their crime. So the perpetrator definitely still has profits from the crime if the punishment is spread out over multiple people.
Your example doesn't follow from this. In your example 99 innocent people are losing $100 because of a crime they didn't commit, and the perpetrator is making $9900 from their crime. So the perpetrator definitely still has profits from the crime if the punishment is spread out over multiple people.
Thanks for noticing that, I should have actually done the math instead of just relying on my intuition. Now I wonder what the actual optimal punishment strategy is.
is derived from a moral intuition of justice
Sort of. It's a technical detail of US criminal justice. If it was some moral basis of all justice, you'd have to explain why civil justice is 'immoral'.
I hate seeing the US policy discarded because it's "irrelevant"
I don't think anyone did that - if anything, you're seem to be elevating something you're very familiar with to some sort of universal principle mainly on the basis of that familiarity. And anyone who disagrees is a tyrant, somehow?
We make all sorts of nuanced judgements, even about other people's criminality, all the time. Sure, it's best not to judge without basis or too hastily or uncharitably or you name it. But few things outside actual criminal trials require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. That would be silly and impractical. Many people, for instance, believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murder and they're neither immoral nor tyrants for thinking it. Trotting out 'innocent until proven guilty' is even weirder and less applicable as some sort of substitute for 'there's a thing in this newspaper article I don't like or agree with'. One can just say that instead of reciting some strident and inapplicable phrase.
Sort of. It's a technical detail of US criminal justice. If it was some moral basis of all justice, you'd have to explain why civil justice is 'immoral'.
I hate seeing the US policy discarded because it's "irrelevant"
I don't think anyone did that - if anything, you're seem to be elevating something you're very familiar with to some sort of universal principle mainly on the basis of that familiarity. And anyone who disagrees is a tyrant, somehow?
We make all sorts of nuanced judgements, even about other people's criminality, all the time. Sure, it's best not to judge without basis or too hastily or uncharitably or you name it. But few things outside actual criminal trials require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. That would be silly and impractical. Many people, for instance, believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murder and they're neither immoral nor tyrants for thinking it. Trotting out 'innocent until proven guilty' is even weirder and less applicable as some sort of substitute for 'there's a thing in this newspaper article I don't like or agree with'. One can just say that instead of reciting some strident and inapplicable phrase.
That's al well and good. Quite right. But that's a legal principle to be applied in a court of law, and also a principle applied and honoured int eh Brazilian courts. Nobody has been found guilty of anything yet. Everyone involved in this incident, if it even happened, is still a free person with protections under the law.
However there is prima fascia evidence a crime may have been committed and that is being reported and investigated.
What exactly, specifically about any of that is being objected to? I really can't tell. All I can see in criticism of the article is demagogic posturing.
However there is prima fascia evidence a crime may have been committed and that is being reported and investigated.
What exactly, specifically about any of that is being objected to? I really can't tell. All I can see in criticism of the article is demagogic posturing.
> It's a principle of the US criminal justice system that is derived from a moral intuition of justice.
Morals are about value systems. Moral intuition is a paradox, as there is a multitude of moral value systems. Innocent until proven guilty is an American ethical precept.
Morals are about value systems. Moral intuition is a paradox, as there is a multitude of moral value systems. Innocent until proven guilty is an American ethical precept.
> Innocent until proven guilty is an American ethical precept.
B-7, miss!
This concept predates Americans by a number of years; it certainly wasn't invented there. The idea can be traced to ancient Greek and was already applied by the Romans.
B-7, miss!
This concept predates Americans by a number of years; it certainly wasn't invented there. The idea can be traced to ancient Greek and was already applied by the Romans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
It's a Roman principle, not an American one.
It's a Roman principle, not an American one.
Innocent unless proven guilty.
Until until is normally how people treat a suspect rather than a mindset where it’s innocent unless proven guilty.
Until until is normally how people treat a suspect rather than a mindset where it’s innocent unless proven guilty.
Unless it involves Gitmo or drone assassinations.
jjawssd(1)
So we let the human zoo keep on running and are supprised they get murdered?
We refuse to supply them with medicine, technology and law and order and murders happen? Supprise supprise.
What a awful awful thing it is to leave them in the stone ages, and all the horrific things that happen in tribes, just for our entertainment.
OT There is a parellel here to possible libitarian utopias. Sure you are without government, but as such you have no protection.
If you piss off a country and they bomb you/stop you resupplying, you don't really have any recourse.
We refuse to supply them with medicine, technology and law and order and murders happen? Supprise supprise.
What a awful awful thing it is to leave them in the stone ages, and all the horrific things that happen in tribes, just for our entertainment.
OT There is a parellel here to possible libitarian utopias. Sure you are without government, but as such you have no protection.
If you piss off a country and they bomb you/stop you resupplying, you don't really have any recourse.
"What a awful awful thing it is to leave them in the stone ages, and all the horrific things that happen in tribes, just for our entertainment."
Contact usually hasn't been good for the health of many of these people.
Contact usually hasn't been good for the health of many of these people.
I'm better off than my parents who were better off than their parents etc for a while.
Sorry, it's called progress. We war less, we rape less, we murder less, we live longer.
And why this mythology than contact now is combiariable to contact 200+ years ago is beyond me.
Anyway, as the zoo keepers we gave a responsibility for our exibit.
We are possibly letting them down here. If we are going to keep them in the dark ages we need to step up.
Sorry, it's called progress. We war less, we rape less, we murder less, we live longer.
And why this mythology than contact now is combiariable to contact 200+ years ago is beyond me.
Anyway, as the zoo keepers we gave a responsibility for our exibit.
We are possibly letting them down here. If we are going to keep them in the dark ages we need to step up.
They don't want to, if they did they could have walked out of the forest at anytime.
You should go down there and help them out.
Even if it was efficient for myself to, it is not allowed to immunise them I believe? Anti-Vax to the max.
I could not for instance voluntarily give them a schooling level that is mother fucking compulsory in the USA?
And Europe of course, just picked USA cause it's very libertarian but STILL makes education compulsory.
I could not for instance voluntarily give them a schooling level that is mother fucking compulsory in the USA?
And Europe of course, just picked USA cause it's very libertarian but STILL makes education compulsory.
[deleted]
For a second, I thought there was a new product called Tribe from Amazon...
sillysaurus3(4)
> “There is a lot of evidence, but it needs to be proven,” she said.
This won't stop the pitchforks from coming out well before we have such evidence, especially given they were workers from a mining company and the already hostile political climate regarding the topic of tribes. But personally I'd rather wait until this is the case before forming an opinion...
> warned that given the small sizes of the uncontacted Amazon tribes, this latest episode could mean that a significant percentage of a remote ethnic group was wiped out.
If 10 people dying means a "significant percentage was wiped out" shows that they were already on the brink of extinction as it was. It's not clear from the article if that was an obvious consequence to the preptraitors involved or they knew it was a risk.
Either way hopefully it wasn't a case of disregard for human life, even if the tribe violently engaged them giving an exuse to use modern weaponry against them.
This won't stop the pitchforks from coming out well before we have such evidence, especially given they were workers from a mining company and the already hostile political climate regarding the topic of tribes. But personally I'd rather wait until this is the case before forming an opinion...
> warned that given the small sizes of the uncontacted Amazon tribes, this latest episode could mean that a significant percentage of a remote ethnic group was wiped out.
If 10 people dying means a "significant percentage was wiped out" shows that they were already on the brink of extinction as it was. It's not clear from the article if that was an obvious consequence to the preptraitors involved or they knew it was a risk.
Either way hopefully it wasn't a case of disregard for human life, even if the tribe violently engaged them giving an exuse to use modern weaponry against them.
Also this: With land disputes on the rise in many remote areas of Brazil, indigenous groups, rural workers and land activists have all been targeted by violence.
Not justifying alleged murder -- but looks to be a generally violent region and environment.
Not justifying alleged murder -- but looks to be a generally violent region and environment.
Gibson said it. The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.