[s1artibartfast]

Humility and let them choose what they want. We don't need to come down hard, form an opinion, and coerce everyone into doing what we want.

Sometimes it's fine to sit back and let people make their own decisions and even mistakes, as long as they don't adversely impact you.

[Unbefleckt]

How could a primitive person or community grasp the long term implications of modern life when even we don't?

[s1artibartfast]

why do they have to understand the long term implications to have control over their own lives.

nobody has perfect information. that is the human condition. We dont know the future: how our lives will develop, how our marriages will end, what our kids will be like, and when and how we will die.

[em-bee]

understanding the short term implications is already hard enough.

for example assuming they are granted to own the land they live on, we could not just let them sell the right to logging and let others destroy their land. so we need to be careful which the choices we allow them to make. eg, if they want to move into the city, fine, but then we need to make sure they can reverse that decision and go back, or at least continue some of their lifestyle. iaw: the problem is irreversible decisions that are difficult to understand.

but also problems caused by learning about alcohol, depending on government support, education that doesn't respect their culture and knowledge, etc.

so my approach would be to teach them knowledge they can use to improve their lives, introduce them to the idea that others live in other ways, but also that it takes an effort to change their lifestyle. like they will have to learn new trades in order to get jobs and earn an income if they want to do that.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

Is sitting back different from the non-intervention policy?

[Terretta]

> Sometimes it's fine to sit back and let people make their own decisions and even mistakes...

“I’d far rather be happy than right any day.”