Ethics of surveillance / Prime Directive issues


Off-Topic Discussions


Is this OK? Seems paternalistic at best.


The road to hell is paved with good intentions


Alternative 1: Go in and contact them.
Alternative 2: Don't pay attention to where they are and what they're doing and run into them accidentally.

As a side note, the article annoys me because it seems at first glance that the photo is supposed to be one of the satellite images they're using, when there's no way a satellite can get that kind of detail. Not to mention the "uncontacted" villagers seem to be staring up at the camera.


So, already contacted then.


Or at least the particular group pictured. The satellite images can tell where other unknown villages are and they can then decide whether to contact or not, rather than blunder about.

But my irritationwas really more about the implication that satellites can get that kind of detail.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Not sure if it's paternalistic, but it's certainly a bit voyeuristic. On second thought, the paternalistic bit would be about "improving their chances for long-term survival." I think it's a bit misguided to try to preserve these cultures. If their culture matters enough to them, it will survive contact with global civilization; if it doesn't, it won't. If these people asked for help, it would be a different matter, but it's possible they'd rather just be left alone.


jocundthejolly wrote:

Is this OK? Seems paternalistic at best.

What do you recommend as an alternative?

Charlie Bell wrote:


If these people asked for help, it would be a different matter, but it's possible they'd rather just be left alone.

How to you plan to "leave them alone" if you don't even know where they are?


Charlie Bell wrote:
Not sure if it's paternalistic, but it's certainly a bit voyeuristic. On second thought, the paternalistic bit would be about "improving their chances for long-term survival." I think it's a bit misguided to try to preserve these cultures. If their culture matters enough to them, it will survive contact with global civilization; if it doesn't, it won't. If these people asked for help, it would be a different matter, but it's possible they'd rather just be left alone.

Hundreds of years of evidence suggests that primitive isolated cultures do not survive contact with more technologically advanced civilizations. By the time they grasp the larger culture enough to make an informed choice, it's too late. Many descendents of such cultures regret the loss and try to recover shards of what was lost.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Hundreds of years of evidence suggests that primitive isolated cultures do not survive contact with more technologically advanced civilizations. By the time they grasp the larger culture enough to make an informed choice, it's too late. Many descendents of such cultures regret the loss and try to recover shards of what was lost.

IMO, that's just the way of the world, and it's neither good nor bad. It usually just happens that way. I'm no anthropologist, but the fact is, you can't interact with these cultures without some exchange, contamination if you will, occurring. Archaeology is a "destructive" science in a similar way: you can't excavate a site to learn more about it without radically altering it from its preserved state.

I think it's as misguided to try to impose some external standard of cultural isolation/preservation on these folks as it would be to try to impose any other kind of cultural standard on them (like making them wear clothes, for instance). Just interact with them like human beings, or don't if they don't want you to; but don't treat them like chimps in a lab.


Is this approach treating them like chimps in a lab? It seems to me the point is to keep an eye on them so they can be left alone. So development doesn't occur where they are. So logging doesn't happen in their area. Etc.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Although I've studied enough anthropology to know the perils of cultural contamination, it does seem - from an ethical perspective - that it would be nicer to at least give tribesfolk the option to refuse indoor plumbing and dentistry. On the other hand, it seems unethical to expose them to syphilis and Justin Bieber. What to do, what to do?


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Although I've studied enough anthropology to know the perils of cultural contamination, it does seem - from an ethical perspective - that it would be nicer to at least give tribesfolk the option to refuse indoor plumbing and dentistry. On the other hand, it seems unethical to expose them to syphilis and Justin Bieber. What to do, what to do?

Except there is no option. As I said before, by the time they can make an informed choice it's too late.

The Exchange

I know, I know. Attempts to force agriculture, Jehovah, and neckties on aborigines have been made for centuries and the only cases we hear about are those where it didn't completely take - because the descendants of the proud cultures who embraced those concepts are now working at Wal-Mart.

I'm just saying that it's an uncomfortable moral situation to watch a man dying at 35 of natural causes, when you're watching comfortably from an easy chair by way of a spy drone and a 42" LED TV.

The Exchange

So the next reality tv show will be an anthropological study of the orang abo (ash people) without their knowledge?

Episode four hundred and sixty seven: jubjub gets drunk on treesap wine and has sex with his sister fufu, meanwhile hukhuk and gukguk fight a giant snake...

It might be necessary to tool them up. Send in operative x who will teach them to make pottery, extract fibres from plants and make clothing...that way they can survive on the edge of the larger civilization.


No. They're not getting anything like that. They're getting "There's a village of about this size here, cultivating so many acres of food. Roughly x inhabitants. This may be the same community that used to be settled y miles east."

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
No. They're not getting anything like that. They're getting "There's a village of about this size here, cultivating so many acres of food. Roughly x inhabitants. This may be the same community that used to be settled y miles east."

Give it time. Capitalism is evil. If there is a dollar to be made from selling a spysat tv show about the daily lives of natives it will be exploited.

The Exchange

yellowdingo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
No. They're not getting anything like that. They're getting "There's a village of about this size here, cultivating so many acres of food. Roughly x inhabitants. This may be the same community that used to be settled y miles east."
Give it time. Capitalism is evil. If there is a dollar to be made from selling a spysat tv show about the daily lives of natives it will be exploited.

Humans are evil. someone will undoubtedly end their way of life "for their own good" first im sure

The Exchange

Andrew R wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
No. They're not getting anything like that. They're getting "There's a village of about this size here, cultivating so many acres of food. Roughly x inhabitants. This may be the same community that used to be settled y miles east."
Give it time. Capitalism is evil. If there is a dollar to be made from selling a spysat tv show about the daily lives of natives it will be exploited.
Humans are evil. someone will undoubtedly end their way of life "for their own good" first im sure

big news about string theory...at superposition all life is the same life. That means 'god' is going to be the human who takes the right to exist free from the rest.

The Exchange

Ive introduced a new twitter hashtag: #droneanthropology.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
Not sure if it's paternalistic, but it's certainly a bit voyeuristic. On second thought, the paternalistic bit would be about "improving their chances for long-term survival." I think it's a bit misguided to try to preserve these cultures. If their culture matters enough to them, it will survive contact with global civilization; if it doesn't, it won't. If these people asked for help, it would be a different matter, but it's possible they'd rather just be left alone.

Thing to keep in mind is that the region is in a state of intense development and exploitation. This might be the only thing that heads off unplanned contact between primal natives and loggers who don't give much priority to more abstract concerns.

It's not really a question of contact or no contact, but what the form of first contact will actually take.


I remember watching a film in the one anthropology course I ever took about an Amazonian people (IIRC, I might not) on whose lands something valuable was discovered (gold? again, it was a long time ago) and the tribe somehow organized and paid for a small fleet of Cessnas to patrol their lands and keep out interlopers.

I don't know why I thought of it; mainly because it had a bunch of dudes and dudettes half naked in loincloths with crazy facial piercings talking on radios, flying in airplanes and defending their land with rifles.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ethics of surveillance / Prime Directive issues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions