[MonkeyMalarky]

So, philosophical question here: Human zoos are racist and wrong, right? How is leaving uncontacted tribes alone to live in isolation (but under remote observation) any different? Fun diversions include: the prime directive from star trek and potential diseases spreading from first contact being equivalent to genocide.

I think that in the end, none of debate will matter and that all remaining tribes will either be dead or clumsily brought into civilization without regard for ethics.

[googlryas]

These people usually know exactly how to get to civilization if they wanted to. Many have "walked out" of the forest and into civilization, and they generally become what people would recognize as bums and layabouts since they have basically no skills that are relevant to city life.

And they're observed remotely merely to help ensure that violent people don't disturb them - making sure they aren't killed or driven to civilization unless they want to go.

[lazide]

Zoos are artificial environments constructed to put things on exhibit outside of their natural environment for the education and entertainment of others.

A preserve is an area carved out to prohibit the others from going in and screwing with someone or something.

So basically, they’re polar opposites.

[MonkeyMalarky]

If we had a nature preserve filled with human beings that are unaware of the modern world, left to their own devices and hard lives, the difference in ethics is the entertainment factor? Say their lives aren't broadcast for consumption, is that okay? What about 10, 100 or even 1,000 years from now?

[andrewflnr]

The primary difference in ethics is whether you've forcibly relocated them. You're picking a really weird aspect of the human zoo thing to fixate on and ignoring the huge flashing sign that says "liberty". There's really no good reason to compare the scenarios. I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor but this is the kind of obtuseness that raises genuine questions of whether you're speaking in good faith.

[MonkeyMalarky]

Where is the liberty though? By definition, a native from an uncontacted tribe can't make an informed choice.

[andrewflnr]

The liberty is in not being forcibly relocated. Try to focus.

Note how far the question has already drifted from human zoos, to just whether it's good to contact people or not. This is not an accident. It's because the human zoo comparison was never defensible; it was trivial to force you to move the goalposts.

[scotty79]

So if you put cages over the animals in the jungle that's not a zoo because they never got relocated?

[zach_garwood]

How do you figure? Every day they make the choice to live like they do, just like you make the choice to live in your town doing whatever it is you do. If you wanted to live a different lifestyle, you could pick a direction, go there, and live like the people there. They choose not to. That sounds like liberty to me.

[luckylion]

What? Stone age people made "a choice" to live in the stone age? Could they have just chosen to live in the space age instead? How does that work?

[mlyle]

He refused contact with outsiders.

Would you have preferred that he had been forcibly contacted and educated, to make an "informed" choice, in the name of his liberty and/or autonomy?

[lazide]

Based on other replies in the thread, it seems clear that some folks do indeed believe that.

[TedDoesntTalk]

The Truman Show

[lazide]

Were they there before without anyone going out of there way to put them there artificially?

If so, then yup, perfectly fine.

[zach_garwood]

This is veering into White Man's Burden territory.

[chki]

There are many differences but first and foremost: the purpose of human zoos was entertainment, in this case it was to protect (and potentially scientific enquiry)

[lelandfe]

For others who, like me, had no idea these were ever a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

Jeeze.