Uncontacted Peoples

Post Reply New Topic

Christ almighty... and just when you think it can't get worse...

yea,but what i meant was that if there were uncontacted people we would know who and where they are.i have never heard of any undiscovered groups of people

there is nothing that is "universally abhorrent". the fact that you ascribe so much importance to your own values is an example of why i find humans to be self appointed moral arbitors of everything else in the universe. your opinions are not more important than the the natural evolution of elements in the universe.

your kind sees itself as having a god given authority to intervene with any aspect of nature that you disagree with.. you feel that your way is the only way, and if anything happens outside the realm of your approval, you feel justified in interjecting your own will because you have the i idea that you are are an omnipotent authority.

humans have desecrated the whole world because they feel more important than what they destroy. the amazon rainforest is severely compromised because humans say "the happiness of my family is more important than the preservation of what would exist without us".

people are infecting every pristine area of the earth. i saw a show the other day where the galapagos islands are being endangered by a tourism industry that is supposed to support the livelihood of it's 25,000 inhabitants.

people are taking over the world and imposing their moral creeds on it, and as a result, they are usurping pristine environments and destroying them with the "justification" that they are making a better economic outcome for their children. what makes their children more important than the animals who used to inhabit the regions that have been usurped and destroyed?

another show i saw was one where a community in australia developed into a rain forest region, and they built a school in an area where a huge colony of fruit bats (flying foxes) lived. immediately they became hostile to the bats because the smell of their excrement was very offensive to the kids who went to that school, and the kids were distracted from their education as a result. a decision was made to poison the bat colony to alleviate the "problem".

there were some "pro bat colony" activists who tried to protest, and on the show i saw, the anti bat parents of the kids at that school said things like "my daughter deserves an education!!. how can she learn when the stench of the bats causes her distress"?

my answer is to abandon that area and move somewhere else because the bats were there for maybe thousands of years, but humans will say "but we are more important than bats" . they will assert that bats are less important than their children, and they receive almost no resistance to their point of view. but humans dominate everywhere and those poor bats have to be extinguished because humans who moved into their domain dislike them.

it is the same in every place that (civilized) humans move into.

humans think they are the rulers of this planet and if they see something changing, they get involved to stop it.

like if a species of jelly fish suddenly becomes abundant in some area, humans assume that they are to blame and they then mount an assault on them to eliminate them.

girls reach puberty at about 11 years old, and in prehistory they would have been sexually active from that age, but in modernity it is seen as an abomination. if it was so deleterious that they were sexually active from that age, then humans would have died out.

if we discover a race of people who have sex at 12 years old and then prosecute them due to our own ideas of how the world should be, then we are interfering in the evolution of a race who we have no business in involving ourselves with.

they could only be unhappy if they were indoctrinated with the ways of the western world.


so if his happiness does not agree with your interpretation of happiness then he is misguided and in need to be indoctrinated as to the reasons that he should really feel unhappy?



no.maybe not. who are you to adjudicate what people who share nothing of your mindset may feel.




you believe your understanding of reality is superior to all other understandings if they do not match yours, and you seek to actively intervene as if you are authorized by god to do so, then you are an environmental marauder, and your loot is your perceived moral highground.

that is why the world is razed and turned into a wasteland progressively. moral high ground shaves the world of naturalness,

if humans never existed then all the "disastrous outcomes" would remain unthought of, and the world would be a much more fertile place.

The world is not being turned into a wasteland because we draw a line in the sand and state that human beings do not have the right to butcher each other. It's being destroyed precisely because we don't have enough lines. Even if we, in the United States, went wonderfully green, fat chance getting India and China to do so. Good luck convincing Africa to do so, when they rise. Why? Because human beings don't like poverty. They don't like short, brutal existences. They like the fact the free trade, even if it means raping the Earth, gives them a chance not to starve. Considering the fact that you have an internet connection, and presumably therefore a computer, you have enjoyed some of the bounties of "my kind" yourself.

No other species on Earth butchers it's own with the enthusiasm that Mankind does. Not a one. Chimps fight between tribal groups, but within the family group, they do not, save for mating season, and then it is not lethal. What mankind has done to one another for bloody stupid reasons is not natural. For this reason, we have drawn a line in the sand, the concept of universal human rights. One of those is the right of a people to be self-determining. Another is the right not to be killed for no reason.

The reason why we are opposed to sex at puberty is because the child may be developed enough to bear young, but her frame is not. The widening of the hips that happens throughout adolescence happens so that by the end of it, her body can stand to give birth to a child. For this reason, prepubescent pregnancies are exceptionally dangerous. She may have bled, but frankly, she is not developed. Finally, however, I never said that the marriage of children was universally abhorrent, though I, personally, find it to be so. The things that would inspire almost anyone to take action is murder and rape.

You're not arguing from a rational point of view. You're unilaterally stating that everything the West has done has been evil, and that human sacrifice and widow-burning are perfectly fine, if you're a nice little tribal who hasn't damaged the planet. Here's news. Tribals damage the planet just as much as anyone. If your follow the spread of hominids out of Africa, everywhere they went there are signs of extinctions of a massive variety of species. They didn't have our evil western ideas. The Native Americans were constantly at war, and there's evidence that they drove several species to extinction. The Africans were selling their own tribesmen and kin to the Arabs and the West.

And then look at the West. Humanism. The rights of man. Democracy. Technology that allows us to go to space. Oh, and here's the kicker: Environmentalism and ecotechnology is a distinctly Western thing. The ability to deextinct species is a uniquely Western achievement. Mankind has been leaving death and destruction in her wake since the moment we stepped out of the Great Rift Valley. It is the West, not China, not Africa, not India, and not uncontacted peoples that are remedying the problem.

Wise up, sir or madam.

Last edited by fueledbycoffee on 01 Apr 2013, 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hello, my two Uncontacted friends. I am a Contacted person.

Hoo! Hoo! Welcome to the club!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Perhaps humans are the only species that can articulate this, but isn't that what every species does - screws over the environment for the benefit of their relatives? Wolves don't concern themselves with conserving the deer, nor lions with gazelles. Your objection to humans doing this indicates that you believe humans are on some higher moral level than other species...

With great power comes great responsibility. - Stan Lee.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

humans may be the only species that can articulate it, but they are also the only ones who would be relevant in doing so.




no. there is the question of "balance" and natural "fair play".



they do not have to. there are not enough wolves or lions to cause the extinction of their respective prey.

there are plenty of deer and gazelles left over despite the ones that are consumed by their predators. there is a natural balance that keeps the populations of both predators and their prey in check. there is always enough to eat for the predators, and there are not not enough predators to extinguish the populations of their prey.

humans are very much more capable of predation than simple minded animals, and they also are prone to greed. i do not think the attribute of "greed" exists in any other animal. greed is a lust for richness and opulence and it is very resource hungry. people take much more than they need from nature without any compunction. predatory animals lay down and sleep after they are fed, but humans continue to try to feed their brains desires for "thrills" and "status" far beyond what should be sufficient for the simple slaking of their innate thirsts.

an 8 year old girl with a fatal tranquilizer dart can cause the death of a 4 ton elephant if she so pleases. exceptional intelligence is an evil advantage that humans have over other innocent beings (no matter how big and muscularly strong) in a world they do not own.

humans seem to think this world is a gift to them by god, and they ignore the rights of animals that they consider inferior in value to them to be allowed to live.

every living being has a right to live. humans have no more right to life than a mosquito.
you are not responsible for the fact that you were born a human. a mosquito is likewise helpless to change the fact that they were born a mosquito. i see it so clearly. all lives are equal, and for you to assume yours is more valuable than theirs is a very ugly and evil state of mind.

people have (because of their unfair intellectual advantage) "paved paradise and put up a parking lot". a single person who "owns" a large plot of land can kill everything in it and chop down every tree simply so that they can live an opulent existence which is far in excess of what they require to be simply secure and fundamentally protected from demise.

i wish only to be fed and watered and sheltered, and i have a small footprint of destruction , but many people want expensive cars and jewelry and houses with so many rooms that most of them remain unvisited for any essential reason.

people create industry which kills innocent animals and they do it without guilt because they believe that god only loves humans. well maybe they are failing a test that god set for them to see how they behave whilst in possession of greater intelligence than other animals.

i am not religious so please bo not respond in an atheistic way by telling me i am insane.

the glint of love that my magpie reflects in his eye when he looks at me, i know to be real. i am a hundred times bigger than him but he trusts me and comes close to me. he trusts me, trust is infinitely valuable in my mind.

if trust is violated then it is only a product of evil intentions. if a life trusts me i will protect it with all my might. animals trust is as valuable as humans trust.

humans have farms where they treat animals in appalling ways, and they have no guilt because they do not consider the lives of their "stock" to be valuable enough to hinder their money making intentions.

whatever. i understand that most humans feel superior to animals, and not only that, they grade the intelligence of animals in order to mitigate their actions.

people may feel more guilty about killing a dolphin than they do about killing a sparrow,. but an innocent sparrow deserves to live it's life just as much as the queen of england.

neither of them are responsible for who they are.


no. humans have an unfair advantage and they are inherently greedy. i love innocent animals more than humans (except for tammy).

humans only have morals because they are the only species that requires them, and moreover, most humans do not not have morals because they think they are all that matters,

it does not matter where you go, you will always see a product of human industry there.

I don't know where you get this idea of innocent animals from. Animals put surplus resources into having more offspring, humans put them into enjoying themselves and being creative.

The reason that the predators don't wipe out their prey is because enough of the prey survive to repopulate after the predators population crashes because of overpopulation. There is not this spiritual connection that tells the wolves not to have more offspring than there are deer to feed them, there's just the harsh reality of starvation whenever they over extend themselves.

Nature does not believe in fair play. Nature does not think, nor feel. The deaths of 1 million whales at the hands of humans mean the same to nature as does the death of one human at the flippers of a whale.

Intelligence is not an evil attribute. It is by intelligence that the amphibians will be saved. It is because of humans that the bats won't be wiped out. It is by human engineers working overtime that Terra will not be at the mercy of a comet coming in from the dark at a speed higher than Terra orbits the sun.

I find your equation of human and mosquito life to be profoundly odd and disturbing. No other species thinks like this - whales do not worry about the millions of plankton lives they extinguish every time they feed, and lions do not consider the gazelle to be as important as them. If we were to take our moral cues from nature - and I think it would be a greatly foolish and terrible thing if we were to - our moral code in relation to other animals would be human ascension at any cost, no matter how many forests have to be paved over or how many species have to die. Darwinian selection at it's finest. Our moral code in relation to each other would be similar - our families expansion, no matter how many others must die.

Isn't it a good thing hardly anyone follows your morality, b9?

The logistic model which describes predator prey dynamics is totally devoid of ethical import. It is the kind of physical law that an Aspie can love. No NT emotionalism. No altruism. Just the wheels of nature turning and grinding. I love it.

ruveyn

it does not require your endorsement to make me believe what i said.
i may come back tomorrow to argue my point , but for now i am off to bed and you can think what you will in the intererim.
you are blind to nature to the point that you feel that your opinions are more valid than reality.

what i mean by animal "innocence" is that they can not lie (you may come up with some exceptions like the rattle snakes tail for example), and they are not greedy. i know i am flogging a dead horse by replying to you but nevertheless....
i am not against people enjoying themselves or being creative. but if their enjoyment entails the destruction of the habitats of other less intelligent lives without remorse, then i am against it. being creative is not relevant because it does not usurp resources.


this makes little sense to me. if the predators population crashes because of overpopulation, then it would only be due to the scarcity of it's prey.
animals breed with respect to the availability of their resources. lions who have few gazelles to eat will not breed in an uncontrolled manner, as they are aware that the competition they would meet from their offspring in lean times would make life difficult. there is no see sawing of populations of predators versus prey. it is in a constant balance.
you portray it as if (i am using lions as an example) "the lion population rises to plague proportions, and almost wipes out gazelles, and when the gazelles are on the brink of extinction, the surplus lions die off due to starvation, and in turn, that promotes the rise in population of gazelles once more, which then enables the rise of the populations of lions again to repeat the cycle endlessly". i do not think that this is the way of nature.
i believe that lions will breed to the capacity that they will always have a supply of gazelles, and not insanely reproduce until their lack of food sources causes their near extinction.
i know you will have some woolly counter argument to that, and maybe you will convince me i am wrong, but i am not convinced as yet.





i never said that animals have any spiritual awareness. i do not understand what "spiritual" awareness is anyway. i understand that many humans have what they call "spiritual awareness" because so many people talk about it.
humans have the capacity to take the entire resources of the world to fuel their greed and convenience, and one day they will also face an extinction when they have used up everything the world has to "offer" them (in their minds). animals can only take what they are smart enough to take, and in their case it amounts to little.

i agree that "nature" is a set of physical rules and not an entity. i am not anthropomorphizing nature. you assert that because nature is not conscious, that anything and everything is ok. well in the larger scheme of everything i guess you are correct. all life on earth could be extinguished by some celestial event tomorrow and nature would not give a rat's arse.

i am not a zealot in any sense, but i like to live in a world where trees and birds and animals are my companions. i like to live in a world of silence only interrupted by the sounds of undeveloped nature. you may not see the value in anything other than your involvement in human society, but i am not fond of the way that humans will generally destroy anything that stands between them and their hedonistic comforts.

today i watched the destruction of many trees that were probably hundreds of years old on the other side of the road by the roadworks department. they are widening the road in order to reduce the travel times of humans who may want to go and buy a loaf of bread.

i have watched the birds who inhabit those trees very often (when i stand on my podium at the front window and survey the world out there).

today, those birds were sitting awkwardly in the trees in my front yard looking very displaced as their homes were destroyed by humans who, without any consideration just obliterated them. laborers in fluorescent jackets all on their walkytalky's involved in the felling of the trees were mindlessly coordinating the procedure and spitting on the ground. humans just take what they want and they can. that is what i do not like about humans. they always think that what they are doing is ok because what they want is paramount.

i hate the sounds of trucks and i hate the smell of diesel fumes, and i hate the mindless way that humans impose their will on a world of lives who have no way to compete. i felt very sorry for those birds who were watching their homes being destroyed, and i was hostile in my impression of the hard hatted fluoro jacketed workers who smoked and spat and got the "job" done.

they probably went home to their houses in the western suburbs amid a cacophony of trucks and trains and gave no further thought to what they had done.

humans have deigned that there should be small "national parks" where the rest of the worlds animals are permitted to live. like the serengeti national park in africa. if any elephant or lion is found outside those minute sanctuaries they will be killed or at least darted and returned to the parks.
if an elephant escapes from a zoo in los angeles for example, then there will be a major police effort to contain it and forcibly remove it, and i wonder why humans have the authority to "own" the world they live in. what makes humans better than other animals? intelligence? is intelligence something that is solely in the realm of loveability?

if you look at india in google earth, the whole area of the country (with very few exceptions) is a patchwork quilt of agricultural farms solely dedicated to feeding humans. the same can be said for many other countries. i do not begrudge humans of their right to live, but because they are so smart, they dominate the rest of the world in an incontrovertible way (according to other animals).

i see thousands of humans each day driving along the road, but i see only a few other animals. and those animals i see are in danger of being killed by being hit by cars driven by people who are just traveling for a minor reason (to get a loaf of bread)





frogs would not be endangered if it were not for humans pollution. so saying that human human intelligence is the savior of what human intelligence is responsible for destroying is a kind of oxymoron.




so what would humans save? they would save the current state of exploitation that they wreak over the world. it may be better for them to be wiped out so that the forests could regenerate and a pure natural order to be eventually reinstated.



all lives need to eat. it is natural to take a life into your intestines if you would die without it. it is not natural to destroy lives if the only reason for it is convenience. people take 1/2 an hour to go to their supermarkets, but they will destroy the lives of many animals if they can shorten their trip by 5 minutes.


you and other people have the ability to do so, and you will pollute the world with your waste, and you will deprive the world of it's lungs.

you are seriously an example of the type of person that makes me not fond of humanity.



i want all lives to be equally allowed to live, and you consider that only humans have a supreme right to live.
i am glad that you do not follow my morality, because if you did, i would be less sure of it.