|
|
Re: Cultural Survival?
Anthony Dauer (jackechs@MAIL.EROLS.COM)
Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:02:20 -0500
I agree with in the sense that we shouldn't do anything to destroy or harm a
culture, but I do not feel that we should interfere either. Cold as it may
seem, I tend to believe in the idea of the survival of the fittest and feel
as well that where we have interfered (there are exceptions to this) to save
something we ended up causing a new problem. What comes to mind is the
perservation of deer in Penn. The number of deer has risen to the point
that now there is starvation within the herds and yet there are those who
oppose a hunting season in order to trim the herds out. The logical
solution to this is to introduce a predator to the area and help the balance
come back. Since Science Fiction has the nasty habit of becoming reality, I
think the concept of the Prime Directive of the fictional universe of Star
Trek is a good one. Now, if we are able to determine a way to intervene
without tipping the balance of the system envolved I would like to. But are
we really that wise yet? The biggest crime we could commit though is by not
recording the particulars of these cultures ... creating an epitaph for
those who follow.
At 10:13 AM 01/08/96 -0800, Bret Diamond wrote:
> As I pass into the new year (and the new semester), I find myself
>pausing to reflect on the purpose of the discipline of Anthropology and
>my respective place within it.
respectfully, Anthony
"Each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ration
... each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during
each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer
great destruction ... The vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and
multiply." Charles Robert Darwin, 1809-1882, The Origin of the Species,
1859, Chapter 3.
|