Near-extinct Amazonian tribe so connected with nature they reportedly breastfeed wild animals

a reply to: Britguy

There is a religious sect in India (I seem to remember) that also acts this way, harming nothing and taking care of young / orphaned animals in this way.

Jainism, maybe? There are Hindus that believe in ahimsa (non-violence/pacifism), too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

people too often get caught up in the myth of the 'noble savage' as though primitive living is somehow more virtuous or even desirable for most of us.

I think people see natural living as more virtuous because of the lack of technology which causes unnecessary suffering and damage to the environment (such as cancer and pollution).

Technology which actually benefits the environment instead of destroying it, is great too.

In some prison, somewhere below the Mason-Dixon line, a man doing three to five for bestiality is wondering where he went wrong...the line can be SO fine.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"It highlights how far we have come from where we were. They are so close to nature. In fact, it is not even close - they are part of nature"

I hate to be the voice of reason. Ah, who am I kidding?

There's no reason to believe that breastfeeding squirrels, pets or not, has ever been a typical behavior for our primitive forebears (side note, TIL, that forebearer is actually non-standard) at all (though I did once see a YouTube video of a monkey and a frog.. oh never mind).

I'm all for things like preserving pristine wilderness, protecting the environment and everyone taking some time now again to get away from the stresses of modern life and appreciate the beauty of the natural world (or move into a cabin in the woods) but people too often get caught up in the myth of the 'noble savage' as though primitive living is somehow more virtuous or even desirable for most of us.

Anyway, it's not my intention to disparage anyone or spoil this otherwise quite pleasant thread, my point is simply that one can appreciate a different way of living without concluding that universally "better" (or worse).

EDIT:

Oh, and here's a link to the story in the OP. It seems they've (unfortunately?) taken a liking to at least some modern conveniences:

Mr Pugliese said he was worried about exposing the tribe to the modern day world - but they embraced at least one contemporary item.

“They love to have t-shirts,” he said.

“I don't know where they think the t-shirts come from - they can't imagine a factory.

“Maybe they think it is coming from the trees. After all, every day, they get their shopping from the jungles.”

Yes, there is also a term for it in anthropology, especially pre-Columbian anthropology, i.e. the "Edenic myth," wherein supposedly indigenous tribes pre-contact were living in some kind of peaceful paradise.

Much of the most recent anthropology regarding the Americas, for example, shows that this is false, from warfare to environmental destruction. For example, a major hypothesis regarding contributions to the fall of the Maya is wide scale deforestation. There is evidence emerging that much of the Amazon may have been terraformed in the remote past, only to be later reclaimed by nature.

I highly suggest reading 1491.

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
With only 450 members I understand genetic inbreeding may be prevalent, which can be detrimental.

Ever had a discussion with a fellow human in a big city?

I'm long past thinking being close to nature is good or past peoples lived in blissful Edens. HOWEVER, I believe past peoples did know things about nature we don't know anymore. I give them credit.

Bottom line, are they content? If they're then leave em alone unless they seek us out. Don't force them to be modern. It's their choice.

BUT if we cut all their forest and remove them from hunting or foraging grounds then where will they go? They'll be forced to confront us.

I wonder if aliens have ever looked down on this Earth and looked at humans and thought we were closer to nature than them? I think it's possible. For exmaple, if their babies aren't grown in actual living mothers then they might look at our mothers with some fondness. Maybe they engineer their babies more than we do, so relying on their science. If the mothers womb ends up being replaced to ensure ideal results then the mother isn't needed anymore. Her reproductive system is obsolete. Why would females of said species want a reproductive system at all if it's obsolete?

We always assume technology can never replace the body in any capacity, unless it's replacing something broken. But what if technology created in the future makes our body obsolete? What then?

Men used to be the workhorses because of their strong muscles. But machines and smart machines are increasingly replacing that, making men's bodies less useful. Men's roles are changing as a result.

Barrier are falling everywhere. Our prejudices have to fall with htem to reap the benefits and they inevitably will as water flows downhill.

originally posted by: rajas

originally posted by: InTheLight
With only 450 members I understand genetic inbreeding may be prevalent, which can be detrimental.

Ever had a discussion with a fellow human in a big city?

All the time without any problems to report, but what are you asking or what traits are you comparing? I live in a big city and there exists great kindness and care for abandoned pets and wildlife as evidenced by humane societies, people who adopt animals, and myself and my neighbours feeding the critters over Winter.

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
Hmmm looky there
Boobs
.

X

Pretty firm too, for a tribal woman. Normally they're flat and floppy.