I think both viewpoints (contemporary civilisation is good and we should let "uncivilised" people live without interference) are reconcilable: I can believe that modern bureaucratic liberal democracy is the best system we have, partly because it allows for dissenting views, partly because of other reasons. At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views.
This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.
Define "uncivilized". If I choose to occupy a national park and live off grid and disconnected from society, do I qualify? Or is some kind of ancestry on a land required? If so, why? Isn't such a requirement kind of arbitrary? Why does my accidental birth into this society necessitate that I must slot into this bureaucracy?
> At the same time I can advocate for letting groups of people control their territory and form states that aren't liberal democracies, since that's yet another form of allowing for dissenting views.
What if they want to home school all of their children, do they have to abide by some kind education standard? The bureaucracy will come for you for any choice it finds unpalatable.
I don't see a way to reconcile these without a lot of special pleading. In the end, a form of natural selection will dominate and only the type of people who can fit well into the most optimal bureaucracies will thrive. Maintaining indigenous rights and the rights of "uncivilized" humans will be simply a curiosity, like how we keep animals in a zoo, rather than some coherent recognition of an inherent right to exist and live apart.
I'm not taking a particular side on this question here, I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.
> I used to be all pro-civilization, science, research and expansion into space, etc. in the Star Trek sense, but I've increasingly recognized the natural selection aspects of this and the apparently inherent incompatibility with liberty.
Oh, that. I too have a gnawing feeling that progress of technology and civilization is fundamentally incompatible with individual autonomy. At the very least, because to the extent new advancement put more of potentially destructive power in the hands of individuals, the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively. That's one thought, I have couple more like this, and they all add up to "progress and civilization, or personal autonomy, pick one".
> the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively
There's an implicit assumption here that people could not be educated or conditioned to tolerate such risks so they could have their liberty, and therefore stricter oversight will always occur. That might be true, but it wasn't always true, particularly in the US, so we should acknowledge this possibility.
These days this conflict is seen in the gun control issue: one side is OK with higher death rate from guns to enjoy those liberties, and the other wants a more authoritarian system for more safety.
Tolerance for such risk would change how society is structured somewhat too. Probably less concentrated populations, and more independent and local governance to mitigate the possibility of massive loss of life. Centralization has efficiency advantages though, but with the internet maybe that isn't as much of a concern anymore. I don't see us moving in that direction, but it might be a viable possibility.
This runs into problems for global matters (global climate change and pollution) and conflicts with an overriding belief in a global morality (depending on how much you are willing to entertain the idea that your idea of morality isn't the "correct" one), but some compromise variation of this idea is certainly self-consistent.