Primitive Societies And Advanced Technology

[Sionnach Glic]

The recent reanimation of Avatar threads has made me start thinking about the Na'vi, and how primitive alien societies in general are portrayed. In the movie, the Na'vi seem rather apathetic towards things like guns, mass deforestation, strip mining, and giant flying gunships. Admitedly, the humans had been around for quite a while, but I'd still have expected them to have been treated with some sense of "how do those things even exist?" Particularly given that the Na'vi haven't progressed beyond either stone tools or wooden huts.

So how would a primitive alien society, at around the same level of advancement as that of the Na'vi (IE, simple stone tools, houses of wattle and daub, highly religious tribal society) react to technology like that of the RDA, or even modern-day vehicles?

One thing that's popped into my head just this morning (and prompted me to start this discussion off) is of how a primitive society would see something like a modern jet aircraft. Most of the time it would be too high up to see with any any detail, even if the society in question had, like the Na'vi, tamed ridable flying creatures. It would simply be an indistinct bring shape, leaving a fluffy white trail behind it. Might such a race consider a jet aircraft to be some sort of bird that's responsible for making clouds? After all, it looks sort of like a bird and leaves what looks like a trail of clouds behind it.

But what about things a little closer to the ground? How would they view something like a helicopter, which has no analogue in nature, and would thus be completely new to them? What about something like the huge Dragon gunships from Avatar?

Or getting onto the ground itself, what if their first encounter with an advanced race was having a group of large remote-controlled bulldozers tearing through an area of forrest somewhere near their homes?

So, what do you guys think? How should a group like the Na'vi react to being suddenly introduced to advanced technology?

[Graham Kennedy]

Pretty much I'd expect them to explain it in their own terms, much as you said - classify these things as giant animals, gods, spirits, etc.

Are you aware of the cargo cult phenomenon? During WWII the Americans came into contact with some primitive peoples on Pacific islands. The Americans got on okay with them, gave them presents and such to keep them happy and onside whilst they got on with what they were there for, and then left without giving it much thought after the war was over. Many years later people landed on the islands and found that the natives had carefully preserved the landing strips and built mock aircraft and buildings out of local materials. They thought the Americans were gods, and that their "cargo" was gifts from the gods; they figured that by recreating the wartime environment as best they could, they might bring back the gods and so get more cargo.

[Mikey]

Indeed. I'd guess that a jet, helicopter, etc. would be viewed as some sort of alien, rideable flying creature; a bulldozer, as some sort of huge beast of burden; etc. Weilded weapons and tools would probably be regarded somewhat differently - no doubt, little differently from the "firesticks" which Native Americans saw in use by the Europeans. Similarly, I'd guess that such things would soon be recognized for what they are: nothing more than tools, albeit ones using a different technology.

[Tyyr]

There would likely be an initial "HOLY SHIT!" reaction to what they saw followed by eventual acceptance. They'd start off as animals/gods but through exposure be regarded as tools. Look at the native American Indians. At first they revered the settlers/explorers but after some time of getting acquainted with them they learned that they and their technology were just a gigantic pain in the ass, not to be revered but just human like they were.

If the humans had been on Pandora for a couple of decades I can easily see them being to the point they were at in the movie.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Indeed. I'd guess that a jet, helicopter, etc. would be viewed as some sort of alien, rideable flying creature; a bulldozer, as some sort of huge beast of burden; etc. Weilded weapons and tools would probably be regarded somewhat differently - no doubt, little differently from the "firesticks" which Native Americans saw in use by the Europeans. Similarly, I'd guess that such things would soon be recognized for what they are: nothing more than tools, albeit ones using a different technology.

Hmm...

The level of technological difference between the native americans and colonial isn't the same difference than, for example, the difference between our current military and the colonials. I am just thinking, if the natives were initially sh*tscared of the "firestick" (a stick you actually saw fire coming out of), how would they react to automatic weaponry?

Also, the Colonials generally tried to make friendly contacts with the locals to trade with them. What if the advanced society (I'd start to say "us" to define that advanced society) decided to, on the other hand, promote a mystic around our soldiers and weaponry so the natives actually start revering us? We could even get around the occasional deaths by claiming that the soldiers they see on the field are merely the Soldiers of the Gods, and the Gods can strike down the way they want themselves (Predator drone, napalm, mininuke).

I suspect, if we made actual efforts to prevent the natives to put their hand on our technology, that they would proably be more feaful than understanding.

[Mikey]

The level of technological difference between the native americans and colonial isn't the same difference than, for example, the difference between our current military and the colonials.

Nope. I never said it was. Doesn't change my assessment.

I am just thinking, if the natives were initially sh*tscared of the "firestick" (a stick you actually saw fire coming out of), how would they react to automatic weaponry?

Moot point. The aboriginal people in question wouldn't see the two stages of firearm development side-by-side. As far as the Na'vi would be concerned, the "firestick" in question would have always been an automatic weapon.

Also, the Colonials generally tried to make friendly contacts with the locals to trade with them. What if the advanced society (I'd start to say "us" to define that advanced society) decided to, on the other hand, promote a mystic around our soldiers and weaponry so the natives actually start revering us? We could even get around the occasional deaths by claiming that the soldiers they see on the field are merely the Soldiers of the Gods, and the Gods can strike down the way they want themselves (Predator drone, napalm, mininuke).

I suspect, if we made actual efforts to prevent the natives to put their hand on our technology, that they would proably be more feaful than understanding.

Fair point, but I don't see how that relates to the current discussion. Jim Jones was able to intentionally make himself a prophet, as was Sun Yung Moon, as was David Koresh, etc. etc. I think we're talking about the organic reaction of the aboriginals to the newly-introduced technology.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Fair point, but I don't see how that relates to the current discussion. Jim Jones was able to intentionally make himself a prophet, as was Sun Yung Moon, as was David Koresh, etc. etc. I think we're talking about the organic reaction of the aboriginals to the newly-introduced technology.

But that's the main problem. What if you don't introduce them to said technology? what if you act with Starfleet-like level Prime Directivess when it comes to allowing primitives to handle your technology?

You fear most what you don't understand. Native americans eventually started to understand what the Firesticks were when they were supplied with guns as trade goods, or to use against fellow tribesmen.

If we limited the technological exposure of the primitive natives to being killed massively by it, and otherwise they could only see it from afar, I think it would leave you with a lot longer than what the Native Americans took to figure it out. Also, some of the basic mechanism present in the muskets the Natives weren't that complicated when you compare to, let's say, a MP5 or an AK-47. For a musket, the whole mechanism involved can be summarized as: compact gunpowder at the bottom of gun, you add a bullet, you light off the charge. Simple, straightforward, there is less than 10 elements involved in the firing.

For automatic weaponry... let's say it's more complicated. When you get to the level of cars, helicopters, napalm and all these stuff natives just couldn't remotely comprehend without an actual volounteer introduction.

I once had an idea for a short story:

The village has been under constant attack in the past week by Demons. They come during the night, and they kill everybody by breathing flame. They have glowing eyes and the villager's rifle don't seem to do squat against them. The protagonist see his friends fortifiying his house, and prepare for a last stand for the night. Maybe they won't come..

But then, they hear a shattering noise as the Demons created a gate to get inside the house from the windows! They can fly, oh no! The demons spread in the house, killing everyone.. The protagonist hides in the cellar, to protect his daughter. He hears a demon coming down the stairs... The demon see his daughter, and gets close to her... The protagonist shoots the hideous creature in his monstruous head, and the demon fall down, dead.

Sgt Conninghham, of the SAS, comes around the corner and shoots down the terrorist who just killed him teammate. Bloody terrorists.. They are using their children as distraction now. Anyway, the house's clean, there is one civilian child present that'll need evac, and only one casualty on their side.

The point I wanted to make in said story was that current day's Black Ops/Special Op commandos would probably come off as Vampires/Demons that comes from the night and kill everyone, seen from a Medieval/early Industrial era character.

[Mikey]

If you don't introduce the aboriginals to the technology in question, you can be damned sure that they'll focus on it when it starts to kill them... even more so when they take some examples from a corpse.

Yes, I know automatic weapons are more advanced than flintlocks. The point is that that difference in advancement doesn't matter to an observer who has no concept of either. Further, there is no framework for the observer to judge the difference if they've only ever seen one or the other.

If the Spaniards came to Latin America with MP-5K's instead of muskets, would the Incas have said, "Oh, look, they have much more advanced firesticks than they could have?"

[SolkaTruesilver]

If you don't introduce the aboriginals to the technology in question, you can be damned sure that they'll focus on it when it starts to kill them... even more so when they take some examples from a corpse.

Yes, I know automatic weapons are more advanced than flintlocks. The point is that that difference in advancement doesn't matter to an observer who has no concept of either. Further, there is no framework for the observer to judge the difference if they've only ever seen one or the other.

If the Spaniards came to Latin America with MP-5K's instead of muskets, would the Incas have said, "Oh, look, they have much more advanced firesticks than they could have?"

Would they have called it "firestick" to begin with?

I know it's weird to ask such a trivial (maybe rethoric) question, but do you think naming something with rational description might make it more familiar? In that case, it was "stick that blows fire". they rationalised what they thought was impossible, and they made the mental steps to actually accept the concept, until they understood it. Also, the fact that it was still 1-shot made a big difference, IMHO.

How would they call an MP5 that allowed a single man to mow down 30 of their best warriors? "Deathgiver"? It looks a lot less a sitck that shoots fire, and a lot more like... .... it doesn't look like anything.

There, I think I managed to articulate what I meant. The MP5 is a lot more alien to their world than a musket was. The less alien the technology is, the more they can rationalise and start to question/explore it. The more alien it is, the close to magic they will consider it.

Hell, they traded a lot for Mirrors. Think what'd they do for a Polaroid.

[Mikey]

There, I think I managed to articulate what I meant. The MP5 is a lot more alien to their world than a musket was. The less alien the technology is, the more they can rationalise and start to question/explore it. The more alien it is, the close to magic they will consider it.

Exactly the issue... there is no "more" or "less" alien. The only way the MP-5 can be considered "more" alien" is if a comparison with the musket is available.

[Graham Kennedy]

In using terms like firestick, they're just trying to put it in terms they know. They know what a stick is; they might use club, or branch, or whatever, but in their world, if you carry something around that's a few feet long, made of a hard material, it's some sort of stick. And they know what fire is, and this thing spits fire out the end. That description applies equally to a flintlock or an M16; to the primitive, these two things are essentially the same; they're a stick that spits fire and people die even if they're a long way away. They might even find the automatic weapon easier to understand, because the fire comes in long spurts like normal fire, rather than just flashing on and off again. Hell, they'd probably class a grenade launcher or a flame thrower as being much the same thing.

[Lt. Staplic]

@ Mikey,

I think what Solka is trying to say is that from our POV we can see that the M5 or automatic rifle is more advanced than the flintlock. therefore we can also say that the flintlock is closer in technology to the primitive society than the M5 (since the M5 is advanced compared to the flintlock).

So his claim isn't that had the primitives seen the M5 they would see it as "more" alien, but that the M5 could prove to be harder to understand for the natives than a flintlock because it is more advanced, it's a further degree of separation. So given two scenarios, one where primitives are introduced to the flintlock and one where they are introduced to the M5, there won't be any comparison between the two, but the natives from the first scenario would be able to comprehend the weapon faster/easier than the natives from the second one.

At least, that's what I think he's saying...hope this clarifies.

[Mikey]

I understand. It's just wrong, is all.

[Lt. Staplic]

Why is it wrong....simpler technologies are easier to figure out.

[Captain Seafort]

Why is it wrong....simpler technologies are easier to figure out.

Of course, but "easier" is a relative term. In this case it doesn't matter whether you're talking about Brown Bess or a jimpy - they're both Outside Context Problems to a civilisation that has no concept of firearms.