I actually think it's just that difficult a problem. Whether we decide to contact them or not, in a sense we're still deciding _for_ them whether or not they will have access to technology that will fundamentally reshape their culture.
In a sense it also isn't our place to _care_ if _they_ decide to fundamentally reshape their culture based on what we "give" them.
Both of these viewpoints have been important in world history. Would Africa be so violent if there were less people selling them guns? Is it our right to _not_ sell guns to people if we know they're going to be used for violence that is, in our eyes, senseless?
Mostly I see polite disagreement in this topic. If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective.
A numerical majority of comments are probably polite, yes, but here are some quotes...
"Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting."
"Talk about arrogance...and ignorance."
"I really hope you are kidding. If not this is so typical..."
Next, you say: "If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective."
Obviously that wasn't the conclusion of the person who holds this opposite perspective. If you think their words imply a monstrous conclusion, then either they must be a monster, or their thought process leads to a different conclusion, and if you want to carry out a constructive conversation, you should assume the latter and press them. Here's a part of my above post that I didn't include, but I will now:
--
Probably it would help if you a) noticed when you read things into comments (be on your guard when discussing politics or morals) and b) explicitly said so when you addressed a claim someone didn't make. For example, d3x could have said something like, "You say that our lives are so much better than theirs, that contact with primitive cultures destroys those cultures, that you'd have to be a flaming idiot to want to live like that.... Do you therefore advocate forcing them to live like us? [You could answer that by reading the third paragraph of Markham's post--"let them decide"--but perhaps d3x thought that was a sarcastic quip, which I suppose is believable. Another tip for navigating rocky topics: don't assume sarcasm unless you're quite sure.] If so, then I've got a lot to say about that. <insert text of d3x's original post> If not, then precisely what do you advocate?"
And then DanielBMarkham could have said something like... well, I'm not him and I don't speak for him, but perhaps he'd say something like, "No, I don't advocate that. What do I advocate? Well, I don't prescribe a particular course of action, but let's take an example. A group of people who felt generous might visit them in a boat, set up a demonstration of modern technology on the shore, and offer to teach anything to natives who wanted to learn."
And maybe d3x would reply, "They'd just stay on the shore, teaching them and getting nothing in return? Who'd be that generous? They'd only do it if they had an ulterior motive--to convert them to their religion, to get cheap unskilled labor from them, to trick them into selling their natural resources for much less than they're worth, and everything else that's gone wrong in the past."
And maybe Markham would say, "Oh, snap, that's a problem," or he'd say "Maybe a rich billionaire who felt charity-minded (or PR-minded) would fund the whole effort, and these teachers would follow through with it because they'd be paid," or he'd say "Dude, doing unskilled labor for a price that's ridiculously cheap to us might look like horrible exploitation to you, but in fact it's better than the lives they currently lead. The fact that they choose it over their current lives is proof that it's better, unless you wish to argue that you know better than them, which is hypocritical given your earlier argument." But this is just me talking now.
--
Regarding guns: I would recommend being careful and slow about giving them war materials (or the capability to make them) in case one party gets hold of them and attempts to conquer the rest of the island. But it's not a moral/legal imperative, any more than it is to be careful about introducing college kids to alcohol. (People may hate you if you do it badly, but they can't really stop or punish you.) I'll comment that any civilization that advances in science and has access to plentiful resources will eventually develop all sorts of weapons, including guns; and that the developments of fire, bronze, iron, steel, flight, nuclear physics, and many more things all led to weapons as well as productive tools, and I think it was worth it.
Disease is the objection I find most potentially problematic. Also, one part of me says it would be interesting to let them be so we could watch them, study them; another part says that if I knew someone in there, and she was sick with a disease that modern medicine could cure, I would sure as hell want to save her. Or if I knew someone working his butt off, and I knew I could give him some technological tools that would make it ten times easier for him, I'd do that.
I think that's the best way it can happen: if some individual people from one society are connected with some individual people in the other, and they get and use some advanced things whenever they feel the need. Then their neighbors might see the results, decide they want some advanced things too, and try to work out a way to get them. Maybe a few families would want to send their (young adult) kids out to the advanced society so they could stay for a while, learn things and get things, and bring them back home. Or maybe they'd move out with their kids, young children, and raise their family and run a career for a decade or two, periodically sending gifts and maybe visiting their extended family in the old country, perhaps moving back eventually. You know, this is sounding a good deal like what some immigrants from poor countries to the U.S. do today.
In a sense it also isn't our place to _care_ if _they_ decide to fundamentally reshape their culture based on what we "give" them.
Both of these viewpoints have been important in world history. Would Africa be so violent if there were less people selling them guns? Is it our right to _not_ sell guns to people if we know they're going to be used for violence that is, in our eyes, senseless?
Mostly I see polite disagreement in this topic. If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective.