[xk_id]

Radical cultural relativism is rooted in a profound ignorance of human cognition: it is true for every human, who has ever lived, that a more precise empirical knowledge of the world is preferable. It is even likely that we might also learn from them (e.g medicinal use of undocumented amazonian plants, or even just ingenious ways of structuring language and social organisation).

In the past, this particular aspect co-occurred with colonial genocide and economic exploitation. But that is not an excuse to stipulate that there isn’t an objective benefit to the progress of understanding and culture.

[usrusr]

You write as if economic exploitation was somehow off the table. But economic exploitation isn't restricted to outright slavery, not at all.

Trade is disastrous when suddenly all local production has to compete with hyper efficient imports, but there's no export to really pay for imports. The damage to local production happens despite the imbalance. Repeatedly give a man a fish and sooner or later he will forget everything he ever knew about fishing.

[Jensson]

These people don't have an economy, so there is no economy to destroy, getting access to a market is far preferable to trying to survive in the wilds.

[usrusr]

Of course they have a market. Not a market of real estate bubbles and NFTs, that's for sure, but a market of skills and cooperation. They may not have much job specialisation (or they do, difficult to tell without contacting), but even without, different levels in experience and physical fitness will make that a market nonetheless.

And what level of experience we are looking at! Remember the 10000h rule? Imagine a group developing exactly one skill set since childhood. Trained by a chain of ancestors following the same path that would make the Bene Gesserit blush.

This would all collapse under contact. A few years of handouts and/or one-time trades and nothing of those abilities would be left. And those years would be far too short to find a place in the new (to them) market above that of beggars and thieves. They would have trouble even working as prostitutes not knowing the cultural codes around that.

[DavidPiper]

Apologies for the wall of text, but your reply triggered something I've been thinking about a lot recently.

I agree with you on many points, but the word "preferable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It doesn't describe who it is preferable to, or how objective outcomes inform people's preferences, or whether this preference only exists when it is non-uniformly distributed across the world.

I believe that more precise empirical knowledge of the world is preferable, but I don't think it generalises - or naturalises - to human cognition. Or that it is causally related to reduction of colonial genocide and economic exploitation.

Anecdotally, I know a number of people who prefer their "objectively better" life courtesy of vigorous anti-intellectualism, conspiracy, religious fundamentalism, internalised naturalisation of race/gender/faith/etc. And other cognitive distortions - as I would call them.

Again though, I agree with you because I believe (among other things) that less human suffering is preferable, increased longevity is preferable, our species surviving longer is preferable, and other species surviving with us is also preferable. And I believe more precise empirical knowledge is the best way to achieve those things.

But many, many people disagree, and many just believe differently. As far as we know, that disagreement is not due to a kind of naturalised deficiency of cognition.

[xk_id]

Even the most strictly enforced religions couldn’t avoid cults and schisms. The progress of understanding really seems inevitable. You can only gaslight yourself for so long, into denying the natural predisposition of the human cognition to change, when presented with new information.