• Loss of valuable information

    Most definitely. When a culture is lost so is it's language and way of life. We are still learning how different languages originated. To let a language die would be a loss of information on how people migrated from place to place. Also, indigenous cultures have a special knowledge of their surroundings; plant and animals. There may be a plant they know of that could cure cancer. The people may have an immunity to a common disease. But most of all, because it's not like us, it should be cherished, not be allowed to die out. A culture has a historical nature and like an old monument needs to be preserved.

  • Helping means Modernizing

    With the corruption of government being a major issue today there's no way of knowing whether the government will or will not actually help the people. Wi th their society being at a vulnerable state the government is able to easily manipulate and exploit the people which means they're really harming them, rather than actually helping

  • Why? It's the people's fault

    While the creation of (an) culture is inevitable when humans exist, it is a thing controlled and governed by the (majority of) people. Culture is destroyed, created and (constantly) altered by the people. Should people choose to adopt a different culture, that culture will simply disappear. What's the problem? To actively "protect" a culture is ridiculous. Now when people are forced to assimilate, that's a problem. The same goes for monuments, areas of land, and other physical objects that represent cultures - actively destroying it (bulldozing, etc) or protecting it (from environmental factors*) is stupid.

    *If some random, non-governmental organization wants to protect and/or restore them, that's fine.

    In essence, my problem with this theoretical dilemma, isn't protecting of cultures itself, but rather that a government is supposed to do intervene.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.