I hate Quantum Physics

3) How would uncivilized cultures react upon receiving technology beyond their comprehension?

In the recent study on the Physics of the Impossible by the University of Tokyo, several civilizations were defined. First is a type one civilization, a civilization which is able to exert its control over the entire planet completely. Its resources and forces are used to the full extent. It also has the ability to solve Class I impossibilities, impossible events such as invisibility, information at the speed of light, force fields, things that are possible with currently developing technology, and has a solving time from the present ranging from a few decades to a few centuries to us. Second is the type two civilization, where the civilization is able to use the entire solar system to its extent. This would effectively increase its energy by about 7 billion times. It is also able to use Class II impossibilities, like interstellar travel, objects being moved at the speed of light, teleportation, antimatter, telepathy, things that are possible as they do not necessarily break the laws of physics, whether Newtownian or quantum, but is probably unavailable to us for the next few centuries or millennias. Finally is the type three civilization, which is able to control the entire galaxy, improving its energy by over 50 billion times that of a type two civilization, and is able to use technologies defined as Class III impossibilities, like time travel, faster than light travel, alternate universes, wormholes, things that would need to find drastic changes or loopholes in the current laws of physics in order to work. We are of course, are a type zero civilization. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British phsyicist, however, doubts we will ever reach a type three civilization. When asked to clarify he stated, “If time travel is possible, where are the tourists from the future now?” We obviously don't see giant artifacts from the future approaching our world.

And this long introduction leads me into my question. “What if we ourselves were met with technologies we couldn't understand?” I think the answer is simple. It would initially shock us immensely, and intrigue us even more. We could easily see these feats of technology as magic, things that are beyond our comprehension. This lack of understanding is also reflected in other “uncivilized” cultures. When the Sawis receive the gifts like axes or fishing poles, they initially have little understanding of what the purpose of these objects are. It is with understanding, however, that they are able to effortlessly incorporate these new devices into their culture. By asking ourselves, “How would we react to future-people bringing us technology?” we can understand the reaction of others.

Wanna see a trick?

12. What reflections and connections can you make with this novel?

Imagine a deck of cards. They are taken out of the box, fanned out, to show that they are real. The aces, are produced, strangely, to say the least, putting you on a slight edge.

This is a little of topic, but bear with me for a bit.

The aces are spread out, and shown fairly to you. One is placed aside. The other three sit innocuously on the side. You wonder if he's being completely upfront with the cards, and in the moment you ponder, it happens. A card transfers from one pile to the next. You were deceived, and delightedly so.

You can watch below to see how the rest of the trick plays out in the video below, but I think I have made my point. Its the instant in which we feel one thing happens, another occurs, a larger motion covers a smaller, but more critical one.And now, to connect it to the topic.

Before I go into my little response, however, let me clarify one thing first. I have nothing against missionary organizations. In fact, they have been the sole support for most of my life. Although what I say may sound rather negative, it isn't in anyway.

Missionary organizations, before coming into a new area of people, must discover a new way to interact with the new civilizations. Although they try their best to put up a completely clear front, many times they cannot. Let me give an example with the Sawi. For Don Richardson to waltz into their midst, and try to convert as he would, say, a ten year-old who grew up in a Christian environment would be futile. Richardson, in order to convert,the natives, had to use the imagery of the Peace Child to introduce the idea of Christ.

Another example of a slightly skewed version of Christianity in order to introduce it to natives, is found in the Auca. Missionaries like Rachel Saint and her translator Dayumae had to use the story of Waegongi, an all powerful God, and the story of how we had wrongly hunted down Waegongi's son. Waegongi, however, in his infinite wisdom, left behind a trail of markings cut upon trees, a.k.a. The Gospels.

Neither example showed the missionaries using the culture as they were initially intended. Yet both reached their goal in the end. I wouldn't call their methods deception, perse, but if some disagree with the principles of their techniques, think about my first illustration. The magician doesn't use deception or do magic for the sake of the deception. He does it in order to entertain. And he never means deception to hurt. Very few magicians actually claim they are actually performing miracles (and the few that do are often exposed as frauds). Instead, they use misdirection in order to entertain.

Missionary organizations, I have found, use the technique of finding similarities, analyzing the psychology, and finding connections between societies in order to reach their goal of saving people. In my life, I have had to to separate things, apart from simple magic tricks of course,where I have had to find different ways to approach problems. This unique method of problem solving is one I have found a deep personal connection to.

Now watch the trick. I gave away the secret, but I still bet you can't figure it out.

What Would Jesus Want?

6. What does Jesus want us to do for the Sawi?

Although some may not like my response, I feel I must say it.

Jesus wants us, in no uncertain terms, to completely change anything in it that is against the Will of God immediately.

Although it seems harsh, simple logic can explain the “why should we” and “why would He want us”.

Tackling the first “Why should we” an easy response awaits us within the Scriptures. In this famous passage, Thomas, the disciple most famous for later initially doubting Christ's return, asks Jesus how can we know the way, presumable the way Christ wants us to follow. Jesus answered “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. “ Simple and clean, there it is. Jesus wants us to change others as their way is inherently wrong if it disagrees with the teachings of Christ. He left us no way to escape this conclusion, and if we wish to follow Him, we need to expect the same of ourselves.

Why would we, on the other hand, takes a bit of logic. To follow, the why would Christ want us to do whatever we can to change the other culture, one should consider the following.

Close your eyes. Then open them as you have to read the next part. Imagine a blind man. Let him walk, do whatever he pleases, but keep him safe. For now. Then, put him on top of a dusty plain. Then change this dusty plain to the edge of a cliff, in fact, surround the whole thing with edge, save for one little section where the man can make it to safety. You, as someone who can see the situation, are the only that can ensure a safe passage out of a dire situation. By giving him careful instructions, even dragging him to safety if need be, you desperately want to ensure the man's survival.

And now we apply this to life.

Regardless of faith or not, take a minute to imagine this situation from the Christians view. Even if you see it as delusion, understand that Christians believe that knowledge of Christ and a faith in Him will allow for an eternal life, a cure from eternal death. Even as a non-Christian, one should be able to see that a real Christian, with real beliefs and a real love will only naturally desperately want to save those around him. They see the world as blind, inevitably doomed. And in their hand is, what Christians believe, the only cure. A true doctor would not withhold the cure to cancer. A true lawyer would not ignore evidence that completely proves innocence or culpability. I think three examples are enough.

What I'm trying to say, however, that although a desperate need for Christians to change the beliefs of others may seemed forced and unnecessarily cruel, the indications of both a bad Christian and a good Christian should be remarkably similar, as both may easily seem overbearing in their methods. It is the heart behind them, however, that matters the most, as only a true Christian will be doing these acts for the good of others, rather than for fame, personal gain, or money.

Note: Stock photography from Deviant Art community.
Photoshopped by T Hahn

Not with a whimper... But with a bang...

11.How did Christianity change this culture?

Christianity has the habit of rolling in like certain hurricanes, unannounced and devastating. It has a oddly raw power behind its conversion, although it's roots are founded in a teacher of peace. In its wake, although not always destructive as in the case of natural disasters, things are usually changed, to say the least.

The back of the book, and its quote “From Cannibals to Christ-followers”, sums up much of the transformation, albeit in a rather unelegant manner (I think they were shooting for an alliteration rather than something poetic). With backstabbing and cannibalism at the root of their culture, its clash with core Christian values would inevitably set off a conflict.

Arguably, however, I think most of these changes were for the best.

The first noticeable change is the sudden lack of vicious treachery. As Don Richardson introduces the idea of a universal Peace Child, the Sawis suddenly realize that their endless cycle of revenge brakes this key concept in both Christianity and, in a strange way, the Sawi culture. This sudden realization that the spirits may not want this continuous bloodshed, the Sawi practices that include violence, including cannibalism, quickly fade away.

People can argue forever if the changes made by Christianity are for their benefit. I like to think that it does, and here is why. The most simple definition of a successful civilization is one that can survive for a while. Whether the civilization has impact the world's culture is up for debate (as the Mongols are definitely were once definitely a “successful civilization” yet none of their practices and cultural beliefs spread into other nation's cultures). Another tribal group, the Quechuas, studied by anthropologists before and after missionary contact, were estimated to be wiped out by violence within three generations. 70% of their previous generation was wiped out by homicide. Violence wasn't even as huge part of their culture as was the Sawi, yet they were on the brink of obliteration, and were only slightly farther in progress than the Sawi, which would probably be made up for within a few years by the emphasis of violence in their society.

I think that the arrival of the missionaries, and the removal of violence from their culture was necessary. Without it, the likelihood of the Sawis being forever removed from the face of the earth was not a matter of if, but of when. The change of these practices by Christianity, to me, seems, at the very least, essential, forgive my, seemingly akward, excess, if you will, of commas.

Note: Stock photography from Deviant Art community.
Photoshopped by T Hahn

The Confrontation

3. What should we do when we are confronted with other cultures?

The question, being rather open-ended, can be approached from several different viewpoints. I will choose, however, to take the world's moral's view of how we should approach cultures of any sort. Often times, we need to find out more information. A name holds much power, as well as much knowledge. It was once claimed that humanity's greatest fear was that of the unknown (along with, of course, fear itself, death, taxes, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and women). Simply putting a name to the culture often gives us a better hold on the situation. There are two ways this can backfire, however. First, if it is a previously encountered or noted culture, certain cultures may bring up preconceived notions. One may meet a Frenchman, and immediately think of pompous, anti-American, cowards. One may see an Asian, and imagine a smart, calculated individual that can't drive. One may see a Canadian, and see them as less than human, due to several negative meetings and interactions with them previously. Plus, they aren't really human so...(Joke)

The other way this naming can fail. Is when the culture is previously unknown. Our brain tries to take in new information in two ways: accommodation and assimilation. The first, is one usually done by children that have underdeveloped understandings. It takes in this information, and tries to place it into previously existing schemas, even if a little off. Its problem is, however, that it can incorrectly define its schemas. If you show a child the picture of a dog, it may create a schema for dog that is a furry animal that walks on all fours. This schema, however, can also fit a cow or a moose. Assimilation, on the other hand, creates a new schema specifically for the new information. Either way, however, the naming fails, as accommodation may lead to undeserved bias, and assimilation only leaves a blank space, with little new input. This is still important, however, as the naming itself brings comfort to those who are trying to better understand a culture.

The second step in meeting a foreign culture is to identify it, not only in name, but also in characteristics. If you meet a group of Samoans, all of whom are rather tall, bulky, with a confident gait and heavily tanned bodies, these are the physical traits one can associate with them. Then comes the less obvious idiosyncrasies that define them, like the vocal “eh” of Canadians, or the inevitable “ay” by Italians and New Jersyans alike.

The third step is to then assume a position with them. Are you friendly to all of them? Do you consider them all the scum of the Earth? Are they to be feared? Will you take each individual as its own case? This setting of the positions, is essential, as without it, cultures couldn't be able to further develop relationships between each other without an establishment of the terms that they met or interacted in.

All of these steps, however, are generally short term. It is the next steps that take a while to establish.

In Orson Scott Card's Xenocide, Andrew, the main character, is meeting a new race that was previously only allowed interaction under strict controls. He quickly violates many of their customs, but understand one thing. Their culture is not to be tampered with. The Xenobiologists and Zenadors with him quickly try to improve the life of the “piggies” as the race is called, by discovering a way for the babies to be born vivapariously, without the need to kill the mother, as the unborn would eat their way out of their mother as there was no birth canal. Andrew quickly points out, however, that the important interaction, in this case at least, was not to change them immediately, but to gain peace. The piggies longed for the technology of humans, which was previously forbidden, but Andrew understood that the important step first was to create a diplomacy between the two cultures, only then could one try to let adaptations occur.

Morality and Then Some

5. What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?

Society, in whole, should present itself as a solution for the Sawi. Although some may argue with calling the Sawi, “uncivilized”, we obviously have the general concept that we, in our infinite wisdom, are somehow more intelligent, more advanced, more superior. If we believe this in anyway, is it not our duty to aid countries that we see have problems.

“Do we have the right?”, some may ask. I think, yes, if we feel that their ways violate morality in some way, or that their outcome will generally be negative. Of course, some will then argue if morality actually exists.

We all have a sense of morality, and much of it is universal. Just as 2 + 2 must always equal 4, in every culture since the dawn of civilization, despite their differences, have agreed upon a few basic principles, like no killing without reason, being selfish, stealing, pride, things like that. Some people argue that these are universal because we as humans have evolved to adapt two basic instincts as a species: the herd instinct and the survival instinct. Yet still, we find ourselves contradicting this rule later.

Observing someone display selfish or greedy behavior will upset us, even if it doesn't affect us personally. We can watch movies of violence or pettiness, yet still find ourselves disgusted by these things, even though they are being used as tools of entertainment.

We also, in a way that contradicts the survival instinct, take into account intentions. Take an example by C.S. Lewis. If I pass by someone, and their leg just happens to be stretched out in a way that it trips me, and I am injured, I will probably, except for a few seconds after the event occurs, be understanding of why it happened. It was a mistake. Yet if someone tries to trip me and fails, I will likely be upset with them. Although I had a negative outcome in one, and not the other, I am still more understanding of the first rather than the latter, as I have an external sense of morality outside of basic human instincts.

I firmly believe that if we have this morality to help others, we should do it. If we as a “superior” society see the damage caused by their culture and we have ways to relieve them of tensions, stress, and pain, we should do our best to try and help others.

Note: Stock photography from Deviant Art community.
Photoshopped by T Hahn

To Do or Not To Do

What do mission organizations do for these people?

The answer to this question will probably come biased from me, as I have a long history with different missionary organizations, and have my own strong opinions already about what it is exactly they do.

A simple answer, is that these organizations try to convert others. Whether it be previously known groups of people, or one that has been separated from humanity, they're first duty is to convert these people into Christians.

Others, however, may argue that these organizations may do more bad than good, that changing these cultures often lead to the loss identity of people groups, and should be avoided as much as possible.

I have a dissenting opinion however.

If you are a Christian, than what matters not is the culture behind a people group. And lets not forget that the original European or American identity is that of a Christian group. That culture was demolished long ago by the earliest missionaries. Nobody today, however, seems to remember that these cultures, although nowadays seen as the Christian cultures, that they once were something that was considered “uncivilized” by the much more advanced Middle Eastern and Oriental cultures. It was this rapid introduction of Christianity, however, that allowed Europe to rapidly expand into the super power of the time. Even with its eventual problems later, like the Dark Ages caused by a dogmatic approach to religion, Christianity, once it was conceived, often determined which nation would be in charge,

Christianity has given and taken. Missionary organizations have done the same. It is the will behind it, however, that allows it to be something of value, even today.

Note: Stock photography from Deviant Art community.
Photoshopped by T Hahn