>>2444680No. I'm not necessarily arguing the Sentinelese already share my attitude to death, or that if they don't they should. But I am saying there are cases where the introduction of certain medical technology is not socially beneficial, and thus is worth questioning if it should be introduced.
I.e. if it causes them collective anxiety and dread, is that an improvement?
And I think primitiveness itself, as a concept, should at the very least be separated into the "socially" and the "technologically" primitive. Because as history has shown, social relations associated with a theoretical "advanced" communism can exist at various stages (See Inca Empire, etc.)
In a scenario of world communism, how would the Sentinelese, assuming that if we understood their language and could communicate with them about this, not be considered Communist too? Why should their children be taken away from them and put in boarding schools or given to adoptive families? If we find they're not being physically or sexually abused, and they are aware they can choose not to live like that?
And no, certain capitalist commodities and services are not inherently good. Beauty standards, which also drive the demand for plastic surgery, are under capitalism, the product of advertisement. Specifically by inducing insecurity and want in target audiences. Under world communism, maybe much of plastic surgery will no longer be practiced or be deemed necessary or desirable. Demand is also induced for other commodities (see children's toys and the "nagging factor").
Nor do I see why the "vast majority of people" should matter either. Because communism is ultimately, the struggle of Communists against Capital, much more than it is specifically the proletariat against the bourgeoise, or the proletariat against Capital, or humanity against Capital. Because as Communists, we explicitly value this struggle.
Which brings me to the next point: If a "primitive" communism already exists, why should communists insist on introducing tools, ideas and technologies generally which might destroy it? I don't think this would be acceptable under an "advanced" communism either. So I don't see why an exception should be made for a (materially) primitive communism.
If you already know the introduction of an idea or technology would lead to the reintroduction of capital and capitalism, then it's the same as acting as a mere "ideological" reactionary engaged in a "political" struggle against communism.
And sure, I think there might be much we can learn from them, but I do think there can be multiple coherent and correct worldviews, even if they are seemingly different and do appear to overlap.
Because if you disagree with this stance, then you'll have to agree that previous "communisms" in either theory or practice (Including Marx at the time) are outright wrong owing to their "incompleteness". If you agree however that whilst our understanding can grow, past theories and attempt were also "correct", you will have to agree that there are approaches which might appear radically different, but are still ultimately "correct". E.g. some past Communist experiments were as Communists as today's Sentinelese are, and therefore, destroying their way of life is as wrong as wiping out the Paris Commune was.
Also you mention that "because that's how it is in every single society that has ever existed.". But my assumption runs deeper, not that there must be dissatisfaction on their part by some individuals, but that the Sentinelese are as capable of reasoning and decision making as anyone else, and thus also capable, if they so decide, to leave with researchers visiting the island, or simply sneak away on a fishing boat, or organize a change in the social relations within their culture if they find it doesn't suit them.
If workers are capable of overthrowing Capital on their own, and slaves can overthrow slavery, why wouldn't the Sentinelese be capable of overthrowing a social order they consider to be restrictive? Or you know, simply leave if they reject whatever taboos believed to bar them from venturing out?
I also disagree with the assumption of people objectively living better if this is solely reduced to access to commodities, and doesn't take into account social relations, and the degree to which people find their lives existentially meaningful.
Some of the adaptions and "advances" for example, have only become necessary because previous ways of living are now untenable due to population growth. The rest of the world for example cannot adopt a Sentinelese way of life, because modern agriculture and food security relies on industrially mass produced fertilizers and fossil fuel driven logistics. People nowadays "need" smartphones and computers for their jobs, for job searching, and for many other activities which previously were not mediated digitally through screens.
The ways modern economies and bureaucracies operate necessitates literacy on part of most of the population.
In many parts of the world, cars or other electrically or internal combustion powered vehicles are necessary to commute to work or even basic things like groceries shopping or visiting a doctor.
The existence then of these technologies and their widespread use does not imply in themselves that lives have meaningfully improved, if they're considered critical for survival, in a world where the alternative is starvation and death.